Sitting of 24 May 2004

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

    Olympics 2012
    Mr. Andrew Love: If she will make a statement on progress on infrastructure in the Thames gateway in respect of London's bid for the 2012 Olympics. [174891]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): A master plan prepared earlier this year by the London Development Agency set out plans for the lower Lea valley. They are designed to accommodate staging the Olympics in 2012. Outline planning permission is being sought for those proposals.
    Mr. Love: May I, on behalf of the House, add to the congratulations to the bid team on making the shortlist? May we also thank Barbara Cassani for her leadership and congratulate Lord Coe on taking on that mantle for the future?
    The International Olympic Committee's report expressed concern about transport infrastructure. I know that the Government are about to invest £600 million in the Thames gateway; indeed, we were told earlier this week that they have earmarked £17 billion for transport infrastructure in future years. Can my right hon. Friend confirm that she will be working with her Ministers to ensure that the poor state of London's transport highlighted in the report will be dealt with?
    Tessa Jowell: Yes, of course, there is close co-operation across Government on all aspects of the bid, including those that relate to transport for the Olympics. It is worth making the point that, by 2012, £17 billion will have been invested in London's transport. We will have the channel tunnel rail link during the Olympics, the dedicated link from King's Cross down to Stratford, a 45 per cent. increase in capacity on the Jubilee line and no fewer than 10 railway lines serving Stratford station, so we have a lot to be proud of in the transport infrastructure that we will be in a position to offer visitors to London when they come to the Olympics in 2012.
    1286
    One final point, Mr. Speaker. I know that my hon. Friend has been very concerned to ensure that the regeneration effects benefit his constituents. He will therefore welcome the investment that the lower Lea valley regeneration intends to make in a retail park, for the benefit of jobs in his constituency.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins:In echoing what the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said in paying tribute to Barbara Cassani and her work with Lord Coe, does the Secretary of State recognise that while all Members on both sides of the House want the Olympic bid to succeed, we want to see progress with the City of London in terms of the business support that it can give to the infrastructure? Does she recognise that that has perhaps not been given sufficient priority? Does she also recognise that there is concern among people in east London that there is a shortage of facilities, particularly in terms of swimming—a sport in which I have a personal interest, as she is aware? Does she acknowledge that that too can helpfully be addressed?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. No one is going to win any Olympic prizes for the length of their questions.
    Tessa Jowell:Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    I would obviously like to join in what Members on both sides of the House want, which is to congratulate and thank Barbara Cassani, who is still very much part of the bid team, but also to welcome Seb Coe's leadership. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: swimming facilities will be an important benefit of the bid, and the aquatic centre will be one of the first Olympic facilities to be developed. On business support, I met the CBI just two weeks ago. He is absolutely right that London's businesses want to support the bid and they have already made a handsome contribution to the cost of it. That is to be welcomed.
    Mr. Tony Banks: My right hon. Friend knows that many facilities for the Olympic games are located in my constituency of West Ham, where there is enormous support for the bid. The legacy use of those sports facilities, if they are built, is pretty crucial, particularly that of the 80,000-seater Olympic stadium. What discussions has she been able to have with the football clubs of London that could use it, such as West Ham, Tottenham and perhaps, given its ambitious plans, Chelsea?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I know that some preliminary discussions have been held with a number of football clubs that might take on the responsibility for and the tenancy of the main Olympic stadium, but I also want to underline the welcome that his constituents give to the prospect of the Olympics. For this purpose, the world divides into those who want to win and those who want to whinge. His constituents want to win, and if we work together, pull together and realise the possibilities that the Olympics can bring to London we will win, but too many people are whingeing on the sidelines. They will damage our bid.
    Miss Julie Kirkbride: We on the Conservative Benches would like to begin by offering a warm welcome to Lord Coe as chairman of the 2012 bid. We also want to pay tribute to Mrs. Cassani for putting together an excellent technical bid and an excellent team. But we wonder why, given Lord Coe's past as a British Olympian, the fact that he is well known in the international sporting arena, and that he is a politician, he was not the first choice. However, he now has a very important job to do. Notwithstanding the first response that the Secretary of State gave to the hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), will she come to the Dispatch Box, bearing in mind the International Olympic Committee's criticisms of our transport arrangements, and guarantee that the east London line will be constructed in time for the Olympics, and that the upgrade of the Jubilee line will take place in time, too?
    Tessa Jowell: On the hon. Lady's question about the east London line, feasibility studies are currently under way, both by the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London. The outcome of those studies will be considered as part of the spending round, so there will be no decision on funding for the east London line until the summer. We have always made it absolutely clear that the east London line would greatly enhance the hosting of the Olympics, but it is not essential to a first-class transport plan for the Olympics.
    From memory, although I stand to be corrected, Lord Coe did not submit his name first time around. What we have, however, is Barbara Cassani's legacy, which was to set up the team, and now Lord Coe, who we hope will take us past the winning line in July next year.
    Miss Kirkbride: I am sure that the 2012 bid team will have noted what the Secretary of State says about transport links, but there were other criticisms in the IOC report that she might also wish to address. For example, on Government support, we came eighth out of nine among the bidding cities, and on public support, we came ninth out of nine. The Secretary of State might like to consider whether she should stop whingeing about the whingers, and the Minister for Sport and Tourism should stop telling Londoners that they need to be disciplined about their attitude to the British Olympic bid and start winning the hearts and minds of the British public for a London bid for 2012.
    Tessa Jowell: Of course, the 2012 bid team and all those who have a role to play, including Members on both sides of the House, will examine carefully what the International Olympic Committee said about the London bid. It is a constructive intervention, not one that should deter us. It is also worth recording that London came from nowhere and is at the moment standing third. There is little distance between the first three cities. In fact, we scored better than Paris on environmental conditions, we are equal with Paris on accommodation, finance and Government support, and we are better than Madrid on safety and security. There is an awful lot going for the London bid, and I hope that at every opportunity she will talk it up, not talk it down.
    Andrew Mackinlay: I invite my right hon. Friend to look at the Order Paper, on which she will see that the question relates to the Thames
    1288
    gateway and infrastructure, and I invite her to consider that the boundaries of Greater London are wholly artificial and ridiculous, and that they relate to 1963. The Thames gateway includes Thurrock, where there is room to breathe and people are enthusiastic about the Olympic bid. Not only do we want a slice of the action but it would be in her interest, and that of my hon. Friend the Member for West Ham (Mr. Banks), if she were to look eastwards rather than just to the few miles round the centre.
    Tessa Jowell: I take seriously my hon. Friend's advocacy for Thurrock.[Interruption.] Exactly. I greatly look forward to visiting it next month.

    Archaeology
    Tim Loughton: What assessment she has made of the all-party archaeology group's report on the state of archaeology in the United Kingdom. [174892]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris):The Government welcome the all-party archaeology group's report. Its recommendations will form a useful contribution to the ongoing review of heritage protection.
    Tim Loughton: I welcome the Minister's comments, but her predecessor undertook to give a formal response to the report, and it has been out since January 2003. May I bring to her attention two points in it? First, the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel, which was set up in 2000, has been successful in its recommendations. The trouble is that only three of those 16 recommendations have so far been put into practice, and she is now recommending winding it up. Will she reconsider that? On the portable antiquities scheme, will she agree to accept an all-party delegation of those of us who are concerned that the Government should take the scheme fully under their wing after the funding ends in 2006? It has been so successful, as I saw in my area in Sussex last Friday, that it is in danger of being swamped as a result, and the Government need to take it under their wing and fund it properly after 2006
    Estelle Morris: I take the point about the report having been published in January last year. I believe that my right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage met the all-party group last October—I stand to be corrected if I am wrong—and I will pass the hon. Gentleman's comments to him.
    I share the hon. Gentleman's enthusiasm for what the portable antiquities scheme has achieved, but all I can say now is that the funding is secure for another one or two years. Obviously we cannot make an announcement until we have the results of our spending review bid, but I hope very much that the Government will be able to bear the costs. The Department has put in £1.5 million so far. I shall say no more for the moment, but I will probably report in the autumn.

    1289
    I shall shortly meet the chairman of the Illicit Trade Advisory Panel. I want to discuss with him what will happen following representations he has made to me. Perhaps I shall have further news after that meeting.
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: Are the Government giving a friendly response to recommendation 7 on the framework and funding of the portable antiquities scheme?
    Estelle Morris: I personally am giving it an exceptionally friendly response. The problem is persuading other Ministers to give a more friendly response to it than to other bids.
    The £1.5 million invested by the Department is not a huge amount, but it has achieved a great deal. There were 87,000 finds last year, and 20,000 people are now taking part in the activity, of whom 4,000 are children. I think it would be a shame if the scheme did not continue. Perhaps my words will fall on favourable ears.
    All I can say now is that the bid is there and the intention is to continue the funding. It would be silly to say more than I have dared to say thus far without knowing exactly what will happen to our settlement in the next spending review. More risk than that I am not about to take.

    National Lottery
    Mr. Hugo Swire: How much is unallocated in the national lottery distribution fund. [174893]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): The NLDF holds about £2.65 billion, of which less than 4 per cent. is unallocated. Forward commitments made by lottery distributors total £3.6 billion, making the fund 32 per cent. over-committed.
    Mr. Swire: That is a welcome move in the right direction, but it still fails to meet the figures planned by the Government as long ago as 2002. As a matter of principle, however, is it not iniquitous that so much money can still be held centrally when up and down the country there are good causes, some of them time-limited? In my constituency the Weavers' Tales celebrate 250 years of carpet-making in Axminster, while the Norman Lockyer observatory in Sidmouth is crying out for money to improve access. Everywhere in the country are good causes for which local people want funds that currently sit invested and centrally held. Can the Secretary of State not give the Heritage Lottery Fund and other distribution bodies clearer guidelines so that the money can be given bad to those from whom it originally came?
    Estelle Morris: The Secretary of State has done exactly that. All lottery distributors receive guidance on not holding back too much in reserve. We should not give the impression that money that is waiting to be spent sits in the coffers owing to inefficiency. This is about managing cash flow as much as anything else. As I said in my answer, the fund is 32 per cent. overcommitted. In reducing the reserves, we want to ensure
    1290
    that we spend what we can reasonably spend this year, and not make worthwhile projects throughout the country wait until next year or the year after.
    The National Audit Office is currently considering what balance it is appropriate for distributors to hold. I think that its report, which will appear in the next few months, will give us extra ammunition in making sure that the distributors do not retain funds centrally. I should put on record, however, that they are held by the distributors and not by Government.
    Mr. David Watts (St. Helens, North) (Lab): Can the Minister assure me that any surplus funds will be spent on the arts—on sport rather than the arts, and will not be wasted on schemes for the London lobbies?
    Estelle Morris: I much preferred my hon. Friend's initial comment; indeed, perhaps I should ask you to introduce a new rule, Mr. Speaker, stating "no corrections allowed". At the moment, the distributors themselves keep the money, and the real issue is where the interest on funds that are held is spent. There is a formula for the giving of lottery money to distributors, and currently there is almost an incentive for them to hold on to the reserves, given that they also keep the interest. As my hon. Friend will know from the relevant document, we intend to ensure that that interest is shared equally among all the funds. If I had time, I would list the many benefits of giving such money to the arts—not just for luvvies, but for people throughout the country in all communities, rural and urban. Indeed, without arts funding this country would be a much poorer place.
    Mr. David Tredinnick: The Minister will be aware that in the east midlands, and in Leicestershire in particular, there is concern that less than the average number of bids from the region are successful. Why are we discriminated against in this way?
    Estelle Morris: It is impossible to discriminate in terms of bids because the Government do not control the number of bids coming in, but the hon. Gentleman makes a very interesting point. On outcomes, the situation in the east midlands may well resemble that in my own constituency, in that it does not get what one might call its fair share of lottery fund money. The Government, together with the lottery distributors, have already embarked on the fair share initiative, through which we will work very carefully with those areas that are not receiving a fair amount of money.
    I should point out that if the hon. Gentleman feels that applications from his area are not forthcoming, the lottery distributors would be more than happy to meet him, and perhaps to work jointly with his constituency and the neighbouring constituencies to encourage grass-roots organisations to make bids. If they do not make the bids, they cannot get the money. The hon. Gentleman has highlighted a very important point, and I very much hope that he will respond to that invitation. Lottery distributors are more than willing to work with any Member of this House to increase the number of bids from under-represented constituencies.
    Alistair Burt: Why is the bureaucracy associated with efforts to get money from

    1291
    the lottery so difficult to deal with? Does the Minister agree with the criticism offered by my local schools and Bedfordshire county council, which said that it has been exceptionally difficult to get lottery distribution money for new sports facilities from the New Opportunities Fund? Indeed, when the fund was set up in 2001, it was allocated a budget of £500 million, but until last month only £10.4 million had actually been spent.
    Estelle Morris: We do need to reduce bureaucracy; indeed, there is nothing more frustrating than people being put off making bids because they feel that the process will prove too bureaucratic. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Sport and Tourism tells me that the programme to which the hon. Gentleman refers is now ahead of schedule. However, there have been bureaucratic problems, and I hope that they have been sorted out. In respect of the awards for all initiative, for example, the waiting time from application to making the grant has been significantly reduced. All lottery distributors are aware of the problems associated with too much form filling and lengthy waiting times for the making of decisions. I take seriously the point that the hon. Gentleman makes, and we need constantly to keep our eye on the situation, and to do all that we can to reduce form filling and bureaucracy.

    Playing Fields
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: What assessment she has made of the work of the playing fields monitoring group; and if she will make a statement on its monthly list of planning applications for building on playing fields. [174894]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): Before I answer the question, Mr. Speaker, may I thank you and all Members of the House for agreeing to start the Westminster mile—hopefully, Roger Bannister will be involved—on 16 June from Abingdon Green? The BBC's Sport Relief is a very good charity, and I hope that many Members will participate in the event.
    The Government have convened a meeting of the national playing fields monitoring group on 27 May to assess the work of the group and to discuss its future role. The Government will continue to publish playing fields statistics annually rather than monthly, because annual statistics provide a comprehensive picture of our progress in protecting these important resources.
    Mr. Robathan: The Government set up the monitoring group only four years ago to report monthly on planning applications for the development of playing fields, so when it meets on Wednesday, will the Minister explain why it has not met for nearly a year? When the Secretary of State said in a speech in March to sports colleges that
    "There is a great deal of misty-eyed sentimentalism about playing fields",
    and when she sneeringly spoke of
    "critics clinging to a world of jumpers for goalposts and small boys in the park",
    was she dismissing the value of healthy outdoor activity and the importance that most people attach to a large number of playing fields?
    Mr. Caborn: We have explained many times from the Dispatch Box that we will have a dialogue with the National Playing Fields Association. We will consider the need to look at indoor facilities, too. Change has been significant since we brought in new rules about playing fields and made Sport England a statutory consultee. Well over 90 per cent. of all the applications referred to it end up providing equal or better facilities. In 2001–02, there was £270 million of investment and 447 new facilities were provided, and the year after, nearly 500 new facilities were provided. Since 1995, Sport England has created more than 320 new sports pitches and improved over 520 facilities, and that is just Sport England—that does not include local authorities and many other organisations that are involved in playing fields.
    Mr. Andy Reed: Mr. Speaker, I was most disappointed to hear that you would not be running the mile. I will be happy to help if you do, hopefully next year.
    Does my right hon. Friend agree that we need much more rounded statistics and much more depth in our learning? When I was chair of East Midlands Sport, many applications that came to us led to improved facilities. We should have rejected, where possible, the 10 per cent. where there was no improvement. Can the monitoring group ensure that, where there is no improvement, the bids are rejected because we need to see more playing fields? Will he recognise that, where bids will lead to improvements, they should be supported because, in many cases, particularly in my constituency, we have seen vast improvements and greater participation, which is the key to all this?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more. To that end, in July, we will be rolling out for the first time ever a facilities database. I have asked Sport England to come down before that starts in July and to present that to all Back Benchers. It will be available for about four or five hours on the day before we launch it, so that every hon. Member will be able to see what sports facilities are in their area.
    The database will be updated regularly. I hope that, by the end of this year, local authorities and others will be able to use it to ensure that they can see supply and demand in their area, a point that was referred to by my hon. Friend. For the first time, we will be able to make informed decisions about the type of investment that is going into sports facilities across the board.
    Mr. Boris Johnson: The Minister said in response to my hon. Friend the Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan) that there had been significant change in respect of playing fields since the Government came to power in 1997. That is certainly true. They came to power saying that they would halt the sale of school playing fields to arrest the decline of sport in schools, since when the number of applications to sell playing fields has gone up every year. Last year—this is the most relevant statistic—of the 807 successful applications, 440 led to the total extinction of those facilities. Given the threat to sport in schools, particularly contact sports, from litigation and all kinds of other matters, against which Ministers say not a peep, will the Minister now tell the House what

    1293
    measures he has in mind—apart from encouraging people to run down concrete roads, and apart from an annual meeting of the playing fields monitoring group—to arrest the sale of playing fields?
    Mr. Caborn: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to the Dispatch Box. May I now inform him why no one should vote Tory again if they support playing fields? The planning applications that were made when his Government were in power were to shut playing fields. The planning applications for investment of £500 million are to build new facilities—we have to have planning applications to build new facilities. The simple answer to his question is: do not vote Tory—they will shut your playing fields down.

    Amateur Sports Clubs
    Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: If she will make a statement on the take-up of rate relief support for amateur sports clubs. [174895]
    The Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (Tessa Jowell): As of the end of April this year more than 1,100 local amateur sports clubs had registered with the community amateur sports club scheme. That scheme provides such clubs with an 80 per cent. relief on their non-domestic rates as part of a whole package of benefits intended to promote community and grass-roots sport. My hon. Friend will be aware that two clubs—a rugby club and a bowling club—in his constituency have opted to take advantage of the scheme.
    Mr. Dhanda: I thank my right hon. Friend for her answer and I am pleased to hear about the 1,100 clubs, including no less august bodies than the Gloucester Old Boys rugby football club and the Gloucestershire Spar bowls club, that have taken advantage of the scheme. I also congratulate my right hon. Friend on introducing a simple one-page form for rates relief, which has made a huge difference and encouraged more clubs to apply. I urge her to use that as an example of good practice, cutting bureaucracy across government.
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend. We are beginning to make progress on take-up and I hope that Members throughout the House will urge their local sports clubs to register in this way because of the tangible benefits and money to be saved, which can then be reinvested and spent on grass-roots sport. That is the objective: to promote participation and to improve facilities for grass-roots sport. I am very glad that my hon. Friend has recognised the success of the scheme.
    Miss Anne McIntosh: I welcome the scheme and pay tribute to the contribution that it is making, but does the right hon. Lady not agree with the hon. Member for St. Helens, North (Mr. Watts) and me that after the reduction and raiding of the sports part of the lottery funding, there is not the same amount of money coming into sport, particularly for rugby clubs, such as the York club at Clifton Moor. What more can the Secretary of State do to encourage clubs to invest when they have lost that source of funding?
    Tessa Jowell: I do not accept the hon. Lady's assertion. Over three years, £1 billion is going into new sports facilities. That is a proud record, which outstrips anything that any Government have done in the past. Yes, every lottery distributor has faced a reduction in the level of lottery income, but the hon. Lady will have noticed, as I have, that the last quarter's figures reported by Camelot, showed an increase in lottery sales for the first time. That is good for good causes, good for sport and good for the sports clubs in the hon. Lady's constituency.
    Jane Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the rate relief scheme is excellent news for amateur clubs such as the Palmer park velo cycling club in my constituency? Does she also agree that, if the London Olympic bid is successful, we should look not only east, as my hon. Friend the Member for Thurrock (Andrew Mackinlay) has suggested, but west to Reading where the Palmer park velodrome would be proud to host the world's finest cyclists?
    Tessa Jowell: I thank my hon. Friend for that generous offer. She makes an important point—that the benefits stemming from the Olympic bid will not be for London alone, but will help sport across the country. The community amateur sports club scheme is one practical way of extending the benefit.

    Licensing Act
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: If she will make a statement about the implementation of the Licensing Act 2003. [174896]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): The timetable for full implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 is dependent on parliamentary approval of the draft guidance to local authorities, which was laid before Parliament on 23 March. If Parliament is content, we expect to complete the implementation of the Act around late summer 2005.
    Mr. Swayne: What will the fees be for licences under the new regime? If the Minister cannot tell us the fee level now, when will he be able to tell us?
    Mr. Caborn: We are in discussion with the Local Government Association and others in the industry. I hope to be able to announce the fees in the not too distant future. We have already given an indication and I do not believe that it will prove to be far from the mark.
    Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: My right hon. Friend is aware that several Labour Members are concerned that the new licensing law may not necessarily bring about a reduction in harmful alcohol consumption. Will he keep the new law under careful and close scrutiny with a view to reforming it yet again if it appears that it has brought about increased levels of harmful consumption rather than a reduction?
    Mr. Caborn: All those consulted broadly agree with the 2003 Act. There is a misunderstanding about the extension of the flexibility of licensing. The police have said clearly on every occasion that they believe that the

    1295
    flexibility will bring alcohol-related crime down. All the indications to date within the UK—including Scotland, where the instance of such crimes has fallen—are clear. We have run three experiments. Over the new year period in the capital at the millennium, for example, we found that crime came down by 6 per cent. as a result of the 36-hour opening. I repeat that all the experience so far suggests that greater flexibility will reduce crime.
    Mr. Adrian Sanders: One side effect of the Act for the professional football clubs—the Government have a good record of support for association football—is that stewards have to be trained, and the cost that has been cited is £500 a steward, which is an enormous amount for small second or third division clubs. Is the Minister aware of the problem?
    Mr. Caborn: I am very aware of it. Several organisations representing the stewards have written to me, and I am seeking clarification from the Home Office. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are pushing very hard and we will try to ensure that assurances given in the other place are adhered to.
    Mr. Bill O'Brien: I welcome the Act, but some social and sporting clubs believe that the interpretation is such that their associates and visitors will not be able to participate in the social well-being of the club or purchase or partake of any beverages there. Is my right hon. Friend aware of that, and what does he intend to do about it?
    Mr. Caborn: Again, I am very aware of it, and I must have signed off something like three dozen letters this weekend on what is clearly a misinterpretation by the English Golf Union concerning membership of golf clubs. In fact, there is very little variation from the previous Act. It is basically status quo for the over-18s, although there is a tightening for under-18s in clubs. There should be no change for golf clubs or indeed any other sports clubs.
    Mr. Malcolm Moss: It is all very well the Minister saying that the problem seems to have gone away. The English Golf Union wrote to us only today saying that it is still not happy with his and his civil servants' so-called interpretation about why, under the guidance and under the Act as written, many golfers who are neither members of other qualifying clubs nor guests in the strict definition of that term will not be able to buy a drink on the 19th hole.
    Mr. Caborn: The English Golf Union has not got back to me personally on that. Nothing has crossed my desk—if it does, I will hope to answer the point more fully. I reassure the hon. Gentleman that the position remains the same as under the previous Act, when the 19th hole was quite well watered—and I expect that it will continue to be quite well watered in the future.

    Football
    John Mann: What discussions she has had on consumer and worker involvement in the future of the football industry. [174897]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have met representatives from a number of organisations involved in football to discuss a range of issues, including, in broad terms, the recommendations of the all-party group's report on English football and its finances and the Independent Football Commission's annual report 2003. We will release the outcome of those discussions when we respond to both reports.
    John Mann: Having left Bradford City at the knacker's yard, Geoffrey Richmond is now advising his son and others who are currently selling off the assets of Leeds United football club, and doubtless intending again to pay themselves handsome consultancy fees in the process. We have also seen Leicester City failing to pay 90p in the pound on its tax liability, yet still affording to go to La Manga for a week last season. The next time a football club goes into administration, will the Government take action to ensure that the taxpayer gets proper value for money by taking a slice of the club and handing it over to the supporters, allowing them to have some ownership of their team?
    Mr. Caborn: My hon. Friend makes his points with some passion. It was this Government who set up Supporters Direct, which has given sound information to many fans and seeks good governance for football. Many of us believe that football is very important for our communities, so we will continue to work with Supporters Direct. When a club goes into administration, that is dealt with by the authorities, and it is for them to act as they see fit.
    Bob Russell: I thank the Minister for his response. Does he agree that another area of professional football that needs examining is the parasitic behaviour of agents? Whenever football transfers are carried out and salaries are creamed off, should not the sum taken out of the game and given to those parasites be made clear, so that supporters know exactly where the money is going?
    Mr. Caborn: The wake-up call for football was what happened with ITV Digital, and I believe that the nationwide league, with its chair, Mr. Brian Mawhinney—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sir Brian!"] Thank you for that correction. Sir Brian is looking into the whole question of corporate governance, and has brought forward a number of actions that would bring about better governance. I note that the premiership is also considering such questions. The two reports that I referred to earlier bring into focus many of the points that hon. Members have raised, and we shall respond to them in due course.
    Ian Lucas: I am sure that the Minister is aware of the current difficulties of Wrexham football club, where the post of chairman is vacant—I mentioned that in case it might interest him. He probably will not be aware, however, that this very evening, consumers, workers and supporters who are concerned about the position of the club are meeting to found an organisation called Wrexham First, to ensure that the future of the club lies within its community rather than in the hands of property developers. What

    1297
    are the Government doing to embed such organisations and clubs in their communities, rather than in the hands of those who seek to exploit football clubs for property motives, and for their own commercial ends?
    Mr. Caborn: As I have already said, we set up, or rather funded, the organisation Supporters Direct, and my very strong advice to Wrexham and those trying to rescue the club is to take counsel from Supporters Direct. I have no doubt that it will give them information that they will be able to work on to ensure that the club continues to play a major role in its community.

    Stonehenge
    Mr. Robert Key: What matters were discussed when the Minister for Media and Heritage met the head of UNESCO at Stonehenge on 17 May. [174898]
    The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): Mr. Matsuura, director general of UNESCO, requested to see Stonehenge during his informal visit to the United Kingdom last week. He had a tour of the Stonehenge world heritage site with officials of English Heritage and the National Trust. My right hon. Friend the Minister for Media and Heritage, as the Minister responsible for world heritage sites, joined him to visit the stone circle itself.
    Mr. Key: I am grateful for that information. All DCMS Ministers, whichever House they come from, are always welcome in my constituency, as is the director general of UNESCO. Can the Minister give an unequivocal commitment that, subject to planning conditions, the developments of the road in the world heritage site and the new visitors centre at Stonehenge are firmly in the Government's programme, that there will be no backsliding and no instructions from the Treasury, and that both will be completed?
    Estelle Morris: I understand the hon. Gentleman's eagerness to ensure that firm commitments are made on this subject. Indeed, my officials tell me that we have got further with the current set of proposals than ever before. It is good news that the inspector's report was delivered a week ahead of schedule, which shows that in terms of time, we are still on target. I assure the hon. Gentleman that the developments are firmly in our spending plans for 2008, assuming that all planning applications and consents go accordingly.
    Mr. Don Foster: I welcome the work that the Government are doing with UNESCO to support cultural heritage at Stonehenge and elsewhere, but when the Minister for Media and Heritage met people from UNESCO, did he take the opportunity to discuss ways in which we could do more, through UNESCO, to support cultural reconstruction in war-torn countries such as Iraq? Does the Minister therefore think that it would be vital to persuade the American Government to do what we have done recently—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That has nothing to do with Stonehenge.

    Football
    Mr. Peter Pike: What steps she is taking to encourage and support professional football clubs to develop community links and involvement. [174899]
    The Minister for Sport and Tourism (Mr. Richard Caborn): The Government are working with the Football Association, the Football Foundation and other partners to encourage professional football clubs to develop stronger community links with schemes such as football in the community and playing for success.
    Mr. Pike: My right hon. Friend has been to Turf Moor several times in the past 12 months, and I know that he has recently met directors and other representatives of Burnley football club; I believe that he is going to Turf Moor again soon. Does he not agree that the way forward for football clubs such as Burnley is to become community clubs, as they are anxious to do, and to form supporters trusts? Is it not that type of policy, rather than some of the others that we heard about earlier, that need the encouragement and support of the Government and local government if local football clubs are to succeed and survive into the future?
    Mr. Caborn: I could not agree more. Burnley is a fantastic football club, and has always played a role in the community, and I hope that the discussions to make it a strong community club again are successful. We bash professional football quite a lot, but statistics show that every year 40,000 pupils take part in Playing for Success. Many young people have gained from that experience, and nearly 1 million people have contact with football in the community. Professional footballers do a great deal of good work in their communities, and help the sport at grassroots in many ways, so we ought to commend the Football Association, the premier division and the Football League.

  The hon. Member,for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Redundant Churches
    David Taylor: What the policy of the commissioners is in relation to redundant churches for which dioceses have found no suitable alternative uses. [174911]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): Depending on the quality of the building, the commissioners have to decide between vesting the church in the Churches Conservation Trust for preservation or, as a last resort, demolishing it.
    David Taylor: Since 1969, 10 per cent. of Anglican churches have been lost as places of worship. Over 300 have been demolished, of which one quarter were listed buildings. Does my hon. Friend agree that the Churches Conservation Trust should be given greater resources to protect threatened churches, especially in rural areas,

    1299
    where alternative uses are difficult to find? Their historic interest, architectural quality and landscape value, however, are often of the utmost importance to local communities. How will those communities benefit if a sale does take place?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his question. To date, 332 high-quality and important churches have been passed to the trust, and 366 have been demolished. A sum of £33 million has been raised since 1969 from the disposal of redundant churches, 80 per cent. of which has been put back into the dioceses for the use of the living church, to answer the point made by hon. Friend. We have passed £6.4 million to the Churches Conservation Trust, which we finance jointly with the Department for Culture, Media and Sport. As my hon. Friend is asking for money, and as the Minister for the Arts is in the Chamber, let those who have ears hear his question.
    Mr. John Bercow: Does the hon. Gentleman not agree that demolition is a counsel of despair and an admission of failure? Would he not further agree that in almost every imaginable scenario, with a degree of commitment and imagination it ought to be possible to refurbish an otherwise redundant church so that it can be made available to young people for amateur dramatics or other useful indoor activities?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. He should understand that redundant churches are demolished only as a last resort, and we are keen that they should be used for community purposes. In fact, that is one of the options that we have developed positively in the interest of local communities, and we take into account other factors before any decision on demolition is made.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: What about the graveyards next to abandoned or redundant churches? I find it very dispiriting indeed to see neglected and overgrown graveyards when the Church is spending money on bishops' palaces. It does not, however, have the money to maintain graveyards.
    Sir Stuart Bell: Yes, of course, redundant churches sometimes have a cemetery next to them. The use of the word "graveyard" gives away the hon. Gentleman's age and experience. No one, of course, wants graves to fall into such a condition, and every effort is made to maintain those cemeteries in keeping with the Church's commitment and in keeping with the wishes of people whose lost ones are buried there. We will do our very best to take into account the point made by my hon. Friend.

    Wayleaves
    Mr. Hugo Swire: What study the commissioners have made of moneys owed to church properties resulting from wayleaves. [174912]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): I am sure the hon. Gentleman knows that I am an expert on wayleaves. The Church Commissioners, however, have not made such a study.
    Mr. Swire: Many dioceses have benefited enormously from wayleave payments from private utility companies. The diocese of Exeter has received £33,500 from BT and Western Power, Salisbury received £18,500, St. David's in Wales got £10,000 and Wells cathedral £4,500. I am sure the hon. Gentleman would agree that those are all welcome moneys to hard-pressed ecclesiastical organisations. None the less, many ecclesiastical organisations remain unclear or uncertain as to their entitlement to wayleaves from public utility companies. Will he endeavour to spread the word to encourage them to go after wayleaves, to get the money that they are surely due?
    Sir Stuart Bell: A wayleave is a terminable right of way over or under land, for which a rent is normally paid. Typically it would be used for an electricity supply line or some such. I did tell the hon. Gentleman I was an expert on the subject. The rural portfolio of the commissioners generated net rents of £6.1 million and capital receipts of £10.1 million last year. On the question whether there should be a study, we do not have a problem with the collection of wayleaves, so no study is necessary. However, on the pertinent point of the hon. Gentleman's question, I shall do my very best to ensure that all parishes understand the benefit that can come to them from wayleaves.

    Parish Priests
    Miss Anne McIntosh: How many parish priests were recruited in the first quarter of (a) 1997 and (b) 2004. [174913]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): The ministry division of the Archbishops Council does not record ordination figures on a quarterly basis. However, I can tell my hon. Friend—the hon. Lady has put so many questions to us over the past few years that she is now an hon. Friend—that in the whole of 1997 there were 262 newly ordained stipendiary deacons available for deployment, compared with 333 in 2003.
    Miss McIntosh: I welcome the large upturn in recruits to parish priesthood. I hope that he will join me in recording the valuable role and the pastoral care that rural vicars in particular provide, especially in constituencies such as the Vale of York which suffered so much during the foot and mouth crisis and subsequently. To what does the hon. Gentleman attribute the change? Does he believe that it will continue for the foreseeable future?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I am grateful for the hon. Lady's comments and her support for clergy, especially in her constituency, where I know she spends some time and follows these matters carefully. Although the number now deployed is up, there is still likely to be a fall in the stipendiary clergy due to retirements. That fall is from 9,109 in 2003 to 8,691 in 2007. However, the Church's commitment and the commitment reflected in the newly ordained stipendiaries is a reflection of a commitment to faith in the 21st century.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Is it not a fact that because the Church cannot afford ministers these days, fewer are coming into the ministry and many churches depend on retired ministers to meet their commitment to hold holy communion services on a Sunday?
    Sir Stuart Bell: I surmise that the fact that there is a difficulty in securing clergy for every church is due to the numbers of clergy, rather than to the stipend levels. The stipend levels for clergy of incumbent status in 1996–97 were £13,940 and £18,110 respectively. The figures now are £13,910 and £17,140, so the issue of money is taken care of, but the number required is still a problem.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Elections
    Bob Spink: What representations the Commission has received regarding increasing participation in elections. [174914]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: I am advised by the Electoral Commission that it has received numerous representations suggesting how participation in elections might be increased from a broad range of individuals and organisations.
    Bob Spink: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer. Does he share my deep concern about the low turnout that we may experience in the European and local elections that are to be held on 10 June? Does he also share my concern about the potential for misuse, manipulation and corruption through postal balloting? What is the Electoral Commission going to do to protect us from manipulation of the postal ballots?
    Mr. Viggers: The expansion of postal voting since 2000 has allowed large numbers of voters to participate in elections at a time that is convenient for them, but my hon. Friend is right to focus on safeguards. In its publication "The Shape of Elections to Come", the Electoral Commission set out a range of measures that it believes should be implemented. Some of those measures have been introduced, but others have not, including the key proposal of individual registration of voters.
    Mr. Harry Barnes: Increased participation in absolute terms, if not percentage terms, could be improved by electoral registration, which was the last point that the hon. Gentleman mentioned. What is the Electoral Commission doing to increase registration to overcome the problems? Perhaps it could extend the provisions on rolling registration, which the Government introduced in 2000.
    Mr. Viggers: It is the view of the Electoral Commission that individual registration and ensuring
    1302
    that the register of voters is accurate are key to our democracy. As I said, the key point in the view of the Electoral Commission is individual registration, but the hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, and it will be noted.
    Mr. David Heath: Has the hon. Gentleman had the opportunity to read the seventh report of the Select Committee on the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister: Housing, Planning and Local Government, which investigated postal voting? The report, which would have been valuable to the House during its consideration of the recent Bill introducing all-postal pilots, makes some very good suggestions for countering fraud, including not only individual voter registration, which he mentioned, but increased resources for electoral officers, the establishment of a national database and dissemination to police forces of information on electoral offences. Can the Electoral Commission now work with the Select Committee to develop those recommendations and, it is to be hoped, to persuade the Government to introduce them?
    Mr. Viggers: Yes, the Electoral Commission believes that the Select Committee report is indeed valuable. As for the commission's own activities, following consultation with returning officers and political parties, it has recently released a draft code of conduct for candidates and party workers relating to postal voting. The code will be finalised later this year, following assessment of its use in the June elections.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Housing
    Sir Sydney Chapman: What the Church Commissioners' policy is for developing their housing estates. [174915]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): All the Church Commissioners' investments are managed according to their statutory responsibility to ensure the best long-term return from a diversified investment portfolio.
    Sir Sydney Chapman: I am grateful to the Second Church Estates Commissioner for that policy statement, but in relation to developing the estates, can he give some specific examples to show what part the commissioners are playing in improving the housing stock of this country by their policy?
    Sir Stuart Bell: Middleton house in Pimlico was upgraded and repaired in April 2003, and part of the Waterloo estate was completed in March this year. Work in Vauxhall began last autumn. Work differs between the estates, but, generally, the work that we carry out involves new or repaired roofs, windows,

    1303
    external repairs and improved communal areas. Some £19 million has been spent or committed to those three estates, and there is other ongoing work.

  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE
  The hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission, was asked—
  ELECTORAL COMMISSION COMMITTEE

    Boundary Review
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will ask the commission to take steps to ensure that as part of the current boundary review process, all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 constituents as possible. [174916]
    Mr. Peter Viggers: The Electoral Commission does not have any responsibility for the process of reviewing parliamentary constituency boundaries. Section 16 of the Political Parties, Elections and Referendums Act 2000 provides for the function to be transferred from the respective boundary commissions to the Electoral Commission, but this provision has not yet been implemented.
    Mr. Steen: In view of the statutory duty of the boundary commission to ensure that all parliamentary constituencies are as near to 70,000 people as possible, can my hon. Friend explain how the playing field has become totally lopsided, and why 48 per cent. of parliamentary seats are either below 65,000 people or above 75,000? Is this a matter that he could take up with
    1304
    the boundary commission? Does he think that it is a coincidence that 43 per cent. of all the seats with fewer than 65,000 people are held by Labour incumbents?
    Mr. Viggers: The facts that my hon. Friend reports are interesting, but I have to say on behalf of the Electoral Commission that it currently has no responsibility in that area.

  The hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, was asked—
  CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

    Church Commissioners' Website
    Mr. Robert Key: How many (a) hits and (b) unique visits per day were received by the Church Commissioners' website in April 2004 [174919]
    Second Church Estates Commissioner (Sir Stuart Bell): I can tell the hon. Gentleman that the Church Commissioners' website is part of a Church of England family of sites, which currently receives some 3 million hits a month.
    Mr. Key: I look forward to hearing that that figure has jumped to 6 million, because the Church of England lags some way behind other churches in this respect. I hope not only that adequate resources will be provided centrally for the Church Commissioners' website, but that every encouragement will be given to all dioceses to use their websites much more effectively than at present.
    Sir Stuart Bell: The hon. Gentleman makes an encouraging suggestion. I can tell him that the commissioners' website continues to develop. In 2003, guidance on the commissioners' residential lettings policy and available properties was added. I shall carry the hon. Gentleman's recommendation back to the Church, and I hope that he will see something exciting and interesting in the months to come.

Deepcut Barracks
3.30 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Right hon. and hon. Members will be aware of the incident that took place in Iraq today. I am sure that they will understand that since the families of those involved are in the process of being informed, I cannot add any detail to the Foreign Secretary's statement in Brussels earlier today. However, I am sure that the House will join me in extending our condolences to the families of the two individuals who were killed and our best wishes for a speedy recovery to the person who was injured. British civilians are doing a valuable job in bringing stability to Iraq, and it is deeply shocking that they should be attacked in this way by the enemies of peace and democracy.
In the armed forces personnel debate on 13 May, I informed the House that I intended shortly to make a statement in response to the report of the Surrey police into the four tragic deaths at Princess Royal barracks, which was published on 5 March this year. I am grateful for this opportunity to do so.
It weighs heavily with me as to why we are here today. Between 1995 and 2002, four young people died tragically before their time. For the families of Privates Sean Benton, Cheryl James, Geoff Gray and James Collinson, these have been long and difficult years. I recognise that I cannot experience their grief, but I understand it and again pass my condolences on to them. The Army shares their sorrow. I also recognise that in some respects the families have not been as well treated as they should have been. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence has apologised unreservedly for those failings, and I repeat these sentiments today.
I am grateful to the chief constable of the Surrey police for his report, which made the clear recommendation that the Ministry of Defence should consider a broader investigation into first, whether the risks identified at Deepcut are replicated across the wider Army Training and Recruiting Agency and how those may relate to the issues of self-harm, suicide and undetermined deaths; secondly, how the Army's care regime may be improved further; and thirdly, how independent oversight might help the Army to define and maintain appropriate standards of care for young soldiers.
The report also acknowledges the positive approach taken since August 2002 and states that
"if Army systems of accountability continue to be developed, then systemic and cultural change may be achieved and sustained."
That refers to the report by the deputy Adjutant General and the creation of the Army learning account—a systematic mechanism to learn and apply lessons that was put in place in 2002 following the tragic death of Private Collinson. In addition, on 3 October 2002, I commissioned the director of operational capability to conduct an audit of initial training across the armed forces. That was a hard-hitting, cross-cutting report that generated rigorous self-examination and was followed by a reappraisal last summer.
1306
Those reports generated a comprehensive action plan against which progress could be measured. I can report that of the 58 recommendations, 48 are implemented and progressing satisfactorily and the remaining 10 are being addressed. They include improvements in staff to trainee ratios and improved welfare facilities. As right hon. and hon. Members will be aware, both those documents have been placed in the Library, as will be the report of the further re-appraisal planned for the autumn.
That commitment to improvement continues. I can announce today that I have committed further investment of more than £23 million to the training system. That will provide further instructor training, further improvement of supervisory ratios and increased opportunities for the use of recreational facilities and other welfare projects.
I believe that the work put in train as a result of the director of operational capability's appraisals and the deputy Adjutant General's report through the Army learning account, of which 25 of 26 actions have been completed, is significant. The publication of those reports and the supporting papers to the Surrey police report reflect our commitment to openness, improvement and accountability in the delivery of initial training across the armed forces.
The calls for a broader inquiry and independent oversight are difficult issues that I have had to consider carefully. The armed forces are rightly renowned for their ability. The performance of our servicemen and women in the most demanding operational situations is ample evidence of that. Such performance rests on rigorous training, which encourages character development, the acceptance of responsibility, discipline and the determination to succeed in adversity. However, I also recognise the need for public reassurance that the training is properly conducted and that the young men and women who join our armed forces are properly supported during that formative stage in their lives.
For that reason, we have decided to appoint the adult learning inspectorate—the ALI—to conduct independent inspection and oversight of the armed forces' training establishments. As hon. Members know, the ALI has a statutory responsibility to examine and report on the quality of education and training for adults and young people. It is entirely independent of the Ministry of Defence and is a widely respected body.
A memorandum of understanding will be drawn up with the ALI for an annual rolling programme of independent inspections to include the initial training establishments. The first inspection will begin in the autumn this year. I have asked for the first inspection to focus on initial training across all three services and to look specifically at care and welfare. It will include Deepcut. There will be no no-go areas. The inspectorate will report to Ministers by Easter next year and that report will be published. That will be followed by a rolling programme of inspections, which will cover all aspects of service training, including initial training and the environment in which it is conducted. It will include delivery of the training as well as the care and welfare of trainees. For the first time, all aspects of our training will be benchmarked against national standards and good practice. This will help reduce risks faced by young trainees not only in the Army but in all three services.

1307
We must ensure that improvements are sustained. The ALI's recommendations will be tracked centrally in the Ministry of Defence. The inspectorate will be empowered to revisit areas to check on implementation of agreed recommendations and to ensure that progress is maintained. Throughout the process, its staff will have direct access to me if they have concerns that their recommendations are not being properly considered.
I believe that the ALI's involvement will enable us to build substantially on the work that we have already done, ensure continued and sustained improvements and enhance the transparency of what we are doing. It will complement the quality training provided by the armed forces and provide wider reassurance. It represents a positive and prompt response to the Surrey police recommendations.
I am aware also of the calls by the families and others for a public inquiry into the four deaths. I understand why the families and others feel strongly about a public inquiry, but we need to be clear about what a public inquiry would seek to achieve. I recognise that the families want to know exactly what happened to their loved ones and why.
In the first three cases, there have been investigations, coroner's inquests and subsequent intensive police reinvestigations. The Surrey police found no evidence to indicate any prospect of a prosecution directly related to the deaths. Private James Collinson's case, from the start the subject of an investigation by the Surrey police, has yet to be heard by the coroner. The coroner's inquiry will be held in public and is the proper place to examine the circumstances of sudden deaths.
The courts have made it clear that the coroner can and should make sure that the jury reaches a conclusion on all the central issues of a case and that the court considers relevant wider factors. We will of course co-operate fully in the forthcoming inquest, as we have done with other inquests.
I have weighed all these factors carefully. I do not underestimate the depth of feeling and the passion of the families who lost loved ones at Deepcut, but I am not persuaded, given the intensive investigations and inquiries, and the new measures that I have put in place, of what more a public inquiry would achieve. I know that this will be disappointing to the families but I hope that right hon. and hon. Members will recognise the openness and robustness of the approach that I am reporting to the House today.
I have made no secret of the fact that improvement was needed in the initial training regime, and we have now given the initial training system across all three services a thorough audit and overhaul. The audit led to substantive, sustained measures to improve it. With the closer engagement of the adult learning inspectorate, further audits will take place. This will ensure accountability and external oversight for the future. We have the finest armed forces, and they consistently act as a force for good in the world. The bravery and achievement of our service people on operations is testament to that. That would not be the case if the system that trained them was fundamentally flawed—quite the reverse. The gallantry shown by our personnel on operations bears testament to the underlying quality
1308
of the people we recruit, of the training that they receive and of those who provide the training. Like all large systems, this one needs improvement and regular maintenance, and I am determined that it will receive both.
Mr. Gerald Howarth: May I thank the Minister of State for providing me with an advance copy of his statement? I should also like to associate Her Majesty's Opposition with his remarks about the bombings in Baghdad involving British causalities today, and with his tribute to the very fine work that British civilians are doing on the reconstruction of Iraq.
The deaths of the four young people while training to take their place serving in Her Majesty's armed forces is, above all, a terrible personal tragedy for each of the families concerned. The hearts of all of us in the House, not least those of us with children of our own, go out to those parents and families. It is also, as the Minister suggested, a tragedy for the Army, because it has damaged public confidence in its ability to fulfil its required duty of care towards the young men and women in its charge—a duty which I know it takes very seriously.
We note the Government's decision to introduce some independent oversight. Perhaps, for the better assistance of the House, the Minister could remind us of some of the individuals involved in the adult learning inspectorate. Who runs it, for example? Who are some of its key members? Will he also ensure that those in the agency, who will be given substantial powers of inspection, will be familiar with the way in which the armed forces operate and with the need for the robust training of which he spoke? Will he publish the memorandum of understanding that he is about to sign with the agency? How does the Minister see the role of the current Defence Select Committee inquiry into more or less the same thing as he is setting up with the adult learning inspectorate, and will he ensure that the Committee's report is made available to the inspectorate in due course?
During a debate in Westminster Hall last month, the Secretary of State cited the higher incidence of suicide among young males under the age of 20 in the Army compared with society at large, and said that he would order further studies. How are those studies progressing? The Minister of State stated that lessons had been implemented since 2002, but is it not the case that there have been no fewer than six internal inquiries into the Army training regime, some of which predated the recent deaths, and that too little was done to implement the resulting recommendations? In particular, the report by Lieutenant-Colonel Haes in 2001 criticised the shortage of supervisors. What is the ratio of supervisors to recruits at Deepcut today? Above all, has the Ministry of Defence accepted the serious charge levelled by Lieutenant-Colonel Haes that
"the Army Training and Recruitment Agency is failing in certain aspects as a result of reduction in the military workforce and increased obligations"?
Ministers cannot go on demanding of our armed forces that, in the words of General Lord Guthrie, they do
"more and more with less and less".
What action has been taken to ensure that young recruits do not have unsupervised access to live ammunition?

1309
Finally, the Surrey police noted in their excellent report:
"It is important to recognise the significant challenges faced by the Army in reconciling the potentially conflicting demands of maintaining a necessarily robust training regime, designed to sustain it among the most professional armies in the world, while at the same time discharging its duty of care to young recruits".
Young recruits such as 18-year-old Trooper Christopher Finney of the Blues and Royals, who was awarded the George cross for his bravery in Iraq, are testament to the overall success of the Army's training mission. As a nation, we can be justly proud of the magnificent job that Britain's young men and women are doing today in Iraq.
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for both his opening and his closing remarks. He highlighted the true excellence of our training system, which produces such high quality young men and women.
The hon. Gentleman asked whether the MOU relating to the ALI will be published, and the answer is yes. He also asked about the ALI, which is a Government body responsible for raising standards of education and training for young people and adults in England by inspecting and reporting on the quality of learning provision. It is well resourced and highly respected, and people with particular experience staff it, but it says that it must bring in people with particular expertise to assist it in its new role, which is why it must increase its staff. The process commences in the autumn, and the hon. Gentleman will understand the need for a pause after the announcement to allow the ALI to obtain the expertise it needs.
The hon. Gentleman says that the House of Commons Defence Committee inquiry is similar to the ALI inquiry, but it is not. The HCDC report can cover any matter, and I cannot direct what it examines—nor should I be able to—and I am not responsible for its course. My ministerial colleagues and I are responsible only for addressing any key issues it raises, so the HCDC's position is different from that of the ALI. The ALI reports directly to a Minister, and the MOD directly resources it. If it makes recommendations, the MOD must address them and examine how it can best implement them. The difference between the ALI and the HCDC is fundamental, although we welcome the HCDC inquiry and look forward to its conclusions.
The hon. Gentleman also mentioned the Haes report, but he could have referred to all the reports, which cover a considerable time. We have published the documents in order to ensure transparency. Lessons were learned, but in many cases the solutions were sadly not implemented. It is worth bearing in mind paragraph 4.20 of the Surrey police report, which states:
"Surrey Police has not sought in link any of these risk factors",
which were mentioned in previous reports,
"specifically to the four individual deaths."
The report goes on to make other points, too.
The hon. Gentleman asked about the ratio of supervisors to recruits at Deepcut. Ratios differ depending on the type of training establishment. The immediate improvements that have been implemented established a ratio of about 1:38, which is believed to be appropriate and is the level that should have been maintained over previous years.
1310
The hon. Gentleman asked about training with live ammunition, by which I suppose he also means handling firearms. Those matters must be dealt with properly, but he understands that we are training soldiers, not social workers. At some stage, soldiers must be trained, because they must use firearms and live ammunition confidently. The training system is robust, and I think that the hon. Gentleman agrees with my opening comment that it is tried and tested. Failures have occurred, but we are addressing them, and we must get them right.
Mr. Kevin McNamara: May I associate myself with right hon. Friend the Minister's opening remarks about the tragic deaths and woundings in Iraq?
There will be a great deal of disappointment and, indeed, anger at the decision not to hold a public inquiry. The Deepcut families, along with those from Catterick and beyond, will feel deeply disappointed, because they want to know why and how their loved ones died.
The thing that joins together all these families is a failure to provide mechanisms for effective inquiry and investigation of the deaths and often the cavalier treatment of the families seeking further information. Is my right hon. Friend aware that as a result of his statement the families will be seeking a judicial review based upon the Army precedent? Will he bear in mind that there will be grave suspicion about the point that he has raised over the independent examination of training procedures? It will not be fully independent of the MOD. It will not be established by legislation. The process will not be seen as other than an examination of training courses. It will not be seen by the families as a way of dealing with individual cases.
Finally and specifically, is my right hon. Friend aware that there will be great disappointment that in his statement he made no reference to the need to have an independent means of complaint by recruits and others that is outside the chain of command, which would enable their grievances to be properly examined?
Mr. Ingram: As my hon. Friend has said, I recognise the anger and disappointment that there will be following my statement. At a meeting that I had with my hon. Friend and the families, I tried to walk them through why I had come to this particular conclusion. We must look at the past and consider the impact of that on the present and the future. We have to separate out these particular issues.
I was able to point out to my hon. Friend that he is part of a campaign in which some are saying that there have been 1,748 unnatural deaths in the Army since 1990 and are arguing that all of those deaths should be subject to some form of inquiry. I appreciate that there might be a narrowing down to another number. Where would such a public inquiry end, how long would it take, what would it achieve and how would it impact upon the present and the future? I had to consider how to make things better. We are putting thousands of young people through the training regime year upon year and I cannot wait for a public inquiry. I want to do things now if things need to be improved upon. That is why I have decided to appoint the adult learning inspectorate. Its

1311
work will be fully independent. It is a calumny to suggest that because something is not laid down by statute there cannot be independence and that those involved cannot be robust, cannot be interrogative and cannot criticise a Government Department. I do not accept that.
The ALI will be given resources. If it is felt that that is not happening, the ALI will have immediate access to me as a Minister. If there is a blockage within the Department, I want to know what is going on. I have no doubt that the ALI will make sure that the public are aware if there are any failings on the part of the MOD. We will be held to public account.
My hon. Friend asked about an ombudsman for the armed forces. I think that that is a step too far because there is a chain of command. The armed forces are a unique set of people—there is no doubt or question about that. They are asked to do things that no one else is asked to do. That respect of the chain of command is vital. We have a zero tolerance policy towards bullying, harassment and racial discrimination. Does that mean that we are perfect? No, it does not. Does it mean that we can try to be better? Yes, it does. I think that the ALI is an important step towards achieving that. My hon. Friend said that the families may wish to seek a judicial review. That is a matter for them and the courts.
Mr. Paul Keetch: I thank the Minister for an early sight of the statement. I concur with him on sending condolences from the House to those members of the armed forces and British citizens who have been killed today in Iraq.
I welcome the statement but like other hon. Members I am disappointed. We should note the great work that has been done by hon. Members on both sides of the House in pursuing these matters. The families have been so stoic and so strong in their campaign.
On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome what the Ministry of Defence has already done—the Army learning account, the audit by the director of operational capability and, today, the £23 million addition for training. Will the Minister tell us whether that is for the Army specifically or whether it will be used across all three armed services?
I also welcome the adult learning inspectorate report. Again, can the Minister for the armed forces say whether it will carry out a one-off inspection of training bases or is that inspection to be ongoing? If so, for how long? While I accept that that is all very good for the future, the central question as to what happened in the past has not been addressed. I suspect that none of us is any closer to knowing what happened at Deepcut.
I too pay tribute to our armed forces for their professionalism and gallantry, and I accept that their training has to be different from any other, but sadly, I suspect that eventually there will be some form of independent inquiry into what happened at Deepcut, although that will come after more delay, more heartache and more legal wrangling. Does the Minister not believe that it would have been better to have announced such an inquiry today—better for the
1312
families, better for the MOD in the long run and, most importantly, better for the members of our armed forces?
Mr. Ingram: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his opening comments. He asks what the £23 million is for. I indicated in the statement broadly where it would go—into the initial training environment. It will go where it is primarily needed in those areas. The balance has to be struck and like all resources, they have to be properly allocated.
The hon. Gentleman also asks about whether the ALI will make one report or whether this will be the first of a series. Again, I made that clear, I hope, in my statement, a copy of which I gave to him. There will be an initial inspection during which the ALI will visit Deepcut. It will make a report by Easter, so there will be a six-month study period after which there will be a rolling programme of inspections. Again as I said in my statement, the ALI will also be entitled to go back and look at what it has already studied, ensuring—if a recommendation has been made and we have said that something will be fixed—that it has the right to reinvestigate.
I am surprised that the hon. Gentleman takes the view that he does not know what happened at Deepcut. I suggest that the Surrey police report tells us a lot. What we cannot do is say with certainty precisely what happened. He is of the view that a public inquiry will be able to achieve something that Surrey police did not—after 900 interviews and taking 1,500 witness statements—and decide that there is new evidence. Well, I have to say that the Surrey police report, after 15 months of investigation, has given us a good overhaul and examination. I recommend that he read it again; it may help him.
Mr. Ronnie Campbell: The Minister is aware that I raised a case last week regarding Catterick camp. I understand the idea of an independent review, but it would not make any difference to the recruit whose case I raised. When he went to see his commanding officer—the Tuesday after I raised it on the Monday—he was told that his career was in jeopardy. He was told by the military police, in front of his mother, that his career could be in jeopardy. I can tell the Minister now that he has left the Army. If that is the attitude at that level, how can an independent inquiry, or anything independent, get to the bottom of anything that goes on in the Army?
Mr. Ingram: I am sorry to hear about that series of events. When my hon. Friend raised them with me, we immediately launched an investigation of the circumstances. I have not had a report on that, but his words today will again be subject to examination. It is a matter of regret that the young person has decided to leave the Army.
Mr. Campbell: He was told his career was in jeopardy.
Mr. Ingram: I am not saying that my hon. Friend is not telling me accurately about the matters that have been reported to him, but I have to find out the veracity of this from the other side, as we all have to do: when we are dealing with any constituent, we should try to seek

1313
the balance to the argument. It may prove to be the case that what he says is right. If that is the case, it is unacceptable.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: First, may I associate myself with the Minister's words about the tragic deaths in Iraq and, of course, the four deaths at Deepcut in my constituency?
Does the Minister agree that Surrey police have done an excellent job in producing such a thorough report? Will he recognise that in my constituency there is huge support for our local regiment, the Royal Logistic Corps? The senior officers now at Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut, who have been responsible for the co-operation with the Surrey police investigation, but were not, of course, the senior officers in command at the time of any of the deaths, have had an enormously difficult job to do, both in terms of retaining local confidence in the Army and in rebutting a great deal of uninformed, prejudicial and sometimes even hysterical media reporting. Will the Minister recognise that those local people who support the Army want the Royal Logistic Corps to stay in our area, want the Princess Royal barracks, Deepcut to have a good future and are concerned about the risk that, in order to remove an embarrassing name, Deepcut might be disposed of? Is he prepared to examine that and, if necessary, meet me and leading local councillors and council officers, to discuss the long-term future of the Army in my area?
Mr. Ingram: I echo the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the Surrey police. It was a thorough investigation. They honestly recognised the failings of the civilian police in matters of this nature in the opening section of the report. The civilian police should take immediate primacy in all such investigations and it is a matter for the civil courts to deal with through the coroner's inquest or whatever else may follow. I repeat, however, that the 15-month report, with 900 witnesses and 1,500 witness statements, was, without question, very intensive.
The hon. Gentleman is also right about the officers, non-commissioned officers and instructors of the RLC at Deepcut. I have spoken to many of them and I know how hurt they are by all this. When criticisms are made, we must examine the past and the impact on the present and the possible future. We put thousands of young people through that training system, not just at Deepcut but elsewhere, and those who are recruited into that process, and those who run it, must have certainty about its quality. As has been recognised in statements to the House, there is a high quality that is evidenced by what is produced. As to the future of the barracks, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Defence has responsibility for training establishments and I am sure that he will be only too happy to meet the hon. Gentleman and whoever else he may want to bring along at the appropriate time.
Mr. Michael Jabez Foster: My right hon. Friend will know that his decision to deny a public inquiry will distress people such as my constituents, Harry and Linda Benton, who still need to find an answer to what happened to their son, Sean. My right hon. Friend said in his statement that the place for
1314
that was within the inquest system. Is he really suggesting that, after eight years, the only answer is to reopen inquests so that they may get to the truth?
Mr. Ingram: Yes, I am. I have faith in the coroners' system. Now, with the European convention on human rights, the Government can take great credit for putting into place that corpus of law, which defined how such bodies should operate in the interests of victims to get at the truth and examine key areas. One of the cases, that of James Collinson, has still to be considered by the coroner and I suggest that we should wait to see what comes out of that. Clearly, if there are criticisms of the MOD or matters that we have to address, we must take them on board. To those who may think that that is already the case, I have to say that that is not a proven case and we must wait for the findings of that inquest. Legal remedies are open to others if they wish to return to the civil courts.
Annabelle Ewing: I associate myself with the remarks about the tragic deaths in Iraq made at the outset. Since James Collinson was found dead at Deepcut on 23 March 2002, his mother Yvonne and his father Jim are no nearer to finding out the truth as to how and why their 17-year-old son died. Surrey police have apologised to all four families for not maintaining primacy in the investigation and for delegating that to the Army. The Army concluded that it was suicide after only three days, with no proper forensic evidence gathering having been carried out. Does the Minister therefore accept that, by refusing a public inquiry today, he is prolonging the anguish of the Collinson family and the other families, who will now be forced to go to the courts to seek a ruling on the issue? Surely this is manifestly unjust and fails to restore public confidence in the Army and the MOD.
Mr. Ingram: I do not accept that there is distrust of, or lack of confidence in, the Army. Some feel that they have a particular grievance because of the sad tragedies with which they have had to deal, but that should not be extended across the whole community. To do so would constitute an unfair criticism.
The hon. Lady is right that the Collinson family are no nearer to discovering the truth. The inquest is a mechanism by which that may be achieved, but whatever course is adopted, there is no certainty that the truth will materialise. Perhaps we shall never get to the truth.
The hon. Lady mentioned the investigation into James Collinson's death, which is being conducted by the special investigations branch and the Royal Military Police. Following a meeting only an hour and a half ago I have checked again and found that the Surrey police did have primacy, as they should have had in the other three cases.
The hon. Lady said that the lack of a public inquiry was prolonging the agony. I could have decided—and have been asked—to arrange an inquiry into only one case, into all four, into 50 or into some greater number. An inquiry into that greater number would have been very long-running, while an inquiry focusing on a specific group would no doubt have led to repeated judicial requests to open the lines of inquiry elsewhere.

1315
It is important to ensure that we employ the right processes. I would have expected the hon. Lady to acknowledge all we have done through the report—the director of operational capability, the Army learning account and the new adult learning inspectorate. She should at least give us some credit for taking on the issues and trying to make things better.
Mrs. Joan Humble: I pay credit to my right hon. Friend for introducing openness and accountability to the initial training regime, but will he acknowledge that openness and accountability, and indeed the duty of care, should extend beyond that regime and must follow young people when they go into their units and regiments so that their parents can be reassured about the responsibility of the Army? When, tragically, a young person such as my constituent Derek McGregor dies in barracks, his family too should be able to get the answers they so desperately need.
Mr. Ingram: I agree and I think that that applies to any untimely death. We have a responsibility to try to give the best possible information to the families of victims. I approve of my hon. Friend's approach, but there is unquestionably a strong duty of care and responsibility throughout the armed forces, for the simple reason that if there were not, we would have a failed, broken system. Soldiers depend on a command structure that knows what it is doing and can deal authoritatively with difficult situations. Providing proper resources will help to ensure that people work as a cohesive team as far as is possible. The chain of command has that duty of care and I think that it is discharged extremely well. We are not perfect. Mistakes will happen, and when they do we must find out the truth.
Mr. Robert Key: Of course, our hearts go out to those killed in Iraq and especially to the families of the young people who lost their lives at Deepcut. Does the Minister agree that the Adjutant-General and his staff are delivering for this country the best military training available anywhere in the world? If, like me, the Minister has spent time with the Army training regiment in Winchester or at the Army foundation college in Harrogate, he will have been amazed at the commitment of those young people and their families, who have complete confidence in the Army. It would be a travesty if this tragedy led to a lack of confidence among the families of young people who are considering joining the military.
Mr. Ingram: I agree entirely with the hon. Gentleman. That is why I wrote to more than 200 Members of this House and the other place to invite them to visit training establishments. To date, only about 12—a handful of Members—have taken up that opportunity, although several proposed visits were cancelled. I wish that everyone would make such a visit. Like the hon. Gentleman and me, they would find at those establishments tremendous commitment right through the command structure—not just among instructors but, importantly, among the young people. I had the
1316
privilege of being involved in a passing out parade and talking to the parents. They spoke of how the young ones whom they gave into the care of the Army were turned around into mature, forward-looking, confident and well-trained young adults with a future ahead of them. We could all learn from making such contact.
Mr. Eric Joyce: I welcome my right hon. Friend's remarks about the potential improvement in systems. Of course, it is true that all systems can be improved, but does he agree that it is vital that we do not forget that the Army Training and Recruiting Agency is an enormously successful training organisation and that its training regime is among the most systematic of any employer, not just in this country but in the world? It is precisely that on which the performance of our troops in the field is built and based.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend's experience gives him intimate knowledge of this issue. He is right about ATRA, which is not only a high achiever but respected worldwide for what it achieves. That is why we are consistently asked to help other countries to develop training regimes that meet the high standards and quality that we set. There is nothing more that I can add to that eulogy. There is much in ATRA's training regime of which we can be proud.
Lembit Öpik: I am encouraged that all the letters, parliamentary questions, Prime Minister's questions and meetings, along with the Adjournment debate on this issue, have finally caused some movement in the Ministry of Defence. Nevertheless, does the Minister accept that resisting a public inquiry into the four deaths at Deepcut just because of the many other deaths in the Army simply is not acceptable? The Government should be willing to investigate any death in uncertain circumstances. Does he recognise that we are calling for a public inquiry into the four deaths at Deepcut specifically to answer the question of why and how these young people died? Does he accept that if one's child were shot five times in the stomach or twice in the head, one would reasonably expect the Government to leave no stone unturned in answering the question whether the death was the result of murder, manslaughter or suicide and why it happened?
Finally, Bob Quick, author of the fifth report and deputy chief constable of Surrey police, confirmed to me today that, although it may not be appropriate for him to define the type of inquiry, he believes that it must be broad and independent. Does the Minister accept that we need to investigate the past in order to understand the future? Does he further understand that if the Government refuse to provide an inquiry of their own volition, they are likely to be forced to do so by a court?
Mr. Ingram: I appreciate the intensity of interest and effort on the part of the hon. Gentleman, who has been very active on this issue; indeed, he and I have discussed it many times privately, on the Floor of the House and elsewhere. I am intrigued by what he said about the comments of Bob Quick, the senior police officer involved. Mr. Quick is not saying that what we are doing is wrong and I doubt whether the hon. Gentleman asked him that question. Mr. Quick would recognise that we

1317
have a well-structured approach to dealing with the current and future situation; indeed, that is what the Surrey police asked of us. They asked for a broad inquiry into the duty of care regime and for oversight, both of which the ALI will provide. I do not wish to get into an unnecessary conflict with those outside this House who are commenting on the matter, but I shall find out just what the view of the Surrey police is.
In trying to find out the facts of the situation and why someone died in a given set of circumstances, the police engaged two independent forensic teams of experts to look at that, so that one could check on the other. They could not come to the firm conclusions that other people may have come to. Some of those people have experience but have not published their findings. Others may just have a view on all this. Through their intensive and comprehensive approach, the police have trawled over all this, both in forensic terms and in speaking to all the people about the day of, or the day prior to, the sad event. Therefore, I recommend that those who have not read the Surrey police report read it and await the inquest into James Collinson's death.
Harry Cohen: The reasons for the four deaths at Deepcut remain obscure, which is unsatisfactory, but may I question the Minister on two aspects of his statement? First, I welcome the role that he is giving the adult learning inspectorate. That concerns training, but what about improving counselling for members of the armed forces? Counselling should not be seen as a sign of weakness. For example, people in the upper and middle classes use it regularly. Why cannot we have improved counselling?
Secondly, the Minister acknowledges that the families were treated poorly. Why cannot we have better treatment? Will that be addressed so that families are treated better when there is a bereavement? For example, can we have bereavement counselling, a 24-hour link to a liaison officer for the unit concerned and access to all the information in relation to a death?
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend raises two important issues. He raises first the ALI's role and implies that it will be interested only in the training modules that young people will undertake. That is not the case. It will look at care and welfare aspects, too. It is not for me to direct the ALI on how to do that—my role is only to establish the mechanism by which it can be done—but I am sure that it will approach it on the basis that, for people to be best trained, they need to have a roundness of environment. Again, those in the armed forces are in unique circumstances. That is why they will bring in specialists to assist them in their understanding of all that.
My hon. Friend is right about the better treatment of families. We have recognised that the Deepcut families were not well treated. We cannot rewrite history but it sits heavy on us that those things happened and that certain things were said that should not have been said. What I have tried to do in terms of this is to meet with the families. We have learned in the recent past—this is
1318
the approach that we now have—that we need to have a better and quicker system of communicating with families and a more sensitive way of dealing with them and that we need to give them the best support we can. They have given their loved ones into our care and we have a duty of care to them as well.
Simon Hughes: As another supporter of the armed services, may I say that people will be grateful for the Minister's constructive suggestions, but they have not gone any way to answering the questions about the recent past? Two of the three inquests have returned an open verdict. I would be grateful if he considered looking over the history of the Stephen Lawrence case, where the Home Office resisted an inquiry, saying that there was a prosecution option and an inquest option, but eventually gave in and there was great benefit from the public inquiry. In the Marchioness case, the responsible Department resisted an inquiry, saying that there was an inquest option and a prosecution option but gave in, to the great benefit of everyone The case and demand for the inquiry will not go away until the families have their chance in public to put the questions that they want to put and those responsible have the obligation in public to answer those questions.
Mr. Ingram: I recognise that, but we should not take one given set of circumstances and say that, when something goes wrong anywhere within government, we should automatically proceed to a public inquiry. I think that we are moving inexorably towards that—people are arguing for that. It has been reported to me that, in the "Today" programme this morning, there were three items relating to the MOD and what was the request on each of those issues? It was for a public inquiry.
We cannot run the Government on the basis of public inquiries. They may be good for lawyers, but they are not for the good governance of this country.
I remind the hon. Gentleman about the Surrey police report. He will have read it and know how exhaustive it is. He will also know that the evidence gathered is not for Ministers. I have not seen the evidence; it is a matter for due process. If a coroner has decided that one case is still to be determined through an inquest, let us wait and see what comes out of it. The hon. Gentleman's suggestion that it may not go away may be right, but he may be wrong. It may, in that particular case, be resolved.
Mr. Harry Barnes: The case mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell) raises an important question: how can we enable troops facing abuse from their colleagues or superiors to become whistleblowers to the adult learning inspectorate? Will the process be restricted to training? In the past, I have had to put anonymous complaints to the Minister because my constituents did not want their details revealed. I realise that, when complaints are anonymous, it makes it more difficult to do anything about them. It is easier for my right hon. Friend to deal with cases when he knows what the information is, where it applies and to whom it

1319
relates. It is important for complaints to be followed up and for troops to be assured that their complaints will be dealt with independently.
Mr. Ingram: My hon. Friend misses a fundamental point. The adult learning inspectorate is not the only organisation that will be doing this and it has a much bigger remit in the day-to-day care of individual trainees. In each and every establishment, young people will have access to welfare services—to the chaplaincy and other ports of call—and be able to report any matters that concern them.
I hope that my hon. Friend accepts that we have zero tolerance towards bullying and harassment, but I must make the point that that will not stop bullying. It will not stop it in the Army, any more than it will stop it in the BBC, the health service or other walks of life. Bullying goes on out there; what we must do is put in place mechanisms that encourage people confidently to raise their concerns and take them forward. My hon. Friend mentioned the case referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Blyth Valley (Mr. Campbell), but I have already answered his question. We will find out exactly what happened there. If those events did occur as recounted, they are unacceptable.
Mr. Mike Hancock: Can the Minister give an assurance that the ALI will be given every support and resource to enable servicemen and women who have left the armed services because of problems that they experienced during their recruitment to provide evidence. It should be done through a confidential phone line or another process whereby they are actively encouraged to present their experience.
I echo the views of many hon. Members in expressing my disappointment about the fact that a public inquiry is not being established. It was apparent throughout the Deepcut activities that a duty of care applied to the armed forces in respect of those young people and their parents—and they failed miserably to exercise that duty. Is the Minister certain that what happened will never occur again—that a 17-year-old who might later be found to have a psychological disorder that made him
1320
unsuitable for work in the armed forces will not be given a loaded weapon with live ammunition and sent out on guard duty alone?
Mr. Ingram: The ALI will be given every support and resource. The screening of trainees is one of the issues that are being considered. However, it is not an exact science and that applies to all walks of life—even, I would suggest, in this place. It is not easy to identify people who cannot take stress and who may react in a particular way under pressure or because of other factors. We cannot screen out everyone through those processes. The hon. Gentleman is asking for the impossible.
In terms of singleton guard duty, that will not be the case for young 17-year-olds.
Hugh Robertson: I associate myself with the remarks made about Iraq and with the Minister's comments—and the dignified response of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth)—about the tragic events at Deepcut.
How will the Minister ensure that efforts to improve the care of young men and women at a very vulnerable stage in their career do not impact on the Army's ability to deliver relevant and tough training—precisely the sort of training that attracts thousands of people to the armed forces and, critically, saves lives on operations afterwards?
Mr. Ingram: The hon. Gentleman has an intimate knowledge of these matters. He is right that a fine balance must be struck. We cannot run the armed forces in a politically correct way, to use the jargon. The situation is unique, because we put people in harm's way and expect them to kill on our behalf. We have to train them in very particular ways. I am not an expert in that, but I have every confidence in those who perform that role on our behalf. I repeat that many thousands of the young people who go through the training are of the highest quality. Some may not make it in life, but many have been given opportunities that they would never have thought of had they not joined the armed forces. I pay tribute to all that is done within the training regimes, to all the commanding officers, the instructors and everyone involved in the process.

Points of Order
4.25 pm
Lembit Öpik: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I notice that the Daily Mail has a report under the title "Watchdog to combat the Army bullying", which accurately predicted the content of today's statement. One of the good things about the campaign as a whole has been the trust among parents, MPs and the Department in maintaining confidentiality, so that disturbs me. May I ask, through you, that the Minister—I do not believe that he leaked or spoke to the press himself—ensures that there is no prospect of any such leak from those in the know, because wherever we stand on the specifics of the case, such leaks are detrimental to the overall spirit of trust that we have in general enjoyed among all the parties?
Mr. Speaker: I cannot institute an inquiry, but I can say that the Minister came to the House and I appreciate that.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Both the Minister and the Opposition spokesman referred to Iraq during the statement, but I sensed that you would not wish the subject to be pursued in detail on this occasion. Given the seriousness of the situation, may I gently suggest that perhaps the Department for International Development, the Foreign Office or the Ministry of Defence should make a statement to the House tomorrow on events in Iraq?
Mr. Speaker: I have no doubt that the matter will be considered.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is there anything you can do to protect the relevance of the House? You will know from a glance at the business that is about to commence that we face the absurd prospect of debating the 12 groups of new clauses and amendments that you have selected in only four and a half hours. By my calculation, that is something like 25 minutes per group, and at least two of the groups contain 25 amendments and new clauses. This is in danger of bringing of the House into disrepute, and I wonder whether it is not time to look at all this again and find some way of not getting into the position of neglecting our duty properly to examine legislation.
Mr. Speaker: The right hon. Gentleman could not be accused at any time of neglecting his duty, but his point of order is simply taking more time out of the main business, because it is not a matter for me.

Orders of the Day
  Civil Contingencies Bill
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered.
  Civil Contingencies Bill
    New Clause 11

      SCOTLAND: CROSS-BORDER COLLABORATION
      '(1) Where a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1 has a duty under section 2 or 4, the Scottish Ministers may make regulations—

      (a) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty;

      (b) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty.

      (2) The Scottish Ministers may issue guidance about a matter addressed in regulations under subsection (1).
      Where a person or body listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1 has a duty under section 2 or 4, a Minister of the Crown may make regulations—

      (a) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty;

      (b) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty.

      (4) A Minister of the Crown may issue guidance about a matter addressed in regulations under subsection (3).
      (5) If a Minister of the Crown makes an order under section 5(1) imposing a duty on a person or body listed in Part 1 of Schedule 1, the Scottish Ministers may make an order—

      (a) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the duty;

      (b) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the duty.

      (6) If the Scottish Ministers make an order under section 5(2) imposing a duty on a person or body listed in Part 2 of Schedule 1, a Minister of the Crown may make an order—

      (a) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the duty;

      (b) permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 1 or 3 of that Schedule to provide information, either on request or in other specified circumstances, to the person or body listed in Part 2 of that Schedule in connection with the duty.

      (7) A person or body shall—

      (a) comply with regulations or an order under this section, and

      (b) have regard to guidance under this section.

      (8) In this Act, except where the contrary intention appears—

      (a) a reference to regulations under section 2(3) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (3) above,

      (b) a reference to regulations under section 2(4) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (1) above,

      (c) a reference to regulations under section 4(2) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (3) above,

      (d) a reference to regulations under section 4(3) includes a reference to regulations under subsection (1) above,

      (e) a reference to an order under section 5(1) includes a reference to an order under subsection (6) above, and

      (f) a reference to an order under section 5(2) includes a reference to an order under subsection (5) above.'.—[Ms Blears.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      4.28 pm
      The Minister for Crime Reduction, Policing and Community Safety (Ms Hazel Blears): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89.
      Ms Blears: I am delighted to have the opportunity to participate in this debate. I want first to put on the record my congratulations to my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office, who cannot be with us this afternoon because he is on paternity leave as the proud father of a daughter, Eve, I think, born about 10 days ago. I am sure the House would wish to join me in that.
      I am very much looking forward to the debate this afternoon. Having briefed myself fairly rapidly over the weekend, I know that the Bill has already undergone a huge amount of scrutiny, including pre-legislative scrutiny and two forms of public consultation. There is a plethora of information before us, but I am sure that we will have more extremely good scrutiny this afternoon.
      As the House will be aware, the Government, working closely with the devolved Administrations, seek to ensure that civil protection is delivered in a coherent fashion throughout the United Kingdom. New clause 11 and Government amendments Nos. 82 to 89 seek to address the issue of cross-border co-operation and information sharing.
      Co-operation and information sharing are absolutely fundamental to effective civil protection arrangements. Emergencies are no respecters of boundaries, and it is important that collaboration take place across borders as well as within them. The amendments that I now propose follow from further discussions that the Government have had with the Scottish Executive. We have looked again at the circumstances in which co-operation and exchange of information should take place, and have concluded that a number of changes to the Bill are required.
      As a product of the devolution settlement, in this Bill, Scottish responders not exercising reserved functions come under the jurisdiction of Scottish Ministers. Local responders in England and Wales—and responders performing reserved functions in Scotland—come under the jurisdiction of UK Ministers. At present, Scottish Ministers can require Scottish responders to co-1324
      operate with other Scottish responders, and UK Ministers can require English, Welsh or UK-wide responders to cooperate with each other, but there is no power to require cross-border co-operation and information sharing.
      I am sorry that the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) is not in his place today, as he highlighted the lacuna in the legislation in Committee. It would appear to be an important gap in our legislative armoury.
      Mr. Richard Allan: I am grateful to the Minister for crediting my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) with having picked that point up in Committee on 29 January, with his typically detailed eye. Unfortunately, he had a constituency engagement today that he could not cancel, but he is devastated not to be here. I hope that the Minister will understand.
      Ms Blears: I am sorry to hear that he is devastated, but we are grateful to him for his sharp and keen eye. I understand that proceedings on the Bill have been non-partisan, and I am happy to continue in that vein and give credit where it is due.
      An example of the problem is that if the Maritime and Coastguard Agency required information held by a chief constable or a local authority in Scotland, there is currently no power for Ministers to require such disclosure. I understand that two other organisations that exercise reserved powers in Scotland—the Health and Safety Executive and the British Transport Police—could have similar problems. There is also currently no means of imposing an obligation on responders to collaborate across borders. When planning for any incident—not just a terrorist incident, but perhaps a plane crash or spread of an infectious disease—it is important that all relevant authorities be familiar with each other's plans, whether or not there is a national boundary separating them. There need to be clear powers to ensure that that happens.
      New clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 and 83 will allow Ministers to ensure that such collaboration takes place, thereby ensuring the coherence of the UK civil protection framework. Amendments Nos. 84 to 86 supplement these provisions by ensuring that the general provisions in the Bill relating to enforcement and information sharing apply to cross border situations.
      Given their respective roles in managing the civil protection framework across the UK, it is also important to ensure that communication between the UK Government and the Scottish Executive works well. Amendments Nos. 87 to 89 are technical amendments intended to clarify the requirement to consult each other where that is appropriate. The effect of those amendments is to establish a clear requirement on UK Ministers to consult Scottish Ministers when making provisions affecting responders exercising functions in Scotland. There is also a clear requirement on Scottish Ministers to consult UK Ministers when making any order under part 1 of the Bill. That will ensure that, while the UK Government and the Scottish

      1325
      Executive have responsibilities in the Bill that rightly reflect the devolution settlement, they will exercise those responsibilities in a coherent and consistent fashion.
      Mr. Oliver Heald: I associate the official Opposition with the good wishes to the Minister for the Cabinet Office and his wife and baby girl. I am sure that he will find this a busy time, although not, I hope, as noisy as it is in Parliament—although you never can tell with babies.
      In Committee we had a detailed discussion of the relationships between the parts of the United Kingdom in connection with emergencies and the way in which they should be tackled under parts 1 and 2 of the Bill. The principle of reciprocity, and of ensuring that each part of the United Kingdom was capable of responding effectively, was discussed at considerable length by all members of the Committee, including my hon. Friend the Member for Ribble Valley (Mr. Evans), who made a great deal of it, and the hon. Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), who has already been mentioned.
      Our particular concern was that in border areas there are, for example, hospitals, strategic health authorities and other authorities that provide services on both sides of the border. The Minister has mentioned one or two of the other authorities, such as maritime authorities and the Health and Safety Executive. We were keen that the Bill should make such arrangements more transparent than they originally were, and I am pleased that it has been possible, in consultation with the Scottish Parliament, to agree on more effective and better defined wording. I welcome the new clause and the amendments, but I hope that the Minister will be able to give a bit more detail about how the arrangements would work—with a hospital authority, for example.
      Mr. Allan: I, too, associate myself with the good wishes that have been offered to the Minister for the Cabinet Office. We shall miss him today, and also my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael), because in the good-humoured proceedings in Committee they traded lawyerly tales about places in Scotland of which I know nothing. It is a pleasure to be able to speak about the first group of amendments on a note of concord, rather than the discord that we often experience in the House.
      The amendments are indeed welcome. My hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland had asked me to draft some amendments to pick up the issues that he raised in Committee; I am relieved that the Government have been able to do that, so that I did not have to tackle the job myself. We identified the problem, but the solution was clearly going to be complex in drafting terms, and the amendments before us deal adequately with that complexity.
      I am pleased that the Minister cited word for word the example offered by my hon. Friend in Committee. There is a true spirit of cross-party co-operation when the Minister's speech quotes elements of Opposition Members' concerns when she responds to them. That reflects the fact that my hon. Friend precisely identified a difficulty with the original wording, and I am comforted by the Minister's assurance that her
      1326
      amendments seek to address that precise difficulty. There is no more to be said about this group of amendments. I welcome them.
      Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: The Minister said that there had been consultations with the Scottish Parliament. Were there similar consultations with the National Assembly for Wales? The Assembly says that the problem is that
      "the Bill does not take into account the constitutional and practical implications of devolution in Wales and does not provide the National Assembly with adequate powers to ensure the proper preparation and implementation of emergency plans in Wales."
      That is not a party view; it comes to the House from the appropriate Committee—the Local Government and Public Services Committee, chaired by the appropriate Minister. The Committee continues:
      "The contradiction implicit in having political accountability for matters for which legal responsibility has not been devolved has since been recognised, with the Welsh Assembly Government requesting the transfer of animal health and welfare powers to the Assembly. The Secretary of State for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs has confirmed that the UK Government does not expect to have difficulty with this proposal and the transfer of powers is now scheduled for autumn 2004."

      A specific example of the constitutional contradiction that is written into the Bill appears in clause 9, which allows Ministers of the Crown to require category 1 and 2 responders to provide information on compliance with part 1 of the Bill and to specify how and when such information should be provided.
      At present, however, the Bill does not require the UK Government even to notify the National Assembly that they are obtaining such information from agencies in Wales. Many such bodies obtain funding from the National Assembly, and work in partnership with it to deliver services in devolved areas. As a result, their performance in those areas is already monitored by the National Assembly.
      The Local Government and Public Services Committee believes that the Bill should be amended to confirm that monitoring powers under clause 9 will be given to the National Assembly for Wales or at the very least to require the UK Government to consult the National Assembly before exercising those powers. The Committee recommends that part 1 should be amended to confirm that the powers of the National Assembly regarding Wales are roughly equivalent to those given to Scottish Ministers regarding Scotland. In turn, that would remove the need for clause 15, which requires the National Assembly to be consulted or give its consent before Ministers or the Crown act under certain provisions in part 1 relating to Wales.
      Similarly, to ensure that practical issues arising from an emergency in Wales can be dealt with swiftly and efficiently, the Committee recommends that clause 19 be amended to allow the National Assembly to make emergency regulations concerning events or situations. I shall not deal with the matter at further length, because time is short, as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has pointed out. However, I wanted to put the issue on the record, as Ministers in Cardiff and the Committee have been asking for the change. If the Minister cannot give me a reply today, I

      1327
      should be grateful if she could write telling me what consideration and what meetings, if any, have taken place on those important issues.
      Mr. Eric Forth: I am glad that the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) has disrupted what was becoming a cosy, consensual, self-congratulatory session all-round. I always become suspicious when Front Bench spokesmen congratulate one another on how marvellous everything has been, how productive their discussions have been, how wonderful the Committee debates were, and generally what a jolly good job they have all done. The hon. Gentleman has, in his inimitable way, put his finger on the downside of devolution. That is not what he meant to do, but he has done so none the less.
      We have been told all too often about the wonders of devolution and how our relatively small country will do so much better if it is broken up into its constituent parts. We have extra bureaucracies, additional Governments and Assemblies and so on, and for the first time, a statute has set out how difficult such an arrangement can be.
      It is a great challenge in a genuinely integrated state to respond to the horrors of terrorism, but it is much more difficult to do so when we must deal with the multifarious bureaucracies that we have been crazy enough to set up in the United Kingdom. Proposed subsection (1)(a), for example, says that regulations may be made
      "permitting or requiring a person or body listed in Part 2 or 4 of that Schedule to co-operate, to such extent and in such manner as may be specified, with the person or body listed in Part 1 of that Schedule in connection with the performance of the duty".
      That is just for starters, and sets the tone for pages of jargon that attempt to identify the ways in which we will achieve the laudable aims that the Minister set out at the beginning of our debate—collaboration, familiarity with each other's plans and so on. However, we must remember that we are discussing a complex set of organisations that, in normal circumstances, it would be difficult to encourage to co-operate with one another, including category 1 responders—local authorities, emergency services, health services and so on—and category 2 responders, including electricity, gas, and water and communications suppliers, railway and underground companies, airports, harbours and highways.
      All these will be expected to share each other's plans and, no doubt, each other's aspirations, to collaborate and co-operate in what will inevitably be the most difficult imaginable circumstances—and that against a background of the fact that we have deliberately and gratuitously created, some would argue, artificial and unnecessary borders and lines of demarcation within this small country under the rubric of devolution.
      4.45 pm
      Here for the first time we have a very real problem created by devolution and, incidentally, some hidden costs, I suspect. In all the wallowing in mutual and self-congratulation that we heard a moment ago, I did not
      1328
      hear anybody mention costs. Does anybody imagine that the process will be cost free? Has the Minister given an estimate, or has she even been asked what the costs will be? Maybe one of those who spent such a delightful time in Committee teased that information out. I hope they did; it certainly was their duty to do so. If members of the Committee did not do any teasing, this is the time for us to do some teasing on Report.
      We are entitled to know, albeit in general terms, the likely cost of all the collaboration and co-operation, given what we expect to emerge from the complex working not only of the schedule, but of the new clause and all that goes with it. Surely if the provisions are to be made to work properly, not only are the Scottish Executive and the relevant and parallel English ministries involved, but all the category 1 and category 2 responders, all of which are being asked to do something additional, over and above what they would have done before, if, as we are led to believe, the work of the Committee was so valuable in identifying the additional work that had to be done to make the collaboration and co-operation that much more effective.
      Mr. Richard Shepherd: There is a way of short-circuiting that. The Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998 are not entrenched legislation—we do not have such a thing. All the consultations could be bypassed by making the Act a United Kingdom Act and giving the authority to the central authorities in Whitehall.
      Mr. Forth>: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. That is an intriguing thought. We could undevolve, if I might express it in that rather inelegant way, those functions that we considered essential to deal properly with the sort of contingencies that we fear might arise under the Bill. That at least would be a consideration. Just as an aside, my own favoured approach would be that from time to time we should offer people further referendums to ask them whether they still want what some of them, at least, voted for those years ago in terms of devolution. I am very keen that the people of London, for example, be offered a further referendum—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. That may well be of interest to the right hon. Gentleman, but we ought to be debating in a little more detail new clause 11—
      Mr. Forth: More detail? Certainly, Madam Deputy Speaker. Delighted for your—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: —rather than referendums.
      Mr. Forth: I thought that might tease the House a little, Madam Deputy Speaker, but your instructions are for me to go into more detail. How can I possibly ignore that? Let us get on with the detail, shall we? Having just run round the course fairly briefly, we can now really get down to what it is all about.
      Under "Category 1 Responders: General"—this is the detail of the schedule that is referred to in the new clause—the local authorities enumerated in relation to England are county councils, district councils, borough councils—at least, the schedule states "a London borough council". I wonder whether the other unitary

      1329
      authorities have been missed out. The schedule does not mention them. We have county councils, district councils and a London borough council, the common council of the City of London and the council of the Isles of Scilly. We then come, in relation to Wales, to county councils and a county borough council. Presumably that subsumes the others as well.
      Already it is clear that there is a complex of local authorities at various levels that are tasked as category 1 responders to participate in the process that the new clause envisages. We now have the potential to begin to see—this is the point I was making before I got side-tracked into referendums, which I will leave for another day—what the real cost could be.
      With regard to costs, I always stand to be corrected by those who spent so much time in Committee doing such useful work in collaboration with one another, as we have been told. Perhaps they know or have some idea of the additional costs of the tasks identified by the new clause.
      Mr. Llwyd: The right hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that the key to whether the Bill will work is extra resources. Questions were asked many times about that issue. During pre-legislative scrutiny, approximately 200 responders made the same point, and answer there was none.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman. I have always had my suspicions of pre-legislative scrutiny. I know that we are all supposed to say that it is a wonderful thing and that we should have lots more of it, but one sometimes wonders about it. Sometimes it identifies more questions than answers, and this is a very good case in point. It should be possible to pursue those questions during the parliamentary process, but given the time restrictions, there may not be the opportunity to do so. None the less, we have plenty of time to consider the amendments before us. That is why this is a very appropriate point for us to rehearse yet again the question of costs.
      Mr. Shepherd: On inquiry as to whether Walsall metropolitan borough council had made an assessment of the cost implications, my emergency planning officer said:
      "The full impact of the Act will not be fully assessed until the regulations come out—the detail. The regulations will give a clear idea of the impact on local authorities."
      I do not think that the Government are in a position to give any indication of the cost.
      Mr. Forth: Oh dear; it is worse than I thought. We are being asked yet again to sign a blank cheque.
      Mr. Heald rose—
      Mr. Forth: It appears that my hon. Friend is about to give us the details of that cheque.
      Mr. Heald: My right hon. Friend is making an important point about money. The Government say that they are not increasing the funding and that the civil grant, which deals with civil contingencies, will remain
      1330
      at the same level this year as last. It is hard to reconcile that position, however, with the extra duties that are being imposed on councils in the new clause.
      Mr. Forth: Should we be allowing the Bill to proceed if we are completely ignorant of the likely costs? Would we not be failing in our duty as the custodians of the taxpayer's interests if we were to pass the Bill, admirable though its intent may be, without any idea of what it will cost either at local authority level, as my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd) pointed out, or at a broader level, as my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) implies? Furthermore, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) indicated, we do not have any idea about the National Assembly for Wales or his local authorities.
      Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: I believe that councils throughout the country are holding staged events to put the procedures to the test, so the costs will probably become a lot more apparent over coming months. My right hon. Friend may therefore have a very good point in saying that we are looking at the issues too early, as the costings will not be available until the councils have carried out those procedures.
      Mr. Forth: In that case, this is a bit like horses and carts. We are apparently producing some very complex legislation. Let us be in no doubt that the new clause is extremely complicated and ambitious in what it seeks to do. The Minister outlined what it seeks to achieve in terms of collaboration, mutual exchange of information, co-operation across borders and the like. All those intentions are admirable—let us hope that the arrangements will work effectively—but there must be a cost. Training must be required and channels of communication must be opened up. No doubt, that will be complicated—I mention this only in passing—by the different legal systems in England and Scotland, which may well be relevant.
      Mr. Heald: But is not the dilemma that my right hon. Friend faces, and we all face, that it is vital that we have a proper structure for civil contingencies? The structure in part 1 cannot work without new clause 11, and given the urgency of the situation and the need for the action, surely it has to go ahead?
      Mr. Forth: That may or may not be the case. I must confess that the proposition that something "has to go ahead" always worries me, because I like to know a little more about the facilitation or underpinning involved in doing so.
      Mr. Allan: I have every sympathy with the right hon. Gentleman's general point about the overall cost of the legislation, about which we, too, have expressed concern, but I suggest to him that the new clause will be a cost-saving measure. Under the Bill as originally drafted, the problem was that no Scottish local authority could be empowered to give information to a body such as the Maritime and Coastguard Agency, which would have had to go and get it for itself.

      1331
      Although we have concerns about the general scope of the Bill, I think that the new clause will be a net cost saver.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point, as far as it goes. "Empowerment" is a wonderful word—a very Liberal Democrat word—that sounds good when one says it, but that is not what new clause 11 is about. It is about "permitting"—a good old-fashioned word that is far better than "empowerment"—or "requiring". I am focusing on the "requiring" part because that usually means additional effort, which usually means additional cost. Empowerment or permitting could be cost-free, I suppose—although even then, it is conceivable that additional costs might be involved in empowering a body that desperately wants to share information with another, but is otherwise unable to do so.
      Let us consider the matter from a different angle. The other day, we heard that the new Home Office headquarters that is rising magnificently before our eyes in Marsham street is no longer big enough because the number of Home Office bureaucrats has increased so much over the past few years that that brand-new, state-of-the-art building, which is not yet completed, cannot house them all.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Perhaps the right hon. Gentleman will address his remarks to the new clause under discussion.
      Mr. Forth: I was about to suggest, Madam Deputy Speaker, that perhaps the Home Office could second some of its bureaucrats to the authorities that will be required under new clause 11 to produce collaboration, co-operation and communication. Having probed a little on the surface the problems that could arise from the new clause, I am trying, in my usual way, to be helpful. Instead of putting the cost burden on to these hapless category 1 and category 2 responders, why does not the Home Office release, on secondment or permanently, some of its burgeoning numbers of bureaucrats to assist in the process that new clause 11 requires of those responders? That is an idea to conjure with. Without going into what on earth they are all doing and why they will not fit into the new building—that is a matter for another occasion, Madam Deputy Speaker—it gives one pause for thought.
      All in all, I find this rather unsatisfactory. Fine words and fine aspirations give us all pleasure, but surely we are here to satisfy ourselves, on behalf of the taxpayer, that what is being done is proper and appropriate, of reasonable cost, and justified in terms of burdens on the taxpayer. I should have thought that all those things normally go together. Frankly, I am rather shocked to find that the Bill has reached this advanced stage without our being given any idea whatsoever of what its true cost will be. As the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy helpfully pointed out, even the much vaunted pre-legislative scrutiny process did not elicit that information. Throughout the pre-legislative process and the legislative process—in Standing Committee and, now, on Report—we have been unable to extract from the Government any idea of the likely additional cost to the taxpayer.
      1332
      It may not only be the taxpayer but the consumer, because the category 2 responders include utilities, transport and so on. One would imagine that, unless the Government were going to give them some sort of grant—I very much doubt that—the burden was likely to fall on the consumer, who is one and the same as the taxpayer. The costs may therefore come under a different, more stealthy heading.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman once again strays rather wide of the new clause. Discussion of the Bill's overall provisions, including cost, may be raised on Third Reading.
      Mr. Forth: I am always delighted to follow your guidance, Madame Deputy Speaker. I like to keep some ammunition for later—I do not like to use it all at once. Given that many groups of amendments remain to be considered and that we have some four hours in which to do that, I will follow your guidance. I hope that the Minister can help us with some of the questions that I have asked. I am sure that we all look forward to probing much more deeply into these matters as our proceedings continue.
      5 pm
      Ms Blears: I was about to say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that there was a danger of a little too much consensus, so I am delighted that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) has brought us down to earth with a bump.
      The hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) asked about the way in which, for example, hospital authorities might collaborate across borders. I am sure that he knows that well established mutual aid arrangements already exist everywhere in the United Kingdom. In the health service, there is often a great deal of cross-referral from primary to secondary and tertiary care. That is as true in the border areas as in the rest of the country. There are well established schemes between local responders. The new clause helps to clarify the position even better than the custom and practice that already existed. I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured.
      The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) raised issues about Wales. Obviously, discussions have taken place with both devolved authorities to get the Bill right. It is important that the relationships between England and Scotland and England and Wales and, indeed, throughout the United Kingdom, are appropriate and that people play their appropriate role. As I said, a fundamental part of the Bill is about coherence, consistency, collaboration and information sharing. There is a proposal to draw up a concordat with the National Assembly for Wales and with the Scottish Executive to set out the way in which that might work in practice. The hon. Gentleman's point about information sharing could properly be considered in that concordat. A proposal to amend the Bill at this stage is probably disproportionate. The issue that he properly raised can be tackled in regulations, guidance and the concordat between the relevant parties.
      The hon. Gentleman obviously knows that to have that communication between Her Majesty's Government and the National Assembly, whereby

      1333
      regulations are made that apply to bodies within the Assembly's jurisdiction, a Minister of the Crown has to seek the Assembly's consent. In other cases, in which a UK Minister legislates for Wales, consultation must take place between the two bodies. Clearly, there is a framework for dialogue and exchange of views. I hope that the hon. Gentleman is reassured that, provided those channels of communication are kept open and we have a proper concordat to which reference can be made openly and transparently, people will be assured that the Welsh position is properly protected.
      I take it that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst does not seek at this point to reopen the devolution settlement. Clearly, it is important that we get the right balance between the decisions that Her Majesty's Government make and those that are the proper province of the devolved Administrations. We have tried to achieve that in new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89. We want to ensure that, where we have devolution—we clearly have devolution, which was the will of the people—Scottish Ministers can take the necessary actions, Ministers in England and Wales can take the necessary actions and there is a proper meeting of minds and consent. It is not beyond our wit to work together. We must do that in different regions, even of this country. In many cases, there is a need for cross-regional collaboration and information sharing. We must also ensure that the plans mesh well together. It is right to do the same thing in Scotland and Wales.
      The right hon. Gentleman mentioned the costs of collaboration. Often, the most cost-effective thing to do is to work together to share information. Insufficient collaboration or consistency can be extremely costly in financial and human terms. Indeed, I am sure that we would all express concern if different people were doing a series of different things that did not join up. This is about working smarter, and using our imagination to ensure that we get this absolutely right.
      Significant extra funds have been put into the civil defence grant in recent years, and before coming to this debate I asked for a couple of figures that might prove illuminating. In the past seven years, the grant has risen by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Conservative Administration it fell by 42 per cent. I am not keen to make partisan points, but it is important for the House to have that information.
      Mr. Heald: Does the hon. Lady accept that people are concerned that the grant has not increased since 2002, and that it is not set to increase because the Government's plan is to keep it at its present level? People are worried about how councils will do their work—with all the extra burdens, including the seven new duties imposed on them by the Bill—if they do not have the money.
      Ms Blears: I note that the hon. Gentleman is concentrating on this last year, as opposed to the previous years that I mentioned. He will know, however, that local authorities have always supplemented the civil defence grant because they see it as part of their responsibility to lead their communities and to take care of them. This has never been simply a ring-fenced grant to which local authorities make no contribution. Furthermore, the Bill deals with an organisational
      1334
      framework, rather than with the specific duties placed on authorities. Several Conservative Members suggested that we needed to work through the guidance and regulations. We are talking about events that are difficult to predict, so we need to work through what some of the costs might be.
      Mr. Llwyd: I mentioned earlier that about 200 responders had mentioned this issue. The Minister might say of local government, "Well, they would say that, wouldn't they?" However, when faced with a decision to cut either their social services budget head or the civil defence one, many local authorities cut the civil defence budget. It has been the Cinderella service in local government. If we are going to get local authorities up to speed and to change the culture by putting in place a proper civil defence structure, the resources will have to follow.
      Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman makes the important point that this is an area of increasing salience, particularly in the light of the threats that we face in this very changed world environment. However, local government in general has had significant real-terms increases in its settlement, certainly over the past few years. He postulates an argument about decisions to make cuts in social services, education or civil defence, but local authorities have, for the first time in a long time, received significant increases in the grant available to them. They ought, therefore, to be able to take on these responsibilities. He will know from his own area that local government services are improving across the piece, whether in education, social services or housing. It is important that local authorities continue to be able to fund those services.
      I know that local government has concerns about these issues, and the hon. Gentleman mentioned the 200 respondents who raised them with him. It is absolutely right that we should continue to talk to the Local Government Association and, when we see what the increased burdens might be, that we seek to address them. That will be a fundamental part of the spending review 2004 process.
      Dr. Vincent Cable: Is it the Government's position that these new statutory obligations on local authorities will result in cost neutrality? Or will they result in increased costs, which the Government will have to look at new ways of funding?
      Ms Blears: Yes, we accept that extra pressures might well occur if we ask local authorities and other responders to work differently, to collaborate and plan together and to raise their games on civil contingencies, and we are in discussions with the Local Government Association to establish what those additional pressures might be. It would take a robust business case for the Government to acknowledge such additional pressures, which the spending review process would address. As I said to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd), it is not a matter of making cuts in one department or another, because the issue must be considered in the context of the significant real-terms increases for local government as a whole.
      Patrick Mercer: I have listened to the Minister's remarks about local authorities' preparations to deal with the Bill's strictures with interest. A number of emergency planning officers to whom I have spoken tell me that the civil defence grant will barely cover the exercises, to which we shall undoubtedly return, for this financial year. Unless they are allowed to conduct the exercises, they cannot implement suitable measures when an emergency occurs. They are even more concerned that next year's civil defence grant is being frozen at this year's level, which is, in other words, a real-terms cut. I hope that the Minister will reassure me that she has heard similar views and that she is addressing them in a practical way, rather than a theoretical way.
      Ms Blears: I have already indicated that discussions are ongoing between representatives of those organisations, and I am sure that the excellent exercises that are taking place with local government and a range of responders will continue. Local government is keen to make sure that communities are properly protected and that preparations are made, and I therefore have no doubt that those discussions will continue. We will seek to address those pressures where the business case is robust and where the increase is identifiable.
      I am sure that the figures for 2002–03 were repeatedly quoted to the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in Committee: an extra £330 million provided for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Home Office and the Cabinet Office to examine civil contingencies; an extra £56 million provided for the new dimension project in the fire service; an extra £85 million provided for the Department of Health to consider chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear issues; and an extra £84 million provided for the police. I am not saying that those figures are the be all and end all of financial pressures, but it is hard to make the case that the Government have been slow to provide extra resources, given that in the past seven years of this Administration funding for civil contingencies has increased by 31 per cent., compared with the 42 per cent. decrease in the last seven years of previous Administration.
      Mr. Djanogly: The Minister discusses increased funding, but she does not mention local authorities—in her earlier comments, she mentioned the Government's generosity to local authorities. It is important to make the point that funding for local authorities to cover civil contingencies has increased from £14.4 million to £19 million. Starting from a low base, funding has gone from peanuts to that paltry figure, and it must be increased yet again.
      Ms Blears: I hope that this debate does not turn into an auction, because I shall be forced to refer to the shadow Chancellor's plans to cut public expenditure, and I do not want to enter that territory today. Whether the shadow Chancellor plans to cut £18 billion or £180 billion—
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. I have allowed some latitude in the debate, but we should return to new clause 11.
      Ms Blears: I am delighted to do so, Madam Deputy Speaker.
      I addressed the issues relating to funding raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth).
      Mr. Shepherd: On the cost to local authorities, Mr. Boyd, the emergency planning officer in Walsall, attends briefing sessions for the emergency services on CBRN issues and terrorist attack, and is concerned that the emergency services have received more than £100 million to spend on decontamination equipment and training for its officers, but the local authority has received nothing. The emergency services expect local authority staff to attend the scene of such an incident.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. New clause 11 concerns cross-border collaboration with Scotland, and I ask hon. Members to refer to it in their deliberations.
      5.15 pm
      Ms Blears: I do not have anything to add, except to commend new clause 11 and amendments Nos. 82 to 89 to the House.
      Question put and agreed to.
      Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

    New Clause 1

      EMERGENCY VOLUNTEER RESERVE
      '(1) There shall be an Emergency Volunteer Reserve.
      (2) The Secretary of State may by order made by statutory instrument make provision in respect of the Emergency Volunteer Reserve.'.—[Patrick Mercer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Patrick Mercer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 11, in page 3, line 8 [Clause 2], at end insert—
      '(h) consult with humanitarian or voluntary organisations through the development of plans maintained under paragraphs (c) and (d) to such extent and in such manner as a person or body listed in Part 1 or Part 2 of Schedule 1 shall think fit.'.
      No. 12, in line 36, after 'consult', insert
      'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or'.
      No. 13, in line 41, after 'collaboration', insert
      'with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations or any other specified person or body or class of person or body'.
      No. 14, in line 44, after 'delegation', insert
      'to any specified person or body or class of person or body including any humanitarian or voluntary organizations.
      No. 15, in line 46, at end add
      'or with any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.
      No. 16, in page 4, line 5, after 'Schedule', insert
      'or to any humanitarian or voluntary organisations'.
      No. 17, in line 7, after 'body', insert
      '(including any humanitarian or voluntary organisations)'.
      No. 76, in page 5, line 5 [Clause 4], leave out 'business' and insert 'organisation'.

      1337
      No. 77, in line 8, after 'commercial', insert 'voluntary and community'.
      No. 18, in line 8, after 'activities', insert 'or community activities'.
      No. 19, in line 20, at end add
      'save that a charge may not be made to any organisation carrying out community activities'.

      No. 20, in page 11, line 23 [Clause 17], at end add—
      '"community activities" means activities in fulfilment of any charitable, benevolent, or philanthropic purpose,
      "humanitarian or voluntary organisations" means any voluntary organisation, charity or other body which contributes to civil protection arrangements on an international, national, or local basis which is identified as such by any person or body listed in Part 1 or 2 of Schedule 1.'.

      Patrick Mercer: I am sorry that the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster is not here, although I am sure he is absent for an extremely happy reason. The new clause and amendments Nos. 76 and 77, which stand in my name and that of my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald), go to the heart of the Bill.
      It is fair to say that the Government were a trifle surprised in Committee by some approaches taken by Conservative Front Benchers not to the powers and theory of the Bill, but to the practicalities of delivering it. The new clause and the amendments address the muscle and the manpower that will be required physically to put those powers into practice in horrible events such as those for which we are preparing. I hope, therefore, to range not too far and wide, but essentially over the matter of a volunteer reserve and the involvement of the multifarious voluntary organisations, which I have no doubt we will depend on heavily in the event of a disaster.
      The Government have rightly identified the problem—it could be anything from a natural disaster to something horrendous such as a dirty bomb inspired by terrorists that kills perhaps thousands of people. They have also rightly identified the fact that powers need to be put in place to deal with that. We have a Bill before us, and Conservative Members are happy to support many parts of it. We have tried to take a non-partisan and largely supportive approach, but there seems to be a lacuna between the problem and the powers. I have already identified the problem; it is one of delivery.
      I do not believe that the Government have thought about the practicalities of the problem in any detail. There is no doubt that local authorities will be empowered to deal with the problem in theory; there is no doubt that category 1 and category 2 responders will be identified and told what powers they have to deal with events on the ground. However, who, physically, will do that?
      A cursory glance at the emergency services in any of our constituencies would show the Government how parlous the preparations are. Let us take the example of my constituency of Newark, which, I trust, is unlikely to be attacked by terrorists. It was clear six weeks ago when I spoke to Newark fire service that not a single member of it had received any training whatever to deal with chemical, biological, radiological or nuclear
      1338
      emergencies. It is clear that the pumps we have available in Newark could respond for only a few hours in the event of an intensive incident.
      Ten pumps must accompany one of the immediate response vehicles that the Government have put in place to whichever part of the country is the scene of an emergency. There is no doubt that we would quickly run short of the manpower required to take either the fire, police or ambulance service through a sustained emergency. There is no doubt that, very quickly, it would be impossible to replace policemen—they would be exhausted, particularly if they were wearing protective clothing and trying to operate despite all the difficulties of a CBRN attack.
      I do not know whether the Minister has ever operated under such conditions, but I can assure her that wearing one of those suits is extremely difficult and that trained and well prepared staff, no matter how many of them the Government believe they have prepared, will quickly become degraded and impossible to replace.
      What have the Government done about providing an additional work force? We are told glibly that the 60,000 or 70,000 regular Army, Navy and Air Force personnel in this country at any one time, depending on emergencies, would be called on to help, particularly in the event of a chemical, biological, radiological and nuclear attack. The fact remains that there are no standing plans to use our regular forces, despite the fact that every man Jack and woman Jill has received this sort of training.
      Mr. Forth: As my hon. Friend develops that theme, does he not agree that the physical disposition of those highly trained personnel is inadequate to cover the entire country? Given that such events, by their very nature, could occur anywhere, even were we lucky enough to have a centre of trained military excellence, most of the country, sadly, would not be within easy reach of those excellent people should the worst happen.
      Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my right hon. Friend for that helpful intervention. As usual, he is absolutely right. In fairness, that is probably why the MOD has not tried to tie down its regular forces in great detail. Due to the overstretch of our regular forces, the fact remains that an indeterminate number will be available in this country should an incident occur.
      What have the Government done to increase the availability of manpower? Curiously, just before the Committee stage of this Bill was completed, the civil contingencies reaction force, more than two years after the events of 11 September, was finally declared operationally ready. A cursory glance at the CCRF, however, shows that it was far from ready. Interestingly, I note that we spoke on 28 January about this very event, on exactly the same day that Private Kitulagoda of the Rifle Volunteers was killed in action. He was indeed a member of the civil contingencies reaction force. He came from Devon, and his duties were to respond to an incident in the area of Plymouth or Exeter, and yet he was killed in Kabul by a British-born suicide bomber. If the Government have raised that very modest number of territorials and reservists specifically for those duties, why on earth are they posting those soldiers, sailors and airmen overseas? Why are they concentrated on Basra

      1339
      and Baghdad rather than Bermondsey or other areas where they may be necessary? The answer is simply that the Government have made no coherent plan to provide additional manpower in the event of this sort of incident.
      That is why we propose the raising of an emergency volunteer reserve—[Interruption.] In response to the sedentary intervention from the Government Front Bench, the intention is not to raise a Home Guard, but to contribute to the British Red Cross or other organisations that already exist. The plan that I suggest is simple: those who have a desire to volunteer and who have skills to contribute to the country should be allowed to do so. A category A responder might be an off-duty surgeon, who would take the training necessary to bring him or her up to scratch, and put himself or herself on a register of willingness or availability, and in the event of an incident occurring, that surgeon might come forward either to reinforce medical staff, or to take the place of those who are exhausted. At the other end of the spectrum, a category F responder might be someone without a specific skill, and without much time to spare, but who would be available, on being contacted by text message, to help the police or other emergency services in the event of an emergency.
      I do not understand why the Government did not think the scheme through more carefully. It would be cheap and relatively easy to impose. Training would be practical. Above all, it would mop up the huge reserve of volunteers who I have no doubt would be ready and willing to come forward in these circumstances.
      Mr. Allan: When we discussed this in Committee, there was some concern about the overlap between the hon. Gentleman's proposal and the existing voluntary sector organisations. Now his thoughts seem to have evolved. Can he confirm that he is talking about co-ordinating bodies such as the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance rather than about some substitute for them?
      Patrick Mercer: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention. I am interested to note from the mayoral election plans that the Liberal Democrats have taken not just the idea but the term "emergency volunteer reserve" and decided to bend it to their own purposes—shocking behaviour!
      Let me answer that perspicacious intervention by reading something about what happened in Madrid.
      "Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond… 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support and handled enquiries from the public. 52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services. Volunteers supported many bereaved families… 61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service."
      Here is the rub:
      "The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support."

      1340
      The Joint Committee on the draft Bill recommended that
      "a statutory duty be placed upon Category 1 Responders to consult with and involve relevant voluntary organisations in civil contingency planning."
      It also recommended that
      "Category 1 Responders be given flexibility to identify and consult with the most relevant voluntary organisations in their area."
      Yet those points were not included in the Bill.
      We propose that we should raise—in addition to the voluntary organisations that already exist—an emergency volunteer reserve that would overlap and interlock with the existing voluntary organisations, and that the voluntary organisations should be brought much more closely into line with the standing blue-light services. That would bring about much more integration of training, approach and operational procedure.
      I have no doubt that Labour and Liberal Democrat Members will want to deal with amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and 18 to 20. I want to say a little more about amendments Nos. 76 and 77, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire and me. We feel that we should recognise all the good work of organisations such as the British Red Cross, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance.
      We should recognise the potential of these organisations, and the fact that if we were to use them in a much more sensible, coherent and thoughtful way, although the Government would not get a service for nothing, they would get a wholly trained, thoughtful and thoroughly well-motivated organisation for an absolute pittance. If that were integrated with the emergency volunteer reserve that I outlined, the Government would not be in their current difficult position.
      5.30 pm
      Helen Jackson: Amendments Nos. 11 to 17 and the associated ones relate to volunteers and to the realm of the voluntary sector. When considering them, we should remember that the Bill is entitled the Civil Contingencies Bill. As we all know, a disaster—an emergency—affects the whole of society and the surrounding civil society, so the response to, and planning for, emergencies and disasters must involve the whole of civil society as well.
      The amendments, which, as the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said, have been backed by the British Red Cross, St. John Ambulance, the Women's Royal Voluntary Service and the Salvation Army, basically reflect the view that the voluntary sector's contribution to caring for the victims of emergencies and disasters in particular should be properly recognised and made explicit in the Bill. They have been introduced on Report on the basis that the "explicit" involvement of the voluntary sector in what the Government are seeking to do in responding to an emergency is not nearly explicit enough. As the Government will doubtless recognise, the Joint Committee, which is acting as consultee on the draft Bill, recommended that representatives from the voluntary sector be included as consultees at both the planning and response stages.

      1341
      I should point out to the Minister that the Government's record in the voluntary sector is excellent. The Chancellor, the Prime Minister and leading members of the Government frequently refer in their speeches to the partnership that the Government are trying to build with the voluntary sector. Therefore, the voluntary sector's response, which shows that it is puzzled and disappointed that the Government have not involved it in a more explicit way, also reflects my feeling.
      I hark back to 15 April 1989 and this country's greatest sporting disaster, which occurred in Hillsborough stadium. At that time, I was not the Member of Parliament for the area, but I was a member of the city council and I represented the area and the people who lived in it. I am aware that that ghastly disaster was felt for many years—indeed, it is still remembered yearly on 15 April—not just by the statutory services but by the whole community, who were involved in responding it. The entire community helped the voluntary services—the Red Cross and St. John Ambulance—by doing what they could.
      None of the residents of the Hillsborough area of Sheffield will ever forget that day of sirens going on and on and on, for hour upon hour upon hour, as the vehicles ferried people to hospital. They will never forget the continuing radio appeals for volunteers with skills of any nature to help. They will never forget, because it was, I suspect, one of the first disasters to be covered minute by minute on live television. It was a Saturday afternoon in April, when many people were at home watching sport on TV. They did not expect to see the disaster that unfolded.
      Not only organisations and a volunteer force came to help; the local clergy, the league of friends from the hospital, individual doctors and cleaning staff who worked in the football stadium did so too. Those in public housing and other individuals in the area offered accommodation. The answer is not to blame people, but to recognise that all volunteers and voluntary organisations are involved immediately when an emergency arises. It is only right that they should be brought in at the pre-planning stage and for the delivery on the ground, because they are the people who will make a difference in the event of a disaster.
      Given the Government's record on the voluntary sector, they should recognise its skills, experience and potential in this context. Government recognition of the sector's potential will improve the chances of voluntary sector organisations being able to deliver the training that is necessary to keep up to date, and being organisations on which we can rely in every city.
      Mr. Heald: I agree with what the hon. Lady is saying. Does she agree that the threats that we face and the events that we may have to face are changing quite quickly, so proper consultation and perhaps an overarching body of the sort that we suggest is a good idea? It will mean that everyone can keep up to speed.
      Helen Jackson: I am grateful for that intervention. I agree that the threats are changing, but let us bear in mind the characteristic that a civil emergency is probably not expected. No one could have predicted that an aeroplane would explode and kill 200–plus
      1342
      people in Lockerbie, for example. These things cannot be totally planned for. There is no textbook emergency. That is one of the problems, whether it is a fire at King's Cross, a football disaster at Hillsborough, the Lockerbie disaster, or the terrorist incident in Madrid. Therefore, there can be no definitive Government planning blueprint saying that we have got it all sorted out and we will know exactly what to do. It will not happen like that, although there are always common factors: injury, stress, trauma and shock, and the need for comfort, reassurance and to deal with people who feel bewildered.
      The other common factor that the amendments deal with is that, almost universally in our country, there is a huge and immediate willingness to help among everyone who knows about the situation.
      That must be recognised and should form part of how we deal with this opportunity to update legislation from the 1920s. Perhaps we can now learn from experience gained between 1920 and the present: we should be proud of and treasure the immediate response of volunteers and voluntary organisations coming together.
      One recent event affected us all in the House: the reaction of the people of Spain to the ghastly events in Madrid. I recall how moved I was—I believe every hon. Member felt the same—to see them coming together on the streets to make it clear that they were the people of Spain and that they condemned the tragic events.
      I feel strongly that the involvement of the voluntary sector in dealing with disasters should be properly recognised by the Government, both in pre-planning and in operational guidance attached to the Bill. The Government should take this opportunity to strengthen their partnership with the voluntary sector by amending the Bill along the lines suggested in this group of amendments.
      Mr. Allan: I was pleased to offer my support and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) to the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson). We examined the issue in Committee, but it remained, to a degree, unresolved.
      Unlike the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I am in favour of pre-legislative scrutiny, though I recognise that it does not cure all known ills. The consultation process brought to light different views from the voluntary sector. I understand why that created a difficulty and why, given the broad range of voluntary sector organisations, it would not be appropriate to place all of them in the category of those required to respond on a statutory basis.
      I agree, however, with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that some reference should be made in the framework of primary legislation to voluntary organisations. She has produced some good amendments in an attempt to achieve that. Rather than making all voluntary organisations statutory responders, she would amend clause 2(5) so that the regulations imposed on the statutory bodies—the local authorities—included a requirement that local "humanitarian or voluntary organisations" be involved. That is a wholly appropriate way of tackling the problem, which overcomes the Government's

      1343
      objections to making all voluntary sector organisations potentially subject to statutory duty. The statutory duty to consult would be placed on the local authority, and could be exercised in a common-sense manner. The hon. Lady has found an appropriate way of framing the provision. When the Minister responds, she might say that the regulations could, in any case, require local authorities to consult local voluntary and humanitarian organisations. That may well be the Government's intention, but it would be that much stronger if it were built into the Bill.
      I understand the concerns of organisations such as the Red Cross, St. John Ambulance and the Salvation Army, which provide core services. The voluntary sector now provides essential services in many areas. Bodies such as the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children provides core child protection services in my city of Sheffield. If such organisations are in negotiation with local authorities for planning purposes, they will want to have some statutory authority and strength. It would therefore be appropriate to amend the Bill, as the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough suggests.
      We debated clause 4 in Committee; I am not at all persuaded that it will deliver anything positive in the context of the Bill. It deals with the provision of advice and assistance to business, and the amendments are designed to extend that to include "humanitarian or voluntary organisations". If the provisions in clause 4 are to be in the Bill, the amendments are appropriate, given that many of those organisations will be providing mainstream services. If the local authority is to provide continuity, planning and advice to anyone, it should provide that to the bodies that are likely to be assisting during a period of crisis or emergency.
      My major concern about the business side of clause 4 is that it is hard to see how, if it were on a cost-recovery basis, anyone would be likely to sign up to it.
      I find it difficult to envisage how it will work from a business point of view. The amendments suggest that humanitarian organisations should not be charged for the advice.
      I hope that the Minister can offer us more than we have had heretofore about the requirements that central Government will place on local authorities to engage with voluntary sector and humanitarian organisations. The Bill could be strengthened in that area.
      5.45 pm
      Mr. Julian Brazier: I strongly support my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) on these excellent amendments, which address a very important and, indeed, rather grave subject. I also support what the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) said in such an articulate fashion.
      New clause 1 concerns the central issue of setting up a new civilian reserve, while most of the associated amendments concern making better use of our splendid voluntary organisations, such as the British Red Cross, the WRVS and others that have written to us to say that they feel rather left out of the planning process in the Bill. We are blessed with a very strong voluntary sector.
      1344
      As well as the organisations that I have mentioned, let us not forget St. John Ambulance and neighbourhood watch schemes. I was the co-ordinator of one of the first such schemes, and we successfully reduced crime. What a good point of contact they are for disseminating these plans.
      As my hon. Friend said so effectively, we simply do not have enough manpower so we have to rely on the wider community. That reliance must be based on structures that are in place and properly rehearsed before the event, and not on ad hockery.
      We saw with the unhappy incident in the Chamber last Wednesday that we as MPs had not been briefed on or rehearsed the steps that we should take. Had it been a biological attack, we should all have stayed in the Chamber until we had been decontaminated. Had it been a chemical attack, we should all have got out very quickly. Who distinguishes, and how the message is relayed quickly, are matters that present serious problems for the House authorities. Those problems need to tackled in advance. There may have been a great deal of planning behind the scenes, but at the level where it matters—the point on the ground where the incident occurred—the message had not got home, and, above all, the steps had not been rehearsed.
      It is difficult to exaggerate the thinness of the official structures that we have in place for civil contingencies. My hon. Friend gave the touching example of the Territorial soldier, nominally a member of the civil contingency reaction force, who was killed on duty in Afghanistan—illustrating how overstretched that structure is. It is not only overstretched but completely inadequately structured. I have twice challenged Defence Ministers—I challenge the Minister again today—to explain how the 14 organisations can organise anything, when they are based on the headquarters of the 14 TA infantry battalions, which were stripped to an absolute skeleton in the most recent defence review. Although intelligence officers have finally been put back into them, there is still no intelligence cell to handle incoming information, the signals set-up is tiny and the whole structure is too woefully small to command anything. Those concerns were raised by TA officers who are very anxious to do this job and do it well.
      Mr. Heald: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is thought that, of the civil contingency reaction force of 6,000, about half—or certainly between a third and a half—are overseas?
      Mr. Brazier: I cannot entirely endorse my hon. Friend's figures, but a significant number are overseas and the organisation is anyway well below strength. I support the concept, but the organisation is far too small and under-resourced. The essence of having a surge capability to deal with an emergency is the ability to expand provision. If most of the people who form part of that surge capability are being used abroad, there is little surge capability available. The proposal for a new civilian force as a supplement would go a long way towards bridging the gap.
      The ideas behind the other amendments in the group for a much closer relationship with all the vital voluntary organisations are also essential. The role

      1345
      played by the Red Cross in Madrid has been mentioned, but the point is that exercises are needed. I know of one small voluntary organisation that already does some of the work necessary. I have not spoken about it in the House before, as far as I remember, although my wife is a serving member. It is the First Aid Nursing Yeomanry, whose colonel-in-chief is the Princess Royal.
      The organisation is only 100-strong, so its ability to make a difference is limited, although it punches well above its weight. It had a gallant record in both world wars and members were covered in decorations, but its role for more than a generation has been to support the City of London police force. For three days after the Moorgate tube disaster, it manned all the communications for the hospitals treating the injured. It was called out during the great storm of 1987 and, for the subsequent IRA bombing in the City, it again manned the communications so that relatives could find out where their loved ones had been taken. It is a small organisation that does an excellent job, and it is worth mentioning in this debate.
      The truth is that we need all the voluntary organisations. They deserve silver-tongued praise in this House, but they should also be part of the planning for the frightful emergencies that may happen at any time. Colleagues would be surprised if I did not mention that I still hope to persuade the Government to support my Promotion of Volunteering Bill. I already have 150 signatures to my early-day motion from Members from all parties, broadly pro rata to their representation in the House. Surely a debate such as this should convince us that it is wrong that volunteers who sign up to organisations that may already do exercises on these potential dangers should face the same risk of negligence suits in the civil courts as, for example, a commercial company would.
      Mr. John Bercow: Will my hon. Friend give way?
      Mr. Brazier: I was about to finish, but I will give way to my hon. Friend.
      Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend will not have reason to regret his decision. He is speaking eloquently to new clause 1, and I hope that it will warm the cockles of his heart to learn that only this morning I received three letters from constituents vigorously urging me to support his Bill.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: Order. Laudable as that Bill may be, we are discussing new clause 1 of the Civil Contingencies Bill.
      Mr. Brazier: I am grateful to you, Madam Deputy Speaker, although the organisation that would be set up under new clause 1 would face the risk that my Bill attempts to remove. I might say that it is always a wise decision to give way to my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), not only because I work for him in another capacity but because he invariably hits the nail on the head. Colleagues from both sides of the House are writing to me and telephoning my office because their constituents have contacted them.
      The amendments in this group go to the heart of the way in which we should tackle these emergencies. It is no good just recognising the excellent work done by
      1346
      voluntary organisations. We need to bring them into the planning framework and introduce a new reserve to assist them. I urge the House to support all the amendments.
      Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely with what the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) said and thought that the contribution of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) was very sensible. If we are serious about involving the voluntary sector—as we would have to in the circumstances that we are discussing—we should give it statutory recognition for its important work and include it in planning. We should not forget that many of those who gave evidence to the pre-legislative scrutiny Committee were from the voluntary sector.
      I cannot understand how the Minister can pay warm tribute to the voluntary sector but also cut it out of the scene. It does not make sense and I hope that the Government will think again, even at this late stage. The amendments are sensible and would improve the Bill. I recall that, in Committee, we discussed the civil contingency reaction force and the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said that the Government hoped to establish a complement of 7,000 but that at the time—towards the end of January—only 5,000 had been trained and accredited. Can the Minister tell us whether that figure has improved? We should not forget, of course, that many of those people are already serving in other theatres.
      The amendments would be useful and provide an element lacking in the Bill. I see no reason why such a volunteer force could not complement other organisations involved in this sphere.
      Mr. Djanogly: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) said in his informed and important speech on the need to use the full resources of the nation, rather than just the full resources of the state, when it comes to national emergencies. I fully support the suggestion of an emergency volunteer reserve to make full use of the pool of talent that we have. However, I was spurred to speak this afternoon by a letter from the British Red Cross that I am sure that other hon. Members have received and that also bears the names of the Women's Royal Voluntary Service, the Salvation Army and St. John Ambulance. It makes several significant points that made me realise the importance of the amendments.
      The letter refers to the explosion in the plastics factory in Glasgow on 11 May, where, for more than three days, Salvation Army and Red Cross volunteers and staff provided emotional support and first aid at a reception centre set up in Maryhill community hall. It refers to the Morecambe bay cockle pickers tragedy, where the survivors were comforted by Red Cross volunteers who provided first aid treatment, blankets and clothing. The letter points out that, within 50 minutes of the Ladbroke Grove rail crash, St. John Ambulance had 32 volunteers and 11 ambulances on the scene and transported 22 people to hospital. For the following seven days, volunteers provided a 24-hour mobile treatment centre for workers at the site. The organisations were also involved after the terrible fire at the Yarlswood centre for asylum seekers in Bedfordshire, which is close to my constituency. The WRVS played an important role in

      1347
      providing food and comfort to the survivors and—importantly—to the fire workers and other emergency service personnel involved. The importance of the voluntary sector is not only the help provided to victims but the assistance to primary emergency workers. In that way, the volunteers become part of the primary team.
      Mr. Desmond Swayne: Does my hon. Friend agree that, for international disasters and other such scenarios, we are keen to include NGOs such as the Red Cross in the planning phase? Why are the Government so willing to make use of voluntary organisations for the delivery of international relief, but not when there is a crying need for them in this country?
      6 pm
      Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend makes an important point. I shall refer later to the experience in Madrid and try to answer his question, although of course I do not have one, so it might be for the Minister to address his concerns when she replies.
      The Red Cross points out:
      "In situations like these, volunteers help to absorb the impact a disaster makes on victims and their families. They are local, community-minded, ordinary people who give aid in extraordinary circumstances. Local authorities and emergency services turn to such volunteers knowing that they can provide comfort, emotional and practical support when most needed, yet there is no formal mechanism to involve the voluntary sector in the planning for emergency response… The Civil Contingencies Bill has presented the ideal opportunity to formalise arrangements by specifically including the voluntary sector in the legislation".
      As for the international experience, my hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned what happened in Madrid, which very much involved the Red Cross. The British Red Cross says:
      "Within minutes of the bomb explosions on the terrible morning of 11th March, Spanish Red Cross volunteers were on the scene. Over the following 24 hours and beyond… 900 volunteers provided medical care, psychological support, and handled enquiries from the public.

      52 ambulances, 26 transport vehicles and mobile blood collection units run by the Spanish Red Cross worked in close collaboration with the statutory services.
      Volunteers supported many bereaved families as they went to identify the bodies of their loved ones.
      61 requests for information on missing persons were received from abroad and dealt with through the International Red Cross Message and Tracing service."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newark mentioned the massive input that the Spanish Red Cross had in the aftermath of the disaster in Madrid. The British Red Cross goes further and says:
      "The Spanish Red Cross was able to make such an exemplary response to this tragedy because in Spain the voluntary sector has a formal role in the civil protection framework. The Spanish voluntary sector plays an integral part in emergency planning and is designated to be involved in rescue, medical care, information and communication, and emotional support".
      1348
      As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) rightly said, the support provided in such a situation goes beyond emotional support, making tea and giving comfort. Voluntary organisations have many specialist skills. The British Red Cross gives the following examples:
      "Information services, clothing and shelter, first aid and medical care, comforting and befriending of individuals affected, staffing rest and reception centres, support to hospitals, support to ambulance services, search and rescue, transport services, message and tracing services for those who have lost contact with loved ones in an emergency overseas, radio communications, faith and cultural support and awareness."
      That is an enormous list of invaluable services that go together to make the complete emergency service that the state could never provide acting on its own.
      In summary, the British Red Cross says:
      "As key providers of emotional and practical support to victims and their families, the voluntary sector is united in calling for formal, explicit recognition of the contribution of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response on the face of the Civil Contingencies Bill.

      A duty should be placed on statutory authorities to involve the voluntary sector fully in emergency planning and response.
      An acknowledgement of the voluntary sector's contribution will formalise an already active response.
      Without the involvement of the voluntary sector in emergency planning and response, the response to the human dimension of an emergency may be less effectively addressed."
      Why have the Government marginalised the contribution of the voluntary sector in the Bill? It cannot be on the ground of cost, as my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said earlier. It cannot be on the ground of the voluntary sector's ability, which is well proven. It cannot be in terms of its commitment, which is exemplary.
      Mr. Brazier: Absolutely.
      Mr. Djanogly: My hon. Friend made that clear in his own speech.
      One wonders what the reason is. Could it be the Labour party's long-held disdain for public services being performed outside the public sector? If so, that is a sorry set of circumstances. I look forward to hearing the Minister's explanation of her position and fully support the new clause and the amendments.
      Mr. David Heath: I support the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) and supported by my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan). Whatever the Government's intentions—I am sure that there was never any intention to exclude the voluntary organisations, which do such a wonderful job in providing practical and emotional support when there is a disaster—an explicit recognition of that role would be enormously helpful. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain further how she sees the relationship between the statutory and the voluntary sector in this context.
      I urge the hon. Lady to accept the proposal, because an explicit reference in the Bill would be in the interests of all concerned, in terms not only of planning but of understanding capabilities and recognising what resources may be available. It would also acknowledge

      1349
      the essential role played, albeit often at a slightly lower level than the first responders who arrive at the scene, in providing support not only to victims and their families and others affected but, as the hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) said, to the people who have to deal at first hand with the emergency, and looking after their emotional and practical well-being, which is equally important.
      The point that I want to raise is slightly different and I would be interested to hear from the hon. Member for Newark whether it is encompassed in his proposal. I welcome the fact that his proposal has been developed since the Bill was in Committee, because there was a concern that it might lead to two parallel organisations—the voluntary sector as already established and what he proposed. It is now clear that his proposal would integrate existing structures.
      I am concerned about maintaining a register of professionals in a variety of fields who can be deployed at short notice in case of a civil contingency. We are not terribly good at that in this country. We are good at getting our emergency services on the scene and doing the job, but we sometimes then need more members of the caring, medical and surgical professions to be available, simply because of the scale of the emergency and we are not very good at knowing where those individuals are.
      I am talking about people who do not have commitments within their own hospital or medical environment, but who could be used in a particular region or situation to provide support. For example, there are chronic emergencies, such as foot and mouth, as well as acute emergencies. During the outbreak, I had colleagues and friends in the farming community in my area who were experienced veterinary surgeons but were not, for one reason or another, in practice. They volunteered their services either to go in and identify potential infection, or to replace those who were doing that, and were therefore unable to do their normal work. Those offers of support met no response whatever from the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food.
      That was a scandalous and avoidable waste of professional resources. A similar situation could arise in, for instance, the nursing profession. There is not a surplus of trained theatre or accident and emergency nurses, so we cannot afford to lose people who have left the profession but retain the necessary skills to help in an emergency.
      Either as a result of the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark to establish a volunteer reserve that identifies professionals in the same way that people with medical training are retained as a distinct category within the military reserve list, or as the result of Government action that the Minister may tell us about in her reply, we should identify professionals who are willing to provide their services, can be easily contacted and, most importantly, are available at short notice to drop whatever they are doing to help in an emergency. People are willing to use their skills and professional abilities, but they need a mechanism to enable them to reach the right place at the right time.
      Mr. Swayne: If such an emergency arose in the hon. Gentleman's constituency or, indeed, mine, the primary response would probably be made by firemen, who are
      1350
      effectively volunteers retained for precisely that purpose. The principle is acceptable and works now, so it is a mystery why it should not work in the scenario envisaged in the Bill.
      Mr. Heath: The hon. Gentleman is right. Retained firefighters do a wonderful job in rural constituencies such as ours and I have long argued that we should have retained police officers to provide a presence in rural areas, but that is to depart from the purpose of this debate.
      We have a reservoir of ability that we should be able to call on at short notice. The key is identifying before an emergency who those people are, how we can get hold of them, how they can be recruited to serve in an emergency and how they are to be organised. Those crucial elements are missing from the Bill and I hope that they will be included in the proposal of the hon. Member for Newark.
      Mr. Forth: I remain to be convinced by the argument for a volunteer reserve despite the avalanche of consensus in our debate. I am worried when my hon. Friends come to the House to propose yet another bureaucracy or, dare I say, a quango, which is to be interposed between, on the one hand, the existing bodies described in the Bill and the amendments and, on the other, the excellent voluntary bodies that they rightly praised. I am not entirely sure, despite the advocacy of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), what added value the new organisation would provide, never mind its size, scope, scale, statutory powers and so on. New clause 1 is skeletal to say the least, and gives little or no indication of how the organisation would fit between existing statutory authorities and the voluntary sector. The proposition is therefore problematic.
      6.15 pm
      It would be much more valuable to explore the prospect of enhancing the role of existing bodies before we rush to create a new one. I often argue on a Friday, as you well know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because you do Fridays along with me, that we should enforce the existing law more effectively instead of rushing to introduce new laws. The new clause is a parallel case. Before we rush to create yet another body or organisation, however virtuous it might appear—the words "emergency volunteer reserve" give it a patina of respectability or desirability, but that is not enough—we are owed an explanation from my hon. Friend about how it will work. To be fair, he gave the example of a surgeon who wants to volunteer his expertise and experience to contribute to an emergency such as Hillsborough, which was deployed as an example by the Minister and which we all recall only too well. I immediately wondered where the surgeon would go to volunteer and to whom would he make himself known. Where would his skills be recorded, who would be the repository of that information, who would give him any additional training that he needed—although he would have surgical skills, he might need retraining or reorientation to deal with emergencies—and by whom would he be co-ordinated? My first thought was that he would want to sign up with the Red Cross or St. John Ambulance, and a woman volunteer might want to sign

      1351
      up with the WRVS or another organisation well versed in responding to such contingencies. The Territorials, local authorities or other bodies mentioned in the Bill may be in a good position to accept to such volunteers.
      We should therefore pause before establishing the additional organisation for which my hon. Friend argued. I was worried when he used the words "overlap" and "interlock", because such terms do not satisfactorily explain the complex relationship between existing statutory bodies and the voluntary sector. He argued that the emergency volunteer reserve would be included in the Bill if his new clause is accepted, thus giving it a statutory footing.
      Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend has gone to the heart of the matter, but does he not accept that certain skills, such as those needed to deal with chemical, nuclear and biological warfare, are not widespread in voluntary organisations? One option is to increase the Territorial Army to its previous size, but some people may want to make a lesser commitment and make themselves available only for such civil defence work. There is therefore a case for establishing a new, lower-cost body instead of expanding the Territorial Army, for which I have argued for many years.
      Mr. Forth: I am disappointed that my hon. Friend has reached for that solution, as he could have pressed for an enhancement of the Territorials on the one hand or the fire services on the other. The other day, I heard someone on the radio arguing, albeit in the context of the regrettable reoccurrence of the firefighters' dispute, that we ought to consider making prevention and the sort of response detailed in the Bill a role for firefighters, now that the incidence of fires in society has happily decreased a great deal. Why are we therefore not looking at, for example, adjusting or enhancing the role of the fire services, perhaps introducing an additional service, volunteers and so on, to fit neatly with their organisational responsibility? The role of such volunteers would be not unlike that of retained firefighters in rural areas, who have already been mentioned.
      In setting up the organisation proposed in the new clause, there is a danger that we will achieve confusion instead of co-ordination. As soon as we start to interpose new organisations between existing ones, unless we are extremely clever—frankly, I am not confident of our skills as bureaucrats—we risk causing more confusion because we are causing bodies to proliferate, even though we are giving them a comforting title and responsibilities for co-ordination and so on. The case for such organisations must therefore be made more fully before I am convinced that there is added value in my hon. Friend's new clause.
      Helen Jackson: I have some sympathy with the drift of the right hon. Gentleman's argument. I should have thought that when an emergency occurred, very few people got up in the morning thinking, "Today is the day I will volunteer and do some extra work." The nature of emergencies is that volunteers come from wherever, whenever and in whatever form that
      1352
      particular emergency requires. It is crucial to keep that openness and flexibility in the arrangements for which local authorities or other bodies are responsible.
      Mr. Forth: The hon. Lady makes a good point, which raises the question of whether the creation of the EVR would attract people more than St. John Ambulance, the Red Cross or any of the other organisations mentioned in the debate already do. I am not convinced that they would flock to the EVR, without having offered themselves to one of the other bodies.
      The other consideration—I make no apology for returning to the issue—is the cost element, which again has been rather glossed over. Inevitably, if we set up a new body, it will involve some sort of cost. We already have the statutory organizations—the firefighters and so on—and the excellent voluntary organisations working as they do. The EVR is to be created and interposed somewhere between them. It is not clear to me how that would be funded or whether we are in danger of diverting resources that might otherwise be focused on those other organisations. Those resources might be siphoned off to deal with the bureaucracy that would accompany the setting up of a new body.
      All in all, I am somewhat sceptical about the approach. I can see what my hon. Friend the Member for Newark was trying to do, but I am far from being convinced that the new clause would deliver what is intended. I would rather look to an enhancement of the statutory bodies or to the volunteers to do more.
      I was slightly disappointed by the letter that was read out by my hon. Friend the Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly). Voluntary bodies seem to think that they are unloved and neglected unless they are mentioned in a Bill or an Act. That strikes me as odd. I should have thought that the Red Cross, of all bodies, had sufficient history, standing, respect and pride that the contribution it made was reward enough. If we have reached the stage where such bodies do not feel that they are sufficiently valued unless they are mentioned in an Act, that is somewhat disappointing. I find that the least convincing argument for writing additional words into the Bill.
      Mr. Brazier: My right hon. Friend has been generous in giving way. There may be a misunderstanding. The voluntary organisations are not seeking a mention of their own names in the Bill. They are concerned that there should be a statutory duty written into the Bill to consult them when the plans are drawn up. If they are to react effectively and be a full part of the process, it is essential that they should be consulted when the plans are being devised.
      Mr. Forth: That may well be an argument to support some of the amendments, but it is no part of the argument that I have been making so far. We in this place reach rather readily for mandatory consultation, and I believe that the word "consultation" has been more than a little devalued over the past few years, the more examples of it I see. The Post Office is currently consulting on the simultaneous closure of five post offices in my constituency. I do not have any great faith in that process and I doubt very much whether it will alter the outcome one bit.
      Mr. Swayne: My right hon. Friend evidently has little faith in the ability of the state to deliver on many of its

      1353
      functions. Would it therefore not be agreeable to him to include the voluntary sector much more in deliberations such as we are discussing, precisely because it is rather better at many of those roles than the state turns out to be?
      Mr. Forth: What my hon. Friend says is true. The chemistry, so to speak, is extremely important. How far we are able to reflect that or enhance it in a Bill is another matter. I fear that setting up an EVR, which is the purpose of new clause 1, would not go very far in that direction, to put it mildly.
      Mr. Bercow: My right hon. Friend is demonstrating once again that, by comparison with him, Victor Meldrew is the epitome of optimism at all times. My right hon. Friend was generally clear in the thrust of his argument, but I am a little perplexed, as was my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne), I think, by my right hon. Friend's reference to the desirability of an enhancement of the existing statutory bodies. If that is his position, does it not clash somewhat with his general scepticism about the ability of the state to organise anything?
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his kind words. I was reflecting what I understand to be in the provisions of schedule 1. We have already had this debate and I would not want to return to it—at least, not at this stage. I will return to it at the slightest provocation on some other occasion. In that little aside I was trying to reflect the fact that we are already laying additional responsibilities upon the local authorities and other bodies, so we could look in that direction rather than setting up yet another new organisation, which could cloud the relationships and the responsibilities of both the statutory and voluntary sectors.
      In short, we must hear quite a bit more from my hon. Friend the Member for Newark about exactly how the EVR would add value to the exercise that we are contemplating before I would be prepared to give it my support.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: If they were honest, many hon. Member would have more than a little sympathy with the views of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). Somebody had to put the other side of the argument and to challenge us to define what we want to happen.
      The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) described the situation in Spain after the Madrid bombings. The difference is that in a country the size of Spain, the Red Cross is but one of three organisations that would claim to have such expertise. The authorities in Spain learned more than 20 years ago that they had to break down the plethora of organisations into designated, co-ordinated groups that could respond to certain dilemmas faced by the civil community.
      The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst is right to say that if we accept the proposition tonight, which I hope we do, we have a responsibility to resource it properly, to ensure co-ordination and to ensure that we can cope with the disappointment factor. We have so many groups in this country that are actively engaged in
      1354
      responding to emergencies that some will be disappointed, because they cannot all be at the table as consultees. They will not all be part of the new system. We need expertise—groups that can come to the table already trained, with the knowledge of how to deliver what is required. Sometimes they will be told, "Sorry, your expertise is not needed on this occasion."
      The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will remember the early days on the Defence Committee when we discussed the matter. One of the issues that was raised time and again was the dilemma that the voluntary sector faced: when such organisations should come in, when they would be invited in and who would make that decision. Who would ensure that the communications were in place and co-ordinate the register not only of the well intentioned, but of the well informed and well trained who had the expertise that was needed?
      I have been involved in two major disaster areas in the past 25 years. On both occasions, I was amazed by the number of different United Kingdom groups that turned up. In one instance, they came a third of the way around the world. Some of them arrived when the operation to save the living was past all reasonable possibility of success—yet they still came, and no one in this country was prepared to tell them not to do so; it was really sad.
      6.30 pm
      Mr. Djanogly: The hon. Gentleman seems to be making a good case for better co-ordination of the voluntary groups. Like my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), he seemed to imply that including the groups in the Bill would add to the confusion. The groups are asking not for personal aggrandisement or to have their names included in the Bill, but for a more co-ordinated approach. That is what the amendments tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) will provide.
      Mr. Hancock: I agree entirely, and that is what I was trying to say. The right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst was challenging the House to recognise that if we accept the amendments, as I hope we will, we must ensure that the arrangements are properly resourced. It is not a question only of including the bodies as consultees; if we are to make use of them, we must give them the right equipment to allow proper communication and to ensure that they are properly protected. We must ensure that training is renewed and that people's expertise is not based on knowledge gained a decade or more ago. It is necessary to be a bit more sophisticated, and I had hoped that that was what we were trying to achieve.
      The challenge to the House and to the Government is clear: if the Government choose not to accept the amendments, what are they going to do about managing the obvious expertise that is out there in the wider community? How will we marshal that expertise? I believe that, at the end of the day, the Government's reluctance to agree to the proposals is more about the resources that would be needed than about the merit of the case for bringing in the organisations in the first place.
      Mr. Swayne: I wish to use an analogy that might ring true for many hon. Members who are present: we are all

      1355
      members of voluntary organisations in that we are members of political parties. I am sure that many hon. Members will share my experience of the anger and frustration that can arise on our part and that of volunteers when the latter have indicated that they were willing and eager to carry out functions such as knocking people up on election day or delivering leaflets—such jobs might be highly relevant at the moment with local elections in the offing—but, because of the nature of the voluntary organisations in which we operate, no one co-ordinated them when there was a desperate need for the service that they offered. In such circumstances, there can be anger on both sides.
      Although the activities that we are discussing might involve voluntary action, they must be performed thoroughly professionally. We cannot possibly have a standard of delivery that falls short of that level or approaches anything like the functioning of a political party as hon. Members have experienced it—hence the strength of the amendments and the new clause, which take the huge contribution and professional services of the voluntary sector and seek to include them in the consultation and planning phase.
      I pointed out in an intervention that we take such an approach as a matter of course in relation to the delivery of international aid. The NGOs and organisations such as the Red Cross are included in the planning of the delivery of aid in all sorts of disaster situations. That is part of the basic consultation and planning process. While we are prepared to take that approach in the delivery of international aid for disasters, I suggest that, given the expertise that is available to us, we should do the same as a matter of course with regard to the delivery of relief for contingencies. That seems perfectly sensible, and I look to the Minister to come up with a plausible argument as to why we should not take such an approach, given that we do so in international affairs.
      The House will recall that, when the additional chapter was delivered to the defence review—it was published before 11 September and did not, by the Government's own estimate, deal adequately with the question of asymmetric threats—its big idea was the civil contingencies reaction force, but the reality is that it exists on paper only. It simply is not adequate for the task. Even if it had been established as was proposed, the amendments of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark would have been necessary but, in its absence, they are even more so.
      Ms Blears: We have had a wide—ranging, interesting, constructive and challenging debate about very important issues concerning the role of the voluntary sector and about whether it should have a statutory presence in the Bill in terms of consultation, and about the slightly separate but related issue of creating an emergency volunteer force. The matters are interrelated, but each has distinct issues around it.
      I am sorry to say to hon. Members that the Government cannot accept the amendments. None the less, they raise some interesting questions about the role of the voluntary sector in contingency planning and its position in the Bill. It is worth setting out the Government's position in some detail, as hon. Members have asked me to do, and trying to provide some
      1356
      reassurance about how the central role of the voluntary sector can be encapsulated in the Bill as it stands, taken with the guidance that we propose to develop over coming months—something that, as we have already indicated, we will do in full consultation with all the parties involved, including the range of voluntary organisations that have been mentioned, as well as those that have not been mentioned. It is clear that there are many more voluntary organisations than have been named in the debate.
      The Government particularly encourage membership of voluntary organisations and their engagement with key responding organisations. I think that it was my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough (Helen Jackson) who said that this Government have a proud record of involving the voluntary sector not only in this area, but in a range of public service delivery contexts. I think that that is one of the significant differences about this Administration: we have not been afraid to say that the voluntary sector—the third sector or not-for—profit sector—should have an increasingly important role in the delivery of mainstream services. That position has not always been popular across all organisations, but it is a key issue for the Government, whose support for the voluntary sector is certainly acknowledged.
      Mr. Helen Jackson: That was indeed the point that I made. Given those views, how will my hon. Friend mitigate the considerable disappointment and puzzlement felt by parts of the voluntary sector about the idea that they might not be brought into the planning as fully as they want? Is she prepared to have further meetings with them to mitigate that disappointment?
      Ms Blears: I hope that my hon. Friend, as well as the voluntary organisations, will not be disappointed when they have heard all that I have to say today. I do not think that not naming those organisations in the Bill for one moment works against their importance and centrality in terms of planning or the delivery and support mechanisms that they provide. I have no doubt that there will be further meetings, discussions and negotiations as we develop the guidance that will supplement and underpin the Bill.
      The work that is undertaken by voluntary agencies is crucial. It may, for example, include supporting the local ambulance service by providing first aid at casualty clearing stations and first aid posts. Voluntary aid societies also give valuable support to local authorities and the police by befriending and offering information to people in rest and reception centres following an incident. I pay tribute to the well-known and long-standing contribution that voluntary organisations have made to the effective response to civil emergencies. One need only think back to the response to the Potter's Bar and Ladbroke Grove rail crashes to appreciate what a valuable contribution volunteers can make to emergency response. The hon. Member for Huntingdon (Mr. Djanogly) mentioned the recent accident in Glasgow and the incident in Morecambe bay and highlighted the contribution that volunteers were able to make in those very distressing circumstances.
      I am surprised that no hon. Member has mentioned this document that I have laid my hands on, which is entitled "Dealing with Disaster". It is in its revised third

      1357
      edition and is the seminal work on the relationship between the authorities and local responders, including civil protection, at a local level. I refer hon. Members to chapter 6, which, as I was heartened, although not surprised, to see, covers in great depth the role of the voluntary sector in relation to a whole range of issues—not simply acting in a supportive, befriending role once an event has happened, but planning at the outset and being involved in all the aspects that the statutory agencies will consider. As the document acknowledges right at the beginning,
      "Major emergencies can overstretch the resources of the emergency services and local authorities."
      The value of additional support from the voluntary sector has been demonstrated on many occasions, and chapter 6 deals with the planning principles involved.
      Mr. Brazier: Will the Minister explain why she objects to amendments suggesting that there should be a statutory duty to consult them? Will she also say from where, within the existing set-up, the Government expect to get, in a hurry, expertise in the nuclear, biological and chemical spheres if the incident does not happen to occur close to a regular Army base?
      Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will come to why the duty to consult should not be in the Bill. The voluntary sector is so diverse that it would be invidious to try to single out particular organisations for involvement, and there are practicalities involved in where to find the people who are able to help us in the dreadful circumstances that the hon. Gentleman describes.
      I am genuinely surprised that no other hon. Member referred to "Dealing with Disaster", which provides pretty extensive guidance.
      Mr. Djanogly rose—
      Mr. Hancock rose—
      Ms Blears: I shall give way in a moment.
      I have already given our commitment to build on that guidance to ensure that we continue to embed the voluntary sector in the heart of our civil contingency planning.
      Mr. Hancock: As the Minister says, that document spells it all out. She did not say, however, that it also acknowledges that despite the existence of all these different groups and responsibilities, there are two problems: first, the lack of anyone with sufficient knowledge of the co-ordinated approach; and, secondly, how one readily brings all those people together when they are needed. That is the failure that we are trying to address and which is expressed in the document.
      Ms Blears: I do not accept that there is a failure of co-ordination, but I do accept that we need to improve our response in this changing world in which we live, where the threat is becoming much more serious than ever before. I certainly would not want to caricature as a failure the response of many good and able voluntary organisations, together with the statutory services. It
      1358
      would be wrong to talk down our services in that way, and I pay tribute to them for the contribution that they make.
      Mr. Djanogly: The Minister has referred extensively to a document that no hon. Members appear to have seen or heard about, and which none of the voluntary organisations referred to in their written submissions. Perhaps it should be disseminated a bit more widely.
      6.45 pm
      Ms Blears: I was made aware of "Dealing with Disaster", although I did not have the advantage of serving on the Committee. I am sure that other hon. Members have a much deeper and wider knowledge than I do of the seminal nature of that document, which is, I am sure, available from the Library. Indeed, it is a Cabinet Office publication, so I am sure that the hon. Gentleman could get access to it.
      Patrick Mercer: Chapter 6 is familiar to me, as is the whole document. I am intrigued, though, by what the Minister is saying about the integration between the voluntary sector and, for want of a better phrase, the blue light services. I am heartened by her remarks. As she, more than anyone, will be familiar with the new threats that are evolving, will she be kind enough to outline the Government's plans to equip the voluntary organisations with personal protection equipment?
      Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman will have a little patience, I will deal with the practical measures that we intend to take, as well as the legislative measures.
      I should emphasise that voluntary sector liaison groups will be involved at the local level through the local resilience forums that are envisaged in the Bill. Local authorities already do a significant amount of work in training volunteers for their roles in emergencies and involving them in multi-agency exercises. The document highlights the need for joint training, joint exercises and joint involvement at every stage. Certainly, the voluntary sector is being involved to a very great extent in areas that have been visited by officials in recent months.
      There is nothing in the Bill that prevents voluntary organisations from remaining fully engaged, and we will continue to encourage local responders to engage the voluntary sector wholeheartedly in local multi-agency planning and response through the guidance that supports the Bill. We will use that guidance to turn that vision into a reality.
      Amendment No. 11 would impose a duty on category 1 responders such as emergency services and local authorities to consult voluntary organisations in the performance of their duties under the Bill, while leaving the manner and extent to which they are consulted as a matter for their own judgment. Under amendment No. 20, the identification of voluntary sector organisations would be a matter for the individual responder. Of course, I agree that, where appropriate, statutory responders should consult and involve voluntary sector partners to the fullest extent in the planning phase. Statutory responders accept that and are already so engaged. It is difficult to see what the amendment would add to this approach. It is of doubtful merit to impose a

      1359
      legal obligation on responders to consult the voluntary sector if the responder itself decides who must be consulted, the extent of the consultation, and the manner in which the consultation takes place. Moreover, I wonder how such a duty would be monitored and enforced. A legal duty that says to the person upon whom it is imposed that it is for them to choose whom to consult, when, how and to what extent is very fragile, and I cannot see what it adds to our current position.
      Helen Jackson: I suppose that what hon. Members want to hear is that the proposals that may come out of the guidance, together with the Bill, will recognise in a new and more significant way the role of voluntary organisations across the board. Does my hon. Friend think that including the voluntary organisations in the guidance notes will strengthen their role? They have yet to be convinced of that.
      Ms Blears: I hope that I can convince them. I accept the spirit of my hon. Friend's amendments and I believe that it is shared. Although I am loth to praise the hon. Member for Huntingdon, he said that he wanted the nation's full contribution, not only that of the state, to be brought to bear, and that sums up our attitude in general. For civil contingencies, we are considering not simply statutory organisations but civil society. Renewal of civil society is the passion of my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, and the golden thread that runs through many Government policies. I emphasise to my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough that a legal duty is currently unnecessary because the guidance will help to put the voluntary sector much more at the heart of our planning proposals. I hope that she will realise that.
      Amendments Nos. 12 to 15 and 17 would enable regulations made under the Bill to require category 1 responders to collaborate with the voluntary sector, delegate functions for which the measure provides to the sector, or have regard to or adopt the work carried out by it. Clause 2(5)(d) already permits such regulations to be made and the amendments would therefore have no practical effect. Amendments could be tabled—I do not want to mislead the House—because we do not yet propose to use the regulation-making powers in that way, but they exist, should their use become necessary. The amendments that we are considering are unnecessary to grant us that legal power.
      Amendment No. 16 would enable a Minister of the Crown to require a category 1 responder to share information with a voluntary or humanitarian organisation. The Bill currently enables a Minister to require provision of information only between responders, not to voluntary organisations. Although I acknowledge the need for category 1 responders to share information with voluntary organisations when they are engaged in the planning process, it is not necessary to make provisions that require them to do that.
      The voluntary sector plays a supporting role in emergency planning and response. It is inconceivable that, when a statutory responder chooses to make use of the resources and expertise of a voluntary organisation in its planning work, the information required to fulfil
      1360
      its role would not be provided. I cannot imagine for one moment that, if a local authority asked the WRVS to take care of people at an emergency reception centre, for example, the local authority would not give the organisation details of the location of the centre. Providing such details would involve the voluntary organisation in the planning at an early stage.
      Mr. Brazier: I wonder whether the Minister has thought about her comments. Does she genuinely believe that, throughout the country, bureaucracies will get it right every time? Will they always anticipate whom they may need in crises, consult each of them and include them in their plans? Surely it is a good idea to tell authorities that they must release the information, not least because many organisations may be able to contribute in ways about which local authorities do not know.
      Ms Blears: We could hold an interesting debate on bureaucracy, especially in the light of the comments of the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth). I am trying to find the best way in which to achieve the result that we all want: good, well prepared, effective plans that can be implemented quickly without necessarily tying up organisations in a plethora of regulations that militate against our being able to act promptly and to a high and professional standard.
      Amendments Nos. 18, 19, 76 and 77 would extend the duty on local authorities to provide business continuity advice to community organisations. Clause 4 tries to minimise the economic impact of an emergency and its focus is therefore on commercial activities. That does not mean that local authorities could not extend, if they wished, their business continuity advice to the voluntary and not-for-profit sectors. However, the provision is aimed at keeping the economy moving in the event of an emergency. It is therefore inappropriate to accept those amendments.
      I want to consider new clause 1, which would establish an emergency volunteer reserve. I have spoken at length about the outstanding contribution that volunteers throughout the country make to contingency planning and response work. We must consider the arguments of the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) in favour of some form of voluntary reserve force in that context and try to balance the benefits and the costs. Such a force would not be cost-free, and I share some of the concerns that the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst expressed.
      Existing voluntary organisations already employ a permanent cadre of staff and have permanent structures and an infrastructure. For example, I understand that the British Red Cross employs 3,000 permanent staff to facilitate its volunteers' work. Setting up a new emergency volunteer force could prove costly. There could also be other costs. Long-standing, tried and tested voluntary organisations could be undermined. Organisations such as the Red Cross, the WRVS, the Royal National Lifeboat Institution, volunteer medical staff or retained firefighters, with proven track records, are already embedded in existing planning frameworks. I was therefore intrigued by the debate between the hon. Members for Newark, for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Somerton and Frome (Mr. Heath), who was trying to tease out what "overlap" and "integrate"

      1361
      meant. They discussed whether the provision would establish a new force or strengthen existing forces. We did not get to the bottom of that.
      Setting up a new force would be burdensome and bureaucratic and could undermine existing voluntary organisations. I agree with all hon. Members who said that people in this country rally round in an emergency and want to make a contribution. Our task as a Government is to make it as easy as we can for people who have the skills and want to volunteer to get involved, use their talents and make their contribution, without necessarily establishing a new organisation in the way that the hon. Member for Newark suggests.
      Mr. Hancock: Will the Minister give way?
      Ms Blears: Let me first deal with a point that I believe the hon. Gentleman made.
      Several hon. Members referred to the role of the Red Cross in the aftermath of the terrible events in Madrid. We should be a little wary; voluntary organisations in other countries sometimes have a different role because of the way in which those countries' public services have developed over many decades. I understand that the Red Cross in Spain is a mainstream organisation with facilities such as blood banks, ambulances and the ability to respond. That is slightly different from some of the voluntary organisations in this country.
      We should not for one moment undermine the ability of our statutory services to respond to emergencies. I hope that not one hon. Member—certainly not the hon. Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne)—suggests that the ambulance service, the fire service, the police service or any of our blue-light services are not up to the job. They do a fantastic job in responding to emergencies and they have well established procedures and agreements for mutual aid, for example, to draw in ambulance services and the police service from neighbouring areas. I was worried when the hon. Member for New Forest, West appeared to imply that the statutory services were not in a position to provide an excellent service. I hope that he did not have that in mind.
      Mr. Swayne: I am sure that when the Minister consults the Official Report tomorrow she will find nothing in my remarks to lead to the inference that she has drawn. Will she outline the capability of the ambulance service and the fire service specifically to deal with nuclear, biological and chemical incidents?
      Ms Blears: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman knows that the fire service has received an extra £56 million for the new dimension project for its new vehicles. I believe that 5 per cent. of the police service have been trained to respond in the circumstances to which the hon. Gentleman referred. We recently doubled the number of gas-tight suits for the emergency services. The hon. Gentleman knows that we continuously increase the preparedness of those organisations.
      I want to speak briefly about the civil contingency reaction forces—CCRFs—because much has been made of whether they could assist in an emergency. I know that the hon. Member for Newark has been concerned about that. Allegations have been made that many are deployed overseas and are therefore not in a
      1362
      position to respond. The CCRFs were up and running and fully mobilised by 31 December. I understand that there are 14 reaction forces, with 500 members each—approximately 7,000 people. I am told that 850 members are currently mobilised overseas or on active service in the UK. We are therefore considering a relatively small minority of those forces. I am also told that some of the CCRFs have a pool of reservists bigger than 500 members because they realise that operational and deployment capabilities might reduce them. The 51 (Scottish) Brigade uses an opt-out method. It says that everyone is in the CCRF unless they do not wish to be. Consequently, the pool of reserves is much higher.
      It has 670 and 690 personnel available to serve in each unit; the fact that 78 are currently deployed on operations therefore has little impact. am glad to be able to reassure the House that the CCRF will be able to carry out that work for us.
      The points raised by hon. Members today have illustrated their real commitment to ensuring that we involve the voluntary sector in our work, and I am happy to give them an assurance that we shall do so. I very much appreciate the spirit in which my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hillsborough tabled her amendments, but I really cannot support their inclusion in the Bill.
      7 pm
      Mr. Hancock: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way; she is being very good humoured. I am sure that all hon. Members will be interested to read her speech tomorrow because, like many others, I am slightly bemused by how the Government are going to co-ordinate the voluntary sector. During the very long reply that she has given this evening, she has not once mentioned how that is to happen. The House is entitled to an explanation if she is going to urge us to vote against the amendments.
      Ms Blears: The amendments before us propose incorporating a duty to consult the voluntary sector. I have explained that that would be invidious, as the voluntary sector is a diverse area of 141,000 different charities, in which 69 per cent. of the activity involves only fundraising. Furthermore, in social services and education, voluntary activity is not necessarily focused on civil protection. It would therefore be inappropriate to include such a requirement in the Bill. New clause 1 proposes the creation of an emergency volunteer force, and I hope that I have explained why that would be a bureaucratic, extra imposition that would lead to a lack of clarity and consistency, rather than building on the capabilities of the voluntary organisations that we have already.
      In response to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), I have made it clear that, in the preparation of the guidance that will form an essential part of the overarching framework of our civil protection, we will ensure that the voluntary sector takes on a central role, because we recognise that the people of this country want to make a contribution to looking after others and protecting the safety of our nation. I therefore ask hon. Members not to press the new clause to a vote.
      Patrick Mercer: I am extremely interested to hear the Minister's summing up of the various arguments that have

      1363
      been put forward, and extremely disappointed to hear the Government's reaction to the amendments, whose provisions are sensible, practical and cheap. On 11 September 2001, one reason why the authorities were able to react so quickly and effectively to those unprecedented incidents was that there were widespread reserves of policemen, ambulance men, firemen and national guardsmen. One of the reasons why things were not worse in Madrid was that Spain had learned the lesson, over the previous couple of years, that additional manpower was necessary to deal with such events. Similarly, following the Bali bomb, Australia has raised a complete new force of people who will help its equivalent of the blue-light services to make headway in such situations.
      With one or two exceptions, everyone who has spoken tonight recognises the need for the Government to be able to exercise and physically implement the plans that they are putting forward. The fact remains, however, that not one additional man or woman has been added to the Government's inventory to help in circumstances that will, frankly, be unprecedented.
      Mr. Swayne: Does my hon. Friend share my dismay at the Minister's attempt to reassure us about the civil contingencies reaction forces? The example that she gave of 51 (Scottish) Brigade merely reinforced the fact that the numbers involved are purely notional, because anyone who happens to be a member is counted as being available, although in reality that capacity exists only on paper.
      Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for his intervention. I am sure that he will have heard that the motto for the civil contingencies reaction forces is "Overstretched and Overseas". The Minister would do well to ponder that not one extra person has been added to the Government's inventory to fight in such circumstances. I am particularly interested to note that she did not answer my question on why, if the voluntary sector was being further and further integrated in order to work with the blue-light services, as she claimed, no personal protection equipment had been introduced. The fact remains that this is utterly unsatisfactory. I cannot accept what the Government say, and shall seek to divide the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 141, Noes 283.

      Division No. 183]

      [7:05 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Allan, Richard

      Brady, Graham

      Amess, David

      Brazier, Julian

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Breed, Colin

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Baldry, Tony

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Barker, Gregory

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Burnside, David

      Barrett, John

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Bellingham, Henry

      Chidgey, David

      Bercow, John

      Chope, Christopher

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Blunt, Crispin

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Boswell, Tim

      Collins, Tim

      1364

      Conway, Derek

      Moss, Malcolm

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Curry, rh David

      O'Brien, Stephen(Eddisbury)

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Öpik, Lembit

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Evans, Nigel

      Ottaway, Richard

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Page, Richard

      Fabricant, Michael

      Randall, John

      Fallon, Michael

      Redwood, rh John

      Flight, Howard

      Rendel, David

      Flook, Adrian

      Robathan, Andrew

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Ruffley, David

      Garnier, Edward

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Gidley, Sandra

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Goodman, Paul

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Shepherd, Richard

      Grayling, Chris

      Simmonds, Mark

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Gummer, rh John

      Soames, Nicholas

      Hammond, Philip

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Hancock, Mike

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Hawkins, Nick

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Spring, Richard

      Heald, Oliver

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Heath, David

      Steen, Anthony

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Streeter, Gary

      Hendry, Charles

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Holmes, Paul

      Syms, Robert

      Howard, rh Michael

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Jackson, Robert(Wastage)

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Tredinnick, David

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Leigh, Edward

      Viggers, Peter

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Weir, Michael

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Whittingdale, John

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Wiggin, Bill

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Willis, Phil

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Wilshire, David

      Maclean, rh David

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Wishart, Pete

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Young, rh Sir George

      Mercer, Patrick

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Hugh Robertson and

      Moore, Michael

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Bennett, Andrew

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Betts, Clive

      Allen, Graham

      Blackman, Liz

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Brennan, Kevin

      Austin, John

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Banks, Tony

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Barnes, Harry

      Browne, Desmond

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Battle, John

      Burden, Richard

      Beard, Nigel

      Burgon, Colin

      1365

      Cairns, David

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Hendrick, Mark

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Caplin, Ivor

      Heppell, John

      Casale, Roger

      Heyes, David

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Challen, Colin

      Hodge, Margaret

      Chaytor, David

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Clelland, David

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hurst Alan(Braintree)

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hutton, rh John

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Illsley, Eric

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Corston, rh Jean

      Irrance - Davies, Huw

      Cruddas, Jon

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Cummings, John

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Denham, rh John

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Keeble Ms Sally

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kemp, Fraser

      Doran, Frank

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Kidney, David

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Edwards, Huw

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Efford, Clive

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Etherington, Bill

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Farrelly, Paul

      Lepper, David

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Fisher, Mark

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Flint Caroline

      Linton, Martin

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Love, Andrew

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      McCabe, Stephen

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      McCafferty, Chris

      Gerrard, Neil

      MacDonald, Calum

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      McDonnell, John

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      MacDougall, John

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McFall, John

      Grogan, John

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hain, rh Peter

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McKechin, Ann

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      McNulty, Tony

      Hanson, David

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McWalter, Tony

      McWilliam, John

      Healey, John

      Mahmood, Khalid

      1366

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Short, rh Clare

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Miliband, David

      Squire, Rachel

      Miller, Andrew

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Moffatt, Laura

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mole, Chris

      Stevenson, George

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Stringer, Graham

      O'Hara, Edward

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Olner, Bill

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Organ, Diana

      Taylor, Dan(Stockton S)

      Owen, Albert

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Perham, Linda

      Timms, Stephen

      Pickthall, Colin

      Tipping, Paddy

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Plaskitt, James

      Trickett, Jon

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Pound, Stephen

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Prescott, rh John

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Ward, Claire

      Purchase, Ken

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Purnell, James

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Watts, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Rammell, Bill

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wills, Michael

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Ruane, Chris

      Woodward, Shaun

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woolas, Phil

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Worthington, Tony

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Salter, Martin

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Sawford, Phil

      Wyatt Derek

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Sheerman, Barry

      Joan Ryan and

      Sheridan, Jim

      Mr. Nick Ainger

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      EMERGENCY PUBLIC EDUCATION AND TRAINING BOARD
      '(1) There shall be an Emergency Public Education and Training Board consisting of—

      (a) up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of Category 1 responders;

      (b) up to six members appointed by the Secretary of State representative of Category 2 responders; and

      (c) up to six other members appointed by the Secretary of State.

      The Secretary of State may by order make provision in respect of the duties undertaken by the Emergency Public Education and Training Board.'.—[Patrick Mercer.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Patrick Mercer: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 100, in clause 2, page 3, line 6, after 'maintain', insert 'resilient'.
      Patrick Mercer: New clause 2 relates to two particular measures—informing the public about a threat and training them to deal with it.
      This is not a new subject in the public forum. It was talked about during pre-legislative scrutiny before the Bill was considered in Committee, discussed endlessly in Committee and has had any number of outings both in the press and generally in the public place. It is interesting that the Government have continually denied the need for public information. For example, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster was particularly vocal in Committee about there always being a fine balance to be struck between telling the people too much and panicking them and not telling the public anything at all.
      When we talked in Committee about the need for public information, the Government made it clear that there was no further need for a campaign to tell people precisely what was going on. We mentioned that the level of national alert was never disseminated in a public place and that we had always to rely on the BBC, and particularly Radio 4's "Today" programme, to leak the fact that the level of national alert went up or down.
      For instance, after the bombings in early November of our embassies in Turkey, the public were simply not told that the alert level had gone up to its second highest possible stage, until we were told of the situation on national radio. It was interesting that, despite having talked about the issue in Committee and despite the Government having resisted any attempts to inform the public about what the threat was, it was left to the British Transport police and the Metropolitan police to mount an effective and thorough poster campaign immediately after the Madrid bombing. That gives the lie to the assertions that information would panic the public or that information was not necessary.
      Michael Fabricant: Over new year I was in New York city. My hon. Friend may not be aware that Fox News, CNN and WCBS-TV—the local CBS affiliate—all had a banner across their news bulletins setting out the state of alert, which happened to be very high in New York city at that time. Does he think that that might be an indicator that could be employed in this country, given that there was no mass panic in New York and that the celebrations for new year's eve were performed well with many people attending them despite a high level of alert and the fact that they were informed of that situation?
      Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend for that timely intervention. We ran out of time when we
      1368
      were discussing the previous new clause, but I intended to say that, during the second world war, we had an organisation known as the Civil Defence. It gave timely warnings about the likelihood of attack. Clearly, that would have been a conventional attack, probably mounted by the Luftwaffe. A terrorist attack is rather different. None the less, I believe that my hon. Friend made a valuable point. For example, during my several tours of duty in Ulster, it was always clear to me that information was being given by the police to the public about precisely what the threat was. It was less full than the American system. We have a formal system, and I suggest to the Government that there would be no harm in allowing the public to know. Rather than using the media to disseminate the message, part of the public information campaign should be exactly as my hon. Friend suggests. There should be a proper and orchestrated way of telling the public precisely what the level of threat is.
      The Society of Industrial Emergency Service Officers says:
      "The experience of SIESO members in warning and informing the public of the potential dangers of living next to top tier COMAH sites"—
      in other words, power stations and the like—
      "gives the lie to the Government's belief that pre-education of the general population would cause panic. There is a need for people to know what measures they can take to safeguard themselves prior to the arrival of professional help."
      Similarly, last year the Metropolitan police commissioned a report on possible co-operation between the Government and the private sector. That was known as Project Unicorn and it reported earlier this year, although the Government have chosen not to publicise the conclusions. Project Unicorn states:
      "To the public at large the CBRN threat is undoubtedly the most frightening aspect of the 'new terrorism'… The Commercial Sector appears to be unanimous in its criticism of the present counter-terrorism Communications Policy prior to a major incident: they found it outdated, condescending, generally uncoordinated and at times incoherent."
      I do not think that I need add to those two damning indictments of the fact that the Government are not prepared to tell us what is going on. I suggest that we might follow the example of the Australian Government.
      Many people say that this country is extremely "proof" to terrorism, that the public are used to it and will be able to take it on the chin, and that living through 30-odd years of activity by the Irish Republican Army and similar organisations has made London and other large cities pretty resilient, if the Minister does not mind my borrowing that phrase, to the effects of terrorism. It is therefore interesting that, after the Bali bomb, which killed plenty of Australians but did not kill anybody in Australia, the Australian Government, who have no real experience of terrorism, chose to take the subject extremely seriously.
      The Australian Government chose to spend the money that needed to be spent and to do the research required of a responsible Government. That is why every single Australian has received information from his Government and why the Prime Minister has written to every Australian, beginning his letter, "Dear fellow Australian". An information pack that is now in the hands of every Australian household contains practical

      1369
      little measures such as fridge magnets with all the emergency telephone numbers that any member of the public might want to refer to.
      Why are we not doing that? Yes, it would cost and, yes, there would be opportunity cost, but have the Government failed to understand that the population are not a bunch of naughty schoolchildren, but responsible adults? I believe that knowledge dispels fear; it does not inspire panic, unless it is articulated irresponsibly or badly. Again, I speak from personal experience. The population of Northern Ireland were constantly told what the threat was and I never once saw panic over there.
      Go back 11 years in this country, and just before the traditional IRA pre-Christmas bombing campaign, the Government chose to tell the population of London precisely what was going on.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Just this past weekend, every pub in Bangor was advised of a threat, which was also newsworthy. The hon. Gentleman speaks about letting everyone know about the threat: the Government sent a booklet dealing with the Belfast agreement to every home in Northern Ireland, but this is a much more important issue because it involves life and death.
      Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful for that helpful and perspicacious intervention. I hope that the Government pay attention to the words of an hon. Member who has clearly been at the forefront of the fight against terrorism for the past several decades.
      It is interesting that the Government still continue not to take such action. The examples are there; other nations have tried those measures. I return to the point that, just before Christmas 11 years ago, we were told that if we owned lock-ups in London and saw suspicious groups of men, particularly if they were speaking with Irish accents, the police should be informed because there was a likelihood of a bomb or mortar attack.
      To the best of my knowledge, there was no panic over that and no uprising among aggrieved Irish expatriates. People understood the difficulty and that the job was being done as properly as it could be. They understood that the Government cared and were concerned about their safety. I put the question again: why are this Government not acting on that particular point?
      7.30 pm
      The next point that the new clause addresses is training of the public going hand in hand with the information that I have already addressed. My hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Brazier) mentioned the effects of what turned out to be a benign demonstration here in the House last Wednesday. I accept that it was difficult to know whether the attack could have been lethal, what agent had been used and whether the House reacted correctly or incorrectly, but that is not the point that I am trying to make. The point is that not a single person in the Chamber had received any training in what to do in the event of such an attack.
      About two weeks ago, I received from Officers of the House an hour and a half of extremely effective training in what to do in the event of a fire. At the end of the
      1370
      training, I was much better informed and had been told precisely what to do. One or two anomalies had been ironed out and, having served as a part-time fireman and having been involved in several fires in my time, I felt that I was a much more useful member of the House of Commons community, in more ways than one, than ever before.
      I said to the authorities, "Thank you very much indeed, but what do I do in the event of a bomb being discovered outside the House of Commons or a contaminatory attack?" Answer came there none. There is no training available that I am aware of. Even more depressing is that fact that, with one or two notable exceptions, no Member of Parliament who spoke in public in the media after that attack said, "That is all very well for what is happening in Westminster, but what about our voters—the people who send us here to represent them on these green Benches?"
      Very few Members seemed to be able to spread their wings and say, "Don't we owe it to our voters to give them some training in what to do in such events?" The Government may say that offering such training would frighten people. Fine. but I would say that knowledge dispels fear. The Government may say that the training would be expensive, and I acknowledge that there would be a cost. They may say that we have never done that sort of thing before but that is nonsense. This nation has faced threats in the past—conventional and unconventional.
      Peter Bottomley: It might be sensible for my hon. Friend to remind the Government that for many decades we have had a Health and Safety Commission, a Health and Safety Executive and safety representatives at work. People have not been frightened by the analysis of risks at work and ways to reduce them. What he suggests is not quite analogous, but it is pretty similar to what we face in our daily lives at work, and have for many decades.
      Patrick Mercer: I am most grateful to my hon. Friend. He makes the point a thousand times better than I ever could.
      The fact remains that the Government are willing to spend money and resource on health and safety issues, and even on anti-obesity programmes. They are willing to spend time training children in what not to do in a pan of boiling chip fat is tipped over them, but they seem unwilling to address this particular issue, although we have done it before.
      In 1937, training started for the whole population in knowing what to do in the event of attacks by weapons of mass destruction—I am talking about aerial bombardment and poison gas. By 1938, the population were properly equipped, as far as they could be, and properly trained. My mother, as a 13-year-old in north-east Nottinghamshire, knew precisely what to do in the event of her being gassed. A game was made of it.
      The fact remains that when the sirens went in September 1939—that siren system, I might add, has been completely scrapped—the population filed carefully, quietly and without panic into their shelters and got on as best they could with whatever business they could conduct from there.
      There was no panic. The population were told what was going on and they were warned. It is impossible to say how many lives were saved by that training, but I am

      1371
      sure that many hundreds were saved who might not have been otherwise. Similarly, we carried out training of the population during the cold war, and to a much lesser extent—I am sure that other hon. Members will back me up on this point—during the Irish Republican Army campaign in Northern Ireland and in this country.
      If the Minister believes that there is no need for information or training, I ask her to consider the impact of a terrorist incident on, say, the Madrid scale. Let us conjure with the idea that one of our major cities is attacked three weeks before a general election, and that only 200 are killed—that sounds blunt and cold, but the fact remains that only 200 were killed in Madrid, although more than 1,000 were injured. What would be the political ramifications of a lack of information and training? Will our population forgive any Government for such an attack, as, in many ways, the American population forgave their Government?
      It is fair to say that 11 September came out of the blue. Despite the appalling casualties, the majority of the population were willing to indulge the Government's lack of knowledge and pull together as a nation. Will we do that? First, how many of our people will say, "No, we were warned and nothing was done. There was no campaign of public information and precious little public training. There was even precious little training of the emergency services"? Secondly, those who opposed the war in Iraq will say that we have brought it on ourselves. Thirdly, and most tellingly, let us suppose that, in that hideous attack, 100 people were killed instantly and another 100 died as a result of burns that could not be dressed, of being poisoned by gases released in the area from which they were not evacuated or of being unable to get blood transfusions through. It would not have been because the emergency services had failed—I, for one, am a great admirer of everything that our emergency services do—but because they have simply not been allowed to exercise properly.
      Sergeant Roberts died because he did not have the right equipment in Iraq. The Minister will remember what the tabloid newspapers made of that. If 100 of our people die because the emergency services have not been able to train effectively, the press will blame the Government. They will say, "You have killed our children, our spouses, our uncles." I strongly suggest that, in those febrile conditions, the Government will not survive that kind of blow.
      The Minister will say that exercises have taken place. During a debate some weeks ago on London—the debate concentrated on the preparedness of London—I put several points to her about the level of training that had occurred. She only partially answered the question. She made the point that many civil contingencies exercises are taking place, and I wholly concur with her that something is being done. How many exercises, however, are live? How many involve the full panoply of the blue-light services, at a rush hour, with traffic on the roads, people on the pavements and in the undergrounds, and when the blue-light services have not been warned that the exercise will occur? Only by doing those sorts of exercises will the lessons be learned. How many parts of London have removable road signs and road barriers so that ambulances, fire engines and police
      1372
      cars can travel along the pavements when gridlock prevents access to the site of the incident? I know that the Minister will say that endless exercises are going on, but not one, to the best of my knowledge, has taken place in those conditions. Even OSIRIS II, which was as good as it got, was done on a Sunday, with the blue-light services warned beforehand and already in place.
      New clause 2 makes the case clearly for six members appointed by the Secretary of State to be representative of category 1 responders, another six to be representative of category 2 responders, and for up to six other members to be appointed by the Secretary of State. It would provide that the Secretary may by order make provision in respect of the duties undertaken by the emergency public education and training board. I commend the new clause to the House, because unless the Government get a grip of their public information and public training, this country will suffer when the inevitable attack happens, and it will do so needlessly.
      Mr. Allan: I intend to speak primarily to amendment No. 100, which is grouped with the new clause. I also want to respond to the hon. Member for Newark (Mr. Mercer).
      I know that the hon. Gentleman feels strongly about this issue, as I have been involved in considering the Bill with him throughout its progress. I was concerned about the direction in which he was taking us, as his argument seemed to be that the Government should commit themselves to an education and training programme so as not to be blamed if something goes wrong. Another perspective is the concern that all this is political, and that it would over-stress the population and create too much of a sense of alarm.
      I recognise that the balance is somewhere in the middle. We all want to give the appropriate information, but I want to put on record my concern that we can end up politically creating a climate of fear. My perception is that the United States Government, through some of the legislation that they have passed, have started to create a climate of perpetual warfare and threat. There are equal dangers in that. That is a counter-perspective, and I recognise that we need to occupy a sensible position in the middle.
      Amendment No. 100 would insert the word "resilient" in relation to the kind of public information systems that we are asking local authorities to maintain to warn people about an emergency that is about to happen or is happening. I can predict the Minister's response—I am sure that she will say, "Of course, the Government would expect those networks to be resilient." My concern, however, is that that is not currently the case.
      When the Government are asked what they are doing to inform the public, we are frequently told that they rely on websites. As hon. Members may know, I am keen on the development of the internet, and spend a lot of time using it. I would not describe it as always resilient, however, and there is something of a myth about the resilience of the internet in the context of some of the emergencies that we are imagining. Its resilience depends on peering points, where peers get together—not the House of Lords, but usually a warehouse somewhere in east London where computers "peer" with each other. Increasingly, those may be the subject

      1373
      of attacks, both deliberate and accidental, given their complexity, and my concern is that we are starting to depend on technologies that may be less resilient in an emergency than some of the older technologies such as radio broadcasts, which may be more appropriate in those circumstances.
      Because of the multiplicity of different media types, we are ending up in a situation in which resilience needs to be at the forefront of planners' minds. It may not be deliberate, but the kinds of assumptions that we have made previously about how to get information out may no longer apply. For example, if we wanted an all-channels television broadcast, it used to be the case that we would negotiate with a few major broadcasters. Now, an all-channels television broadcast must go out on 900-odd different channels, involving many different broadcasters. A range of media outlets creates additional complexity.
      My concern in putting the amendment forward is to establish that local authorities need to think about the question of resilience far more than they have done to date. Although there are a lot of communications methods available, they must not simply rely on the fact that those will work at a time of emergency.
      I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say. I am looking for a strong statement that there will be an attempt to tease out failure points, and that local authorities will be required to address potential failure points rather than being allowed to get away with lazy assumptions about communications mechanisms that may work in emergencies.
      7.45 pm
      Dr. Lewis Moonie: The watchword in this debate, and in all debates on our response to potential acts of terrorism or disasters, is resilience. It is used advisedly, and I agree with the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that we should always remember that it is the key.
      I speak as one who has spent not inconsiderable time over the years looking at the way in which we respond to disasters—and often respond very inadequately. One thing is certain: we should not do anything to reduce resilience. As the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) said earlier, one way of ensuring that it is reduced is adding to the number of committees and other bodies that must be consulted on what is, after all, a series of hypothetical situations.
      That is the great danger. I think that the IRA analogy, for instance, is quite wrong. In that case we were dealing with a predictable set of actions and a reasonably predictable set of responses that could be handled by any fairly intelligent person. Given the greater complexity of the asymmetrical threats that face us now, we cannot predict the form of an attack—if it occurs—and we must therefore ask what exactly we should educate people about. Many of the responses are basic common sense. I do not think the hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) is suggesting that in the event of a disaster, we would need hordes of ill-trained and semi-informed actors milling about trying to be helpful. That is the last thing we would need. What we do need is people responding quickly to information.
      Setting up emergency numbers in advance may seem a sensible idea, but our experience of disasters around the world suggests that it is most important to establish a
      1374
      clear line of communication with the public, separate from anyone dealing directly with the disasters. That cannot be done in advance; it can only be done after the event, once the extent of its severity has been calculated by those capable of such a calculation. I am suspicious of any attempt to impose a public education gloss on circumstances that do not lend themselves to the type of education that is being suggested.
      If we intend to be resilient, and set up a multitude of plans—which seems likely, as every area will set up its own plan—the civil contingencies unit must monitor events carefully, in order to recognise and implement best practice and generalise from it. Over the next few years we will generate many different ways of coping with potential disasters, but until we have to cope with a real disaster we will not know whether any of them will work. I recommend a book by Patrick Lagadec called "Preventing Chaos in a Crisis". If Members read about all the mistakes that have been made, the last thing they will want to do is repeat them.
      The whole point of the exercise that the Government are conducting—with the broad support of Members on both sides of the House—is to try to avoid chaos when crises develop; for they will develop. I believe that adding to the complexity of what we are trying to do will not help to alleviate chaos in a crisis.
      Peter Bottomley: I hope the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) will not mind if I do not follow his line of argument. Let me say, in the gentlest possible way, that I disagree with him entirely.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer), with the assistance of the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), raised an issue that goes beyond the contingency planning that is best represented in clause 2, which refers to
      "preventing the emergency … reducing, controlling or mitigating its effects, or … taking other action in connection with it".
      The matters that we are contemplating are not just for the professionals; they are for members of the public as well. We should be letting the public—individuals as well as groups—know what they can do to help reduce the incidence, impact and consequences of events. If those events do not happen, it will be fine—the best job that can be done by the blue-light services is not to turn the blue light on—but when they do happen, more people should know what they can do in order to make a significant difference. They need to know what they should avoid doing because it would do more harm, and what should be done to improve the situation.
      I do not claim to be an expert, but for various reasons I have been around when a number of small disasters have taken place. I was beside the coffin of Oscar Romero, on the occasion of his funeral service on Palm Sunday 1980 in El Salvador, when a number of bombs—or demonstration bombs—went off in a crowded square containing 20,000 people. There was a lot of shooting from the military headquarters on one side of the square, and people sought refuge in the cathedral. There were two problems. The archbishop's coffin was blocking the doors; and the impact of a crush at the doors, straight away, would have made even the Hillsborough disaster look modest. A small number of us tried to make sure that there was enough space to get the coffin out of the way, and we ended up with about 5,000 people inside the cathedral.

      1375
      Fourteen people did die through crushing, which is one of the big panic problems in a disaster. The immediate problem is the rush. I suspect that the number of deaths would have been significantly greater if we had not managed to clear at least a pathway. In the Heysel stadium in 1985, the problem was caused by British louts attacking Italian fans. Because the other British fans were too squashed together, they took the space that was liberated. Plainly what was needed was an English voice on the loudspeaker system telling those not involved in the disturbances to stay where they were, and not to move into space that had become free. If that had happened, there would not have been the push, push, push and the 39 dead Italians.
      It took 20 minutes to find someone with authority to enable microphones and loudspeakers to be used. It is not necessarily the authorities who spot what should be done first; it may be a member of the public. In this case it was me, and I did not succeed in getting it done fast enough, but another 200 or 300 people there might, with some foreknowledge, have been able to say, "This needs to be done". They might have passed on the message, so that someone with the necessary authority and control could take effective action.
      Then there was the King's Cross disaster. People were brought out of the underground after a fire that was not—so to speak—necessary, and had consequences that were not necessary either. I suspect that, as in the case of the fire at the Bradford football stadium, many people knew that there was rubbish around that could be set alight. The cause of the fire might not be known, but the existence of fuel that need not and should not have been there was something of which any member of the public should be aware.
      We learned from the Windsor castle fire that breaking up roof spaces stops a fire spreading. As a result of explosions, gas can be ignited. If ordinary members of the public were aware that the presence of unnecessary combustible material is wrong, public emergency training and education could greatly reduce secondary consequences, although it might still be impossible to prevent the primary cause.
      So generally raising people's awareness of the practical steps that can be taken is important. If the Government do not accept the new clause today, it is fairly safe to say that they will have to answer some of the arguments in detail now and later, and that they are almost certain to say within six weeks or six months, "Well, perhaps we will adopt it in a modified form." I would much prefer them to say today that they have authorised the Minister to accept it, and that they have tried to work out the consequences. However, my experience is that Ministers who agree with a particular proposal often have to put the argument against it because of the process of government.
      According to this process, a good idea is first ignored, then people just say "no", bringing up the historical negative whereby one cannot do something in a new way because it has not been done that way before. But when the Government of the day produce a two and a half page argument against the proposal in question, they actually engage with the arguments, and within six
      1376
      weeks or six months they say, "It was our idea in the first place and we always intended to do it, so we aren't going to share the credit with others."
      My hon. Friend the Member for Newark and I would not mind if the Government did not share the credit for this proposal, so long as they introduce such a board. The proposal is a sensible one, involving as it does category 1 responders such as local authorities and the emergency services, category 2 responders such as the utilities and the transport agencies, and independents. Such a structure is very similar to that of the Health and Safety Commission, which is also a tripartite body. Of course, one reason why our performance in respect of injury and death at work is about the best in the world is the existence of a tripartite system that involves independent experts and the two sides of industry. Combining the two sides of the emergency services—put simply, local government, and the blue light services—with the utilities and the transport agencies would be a good way of achieving the same thing.
      Moreover, having a public discussion is probably the best way of dealing with the ghouls and the real worries. The worst worry is the darkness; having light is not actually a serious worry. Each of us, whatever our station or responsibilities in life, will at some stage be told that we or someone dear to us—a parent, spouse or child—will have our date of death known rather more accurately than we anticipated. Nothing can bring death where there would otherwise be unending life; the question is whether death is to be brought forward. If each of us can cope with such information, I suspect that we can cope with anything that might emerge from an emergency public education and training board.
      It is open to the Government to say that their civil contingencies system will be able to absorb the kind of work to which the proposal of my hon. Friend the Member for Newark relates. That argument is perhaps slightly better than the one offered by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy, but it is not good enough. There could be an overarching national body and a body for each of the nations of the United Kingdom, and certain groups could be given the task of working on particular issues. However, my belief is that we ourselves know more about what we can do, and that we could contribute our knowledge.
      Let us consider the Kegworth air disaster, in which an airliner landed on the M1. Some four or five hours after it happened, I said to Sir Michael Bishop—this sounded a bit odd to say so in the middle of a disaster—that I thought he was doing rather well. He said that he had gone through what his and his team's reaction ought to be to such a disaster. Although one hopes that planes will always land safely. one has to plan for when things go wrong. He and his people knew what to do. I am not sure that the general public always know what to do, which is one reason for having the kind of board that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark has proposed.
      I am very pleased that we are having this debate. Contingent on a serious approach to our growing knowledge and anticipation of disaster—be it man-made or natural, deliberate or accidental—is the beneficial and open discussion that such a board would enable. I hope that the House will agree to the new clause without Division. If, by chance, the Government

      1377
      have instructed the Minister to resist it, I hope that such resistance will not be offered on the basis of poor reasoning.
      Board after board, forum after forum and organisation after organisation have been introduced in the past seven years, although I shall not take this opportunity to discuss my current pet worry, which is the proposed substitute for the community health councils. The House should reject the argument that we should not create this board, which has a real purpose and could be made to work. The people expect us to anticipate what will be helpful, and such a board would be.
      8 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: If ever we needed to remind ourselves that education and instruction are extremely important, what happened last Wednesday must surely remind us. Nobody in this Chamber knew what was going on, and, more to the point, nobody knew what we should have been doing at that time. I was told after the event that we should all have sat down to await decontamination. I was one of the last to leave the Chamber—not because I am brave but because I was not sure what the hell was going on. However, everybody left the Chamber.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: I notice that Government Front Benchers were nodding agreement at the point about decontamination. The amazing thing was that even those at the very top of Parliament did not know what to do. It was the recipients of the attack who were in the most danger, and it was they who should have stayed put until they were decontaminated. Opposition Members should have got out of the Chamber as quickly as possible, before the powder spread. That incident highlights the very point that we are trying to get across: education is necessary in every eventuality.
      Mr. Llwyd: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right; indeed, I could not have put it better myself. Of course, if we in this place are not sure what is going on, how can we expect the public to behave in the safest manner in a civil emergency?
      In the days of the cold war, I remember receiving leaflets on what to do in the event of an attack. They made people think about such things, but they did not strike fear into them. I certainly do not recall a wave of panic around where I lived, and I doubt whether we are more resilient than the rest of the United Kingdom. Such a public information campaign was undertaken even back then, but we have moved on a bit since. We have a Government who are very keen on imparting information—albeit selectively—and on using all manner of media to do so. It has been suggested that websites be used, but some elderly people do not even know what a website is. Indeed, although some of us who are less elderly know what they are, we are not very good at using them.
      Last year there was a severe flooding problem in my constituency, which affected two or three villages. There was the odd newsflash on television, and apparently a limited attempt was made to telephone people. The Environment Agency decided that although the incident might be severe, it would not treat it as severe because fewer than 100 houses were affected. I do not know what
      1378
      kind of message that sends. Of course, the Environment Agency denied at the time that it got it wrong, but it has since realised what happened and has publicly announced that things have been tightened.
      As I said, there were some newsflashes on television, but I know of some elderly people who did not really want to watch the television that evening; they preferred instead to read the newspaper by the fireside. They and all their furniture were badly affected, and although their neighbours came to help, it was a bit late in the day. The example of those three villages shows that we needed to tighten procedures in respect of risks of which we were already fully aware. They had been flooded before, yet still the Environment Agency did not get it right.
      Mr. Stephen Pound: I am following the hon. Gentleman's argument with great interest, but surely he is running up against the counterintuitive wall. On the occasion of the purple powder-packed prophylactic projectile, everyone's natural instinct was to flee, when it would have been logical to stay and die for one's country and avoid spreading the problem. It is that measure of seriousness. How on earth can we educate people that it is better to stay and die than to go and spread the problem? That will be difficult. With the best will in the world, it will be beyond websites.
      Mr. Llwyd: I agree entirely. I have no doubt about that, but there are other scenarios in which, although there may a serious risk, some steps that could easily be taken will minimise the risk for some people. Let us save them at least for heaven's sake, if we can.
      I have a particular interest in the dirty bomb scenario. As the crow flies, I live about 15 miles from a decommissioned nuclear power station. It does not take a genius to work out that that is a real threat. Of all UK constituencies, mine was the worst affected by the Chernobyl fallout, and it is still affected. I have been to Chernobyl and unfortunately seen the effects there, too.
      Dr. Moonie: In the absence of any radiated fuel on the site, as is the case with a decommissioned power station, the risk from explosion is relatively minor.
      Mr. Llwyd: The fuel is kept on-site. It has not been moved.
      Mr. Heath: To move from a decommissioned nuclear installation to one that is active—Hinkley Point—in the 1980s I had a protracted argument with the Central Electricity Generating Board about whether local communities should be issued with potassium iodide tablets, so that they were ready for an emergency; whether there should be muster points in village halls, which there should have been; and whether people would know about what was going to happen and which radio station to tune into to get local information. We eventually won that argument in respect of Hinkley A and B but I am not sure of the position in the rest of the country.
      Mr. Llwyd: The point that I was trying to make was that the rods have been taken away but the medium and low-level waste remains on-site. The hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) agrees on that.

      1379
      Where I come from, we are living with a real danger. The local council has set up its own liaison committee. It has had a civil defence committee type of thing for many years, but no one in the local council seems to know what would happen if there were an incident, apart from one or two council officials, so again that is a failure.
      I am not making any political point. If the Minister tells the House that the training board is not necessary, will she please say how we will get up to speed to ensure that the information is available, and that everyone knows in a given set of circumstances what they should be doing. How will we ensure that the public are properly protected? That is her concern, it is my concern and it is the concern of the whole Chamber.
      The whole point of the Bill is to update and to strengthen existing legislation, and I fully agree with it, but if she says that it is otiose—to use the usual parliamentary word—or if she uses a similar parliamentary word, will she please explain how that important information will be disseminated? How will we ensure that we reach all the countries of the UK to ensure that any risk—heaven knows, we do not want it to happen—is minimised as far as possible?
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) asked a key question: how can information be disseminated? Even the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who disagreed with the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) made, said that lines of communication are important. My question to the Minister is: how will those lines of communication operate? If there is a flood, generally, one is aware of the problem, although, as the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy pointed out, that is not always the case. As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley) pointed out in a series of examples of catastrophes he has been involved with, witnessed or knows about, communication can break down even when a catastrophe is happening before one's very eyes.
      If a dirty bomb were to go off 100 yds from here, we would not know. When I asked the Home Secretary—I have only just received his written response—about what training there would be, he answered:
      "In the event of an attack, unless people are under the direction of the emergency services, they should go indoors and tune into the TV or radio for further instructions. The media is the main system through which the government and the emergency services will alert the public. The message is 'go in, stay in, tune in'".
      That is all very well if one knows that an event has happened. When we were in Chamber, we saw the purple dye come down. We knew that the event had happened, but if a dirty bomb with a small amount of Semtex spreading radioactive material were to go off, unless—
      Dr. Moonie: You are not going to die of purple flour.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman shows his ignorance. A dirty bomb may consist of a conventional explosive in which radiological material is embedded. He was a Minister. He knows that. If a bomb were to go
      1380
      off and radiological material were spread by the wind, unless one were in earshot of the bomb, one would not know it had gone off. As my hon. Friend the Member for Newark said, the siren system has been dismantled. How would we know, that we had to go in, stay in and tune in?
      Mr. Llwyd: A regrettably large proportion of people in eastern Wales cannot receive television transmissions and many valleys throughout the whole of Wales cannot receive radio. Therefore, I am a bit concerned about the Home Secretary's response.
      Michael Fabricant: The hon. Gentleman makes a powerful point. Please God, Meirionnydd will not be a key target but other things may happen, and we know that terrorists often go for soft targets. Dolgellau and other areas could be regarded as a soft target. He is absolutely right. There are areas where there is no local radio, where national radio is difficult to receive, even on long wave, and where television signals are very weak.
      Mr. Allan: I am interested in the hon. Gentleman's argument, which I think I am correct in thinking shows his strong support for the amendment that I have tabled. The decision on the most appropriate form of communication in each area should be made locally. In mid-Wales, it may be different because one cannot get TV and radio reception, but the key test is that networks should be resilient for their areas. That is the test that we must apply.
      Michael Fabricant: Again, I quote the point made by the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy: lines of communication have to be established. The question I ask the Minister is: if a bomb were to go off, but we did not know that it had gone off, how would we know that we had to go in, stay in and tune in, even if there is something to tune in with?
      What is the Minister frightened of? What are the Government so frightened of? Does she have such a low level of trust in the British people that she thinks people will panic if they know, about these issues? Why does not she do what they do in the United States of America? Why does not she do what they have done in Australia? I hate to reduce the matter to political phrases, but education, education, education in this instance could be a matter of life or death.
      I should quote another phrase: "trust the people". As my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West said, people perform better in the light of knowledge rather than in the darkness of lack of knowledge.
      8.15 pm
      Let us reflect more on the detail of the message to go in, stay in and tune in. If people are not trained to know exactly what to do, what do they do once they are in? Do they block the windows to ensure that no dust or ricin contaminant comes in? It may be common sense to do that. I do not know: no instructions have been given. As for tuning in, will the Minister tell us whether there is a national emergency system in place now—there

      1381
      certainly was not a few years ago—whereby every single radio channel and every single television channel goes to one source, so that the same message is sent out?
      Ms Blears indicated assent.
      Michael Fabricant: The Minister nods, so I hope that that means that whatever station one tunes into, a network feed will tell people exactly what they should do. Again, the problem is that ii people do not know that an event has happened—whether it be a dirty bomb or whatever—they will not tune in. Who outside the Chamber—apart from those watching our proceedings on television—knew at the time that the purple dye had come down? No one in the Tea Room knew. When we all went in there, potentially to contaminate people working there, they did not know what was going on. All they knew was that the House had been suspended because that is what it said on the Annunciator. If we in this small area do not know what is going on, what about the whole of Whitehall and its surrounding area, which would be affected by the wind blowing in any direction?
      I ask the Minister to trust the people, to have faith to educate them and to consider how best to announce to a given area that an incident has happened. The problem is not as obvious as the Blitz in the second world war; it is far subtler than that. The Minister should believe in the fact that, if people know what to do, they will be confident in doing what they have to do.
      Ms Blears: I can see and hear for myself how passionately Members feel about these issues, and I understand that there was a wide-ranging debate in Committee on this very subject. I know that people have strong views, which has been evident in this evening's debate.
      The amendments raise important questions about the level of information, training and advice that the Government can usefully give the public in advance of an emergency, as well as during it and after it has happened. Those three stages are all important. We recognise that the behaviour of the public in all three stages is absolutely crucial. In some circumstances, facilitating self-help by the public could reduce the burden on the emergency services, helping them to act in a way that does not exacerbate their problems. Equally, the public can help to add capacity to the emergency services' ability to respond. The public should, first, do good things to help the emergency services, and, secondly, desist from doing bad things that would hinder them.
      We take these issues seriously. As hon. Members have anticipated, I am not about to agree that the
      "Emergency Public Education and Training Board"
      in the form recommended in the new clause should be established. I do not believe that that is necessary to ensure that the public are properly informed. I direct hon. Members to clause 2(1)(g), which provides that the responders in part 1 or 2 of schedule 1 shall
      "maintain arrangements to warn the public, and to provide information and advice to the public, if an emergency is likely to occur or has occurred."
      1382
      That provides for a clear duty to ensure that arrangements are in place to warn the public and to provide information in advance.
      Michael Fabricant: What, then, is in place if the dirty bomb, ricin contaminant or whatever were to go off up Whitehall or wherever? How would we know about it, unless we were tuned in to the radio at the time?
      Ms Blears: The hon. Gentleman has raised his point before I have responded to those of other hon. Members. I had him on my list, but he has raised the issue now. We believe that "Go in, stay in and tune in" is the best first piece of advice that we can give people, but it would obviously not be appropriate in all circumstances. If there were a fire and a building were collapsing, for example, it would be entirely inappropriate, and the best advice would be the fire service's demand to get out of there.
      The hon. Gentleman asked me specifically whether a national system was in place to ensure that all the emergency broadcasting systems would disseminate the same message, and I can tell him that the UK does have an emergency broadcasting system, and that arrangements are in place to ensure such rapid dissemination of public warnings through the whole range of communications—radio, television, Ceefax, teletext and websites. My experience of last week's event in Parliament was that all the breaking-news agencies—Sky and others—immediately recognised what had happened. Indeed, members of the public contacted us immediately. Our friends and family were contacting us to express their concerns.
      Michael Fabricant rose—
      Ms Blears: I am going to press on because we have dealt only with part 1 of the Bill and we have to move on to Third Reading at 9 o'clock. A whole range of amendments has not yet been covered.
      Peter Bottomley: If it is an emergency to try to cover the ground in the Bill, will the Minister send a message to the Leader of the House requesting more time to debate this important measure?
      Ms Blears: We will have had five and half hours to debate the Bill this evening, and we had a lengthy debate on the previous group of amendments dealing with the voluntary sector. That is why I am anxious to press on.
      Clause 2(1)(g) provides the duty, as I explained. Amendment No. 100 is connected and I shall deal with it briefly. It was ably proposed by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), who brought out the key point that the responder systems must be resilient if at the end of the day they are to protect the public. I refer him to the Act—no, the Bill, I must not be so presumptuous—particularly to clause 2(1)(c), which states that the responders have to
      "maintain plans for the purpose of ensuring, so far as is reasonably practicable, that if an emergency occurs the person or body is able to continue to perform his or its functions".
      That embeds the resilience point. If plans were not in place to carry on and warn the public, there would be a breach of duty under that provision. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that the Bill meets the requirements that he set out in the amendment.

      1383
      I have already pointed out that clause 2(1)(g) deals with the responsibility to ensure that the public receive proper information. The clause also requires responders to publish aspects of their civil protection in so far as it is necessary or desirable for preventing an emergency or mitigating its effects. That includes the provision of information about the risks before an emergency happens, the actions to be taken by the authorities and, crucially, the actions that the public can take in the event of an emergency.
      I would like to point out a couple of ways in which that can happen. Several hon. Members have asked about floods—an issue close to my heart, because there is an area in my constituency that was flooded disastrously in the 1930s and people there are currently examining various flood defence schemes. There is a variety of methods, depending on the nature of the incident, through which we can inform people of what is going on.
      For flooding or severe weather, the Environment Agency and the Met Office have well established systems to inform the general public through broadcasting. They also have an automatic telephone dialling system, a fax system and, for hazardous industrial sites and nuclear power stations, there is an obligation on the operator to warn the public within a specified distance. Fixed sirens are often relied on in those circumstances. Water companies will inform their customers about loss of water through loudspeaker vans—we have all heard them: in the old days, they used to tell us to fill the bath up, but I am not quite sure what they are telling us now—and health authorities will contact vulnerable groups if there is a health risk. More generally, the police are likely to warn members of the public if there is an immediate threat to life. That could be done in person by constables, or by a helicopter using sky shout—a system that enables warnings to be sent down from helicopters.
      On Friday, I visited the Home Secretary's constituency, where there is a new van that has both cameras and a loudspeaker system, to alert people if an incident should occur.
      There is a wide variety of emergencies, so there is a wide range of ways of alerting the public. There is not one simple, uniform method.
      Mr. Heath: I am part of the system, because my constituency floods every year and I am the village contact who is telephoned by the automatic dialling system—which is not terribly resilient, because if I am here when there is a flood, I am out of touch.
      My point was that there should be commonality of systems wherever possible. For instance, would the Environment Agency system be available to other emergency services, to give advice, because it makes common sense for that to be the case, so that we do not have a variety of systems reaching the wrong people rather than a single system reaching the right people?
      Ms Blears: There is a balance to be struck, and I am sure that there is common sense about using systems that are already in place, but we must also have the right people in charge of the right area, and in seeking a
      1384
      completely homogeneous system, we could lose out on the particular skills and knowledge of the various agencies. We want to keep the lead agencies for their expertise, and we should not overlook the possibility of using their infrastructure—avoiding the cost of creating new infrastructure. That needs to be developed through guidance and regulations, which are part of the framework that we need to set up. It cannot be right, however, to have only one system, when the threats are various. That is why clause 2 makes it a local duty to have proper arrangements in place to inform the public.
      We see no real merit in setting up the board proposed in the new clause, because there is no such thing as a standard terrorist threat or incident, so there can be no standard response. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) said in his thoughtful and insightful contribution that resilience should be flexible enough to respond to threats that we had perhaps not even contemplated. The responders need to co-operate, as there is not one size that fits all.
      Patrick Mercer: In at least three newspapers recently, there have been reports that the Government intend to produce a leaflet for every household. Indeed, a draft of it was leaked to one of the newspapers. It certainly was not perfect, but it struck me that it was better than nothing. Do the Government intend to do that?
      Ms Blears: We have considered the matter over the past 18 months, and a range of issues is under consideration. I do not intend to comment on individual leaks at this stage, but as well as leaflets we have done a huge amount with the websites and we are considering a whole range of ways of being in contact with the public.
      The hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam asked about the resilience of electronic infrastructure. Clearly, that is a key issue for our capabilities programme, and we are very conscious of it. It is vital for our resilience to keep up to date, as we are far more dependent on electronic communication than we were in the past.
      The Home Office site contains advice on the threats and what to do at home, at work or when travelling, and information on what the Government are doing to help. The MI5 site, which was launched fairly recently, contains much more detailed advice on the threats that we face and what businesses can do. It describes how individuals can help combat the threat, acting as our eyes and ears.
      The Foreign and Commonwealth Office site provides constantly updated advice on threats abroad. "London Prepared" provides detailed advice on business continuity planning, with links to many other organisations. Many other departmental sites also include resilience and counter-terrorism advice and information.
      There are 15 Government reports on resilience-related issues, and we have guidance for schools and teachers, through the "TeacherNet" site. There is a whole range of public information resources to ensure that the messages are accessible to as much of the public as possible.
      8.30 pm
      Michael Fabricant: If a biological, radiological or other weapon of mass destruction was let off near a school, say, how would people know to log on to one of

      1385
      those websites? How would they know to tune in to the radio, without there being a siren system or another system to let them know that an event had happened?
      Ms Blears: The response would vary depending on the incident. For example, in a nuclear installation there would be sirens, and on the street the emergency services would be the first there and would set up a cordon and instruct the public, and our normal systems of responding to emergencies would be in place.
      We need to have some perspective and get the balance right. The hon. Member for Newark (Patrick Mercer) asked about live exercises. As he well knows, numerous exercises are taking place, both table-top and reality, and there was Operation Magpie just a couple of weeks ago. No-notice exercises such as he suggested would simply cause chaos and create the effect of an incident—almost doing the terrorists' job for them. None of the emergency services advocates such exercises. I urge the House to resist the new clause and the amendment.
      Patrick Mercer: I am extremely disappointed but not surprised by the Government's reaction. Let me say to the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) that the points that I was trying to make were not political, but in fact supportive of the Government, because the last thing that this nation needs in the aftermath of a terrible incident is a Government put under intolerable pressure by the media about things that could have been avoided before the incident rather than being revealed by it.
      The Minister's response on training is especially disappointing. The fact remains that if the Government follow any of the precedents, they must realise that there will be an opportunity cost for getting people and society prepared.
      Only by so doing will we avoid the unnecessary loss of life and the political ramifications that will result. I am very disappointed by the Government's response and I shall seek to divide the House.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 112, Noes 306.

      Division No. 184]

      [8.33 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Amess, David

      Collins, Tim

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Conway Derek

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Baldry, Tony

      Curry, rh David

      Barker, Gregory

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Bercow, John

      Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      Evans, Nigel

      Blunt, Crispin

      Fabricant, Michael

      Boswell, Tim

      Fallon, Michael

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Flight, Howard

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Forth, rh Eric

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Brazier, Julian

      Gamier, Edward

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Burnside, David

      Goodman, Paul

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Grayling, Chris

      Chope, Christopher

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Grieve, Dominic

      1386

      Hammond, Philip

      Redwood, rh John

      Hawkins, Nick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Heald, Oliver

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Hendry, Charles

      Shepherd, Richard

      Hermon, Lady

      Simmonds, Mark

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Spring, Richard

      Leigh, Edward

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Streeter, Gary

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Swayne, Desmond

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Syms, Robert

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      McIntosh Miss Anne

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Maclean, rh David

      Tredinnick, David

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Trimble, rh David

      Malins, Humfrey

      Turner, Andrew(isle of Wight)

      Maples, John

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Viggers, Peter

      Mercer, Patrick

      Weir, Michael

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Wilshire, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Young, rh Sir George

      Page, Richard

      Paterson, Owen

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Hugh Robertson and

      Randall, John

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Burgon, Colin

      Ainger, Nick

      Burnharm, Andy

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Cairns, David

      Allan, Richard

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Allen, Graham

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE File)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Casale, Roger

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Caton, Martin

      Austin, John

      Challen, Colin

      Bailey, Adrian

      Chaytor, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clapham, Michael

      Barrett, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Battle, John

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Beard, Nigel

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Clelland, David

      Bennett, Andrew

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Betts, Clive

      Coaker, Vernon

      Blackman, Liz

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Cohen, Harry

      Blunkett, rh David

      Connarty, Michael

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Corston, rh Jean

      Breed, Colin

      Cruddas, Jon

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Browne, Desmond

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Dalyell, Tam

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Burden, Richard

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      1387

      Davidson, Ian

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Denham, rh John

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Edwards, Huw

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Efford, Clive

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kidney, David

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Etherington, Bill

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Farrelly, Paul

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Fisher, Mark

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flint, Caroline

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Foster, rh Derek

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike(llford S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Grogan, John

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hain, rh Peter

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      McDonnell, John

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      MacDougall, John

      Hancock, Mike

      McFall, John

      Hanson, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Harvey, Nick

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McKechin, Ann

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Healey, John

      McNamara, Kevin

      Heath, David

      McNulty, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Hendrick, Mark

      McWilliam, Tony

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McWilliam, John

      Heyes, David

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hodge, Margaret

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Holmes, Paul

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Martlew, Eric

      Merron, Gillian

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Michael, rh Alun

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Miliband, David

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Miller, Andrew

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Moffatt, Laura

      Illsley, Eric

      Mole, Chris

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Moore, Michael

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Jamieson, David

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      O'Hara, Edward

      1388

      Olner, Bill

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      O'Neill, Martin

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

      Öpik, Lembit

      Organ, Diana

      Squire, Rachel

      Owen, Albert

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Perham, Linda

      Stevenson, George

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Pound, Stephen

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Stringer, Graham

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Prescott, rh John

      Stunell, Andrew

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Purchase, Ken

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Purnell, James

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Thurso, John

      Rammell, Bill

      Timms, Stephen

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Tickett, Jon

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

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Rendel, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Ruane, Chris

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Ward, Claire

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Watts, David

      Salter, Martin

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Sanders, Adrian

      White, Brian

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Wills, Michael

      Sheerman, Barry

      Winnick, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Short, rh Clare

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Worthington, Tony

      Singh, Marsha

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Skinner, Dennis

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mr. John Heppell and

      Mr. Jim Murphy

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 3

      EMERGENCY POWERS COMMITTEE
      Where Her Majesty or a senior Minister of the Crown thinks that the conditions for making emergency regulations are satisfied, such regulations shall be placed before a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council (known as the Emergency Powers Committee) for consideration prior to the laying of such regulations.'—[Mr. Heald.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Heald: 1 beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Madam Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments:
      No. 49, in clause 21, page 14, line 31, leave out `whether written or oral', and insert—
      'in writing to the Emergency Powers Committee'.
      No. 63, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
      `(a) these regulations shall be put to a joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter to be known as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.'.
      No. 70, in clause 26, page 17, line 22, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

      '(a) (i) these regulations shall he put to a Joint Committee of both Houses of Parliament consisting of members of the Privy Council chosen to reflect the political balance of the House of Commons (hereafter referred to as the Emergency Powers Committee), before their acceptance, to provide an initial and acceptable parliamentary check.

      a senior Minister of the Crown shall then, as soon as is reasonably practicable, lay the regulations before Parliament, provided that he believes on reasonable grounds that he has used his best endeavours to consult the Emergency Powers Committee.

      a senior Minister of the Crown may dispense with the requirements of paragraph (a) above if he believes on reasonable grounds that it is necessary to do so by reason of urgency.'

      No. 3, in clause 26, page 17, line 43, at end insert—
      '(3A) Paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'.
      No. 74, in clause 26, page 17, line 45, leave out paragraph (a).
      No. 75, in clause 26, page 18, line 1, leave out 'affect anything' and insert 'render unlawful'.
      No. 4, in clause 29, page 18, line 4l, at end insert—
      '(3) Emergency regulations may make provision to disapply or modify an enactment under section 21(3)(j) only if a draft of the regulations or order has been laid before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.
      Mr. Heald: It has taken some time, but we are now examining part 2. You will be aware, Madam Deputy Speaker, of the concern expressed by many people, including the Joint Committee on Human Rights, about the progress of the Bill and its scrutiny. In its most recent report, the Committee was optimistic that the Minister for the Cabinet Office would change his position in an amendment to be tabled on Report. Government amendment No. 93, which we may reach later, would require emergency regulations to include a statement that the person making them
      "is satisfied that the regulations are compatible with the Convention rights".
      The amendment refers only to section 1 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which may be problematic, but it certainly represents progress. At the end of page 8 of its latest report, the Joint Committee says:
      "We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty under section 6 of the Human Rights Act, with a … risk of violating Convention rights."
      1390
      Once again, the Committee draws that matter to the attention of the House.
      There is still concern about the Bill's compatibility with the Human Rights Act. New clause 3 proposes a small joint committee of Privy Councillors to consider emergency regulations before they are laid in the House with the aim of achieving consensus, all-party support and scrutiny. I pay tribute to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for proposing such an arrangement on Second Reading. We pursued it in Committee, and its purpose is to provide a quick but effective parliamentary check of proposed emergency powers. In Committee, the Minister for the Cabinet Office was sympathetic to
      "the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties when emergency powers are to be used".
      He spoke of
      "the long-standing convention that the Government should seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus".—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 299.]
      He would not, however, accept our amendments. We have therefore revisited the issue in new clause 3 and I hope for a better response this time.
      Given the number of others who wish to speak, there is not time for me to outline each of the other amendments, but all have a bearing on the emergency powers committee, as we call it, and all of them are designed to put into effect a structure whereby the emergency powers committee—a joint committee—could have a role and we could bring to the issue of emergency powers that element of consensus.
      The idea behind amendment No. 3 was suggested on Second Reading by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), who properly argued that for our normal Standing Orders to apply to the emergency regulations and to have only 90 minutes to debate them is wrong. Although he did not use the words, I would say that that is approaching a constitutional outrage. The Government accepted in Committee that 90 minutes
      "is unlikely to be sufficient to debate regulations as important as these will be.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 10 February 2004; c. 301.]
      If they think that that is true, they should put their money where their mouth is and introduce the change in the law that we propose.
      Amendments Nos. 74 and 4 are also proportionate measures to prevent the Government from having too much power in these matters.
      Mr. Heath: I fully support the intention behind the amendments moved by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald). It is more than desirable, it is essential, that at a time of emergency, that the broadest possible consensus in the political sphere and on a wider front be achieved to command the agreement and consent of the British people. The hon. Gentleman suggested one mechanism, but there are others. Making that a requirement means that it is not

      1391
      left to the whim of a Minister of the day to implement proper consultation with all parties, which we would all agree is a desirable state of affairs.
      I will not speak to amendment No. 3 tabled by the hon. Member for Aldridge-Brownhills (Mr. Shepherd), other than to note that my hon. Friends the Members for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) and for Orkney and Shetland (Mr. Carmichael) thought it right to attach their names in support of it. It is entirely inappropriate that debate of such important regulations in the House should be abbreviated. It is important that we have a proper debate. I hope that the amendment will achieve that and that the Government will see fit to support it.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: I shall be very brief and make only four points.
      First, we need to be aware how wide-ranging the powers to make emergency regulations are. Their scope is extensive and is provided for in clause 21. Secondly, we need to keep it in mind that we are discussing emergency regulations—that is, those that have not been through the parliamentary process. Thirdly, we should keep it in mind that the Ministers thought capable of laying the emergency regulations include very junior ones—namely, Whips. It is extraordinary that Whips should be in a position to lay such draconian provisions before the House.
      I therefore support the purpose behind new clause 3 with this proviso: I would not make the committee a consultative committee. I would make its consent a precondition to the emergency regulations being issued. There is much more that I could say, but I do not consider it appropriate that I should at this late hour.
      Mr. Shepherd: The lateness of the hour and the fact that there are six minutes before a guillotine falls give urgency and emphasis to amendment No. 3, which states that paragraph (1) of House of Commons Standing Order No. 16
      "shall not apply to proceedings in the House of Commons under this section.'"
      There is a 90-minute guillotine on such motions and as has been mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) and acknowledged by the Government in Committee, 90 minutes would be an unconscionably short time to debate regulations that might touch on some of the most fundamental political and civil liberties that have been at the centre of the life, vitality and purpose of the House over its history.
      Therefore, amendment No. 3, which has all-party support, seeks to remove by statute the recourse that the Government could have to Standing Order No. 16. We now live in a time when even this Bill, which touches on some of our most fundamental liberties, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) said, does not receive proper scrutiny. We must have the ability to discuss these matters for longer, if that is what the House determines by the will expressed in the course of the debate, and that should be set out in legislation. I become cynical and distressed because of the way in which even on this important measure, under the guillotine, Back Benchers
      1392
      have not been remotely able to make a contribution on the areas of part 2 that are fundamental to the purpose of many of us.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Fiona Mactaggart): I am grateful to hon. Members for trying, to make their important points briefly and I hope to address each of them in the very short time that is left to me.
      The Government are sympathetic to the principle of wider consultation with representatives of key parties, which is inherent in new clause 3, if emergency powers are to be used, but we do not believe that the proposed mechanism is the appropriate or best way of going about conducting that process. The House is aware that there is a long-standing convention that the Government will seek in times of serious emergency to build consensus across the political spectrum. The Prime Minister regularly briefs senior figures from all the major political parties on a Privy Council basis. The Government's commitment to that approach was most recently demonstrated in relation to the conflict in Iraq. That tried and tested procedure allows the Government to take the views of senior parliamentary figures in a flexible and efficient way that is tailored to the needs of the situation at hand. It is our view that continuing with that tried and tested procedure is a more appropriate way to ensure that the collecting of opinion is properly done.
      Of course, we know that we will use the part 2 powers only in moments of extreme emergency. Establishing a pre-set committee may create greater delay, and we need the most flexible possible way to achieve what is needed. That is why we are anxious to avoid a proposal that could delay response efforts without adding anything to the process. Unnecessary delay in situations in which lives may be at stake would be unacceptable.
      Hon. Members have raised concerns—they are largely dealt with in later amendments—about the impact on human rights of other constitutional matters that could arise as a result of the regulations. We have sought to take into account the concerns of the House, and the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) was kind enough to refer to Government amendment No. 93, which seeks to make that clear. We believe that it would be impossible to amend the Human Rights Act 1998 through the regulations that we propose.
      I understand hon. Members' concerns about the length of time provided for debate, but it is unfair to make much of the fact that very junior Ministers might be in a position to move regulations; the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire knows perfectly well that they will be acting as Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, and that there are clear routines around which they could carry out that function. Fundamentally, the regulations are to be proposed by Secretaries of State and senior Ministers of the Crown.
      There is a key point, however, about properly debating the regulations, and I understand why the Opposition are seeking to amend the Standing Orders of the House to guarantee a long enough and proper debate. It is clearly unacceptable to expect to be able to amend regulations in a 90-minute debate. That 90-minute period is established—

      1393
      It being Nine o'clock, MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question already proposed from the Chair, pursuant to Order [19 January].
      The House divided: Ayes 136, Noes 278.

      Division No. 185]

      [9:00 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Allan, Richard

      Jackson, Robert(Wantage)

      Amess, David

      Jenkin, Bernard

      Arbuthnot, rh James

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Baldry, Tony

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Barker, Gregory

      Leigh, Edward

      Baron, John(Billericay)

      Letwin, rh Oliver

      Barrett, John

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Bellingham, Henry

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Bercow, John

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Beresford, Sir Paul

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Blunt, Crispin

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Boswell, Tim

      Maclean rh David

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Bottomley, rh Virginia(SW Surrey)

      Malins, Humfrey

      Maples, John

      Brazier, Julian

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Breed, Colin

      Mercer, Patrick

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Moore, Michael

      Burnside, David

      Moss, Malcolm

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Öpik, Lembit

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Osborne George(Tatton)

      Ottaway Richard

      Chope, Christopher

      Page, Richard

      Clarke, rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Paterson Owen

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Prisk, Mark(Hertford)

      Collins, Tim

      Randall, John

      Conway, Derek

      Redwood, rh John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Rendel, David

      Curry, rh David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Evans, Nigel

      Shephard, rh Mrs Gillian

      Fabricant, Michael

      Shepherd, Richard

      Fallon, Michael

      Simmonds Mark

      Flight, Howard

      Simpson, Keith(M-Norfolk)

      Forth, rh Eric

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

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Garnier, Edward

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Gibb, Nick(Bognor Regis)

      Soames, Nicholas

      Gidley, Sandra

      Spelman, Mrs Caroline

      Goodman, Paul

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gray, James(N Wilts)

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Grayling, Chris

      Spring, Richard

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Grieve, Dominic

      Streeter, Gary

      Hammond, Philip

      Stunell, Andrew

      Hancock, Mike

      Swayne Desmond

      Harvey, Nick

      Swire, Hugo(E Devon)

      Hawkins, Nick

      Syms, Robert

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Taylor, Ian(Esher)

      Heald, Oliver

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Heath, David

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hendry, Charles

      Thurso, John

      Hermon, Lady

      Trimble, rh David

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Holmes, Paul

      Viggers, Peter

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      1394

      Weir, Michael

      Yeo, Tim (S Suffolk)

      Wiggin, Bill

      Young, rh Sir George

      Willis, Phil

      Wilshire, David

      Winterton, Ann (Congleton)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Hugh Robertson and

      Mr. Mark Francois

      NOES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Ainger, Nick

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Allen, Graham

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Anderson, rh Donald(Swansea E)

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Edwards, Huw

      Austin, John

      Efford, Clive

      Bailey, Adrian

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Barnes, Harry

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Etherington, Bill

      Battle, John

      Farrelly, Paul

      Beard, Nigel

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Bennett, Andrew

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Betts, Clive

      Flint, Caroline

      Blackman, Liz

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Browne, Desmond

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Burden, Richard

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Burgon, Cohn

      Grogan, John

      Burnham, Andy

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cairns, David

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Challen, Colin

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Healey, John

      Chaytor, David

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Heyes, David

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clelland, David

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Cohen, Harry

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Colman, Tony

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Connarty, Michael

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Illsley, Eric

      Corston, rh Jean

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Cruddas, Jon

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Cummings, John

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Jamieson, David

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Denham, rh John

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      1395

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Pound, Stephen

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Kemp, Fraser

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Prescott, rh John

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Kidney, David

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Purchase, Ken

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Purnell, James

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Knight Jim(S Dorset)

      Rammell, Bill

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

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

      Lepper, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Ruane, Chris

      Linton, Martin

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Love, Andrew

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Salter, Martin

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sawford, Phil

      McCafferty, Chris

      Sedgemore, Brian

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Shaw, Jonathan

      MacDonald, Calum

      Sheerman, Barry

      McDonnell, John

      Sheridan, Jim

      MacDougall, John

      Short, rh Clare

      McFall, John

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Singh, Marsha

      McKechin, Ann

      Skinner, Dennis

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      McNamara, Kevin

      McNulty, Tony

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      McWilliam, John

      Squire, Rachel

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Stevenson, George

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Marshall, Jim(Leicester S)

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Merron, Gillian

      Stringer, Graham

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Miliband, David

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Mole, Chris

      Timms, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Tipping, Paddy

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Todd. Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Trickett, Jon

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Olner, Bill

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Organ, Diana

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Owen, Albert

      Ward, Claire

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Perham, Linda

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Watts, David

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      White, Brian

      Plaskitt, James

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      1396

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Worthington, Tony

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Wills, Michael

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.
      MADAM DEPUTY SPEAKER then proceeded to put forthwith the Questions necessary for the disposal of the business to be concluded at that hour, pursuant to Order [19 January].
      Government amendments Nos. 78 to 99 agreed to.
      Mr. Heald: On a point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. The result of the guillotine imposed on the Bill has been that six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments—including important Government amendments—have not been reached or debated. You will know that the Opposition voted against the programme motion. Would it be possible for you to report this matter to the Chairman of Ways and Means—who is called upon from time to time to give evidence about the effect of programming to Committees such as the Procedure Committee—to ensure that he is fully apprised of the disaster that has occurred today?
      Madam Deputy Speaker: That is not a point of order for the Chair. We are following the provisions of the programme motion to which the House agreed. I have no doubt, however that the Chairman of Ways and Means will read the hon. Gentleman's comments in Hansard.
      Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Deputy Speaker. At the conclusion of the Report stage, the Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department, the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), was unable to complete either her sentence or her speech, but it sounded as though she was about to make an important announcement. Although it may not have happened often, I believe that there is a precedent for two Ministers speaking al the beginning of a Third Reading debate. Would it be possible for the Under-Secretary to complete her speech before the Minister for Crime Reduction. Policing and Community Safety moves the Third Reading of the Bill? It really is a sadness—I do not want to use a pejorative word—that the Under-Secretary was unable to complete her speech at the previous stage.
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Sylvia Heal): Order. That is not a point of order. The issue is entirely up to the Ministers concerned
      Order for Third Reading read.
      9.14 pm
      Ms Blears: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I thank hon. Members on both sides of the House for their contribution to the development of the legislation. The principles of the Bi11 command the broad support of all parties, and I am genuinely grateful to hon. Members for the constructive and sensible way in which the Bill has been scrutinised and debated.

      1397
      As I said at the outset, a joint Committee subjected the Bill to pre-legislative scrutiny, and two public consultations have taken place. When the Bill was introduced on 7 January, the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster, who is unfortunately not with us this evening, said that it was stronger as a result of the pre-legislative scrutiny, and I am sure that hon. Members share that view.
      The Bill's subject matter is not party political, and all hon. Members have been keen to examine possible improvements and to make sure that that process is rigorous and evidence based—we all agree that it is important to get the Bill right. The Bill deals with serious issues, particularly given the heightened threat from terrorism that we all currently face Although we have occasionally disagreed on the detail, I hope that we all support the broad thrust of the Bill
      As the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said on Second Reading, the legislation's purpose is clear. The aim of the Bill and its accompanying non-legislative measures is the delivery of a single framework for civil protection in the United Kingdom that will hopefully meet the challenges of the 21st century—in some cases, the legislation that is being replaced dates back 80 years. The Bill establishes a proper framework, which will hopefully last for a similar length of time.
      We are all familiar with the challenges. Recent events have shown how emergencies can disrupt our way of life, damaging human welfare, the environment and national security. Even now, the events of 11 September 2001 are still fresh in many people's minds, but so are the fuel crisis, foot and mouth and the floods of 2000. The floods of 2000, which predated 11 September, were the catalyst for the emergency planning review, which was set in train by the Deputy Prime Minister and provided the foundations for the legislation.
      The Bill will end our reliance on legislation dating from the first half of the last century, which has stood us in good stead but is increasingly unsuitable in today's world. Modernisation is timely—some hon. Members disagree with some of the modernising measures that the Government have introduced—but I am glad that the Bill has all-party support.
      Lembit Öpik: Devolution is one element of modernisation, and I note the marked difference in responsibilities and authority between Scotland and Wales. Does the Minister feel it appropriate that Wales will effectively have less autonomy to make decisions relating to the Bill, after the Bill is enacted? Does she have a view on the need for a little more devolution to Wales on such matters?
      Ms Blears: I am delighted that the hon. Gentleman raises devolution. We had an interesting debate on devolution, in which one right hon. Member, who is not in his place, sought to undo the devolution settlement. The provisions relating to Scotland and Wales mirror the devolution settlement, which is why the Scottish provisions discuss action taken by Ministers, who are clearly separate from the legislature in Scotland, whereas the Welsh provisions concern consultation and deliberation with the Assembly, reflecting the different tenor of the devolution settlement in those two countries.
      1398
      On Report, I pointed out to the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy(Mr. Llwyd) that the relationship with Wales is important. Matters that have been devolved to Wales, such as health and transport, are key to making sure that the response to civil contingencies is accurate, integrated and coherent, and the relationship with Wales will continue to be important.
      Mr. Heald: Of course, we did not have a chance to discuss amendments Nos. 93 and 94, which the Government introduced following discussions in Committee on the role that they should play in terms of emergency powers to restore the Government and the declaration on human rights. I hope that the Minister will say a word about each amendment.
      Ms Blears: I will certainly do my best to cover all the areas that are dealt with by the Bill, because I recognise that we did not have time to deal with issues that are important to Members.
      It is right that the legislation should tackle the local and national levels. Part 1 will ensure that the framework for planning at the local level—already strong in many respects—is brought on to a more consistent basis. It enshrines the concept of integrated emergency management, which is that emergencies should be considered along a spectrum rather than being planned for in isolation. That is a departure from the Civil Defence Act 1939, and the analysis has drawn wide support from civil emergency protection practitioners. The Bill will deliver clear roles and responsibilities for local responders, and local communities across the country will see the benefit.
      The renewal of the emergency powers framework in part 2 is equally important. The Emergency Powers Act 1920 has served the UK well in times of national crisis, but it was last used more than 20 years ago and it has reached the end of its natural life. The fundamentals of the legislation remain the same—an ability rapidly to make temporary legislation for the purpose of dealing with the most serious of emergencies—but the Bill offers a more flexible, deployable and resilient model with stronger safeguards and better procedures than the original legislation.
      Nevertheless, we are all conscious of the difficult balance to be struck in these matters. I recognise how strongly Members felt about that in Committee and it is perhaps a pity that we have not had chance to debate them, but clearly Members—
      Mr. Hogg: Whose fault is that?
      Ms Blears: There were no knives in the programme motion, and Members could have sought to prioritise whichever amendments they wanted to. Perhaps we could have had more focused debates on the other amendments. Then we would have had a chance to consider other parts of the Bill.
      David Taylor: It has been put to me by a constituent who is a member of the human aspects group of the Emergency Planning Society that the definition of "emergency" is not sufficiently broad. Throughout the Bill,

      1399
      "emergency" is an event that presents a serious threat to human welfare and is explained in terms of loss of life, illness or injury. She tells me, and I put it to the Minister, that there needs to be much more of a
      "recognition that human welfare also includes human suffering(social and psychological) both in the short term and longer term."
      Does the Minister agree that the Bill deals with that adequately, and therefore that the definition of "emergency" is sufficiently broad?
      Ms Blears: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes, but "human welfare" is a broad term that can encompass physical welfare, but which may have an impact on people's emotional, mental and psychological well-being. The definition was subjected to a lot of debate during pre-legislative scrutiny. Indeed, one thing that Members across the House are pleased about is the fact that the reference in the original definition to a threat to economic, administrative and political stability was taken out because people felt it could perhaps be misused under a particularly ill-inclined Government.
      David Taylor: Will my hon. Friend write to me on this matter?
      Ms Blears: I shall take advice on the breadth of the definition. My instinct is that it could cover the circumstances outlined by my hon. Friend, but I am happy to write to him.
      We are conscious of the difficult balance to be struck and we recognise the sincere and heartfelt concerns of many in the House about the need to ensure that robust safeguards are in place to prevent misuse of emergency powers. We have made important changes to the Bill to meet those concerns as a result of pre-legislative scrutiny and during consideration in Committee and on Report, and especially in relation to parliamentary scrutiny and the operation of the Bill alongside the Human Rights Act 1998.
      Members were concerned about whether it would be possible to use the Bill to amend the Human Rights Act, but my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office made his statement of compatibility with that Act when he signed off the Bill and when he referred to this in Committee. I hope that Members will accept that assurance.
      Hon. Members have also taken the opportunity to use the debates to air other points of concern, both about the specifics of the Bill and the Government's wider civil contingencies and counter-terrorism work. We have had some useful discussions, and I hope that we have offered full explanations of our position. We tried to provide as much information as possible during the debates, and I hope that hon. Members have found that helpful in informing our deliberations.
      Mr. Nigel Evans: But can the hon. Lady assure us that in all the training that will be necessary for the public, institutions and organisations, the resources will not be wanting? I am talking specifically about local authorities, which will want to take lead roles, as they will be required to do under the
      1400
      Bill as enacted. Can she assure the House that they will get the resources necessary to ensure that the training takes place?
      Ms Blears: If the hon. Gentleman had been present during the previous consideration—I make no criticism of him for that—he would have heard that we had a robust discussion about the funding position for responders. Clearly, I made the point that in the last seven years, the civil defence grant has increased by 31 per cent., whereas in the last seven years of the previous Administration, it decreased by 42 per cent. I entirely acknowledge that local government has concerns about additional pressures. That is why we are in discussions with it now. I have said clearly that there must be a proper business case, properly set out, for any increase, but clearly, we will try to consider those matters properly within the spending review settlement for 2004. I also ask Members to take into account the fact that local government has received substantial real terms increases over the past few years in its basic revenue support grant settlements. In that overall funding context, I take on board the idea that we need to try to resolve any genuine issues so that people can do the job properly that we ask them to do.
      Mr. Heath: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Blears: Not unless it is on a similar point.
      I want to return to the point made by the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) about the Human Rights Act 1998. As I understand it, section 6 clearly states that should Her Majesty or a Minister make regulations that are incompatible with the convention rights, that would be unlawful, so it is not necessary to provide for that in the Bill.
      Mr. Heald: I have already quoted from the eighth report of the Joint Committee. The hon. Lady has acknowledged that there is a point in amendment No. 93—which, unfortunately, we did not reach—meaning that the Minister must make a statement before making regulations that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act.
      Ms Blears: Yes, I suppose that it could be a belt and braces provision. There is merit in requiring the maker of the regulations to give a clear statement that the regulations are compatible, because given the exceptional nature of emergency regulations, it is appropriate to make exceptional provision. The Human Rights Act does not require a statement of compatibility in relation to secondary legislation, but such emergency legislation is likely to include provisions that at non-emergency times would be included in primary rather than secondary legislation.
      Mr. Heath: Will the Minister give way?
      Ms Blears: I am anxious for other Members to be able to make a contribution to this debate. If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, I shall press on. I have given way a great deal.
      I hope that we have developed the Bill in an open and consultative way. I want to pay tribute to the organisations that have made that possible by getting

      1401
      involved with the consultation. Practitioners such as chief officers of police, fire and local government, the Emergency Planning Society and pressure groups such as Liberty and Justice have helped us to develop the Bill in a proper fashion. We have benefited from the active engagement of thousands of individual civil protection professionals, and I hope that they have helped us to develop a Bill that is both principled and practicable.
      The process of pre-legislative scrutiny helped to ensure that the Bill that was introduced in January was much stronger than it would otherwise have been. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) for his work in chairing that committee, and for the contribution from Members of all parties. We have not, I am sure, resolved every issue, but we have a Bill that delivers our aim, and that has stood up to parliamentary scrutiny thus far. We are sending this Bill to the other place in good shape, although their lordships will doubtless wish to review many of the issues that we have discussed. In particular, we can look forward to their experience being brought to bear on some of the technical aspects of the Bill, as well as on fundamental questions about the balance between the rights of the individual and the needs of the community.
      This is important legislation. The Acts that we are replacing are, in parts, more than 80 years old, and for us, as legislators and representatives, the safety and well-being of the people of the United Kingdom is the highest priority. I think the Bill is a substantial step towards progress in that direction, and I commend it to the House.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Heald: I will not speak for long, because others wish to speak as well.
      Let me begin by saying what a disgrace it is that we have lost the chance to debate six new clauses, one new schedule and 87 amendments. That really is not good enough. We voted against the programme motion; as a result of the Government's insistence on their programme, we have been unable to debate some very important matters. We have said from the outset that the Bill is overdue, and that our response to emergencies at local and national level should be provided for in a modern Bill. The measures in part 2 allow Ministers wide discretion to make emergency regulations, but protection for human rights is still inadequate.
      I welcome amendment No. 93, which does at least ensure that the Minister must issue a certificate when making regulations stating that they are compatible with section 1 of the Human Rights Act. We argued for that in Committee, and I think we are entitled to take some credit for having moved the Minister on it. I note from its latest report that the Joint Committee on Human Rights welcomes it too, describing it as a step in the right direction.
      Mr. Hogg: A step.
      Mr. Heald: A step, as my right hon. and learned Friend says. The Committee says:
      "We welcome these moves, which serve significantly to improve the safeguards for Convention rights under the Bill."
      1402
      However, it also says:
      "We remain concerned that clause 21(3) of the Civil Contingencies Bill may be interpreted as allowing regulations to be made which would relieve a public authority of its duty"
      —to which the Minister has just referred—
      "under section 6".
      It is that concern that we continue to express.
      Mr. Hogg: Under the emergency regulations, for example, property can be confiscated without compensation. That flies in the face of the relevant article.
      Mr. Heald: My right hon. and learned Friend will have noted that amendments were tabled on compensation and the costs of compliance. I know that he would have wanted to speak if we had reached that group.
      Although we welcome the structure of the Bill and the duties placed on local authorities and other responders, we question whether enough has been done to protect human rights, and to make a practical reality of the necessary response to an emergency. We called for a volunteer reserve to deal with emergencies, and we have debated that today. I believe that there is a mood in all parts of the House in favour of a greater role for volunteers, and the Government should have conceded the point.
      We called for proper public information and training. The Government seem to be moving on that—all too slowly, but I predict that they will produce a booklet for every household in due course, setting out some of the threats and some of the necessary information.[Interruption.] I am told that they will have to do so, now that I have predicted it. It is a pity that a Minister could not just stand up at the Dispatch Box and say, "Yes, we will be doing that." We would have liked to see a senior Minister in charge of homeland security and the response to terrorism, rather than the current Home Office/Cabinet Office/Ministry of Defence mishmash.
      It is true that we have seen some improvements in the Bill as a result of the Committee stage—for instance, the provisions on cross—border issues and on not treating the protection of Government activities as an emergency in itself, the improved drafting in clauses 1, 2 and 18 on the meaning of "emergency"—although there was more to discuss—and of course amendment No. 93, which improves protection for human rights.
      At the end of our deliberations in Committee, I said that we had not had a sausage from the Government. Perhaps by now we have had a cocktail chipolata; none the less, there is more work to do in the other place.[Interruption.] I am told that they do not have cocktail chipolatas in Wales, and I believe it; perhaps I should have said "a lamb chop".
      On Second Reading, I said that there was much in the Bill to probe, challenge and improve. There is also much in the Bill to welcome, and we have made limited progress in trying to improve it. However, there is a lot still to do and the battle will go on elsewhere. Many of the matters that we have been unable to discuss tonight will be returned to in another place: the issues dealt with in new clauses 4, 6, 7 and 9; the important issues of ministerial responsibility, compensation and what really

      1403
      constitutes an emergency; procedure; human rights; and the question of emergency co-ordinators being competent people for the task.
      Peter Bottomley: To those who expected the House to have lengthier debates on these issues, it is worth emphasising the importance of the leaflet to which my hon. Friend referred, and of the Minister's description of the serious issues being considered. In doing so, we should consider the ministerial answer that she gave—my hon. Friend will have seen it—concerning feedback on Home Office guidance on mass fatalities. That is serious information, and in the light of the Government's concern about how people should respond to mass fatalities, in terms of coroners and the disposal of bodies, we begin to understand why this Bill and the debate matters, and why the debate in the other place will matter even more than ours, given that we have been unable to go through everything in detail.
      Mr. Heald: I agree with my hon. Friend. These are very serious issues, and it is wrong that the House of Commons should be unable to debate them in the detail that they deserve. For my part, I would nevertheless find it impossible to vote against a measure that establishes for future emergencies a new structure with which I agree. This is the sort of dilemma that one sometimes faces: on the one hand, the Bill does some good things, but on the other, we as an Opposition have not been treated as we should have been.
      9.37 pm
      Dr. Moonie: I shall be very brief. This important Bill provides for the long overdue updating of two Government functions—the making of emergency legislation, and the planning framework for dealing with disaster—and it will create the conditions for an effective and resilient planning network in dealing with emergencies. As Chairman of the Joint Committee, I examined the Bill before it was introduced, and I congratulate the Government on having listened to the points that we made. The fact that the report was unanimous indicates why the Government felt it necessary to take proper cognisance of it, and they have indeed moved a long way. The Opposition will doubtless stress in the other place their argument that many important matters are still to be decided, but in my view the important matters were decided in the Joint Committee and the Government listened to us. It should be recognised that definitions and safeguards have been strengthened in important areas.
      I accept that we are not going to agree on the question of the need for a single Minister to run things. I take the view that when one needs a multi-agency response to disasters, it is a great mistake to concentrate on one area. However, I want to stress the need for a proper audit of the process that we are about to undertake. Such an audit would ensure that the Government's wishes are properly carried out, rather than lip service simply being paid to them, and it would ensure that best practice is disseminated as quickly and effectively as possible once bright ideas had been made. I do not believe that the way to proceed is necessarily to have a separate Ministry or a plethora of national committees, which would actually
      1404
      reduce resilience. What is important is to get the process under way and to look at it carefully. I still believe that an independent inspector would be the best way to achieve proper scrutiny of what the Government are about to do, but perhaps that issue is best dealt with in another place.
      It is nearly three years since the dreadful attack on the twin towers. It is high time we got down to proper planning. The Bill makes a sound start, but no more than that. There is still a lot of work to do.
      9.39 pm
      Mr. Allan: I am pleased to follow the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), who did an excellent job in chairing an effective Joint Committee. One could not tell the party allegiance of the members of the Committee because they engaged with the issues. They were not partisan, which is entirely appropriate for pre-legislative scrutiny. In this forum, we tend to adopt a slightly more partisan approach. I will not engage in too much of a love-in with the Government in view of their changes to the Bill, for fear of upsetting the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), who was upset at the beginning of our proceedings today.
      We had different concerns about parts 1 and 2. We are disappointed that we have not discussed the part 2 issues, which are of greater concern to Liberal Democrats than the part 1 issues because they deal with fundamental liberties and the way in which the unwritten constitution of the United Kingdom works.
      On part 1, the hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) referred to the service as a Cinderella service. The Minister has done an admirable job today in picking up the brief but, in defending the Government's position, she said that they gave lots of extra money for the civil defence grant. She neglected to tell us that they did so only in the face of a legal challenge to the Government by local authorities. It was not a willing move and the trend was clearly of central Government wishing to cut funding.
      The Government were forced into offering additional funding. The climate in local authorities and, importantly, in business is all about cutting margins and not doing things that are not strictly necessary. We must be honest. We will face a charge of hypocrisy if we will the ends but not the means. We must be realistic about the difficult climate that we face.
      On part 2, our concerns were about the locks and the way in which the definitions work. That is now much clearer, particularly following the work of the Joint Committee and the response to that. We were also concerned about compatibility with the European convention on human rights. Although we did not have a chance to debate it today, I am pleased that the Government tabled amendment No. 93 in response to concerns expressed in Standing Committee to ensure that certification takes place.
      Our concern is the risk of abuse of these sweeping powers by a future Government, which should concern all of us as constitutional democratic politicians. It is right that we tried to explore that as best we could.
      David Taylor: The hon. Gentleman refers to scrutiny and the comments in relation to audit. Does he believe, as I do, that the sanctions that are available in respect of

      1405
      regions and authorities that are not evidencing a high standard of planning and preparedness are not exactly clear, or indeed very enforceable?
      Mr. Allan: Sanctions are set out. There is a monitoring regime in clause 9 and a sanctions regime in clause 10, but the hon. Gentleman is right. Once the regulations have been introduced. that is one of the things that we will have to explore to find out exactly what will happen if a local authority fails to deliver. I think that we will all want to ask that.
      It is a shame that we get the framework but not the important detail when we discuss primary legislation. I understand why that is, but there has been a gap in respect of the way in which local government will implement the measure. Sadly, we have been unable to fill that gap. We needed more debating time to go through that.
      I am sure that more concerns will be raised in the House of Lords, particularly on issues to do with human rights law. There are far more expert voices than mine there. I know that many of my colleagues will want to engage with that issue and I trust that they will do an excellent job.
      As the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald) said, the question that faces us is difficult: what do we do with the Bill tonight? We are equally disappointed that we have not had time to debate it further, but I do not think that we would argue that it should not go forward. The question is: is it better than the status quo? Our colleagues in the other place can tighten the legal framework. On the basis that we trust them to do that, we are content that the Bill should go to the House of Lords.
      As I say, we are disappointed that we have not been able to manage our time in such a way that we had longer to debate things. We welcomed some of the amendments that were introduced today. We expected to welcome them in short order. We ended up welcoming them over a longer period than we expected, particularly the Scottish amendment that began the proceedings. It is regrettable that we did not get on to the questions about part 2. The long time it took to debate earlier amendments is part of the reason for that.
      We will now have to leave it to colleagues in another place to deal with them. Our intention tonight, however, is not to stop the Bill going forward, because it is better than the status quo.
      9.44 pm
      Mr. Llwyd: It was mentioned earlier that the Bill was improved by proceedings in the pre-legislative Committee. In fact, when the Bill was in that mode, one provision said that Ministers in this place had to liaise over emergencies with those in the National Assembly—except in cases of urgency. I found that quite ridiculous—I do not know of any emergency that has no element of urgency to it—but it was changed. As the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy(Dr. Moonie) said, much more needs to be done. That is a fair summation of where we are now.
      We have not had an opportunity to discuss the jurisdiction of the courts. compensation, human rights or, interestingly, the definition of an emergency. The Minister said that Liberty had assisted her and her
      1406
      colleagues during the passage of the Bill. I tabled a string of amendments today, which I had hoped would be dealt with. They were important amendments on the definition of an emergency—the core matter in the Bill.
      Many of us spent considerable time in the pre-legislative set-up and subsequently in. Committee debating the Bill, and I honestly feel angry about today's guillotine. I know that the voluntary sector, which gave copious evidence to the pre-legislative Committee, feels that it has been taken for a ride. Hardly any of its recommendations were considered for long and they were certainly not agreed to. For the first time in my 13 years in the House, I believe that I have been taken for a ride as well.
      9.46 pm
      Mr. Shepherd: My hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald) said that the fight would go on. The fact is that we have not had a proper discussion of the most important part of the Bill, which affects our civil and political liberties. That is what it is all about. The House has not divided properly over the part 1 contentions of the Bill that there should be proper structures and arrangements for the civil defence of this country.
      Intelligent discussion has taken place in Committee and on the Floor of the House, but as a result of the guillotine we have considered only four groups of amendments. We have not touched on part 2 at all, so we have not debated the scope of emergency regulations, the jurisdiction of the courts or the duration of the provisions. Ministerial responsibility, compensation and costs of compliance, the definition of an emergency—none of them has been discussed. All those matters are of great concern to many people outside the House and to many Members within it. Other issues include miscellaneous and consequential amendments, civil protection regulations procedure and what is called "human rights"—though I believe that it should be civil and political rights.
      This democratically elected House has debated none of those issues. Because of the guillotine, it cannot debate such fundamental considerations as the scope of emergency regulations. We never touched on that in our debates, but I have profound misgivings about the scope of some of the regulations. Under clause 21(3),
      "Emergency regulations may make provision of any kind that could be made by Act of Parliament or by the exercise of the Royal Prerogative; in particular, regulations may … provide for or enable the requisition of confiscation of property (with or without compensation); … provide for or enable the destruction of property, animal life or plant life (with or without compensation)".
      That is a fundamental contention affecting human rights. There it is on the face of the Bill, giving powers to a Minister—we shall return to that in a moment—to do away with things without compensation. We did not debate that issue.
      Who can make such powers to prescribe emergency regulations? Her Majesty the Queen may do so through an Order in Council if she is satisfied that certain conditions are met.

      1407
      So may a senior Minister of the Crown. However, that part of the Bill includes in the definition of senior Minister of the Crown,
      "the First Lord of the Treasury (the Prime Minister) … any of Her Majesty's Principal Secretaries of State, and … the Commissioners of Her Majesty's Treasury."
      [Interruption.] I hear the Whips cheering their own elevation to the status of senior Minister. We did not discuss that provision, but I would have liked to hear the justifications for why a Whip should become a senior Minister for the purposes of the Bill. If the provision were intended to give the Chancellor of the Exchequer a role, as the Second Lord of the Treasury, I would have gladly supported it. But to suggest that Whips who never speak, have no departmental experience and do not make decisions should be able to sign the order for a regulation is, on the face of it, outrageous. They do not have the experience, the weight or the authority to convey to the British public the fact that the issue is so serious and such a matter of principle that it is necessary to move regulations of great importance to our liberties and freedoms.
      As the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) said, the Bill has some good aspects. That is not in dispute. We do need better co-ordinated emergency services, and that is agreed on both sides of the House. The hon. Gentleman suggested that the Bill's deficiencies could be dealt with in the other place, but every Member of Parliament will have to tell their constituents how their property could be confiscated without compensation. We will have to tell our constituents why regulations that touch on our freedom from arbitrary arrest and the right to trial could be suspended by statutory instrument—not even primary legislation—and how that could be done with only 90 minutes of discussion. We tabled an amendment to suspend Standing Order No. 16, which
      limits debate to 90 minutes, but of course we have not reached it.
      For the reasons I have given, I am in the invidious position of having to say that I will vote against this measure. I know that the Government's majority will be marshalled to vote for the Bill, as it is for whatever the Government produce and would be for any regulations made under the Bill. But how can I trust the Government when they have reduced debate to such a trivial function of this House and we cannot discuss the very things that we are sent here to discuss? I will vote against this Bill.
      9.53 pm
      Mr. Hogg: I support what my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills(Mr. Shepherd) has said. Like him, I wish to focus on part 2 of the Bill. I am prepared to accept that there is much of merit in part 1, but I have focused on part 2 and, indeed, that is what I addressed on Second Reading. It is regrettable that part 2, which concerns most people most, has hardly been touched on at Report stage. The Bill will go to the other place with part 2 largely undiscussed.
      The truth is that part 2 strikes at many of the rights that we value. To start with, the definition of emergency is extraordinarily wide. It includes the threat to a single life, interruption to fuel supplies, interruption to the
      1408
      railways and many other factors. They would all trigger the powers in the Bill, and those powers are astonishingly wide. For example, my hon. Friend mentioned the power to confiscate property without any form of compensation. Other powers include the power to impose curfews, to prohibit demonstrations and assemblies, and to prohibit political debate and public meetings.
      Those are very widespread and draconian powers.
      Oddly enough, the Bill does not contain a power to prohibit industrial action, which might be thought to be a useful power. Ministers may not prohibit industrial action, but they may prohibit political assemblies called to protest against that industrial action. That is a bizarre state of affairs.
      My hon. Friend, who is not a former Whip, also complained about the fact that very junior Ministers—Whips—will have the powers to make emergency regulations. I share his concern. I was a Whip, and I know perfectly well that Whips know absolutely nothing about the functions of Departments, so when they state that they are satisfied as to this, that or the other, they are exclusively reliant on the advice of officials about matters of which they themselves are wholly ignorant. I regard that as an extraordinary and undesirable state of affairs.
      I also object to the fact that there is no proper attempt to get consensus behind the emergency regulations. My colleague on the Front Bench, my hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hertfordshire(Mr. Heald), sensibly tabled new clause 3, the object of which was to try to muster some consensus behind the emergency powers. His concept was a consultative committee, but I want something more than that—a majority within the committee as a necessary precondition to laying the emergency regulations, which by definition have excluded the parliamentary process.
      I hope that when the Bill goes to the other place, their lordships' House will consider that issue again. Their lordships also need to focus on the question of human rights. It would be churlish not to recognise that amendment No. 93 seeks to address the human rights question, but I am not at all sure whether that is a judicable issue. The Minister has to issue a certificate to the effect that he or she is satisfied that the convention rights are protected, but it is not clear to me whether the courts can challenge that certificate. That is a matter that the House has a right to address.
      In the convention—I believe that it is in the first protocol—we find the right to property. We also find the right to free speech, free assembly and so on. Yet those rights can be directly excluded by the clause 21 powers given, in principle, to Whips. We need to know whether those powers are subject to the courts' jurisdiction.
      I share the views of my hon. Friend the Member for Aldridge-Brownhills. Perhaps this is a Bill that, at the end of the day, should be supported—but it is clear that the House is not now in a position to make that judgment, because we have not had ample time to debate it. We could have done so. Next week is a light week, and the rest of this week, too, is pretty light. Had the Government wished part 2 to be properly debated, there was ample time. Speaking for myself as an

      1409
      individual, I consider that a sufficient reason to vote against the Bill, so if anybody calls "No" to its Third Reading, I shall be pleased to join them in that protest.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 0.

      Division No. 186]

      [9:58 pm

      AYES

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Dawson. Hilton

      Ainger, Nick

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Denham, rh John

      Allan, Richard

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Austin, John

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Bailey, Adrian

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Barnes, Harry

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Barrett, John

      Edwards, Huw

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Efford, Clive

      Battle, John

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bayley, Hugh

      Etherington, Bill

      Beard, Nigel

      Farrelly, Paul

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Fisher, Mark

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Blackman, Liz

      Flint Caroline

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Foster, Michael(Worcester)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Brennan, Kevin

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Browne, Desmond

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Gerrard, Neil

      Burden, Richard

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Burgon, Colin

      Gidley, Sandra

      Burnham, Andy

      Griffiths Jane(Reading E)

      Caborn, rh Richard

      Griffiths Win(Bridgend)

      Cairns, David

      Grogan, John

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Hain, rh Peter

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Campbell, rh Sir Menzies(NE Fife

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Casale, Roger

      Hanson, David

      Caton, Martin

      Harvey, Nick

      Challen, Colin

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Chaytor, David

      Clapham, Michael

      Healey, John

      Clark, Dr. Lynda(Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Heath, David

      Hendrick, Mark

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Hermon, Lady

      Clarke, rh Charles(Norwich S)

      Heyes, David

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Clelland, David

      Holmes. Paul

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Hope. Phil(Corby)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Cohen, Harry

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Colman, Tony

      Connarty, Michael

      Hughes Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Cook, rh Robin(Livingston)

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cruddas, Jon

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Illsley, Eric

      Cummings, John

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Johnson, Alan(Hull W)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Davey, Valerie(Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      1410

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prescott, rh John

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Primarolo, rh Dawn

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Purchase, Ken

      Kemp, Fraser

      Purnell, James

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kidney, David

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

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

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rendel, David

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lepper, David

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Linton, Martin

      Salter, Martin

      Love, Andrew

      Sarwar, Mohammad

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Sawford, Phil

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Sheridan, Jim

      McCafferty, Chris

      Short, rh Clare

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Simon, Siôn(B'ham Erdington)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      MacDougall, John

      Singh, Marsha

      McFall, John

      Skinner, Dennis

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      McNamara, Kevin

      Smith, Jacqui(Redditch)

      McNulty, Tony

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

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      McWalter, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      McWilliam, John

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stevenson, George

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Marshall, David(Glasgow Shettleston)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Martlew, Eric

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Merron, Gillian

      Stringer, Graham

      Michael, rh Alun

      Stunell, Andrew

      Miliband, David

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Mole, Chris

      Taylor, David(NW Leics)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Moore, Michael

      Thurso, John

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Tipping, Paddy

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Trickett, Jon

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      O'Neill, Martin

      Organ, Diana

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Owen, Albert

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Perham, Linda

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Pickthall, Colin

      Ward, Claire

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Plaskitt, James

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Watts, David

      Pound, Stephen

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      1411

      White, Brian

      Worthington, Tony

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Winnick, David

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Mr. Jim Murphy and

      Woodward, Shaun

      Mr. John Heppell

      NOES

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Mr. Richard Shepherd and

      Mr. Douglas Hogg

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

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

    CRIMINAL LAW
    That the draft Criminal Justice Act 2003(Conditional Cautions: Code of Practice) Order 2004, which was laid before this House on 26th April, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.
    Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118 (6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

    HUMAN FERTILISATION AND EMBRYOLOGY
    That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority(Disclosure of Donor Information) Regulations 2004, which were laid before this House on 4th May, be approved.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]
    Question agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Winding Up and Deficiency on Winding Up etc.) (Amendments) Regulations 2004 (S.I.,2004,No.403), dated 23rd February 2004, and the Occupational Pensions Schemes (Winding Up) (Amendment) Regulations 2004 (S.I.,2004,No.1140), dated 19th April 2004, be referred to a Standing Committee on Delegated Legislation.—[Jim Fitzpatrick.]

  Bristol International Airport
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heppell.]
  10.12 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I am extremely grateful to have the chance to raise the important issue of the transport infrastructure surrounding the proposed expansion of Bristol International airport. I should like at the outset to express my thanks to the Parish Councils Airport Association, which represents 23 of the local parish councils and which has been extraordinarily helpful to me in my preparation for this debate.
  It would be quite improper to go too much into the history of the development at Lulsgate. Suffice it to say that a very large body of opinion in my constituency has always felt that Filton is a more logical place for development, as it is situated between two motorways and has railway access to hand. That said, we are where we are. The development at Bristol has been successful from the airport's point of view; it has good facilities in the new terminal, a skilled and committed work force and ambitious management. Notwithstanding the problems that I shall refer to, those of us who have used the airport would be hypocritical if we did not welcome the increased access that it gives us to business destinations in particular.
  Since the new terminal was developed at Bristol, there has been a massive expansion in low-cost airlines, an increase in demand and an increase in passenger numbers, and we now see the Government's proposed expansion of the regional airports. There is a major problem with the expansion of Bristol airport: the local road infrastructure is barely able to cope with current passenger numbers, never mind the large predicted number of passengers who would come with further expansion.
  At the risk of boring the vast attendance in the House, I wish to point out one or two of the specific road details that are important.
  There are no quick and easy routes to Bristol airport from the motorway network. Times vary from 20 minutes at best—it would be a very good best, I have to say—to at least an hour or two. The shortest and most direct route from the motorway network would be via a road link from the M5 at junction 20 at Clevedon, but it would be 8 miles long and have to cross open low country of high ecological landscape value. The vast majority of my constituents would be utterly opposed to that.
  More reliable access is available from the M5 south from junction 22 at Burnham, which is a 15 mile journey to the airport, or from junction 21 at Weston, which is a 9 mile journey. Both pass through areas with roadside communities and small villages with speed restrictions. From the M4 north near the M32, the distance is 14 miles. That route crosses the centre of the city of Bristol, and times vary from at best half an hour to up to two hours depending on traffic. Hence traffic is signed to the airport via the M4-M5 box, which is itself very busy and congested, particularly at Almondsbury and Cribb's Causeway. Anyone who has attempted to go down the M5 on a bank holiday weekend will realise what a nightmare that stretch of the motorway can be.

  1413
  The M5 north and the M4 west traffic is signed via junction 18—Avonmouth and Portway—or people can use junction 19 at Gordano. Either route is very busy and congested at peak hours. There is also congestion when passing through the A38 Winterstoke road or the A38-A370 link at Barrow Gurney, which, although a small village with a single-lane road through the middle, is one of the main thoroughfares for those seeking access to the A38 on the airport approach.
  If those roads are very difficult, there are other potential access routes from the A37 via Chew Magna, Winford and Felton, again through a single-lane road in the middle of a rural village. On the other side, the increased traffic from the A370 via Brockley Coombe is resulting in increased road damage. That is an area where, as several of my constituents have pointed out, accidents are waiting to happen. Mr. Geoff Smith wrote to me to say that
  "the levels of traffic are continually increasing along roads that are inadequate for the size of the vehicles and poorly maintained, all adding to the noise. The local lanes are being used as 'rat runs' to avoid the congestion on the main roads … Fuel tankers to the airport now use Downside Road/Brockley Coombe, this road was never built for this type of traffic. It is a miracle that there has been no serious accident."
  Mrs. Valerie Blake says:
  "The road surface … is breaking up, there are no pavements and no lighting. The banks have been eroded away with the traffic and there are ditches along the side of the road. In my opinion an accident waiting to happen."
  That is a commonly held view in the area.
  The only other access is from Bath near the A366 through the village of Bishop Sutton, where I live, and through the villages of Blagdon and Harptree. That is utterly unsuitable given the traffic that we already have.
  Bristol airport estimates that passenger growth will rise from 4 million at present to between 7 million and 9 million by 2015. Assessing vehicle traffic growth for each increase of 500,000 passengers, and assuming that 20 per cent. travel by coach and 80 per cent. by car, it is estimated that that will lead to an extra 25 coaches and 1,000 other vehicles per day. That is equivalent to an extra 200 coaches and 8,000 cars per day on the basis of an increase from 4 million to 8 million passengers per year at the airport. I understand that the current indications—no doubt the Minister has better data than I do—are that two thirds of the airport traffic approaches from the north and one third from the south, although that may change with time.
  An increase of that order could possibly just be accommodated on the A38 south—it would mean an extra 18,000 vehicles a day. However, it would be utterly impossible on the A38 north, because it would overload it with an extra 26,000 vehicles per day. That would be extremely distressing for the village of Barrow Gurney, which would completely seize up unless traffic were diverted elsewhere, because it could not accommodate an extra 15,000 or 17,000 vehicles per day.
  What can be done? The M4 and the M5 around Bristol are already heavily congested at peak times and holiday periods. The A38 and the A370 are becoming increasingly busy and congested at peak times. Barrow Gurney village already suffers heavily from airport-related traffic and could not accommodate the predicted growth effectively. We await the result of the Greater Bristol strategic transport study, but access to Bristol
  1414
  airport is not good. A local village bypass of Barrow Gurney, possibly through the A38-A370 link road, is especially needed and every effort should be made to reduce pressure on access from the north.
  Other villages that suffer access pressures, such as Banwell, should also be relieved. The problems of access through the Chew valley should be recognised. It would be a tragedy if a spot of outstanding natural beauty and tourist importance was utterly destroyed because of the attempts of traffic to get through an inadequate network to Bristol airport.
  A short Adjournment debate is not the place to deal with the other issues that relate to the expansion of the airport. I shall simply say that the potential expansion of the runway—an extension that would diminish the size of Felton common—is unacceptable. When the new terminal was created, we were led to believe that the system would provide for greater business traffic and reduce dependency on overnight and cheap holiday charter traffic. If the promise were broken and the runway extended, it would be a betrayal of the good will that many people in the area showed when the new terminal was being created.
  I can best summarise the position through the comments of Mr. Bob Hatherly, a constituent who lives in the village of Yatton. He wrote:
  "Access to the area —I could write you a book on the problems but nothing is being done to improve the situation and because of the airport's location very little can or will be done, and at what cost, and who will pay? Not the airport I guess, Council Tax payers. Well there's a surprise!!"
  We look to the Government to provide some solutions to a complex problem. They have clear policy objectives on regional airport expansion, but Bristol airport cannot expand, because of the limitations of its infrastructure, without severely reducing the quality of life of those who live in the surrounding towns and villages.
  I look forward to the Under-Secretary's comments because the matter is important and causes increasing anxiety to many of my constituents.
  10.27 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate the hon. Member for Woodspring(Dr. Fox) on securing the debate on an issue that is important not only to his constituency but the wider region. As he rightly says, the White Paper acknowledges, among other things, the importance of regional airports to their local economies and the importance of links to London and elsewhere. Given that Bristol airport is the largest airport in the south-west, I recognise that its importance to residents as well as the economy of the region is paramount, as he suggested.
  With passenger throughput almost doubling to nearly 4 million per annum between 2000 and 2003, the impact of access to the airport is becoming a concern to local communities on the affected routes, many of which are in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. I appreciate the strong local opposition to the impact of the significant increase in traffic. I listened carefully to his case.
  In responding, I want to examine the likely role for Bristol International airport as set out in the White Paper, which was presented last December, and the

  1415
  Government's actions to deal with the specific issues that the hon. Gentleman raised in relation to airport access.
  Ensuring easy and reliable access to airports that minimises congestion and other local effects is a key factor in considering any proposal for new airport capacity. The Government expect airport operators to develop appropriate access plans and to contribute to the cost of additional infrastructure or required services. Bristol International airport is actively working to fulfil the Government's requirement to produce a master plan by the end of 2004 to take account of the conclusions on future developments that the White Paper set out.
  The final agreed master plan can then be adopted by the local council as supplementary planning guidance. Indeed, we shall shortly be issuing guidance on what should be in the master plans, as the plan for each regional airport will differ according to the local context. It is right and proper that each airport should come up with a master plan that shows, among other things, the infrastructure needs that follow from its plans for expansion.
  As the hon. Gentleman said, the airport is some 8 miles south-west of the city centre and, although the main Bristol to Taunton rail route passes some 3 miles to the north-west of the airport, the difference in levels is about 175 m, making any conventional connection to heavy rail out of the question. He made a general point to the effect that, if we had known we were going to get to this situation, we would not have started from where we did. There are any number of airports to which that applies but, as he rightly says, we are where we are.
  Strategic surface access links to Bristol airport are not as good as they are at many other airports of a similar size in the UK. The hon. Gentleman will clearly see that as an understatement and it is that issue that he is most concerned about. Links to the motorway network, which is some distance away, are via A and B roads that pass through the villages and other built-up areas that he so eloquently described. Consequently, more than 95 per cent. of passengers arrive at the airport via the unimproved A38—the majority by private car—and either park on-site or nearby, or arrive as "drop-offs".
  The second most important mode of transport to and from the airport is the taxi. Bristol International Cars, the major provider, reports an increase of 17 per cent. to March 2004 to 165,518 bookings. Assuming an average of three persons per taxi, this represents some 13 per cent. of arrivals and departures. Obviously, people arriving by taxi do not generally reduce the number of vehicle arrivals at the airport, merely the demand for on-site parking.
  The only significant public transport provision is the Bristol international flyer, which caters for about 4 per cent. of passengers. That coach service operates three times an hour between about 5 am and midnight, commencing at Bristol coach station and calling at Temple Meads and one other stop in south Bristol. By the by, when travelling to Bristol by rail, it is now possible to book a through ticket to the airport on the Bristol international flyer from Temple Meads station. In the 12 months to March 2004, some 140,000 passengers used the flyer to access the airport. While I
  1416
  accept that that was only just over 3.5 per cent. of the air passenger throughput, it represented a 20 per cent. increase over the previous year.
  In keeping with other airports, Bristol has set itself a target to increase public transport arrivals, in its case, by 5 per cent. above the growth in passenger numbers. Since the latter increased by 11 per cent. to March 2004, that target was met for the last financial year, which the airport is, in part, to be congratulated on. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that Bristol city council has integrated the flyer with its showcase bus route, which provides significant bus priority measures in south Bristol as well as real-time information. The flyer has been re-routed to take advantage of the improved infrastructure.
  As a result of the on-site constraints on land available for car parking, there are certain periods during the year when the on-site car park nears capacity. The hon. Gentleman is obviously aware that certain local landowners have seized the opportunity to provide long-term parking for the airport at rates that are very competitive compared with those for on-site parking. That is viewed as unhelpful in terms of encouraging the use of public transport. North Somerset council has recently been successful in taking action to close one site and is pursuing a similar action against the others. If those actions are successful, it should result in an increase in the mode share arriving by public transport, because the cost of parking on site will increase and the on-site constraints will mean that the number of parking spaces is unlikely to increase at the same rate as passenger growth.
  Although everyone accepts that the increase in air travel provides a welcome boost to the local economy, the hon. Gentleman is well aware that it brings attendant traffic problems. However, there is some evidence that the airport operator's access policy is beginning to have an impact, in that despite an 11 per cent. increase in passengers in the year to March 2004, vehicle arrivals increased by only 9 per cent. However, I fully accept what he says about the poor transport infrastructure, particularly the road links.
  Dr. Fox: Earlier in his remarks, the Minister said that his Department would shortly advise local authorities on the plan and planning guidance. As a point of principle, will he accept that it makes no sense to encourage airport expansion until transport infrastructure has been addressed? The current approach will exacerbate the situation. Will his Department take that factor into account when it issues guidance to local authorities?
  Mr. McNulty: I am grateful for that intervention. In many cases, the approach depends on the airport. In cases such as Bristol, I freely admit that, in seeking a master plan and asking the airport to implement the provisions in the White Paper as part of its expansion, we are playing catch up, given that many regional airports grew significantly over the two to three years before the White Paper.
  The master plan's purpose is to regularise growth and to identify, first, the nature of the expansion, and, secondly, how airports will work with other bodies and contribute to surface links. We cannot say to airports,

  1417
  "Whatever growth there has been thus far, you can stop now until we work through this White Paper." I accept that the process contains a time lag, and equally accept that, as a result of traffic using rat runs through local villages, North Somerset council and others are under pressure to improve road access to the airport.
  To that end, I recently commissioned a study into the feasibility of a link road between the A370 and the A38. The objectives of the study were threefold—to improve access to the airport, to relieve congestion in south Bristol and to encourage regeneration in south Bristol. As the hon. Member for Woodspring made clear, to improve access to the airport without having strong cognisance of how that impacts on traffic patterns in the south Bristol area is in no one's interests and is not practical.
  Mr. Jonathan Sayeed: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. McNulty: With the greatest respect, if the hon. Gentleman had had the courtesy to let me know that he wanted to intervene, it would have been helpful, but on this occasion, because I feel generous, I give way.
  Mr. Sayeed: I am very grateful to the Minister. I listened to the debate because I was the MP for Bristol, East before I became the MP for Mid-Bedfordshire. I know the area and recognise how pressurised local people have become because of the increase in traffic. Because the number of schemes is small, the Minister has few places to visit to see the effects of airport expansion. Will he get in the car and drive around all the villages and small towns affected, particularly around Bristol airport, to see what the increase in traffic means to the ordinary lives of ordinary people?
  Mr. McNulty: I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman has been peeking in my diary, but I plan to visit Bristol shortly—funnily enough, after 10 June. If it is possible to visit the airport to discuss its plans and to get out and about to see quite what prevails in those villages, I will be happy to do so. For my sins, during the nine or 10 months before the White Paper I managed to visit about 15 airports that are, perhaps, senior to Bristol, but Bristol airport is certainly on my radar—no pun intended.
  I am grateful that the hon. Member for Woodspring accepts that no simple solution exists to improve access to Bristol airport without impinging on other factors that we all hold dear and that the resolution of the problem must form part of a wider solution. The A370 and A38 study suggests that a link would, as he suggested, enable traffic for the airport to leave the M5 at junction 18, Avonmouth, to avoid the existing congestion in south Bristol. Three options were considered, two of which run fairly close to the Bristol boundary, with the other running more or less parallel to the B3130 through Barrow Gurney.
  While the study showed a small saving in journey time for people travelling to the airport, none of the options addressed the other objectives—relief of congestion in south Bristol or the issue of regeneration. Consequently, it was considered that an isolated link between the A370 and the A38 would not represent good value for money.
  1418
  It was decided that the options for improving access to the airport should be looked at again—the hon. Gentleman alluded to that—in a more holistic way as part of the greater Bristol strategic transportation study, which commenced in November 2003 and is due to report in early summer 2005.
  As the hon. Gentleman suggests, and is certainly aware, the airport faced some complex constraints. The aviation White Paper forecast suggests that by 2030 it could attract between 10 million and 12 million passengers per annum. While the existing terminal site should be able to cope with up to 8 million passengers per annum, provided that additional aircraft stands can be accommodated, beyond that, as he suggests, a second terminal south of the runway would be required, together with a runway extension to the east and extended parallel taxiway.
  In that context, the hon. Gentleman is rightly concerned about the implications that such growth might have for residents in his constituency, although I understand that the number of people living under the 57 dBA—A-weighted decibels—noise contour in 1999 was about 1,000. We would expect only a very small increase in that number by 2015, even at the higher end of the growth forecasts, but I fully accept that noise contours and noise impact are but two of a whole array of impacts that the expansion could have.
  With a runway extension, and our highest levels of forecast throughput, estimates suggest that by 2030 there would be no more than about 3,500 people within the 57 dBA noise contour. Similarly, there are concerns that the runway extension needed to accommodate growth over 8 million passengers per annum would require some common land to be taken, as the hon. Gentleman suggests. If that is the case, we would expect it to be replaced elsewhere. There is also likely to be some loss of green belt as a result of a runway extension and new terminal development. However, it is believed that that not would fundamentally affect the integrity of the green belt within the area and it is considered that it may, on balance, be justified by the importance of airport growth to the region's economy.
  If all that sounds like extremely qualified provision, that is because it is not for me to prejudge any application that is made or what is in the master plan. Nor is it for me to prejudice any subsequent planned application. That is broadly, in policy framework terms, how such an application would be dealt with in that context.
  Dr. Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way again. First, he underestimates the strength of feeling against any runway extension or the reduction of the common land or green belt, which would be fought tooth and nail by my constituents and those who live in the vicinity, including me.
  Secondly, I know that we do not expect major announcements of Government policy in Adjournment debates, but I would be grateful if the Minister would give the House some guidance on this point. When councils are considering planning and the strategic plan, what advice would he, through his officials, give on the relative weight that ought to be placed on having

  1419
  necessary transport infrastructure before further expansion takes place? That, surely, is the nub of the debate.
  Mr. McNulty: To return to the hon. Gentleman's first point, while it is not for me to prejudge or speculate on what will be in any planned application for the airport, neither is it my job to prejudge what reaction there might be from local communities to such an application.
  The aviation White Paper makes it very clear that we would expect in all plans for expansion concomitant and commensurate plans for necessary increases in surface access to the airport. As I have made very plain, Bristol is more unusual than others in the lack of obvious substantive public transport means to improve that surface access, given its location in respect of rail and other links. I would anticipate the master plan and any subsequent application spending a good deal of time on how such service access links would be improved as part of the growth and expansion.
  That is made very clear in the White Paper. It may be, although it is not for me to judge, that the Greater Bristol strategic transport study moves matters in that direction—whether to the hon. Gentleman's satisfaction or not I simply do not know, as neither of us know entirely what is in it. It is for the local council and the region, through its regional spatial strategy and regional transport
  strategy—which will be subsumed
  1420
  into the regional spatial strategy, if that does not sound like gobbledegook—to understand how all those elements fit together, not simply in relation to the airport but in terms of the broader notion of housing, employment and other strategies in the former Avon area. It is envisaged that all the scenarios developed by that study will include the predicted growth of Bristol International airport and the infrastructure required to support such a development in a sustainable and holistic manner, which also needs to be fully assessed.
  I am happy that, at least for now, the airport operators and all the local councils are fully engaged in the study process, and will have due regard to the implications of the scenarios being tested, including the likely traffic implications for the road network in the vicinity of the airport. Certainly, I, and, I am sure, the hon. Gentleman will await with interest the report of such a study. I can understand not only the frustration about there being study upon study, but that, as the airport grows and develops, it requires, and his constituents require, the necessary road infrastructure and service access at least to develop alongside, if not ideally ahead of, such substantial growth and development. The airport's role is important in terms of the local economy, and I am glad that he recognises that. Let us work together to ensure that the infrastructure is what the airport and his constituents deserve.
  Question put and agred to.
  Adjourned accordingly at nineteen minutes to Eleven o'clock.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Ancient Trees
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action her Department(a) has taken and (b) proposes to take to allow the EU's Natura 2000 designation to be extended to include sites with ancient trees. [173956]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Ancient trees can and do occur in candidate Special Areas of Conservation, which together with Special Protection Areas for birds form the Natura 2000 network. However, they are not included specifically either as a habitat type in Annex I, or a species in Annex II, of the Habitats Directive for which sites can be selected.

  The purpose of Natura 2000 designation is to conserve areas containing habitats and species of Community interest of high ecological and bio-diversity value, rather than their cultural or historical value. Where ancient trees are included within sites, their cultural value as well as their contribution to the biodiversity of the area is provided for.

  Apiculture
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) if she will make a statement on the grounds for the ban on the import of queen bees from Hawaii; [174128]

  (2) what evaluation her Department has made of the (a) health, (b) disease and (c) animal welfare grounds for restricting the import of queen bees from (i) Hawaii and (ii) Australia; and if she will make a statement. [174129]

  Alun Michael
  New European Community legislation strengthening the animal health controls and certification requirements for the importation of bees from third countries came into effect across the Community on 27 December 2003. Its aim, in particular, is to protect the EU bee population from exotic pests and diseases.

  The new import controls include the requirement that consignments of queen honey bees will only be allowed into the Community from those third countries that have demonstrated the veterinary competence to certify bees for export, and provided that the notifiable diseases of bees in the EU—American foul brood, the small hive beetle and tropilaelaps mite—are also confirmed as notifiable throughout the exporting country. The specified third countries are listed in Part 1 to the Annex of Council Decision 79/542 and include the USA and Australia.

  To date, only Australia, New Zealand and Argentina have demonstrated to us that they are able to comply with the conditions provided in the legislation, and
  1288W
  imports of queens from these countries are permitted. However, in the case of Hawaii, while it is our opinion that it does have a high bee health status, and, indeed, we have until recently permitted imports of queen bees from there, it is nevertheless a territory of the USA. The EU legislation is clear in its intention, and it is our understanding that the three notifiable diseases mentioned above are not yet notifiable throughout the USA as a whole. The Commission has stated that it is not prepared to treat Hawaii as separate from the rest of the USA for this purpose. We are therefore not free to authorise the importation of queens bees from Hawaii until the USA has demonstrated equivalence with the EU.

  Batteries Directive
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what representations her Department has made to the European Commission regarding the impact on users of hearing aids of the proposed Batteries Directive; [171353]

  (2) what representations she has received from (a) organisations representing the hard of hearing and (b) manufacturers of batteries regarding the impact on hearing aid users of the proposed Batteries Directive. [171354]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK Government have made no representation to the European Commission about the impact of the proposed batteries Directive on batteries used in hearing aids. This is because proposals issued by the Commission for a new batteries Directive do not contain any requirement prohibiting the sale of batteries used in hearing aids.

  However, Members of the European Parliament (MEPs) voted during their first reading of the proposal on 20 April in favour of an amendment, setting limit values for prohibiting the sale of all batteries that contain more than 5ppm of mercury by weight. The Government understand that because hearing aid batteries may contain more than 5ppm of mercury and 40ppm of lead, by weight, in a zinc air hearing aid battery, there is now concern as to a possible ban. However, the Government have not, as yet, heard from any organisations or manufacturers that may be affected, nor have they heard the reaction of the European Commission to the amendment

  It should also be noted that the European Parliament also voted on an amendment to exclude from the controls of the new Directive, batteries and accumulators placed in medical devices; namely, those designed to maintain vital functions, where uninterrupted functioning is essential and the batteries and accumulators can be removed only by qualified personnel. If this amendment were accepted, it would not be clear whether those hearing aid batteries containing more than 5ppm of mercury and 40ppm of lead would be excluded.

  HMG believes that the inconsistency between these two amendments is likely to be addressed by the European Parliament in its second reading. If the threshold limits proposed remained in the Directive and

  1289W
  led to the prohibition of batteries contained in hearing aids, or indeed batteries contained in other medical devices, this would be opposed by the UK and, we believe, by other member states also.

  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from manufacturers of batteries regarding the proposed European Batteries Directive. [171356]

  Mr. Morley
  We have received representation from the British Battery Manufacturers Association (BBMA) and the European Portable Batteries Association (EPBA) who represent all major manufacturers of portable batteries. Also, we have held discussions with Collect Nicad who represent the manufacturers of nickel cadmium batteries.

  We expect to have further meetings with battery companies and other stakeholders now that the batteries consultation paper has been issued.

  Beak Trimming
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if the Government will extend the 2010 deadline for the ban on beak trimming if no solution to the problem of cannabalism is found. [174200]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Government are committed to banning the practice of beak trimming by the end of 2010. A beak trimming action group has been set up to carry forward an action plan to enable Defra to introduce this ban without compromising bird welfare. However, some form of review process prior to the 2010 ban is not unreasonable.

  Chicken Incinerators
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the regulations governing incinerators used for on-farm disposal of chickens, with particular reference to(a) how often they will be inspected and (b) the cost to farmers of carrying out inspections. [174203]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  On-farm incinerators which only burn animal carcases such as chickens, must comply with the relevant requirements of Regulation (EC) No. 1774/2002 and must also be approved in accordance with this Regulation.

  This regulation is enforced in England by the Animal By-Products Regulations 2003 (SI 2003/1482) (the ABPR).

  Under the ABPR, the State Veterinary Service is responsible for inspecting and approving incinerator plants in accordance with Regulation 1774/2002. Visits to non-SRM incinerators (such as those incinerating only poultry) will, in general, be carried out on a quarterly basis. However, additional inspections may be carried out should they be necessary.

  At present there is no cost for either the inspection or the approval of such plants.
  1290W
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from small-scale producers of chickens requesting their exemption from the ban on on-farm disposal; and if she will make a statement. [174204]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  The Department has received a number of such representations. However, the only exceptions from the ban on the routine on-farm burial or burning of animal by-products, in the UK, would be for remote areas (parts of the Highlands and Islands of Scotland, the Scilly Isles and Lundy Island) and during outbreaks of notifiable disease if there were a lack of capacity at rendering plants and incinerators, or if transport of the carcases would spread disease.

  Dairy Industry
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the difference in systems being adopted for single farm payments in England, Scotland and Wales does not lead to excessive trading in milk quotas and a reduction in dairy output in England; and if she will make a statement. [174136]

  Alun Michael
  We are aware that some milk quota is moving out of England, since it will generate larger payments under the Single Payment Scheme in other regions of the UK but we are monitoring the situation. On the basis of current evidence, the scale of the movement does not seem to be great enough to justify any action.

  Energy Efficiency
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Bootle have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [171484]

  Mr. Morley
  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme is now marketed as Warm Front. Between the launch of the scheme in June 2000 and the end of March 2004, approximately 4,700 households in Bootle received assistance from the Scheme.

  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in West Lancashire have benefited from the Warm Front and Home Energy Efficiency Schemes. [171496]

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

  Farming
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) assessment and (b) economic analyses have been conducted of the economic impact on English farmers of differing farm payment schemes under common agricultural policy reform in England, Wales and Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [174080]
  1291W
  Alun Michael
  Defra will publish shortly an analysis of the economic impact on the English farming industry of the single farm payment and the way in which the scheme will be operated in England.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many people were employed, in full time equivalents, in the United Kingdom farming industry in each of the last three years; and what contribution was made by the farming industry to the United Kingdom economy as a percentage of GDP in that period. [174192]

  Alun Michael
  The information requested is given in the table.

  Calendar years

  2001

  2002

  20031

  Annual work unit (thousands)2

  333

  320

  306

  Agriculture's Gross Value Added (GVA) as a percentage of national GVA (current prices)

  0.8

  0.8

  0.8

  1 Provisional.

  2 An annual work unit represents the equivalent of an average full-time person engaged in agriculture. Includes farmers, partners, directors and hired workers.

  Flood and Coastal Defences
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she has taken as a result of the Foresight Programme on Flood and Coastal Defences. [167001]

  Mr. Morley
  The Foresight Programme on Flood and Coastal Defence was initiated by the Office of Science and Technology to provide a shared understanding of the challenges faced by a wide range of stakeholders and to assist in the development of a long-term policy response. Stakeholders have contributed to an action plan in response to the Foresight Report which seeks to build upon this shared understanding and provide a channel through which actions across and outside Government can be co-ordinated. I have agreed that the group of key stakeholders which I chair will meet in one year to monitor progress and consider the need for other actions.

  In order for this action plan to be effective, it must be responsive to change in circumstances and will require regular review. The initial plan focuses on immediate actions, the findings of which will influence longer-term activities. A key mechanism for responding to the challenges within the report will be Defra's new strategy for flood and coastal erosion risk management, which is expected to be finalised early next year.

  Landfill Sites
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what constitutes a moderate risk of release of leachate from a landfill site into a surrounding sea or land area. [171526]

  Mr. Morley
  The Landfill Directive requires that a landfill must be situated and designed so as to meet the necessary conditions for preventing pollution of the soil, groundwater or surface water and ensuring efficient collection of leachate as and when required. In addition, the Groundwater Directive requires Member States 1292W
  to prevent the introduction of certain substances and to limit the introduction of certain other substances into groundwater so as to avoid pollution.

  The legislation in England that implements both these Directives is regulated by the Environment Agency and it is the Agency that would determine whether a likely release of leachate constituted an unacceptable risk, given the planned location of the landfill, using risk assessment techniques.

  For closed landfills that are controlled by a waste management licence, a risk based approach is also adopted by the Environment Agency. Monitoring of leachate, ground and surface waters is required to provide, amongst other things, that leachate controls are preventing pollution of the environment and, where unacceptable risks are identified, the need for measures to prevent, reduce or remove potential leachate pollution are assessed.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what fines have been issued by courts following successful prosecutions for release of pollution from landfill sites in each of the last five years. [171533]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has provided the following details of total levels of fines issued by the courts following successful prosecutions for release of pollution from landfill sites.

  Data are available for the calendar years 2000–03 as these are the years for which complete data is present on the database. As the database is not specifically searchable for offences at landfill sites, these figures have been generated by selecting records where the word "landfill" appears in the address of the site of an event.

  £

  2000

  1—

  183,000

  2001

  1—

  91,500

  2002

  1—

  127,750

  2003

  1—

  51,000

  1 Total fines for year

  Packaging
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action she is taking to promote the minimising of packaging and the prevention of waste creation by(a) producers, (b) distributors and retailers and (c) consumers; and if she will make a statement. [174232]

  Mr. Morley
  There are currently two sets of Regulations that cover packaging in the UK, both of which encourage producers (including retailers) to minimise packaging. The Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997 (as amended) are intended to increase the recovery and recycling of packaging waste. The amount of packaging waste producers have to recover and recycle is determined, in part, by the amount of packaging they handle. Therefore, businesses can save money if they reduce the amount of packaging they handle. The Packaging (Essential Requirements) Regulations 2003 place a number of requirements on all packaging placed on the market in the UK, including a requirement
  1293W
  that packaging should be manufactured so that the packaging volume and weight are limited to the minimum adequate amount to maintain the necessary level of safety, hygiene and acceptance for the packed product and for the consumer.

  Both Regulations have actually led to decreases in packaging used around products. For example, less material is used now to make a plastic container than was used a few years ago. However, more still needs to be done to reduce the amount of packaging that is actually produced in the first place. I have asked the Advisory Committee on Packaging to work with industry to find solutions to this problem and to let me have recommendations for ways of encouraging businesses to further reduce the amount of packaging they use.

  Although legislation is a way of reducing packaging and increasing recycling, we would also encourage consumers to play a part. For example, if consumers made a point of choosing goods that are not heavily packaged, or bought 'loose' food rather than prepackaged, or used their own shopping bags or boxes, manufacturers would be more inclined to reduce the quantity of packaging on their products.

  Pollution Licensing Regime
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken to ensure that the Environment Agency does not use the integrated pollution prevention and control licensing regime as a revenue stream. [174089]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency has powers under Section 41 of the Environment Act 1995 to charge for environmental licences, including pollution prevention and control permits. Charging schemes must be approved by the Secretary of State with the consent of the Treasury. Charging schemes have to be limited to the recovery of the amounts needed, taking one year with another, to recover the Environment Agency's costs of carrying out its regulatory functions.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that charges for integrated pollution prevention and control licences are set at a reasonable level; and if she will make a statement. [174095]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency's Environmental Protection Operator and Pollution Risk Appraisal (EP OPRA) charging scheme is a risk based assessment system, which closely links regulatory effort to environmental risk. EP OPRA was approved by the Government after consultation with industry and is based on four elements: emissions, location, complexity and operator performance. The scheme allows the Agency to recover the costs of carrying out its statutory responsibilities under the Pollution Prevention and Control regime. In line with the "polluter pays principle", well run companies with low potential risk to the environment are charged less than poorly run ones with a high potential to pollute. The Agency must adhere to the Treasury's Fees and Charges Guide, which describes how charges for statutory services should be calculated. The Agency is due to publish a 'transparency document' shortly, which will provide more detail on 1294W
  the Agency's costs; this document will be subject to the approval of the Environment Protection Charges Review Group, which includes industry representatives.

  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received about the proposed integrated pollution prevention and control licences governing ammonia levels and odour; and if she will make a statement. [174096]

  Mr. Morley
  Permits issued under the integrated pollution prevention and control (IPPC) system each relate to a specified industrial installation and must contain emission limits and other permit conditions in respect of any pollutant likely to be emitted in significant quantities from that installation. Both Defra and the Environment Agency are in regular contact with all the industry sectors covered by IPPC and with other stakeholders.

  One industry sector in which ammonia and odour emissions will be significant is the intensive rearing of pigs and poultry. IPPC permits for that sector may incorporate "Standard Farming Installation Rules", based on the application of Best Available Techniques which are described in a reference document published by the European Commission and in national guidance.

  The Environment Agency began a public consultation on an updated version of the Standard Farming Installation Rules on 12 May 2004. The responses to the consultation are due by 16 August 2004. The consultation document is available on the Environment Agency's website at http://www.environment-agencv.gov.uk/yourenv/consultations/775300/7versi

  Recycling
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what waste recycling levels were achieved by each European Union country in the last year for which records exist for each country. [174231]

  Mr. Morley
  Estimates for municipal recycling and composting rates for each available European Union country are listed in the table.

  Municipal waste 2001

  Percentage recycled or composted

  Austria

  32.5

  Belgium

  57.7

  Denmark

  31.7

  Finland

  25.0

  France

  24.6

  Germany

  53.0

  Greece

  8.6

  Ireland

  12.9

  Italy

  24.4

  Luxembourg

  35.8

  Netherlands

  59.4

  Portugal

  4.2

  Spain

  28.4

  Sweden

  39.4

  United Kingdom

  12.7

  These results are published on the Department's website. The full results can be found at: www.defra.gov.uk/environment/statistics/waste/wrkf08.html

  1295W
  There may be some differences in definitions between countries.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local authorities(a) met and (b) failed to meet the local authority recycling target. [174233]

  Mr. Morley
  Individual local authorities are required to meet Statutory Performance Standards for the recycling and composting of household waste in 2003–04 and 2005–06 only. The most recent data available, for 2002–03, show that 83 local authorities have already met or exceeded their 2003–04 target and six have met or exceeded their 2005–06 target.

  The names of these local authorities have been placed in the Library of the House. We Will not know whether the remaining local authorities have succeeded or failed against their 2003–04 targets until later this year.

  Local authorities which met or exceeded their Statutory Performance Standards for 2003–04 or 2005–06 in 2002–03

  Local authorities which met or exceeded their 2005–06 targets in 2002–03

  East Hampshire District Council

  Daventry District Council

  Lichfield District Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  Local authorities which have met or exceeded their 2003–04 targets in 2002–03

  Bedfordshire County Council

  Birmingham City Council

  Blaby District Council

  Blackburn with Darwen Borough Council

  Blackpool Borough Council

  Blyth Valley Borough Council

  Braintree District Council

  Bromley LB

  Broxtowe Borough Council

  Calderdale MBC

  Cradon District Council

  Carrick District Council

  Castle Point Borough Council.

  Chelmsford Borough Council

  Chester City Council

  Chorley Borough Council

  Congleton Borough Council

  Cornwall County Council

  Dacorum Borough Council

  Darlington Borough Council

  Daventry District Council

  Derbyshire County Council

  Dudley MBC

  Durham City Council

  Durham County Council

  Easington District Council

  East Hampshire District Council

  East Hertfordshire District Council

  1296W

  East Sussex County Council

  Essex County Council

  Fenland District Council

  Gedling Borough Council

  Guildford Borough Council

  Halton Borough Council

  Hartlepool Borough Council

  Herefordshire Council

  Hillingdon LB

  Huntingdonshire District Council

  Ipswich Borough Council

  Isle of Wight Council

  Kennet District Council

  Kerrier District Council

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk Borough Council

  Lancashire County Council

  Leicestershire County Council

  Lichfield District Council

  London Corporation

  Luton Borough Council

  Maidstone Borough Council

  Malvern Hills District Council

  North East Lincolnshire Council

  North Kesteven District Council

  North Lincolnshire Council

  Northumberland County Council

  Oswestry Borough Council

  Oxford City Council

  Pendle Borough Council

  Preston Borough Council

  Ribble Valley Borough Council

  Rochford District Council

  Rushcliffe Borough Council

  Salisbury District Council

  Selby District Council

  Shropshire County Council

  South Cambridgeshire District Council

  South Northamptonshire District Council

  South Ribble Borough Council

  Staffordshire Moorlands District Council

  Telford and Wrekin Council

  Thurrock Council

  Torbay Council

  Tunbridge Wells Borough Council

  Uttlesford District Council

  Vale of White Horse District Council

  Vale Royal Borough Council

  Wakefield City MDC

  Wansbeck District Council

  Wealden District Council

  Wellingborough Borough Council

  West Oxfordshire District Council

  Wokingham Council

  Wyre Borough Council

  York City Council

  1297W
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what action(a) has been taken and (b) is being considered against local authorities that fail to reach the waste recycling targets. [174234]

  Mr. Morley
  The Government have always said that they will take seriously any failures by local authorities to achieve their Statutory Performance Standards for recycling and composting for 2003–04 and 2005–06.

  However our primary aim is to support local authorities in achieving the targets, and we have set up the Waste Implementation Programme in Defra to do exactly that.

  We will not know whether local authorities have succeeded or failed against their 2003–04 targets until later this year. Once that information is available, and where an authority has missed its target and demonstrates no commitment to improving its performance, the Government will consider using their formal intervention powers to drive improvement.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 29 March 2004, Official Report, column 7205w, for further information on what action might be taken under my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's formal powers of intervention.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs which local authorities bid for funds under the waste management recycling challenge in each round; and which have been successful. [174235]

  Mr. Morley
  The lists of local authorities that bid for funds under the National Waste Minimisation and Recycling Fund in rounds 1 and 2, which cover in 2002–03 and 2003–04 respectively, have been placed in the Library of the House. The lists for round 3, covering 2004–05, will be placed in the Library of the House shortly.

  Successful bids in all three rounds are also published on the Defra website and can be accessed via the following links:
  Successful bids in round 1: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/020625a.htm
  Successful bids in round 2: http://www.defra.gov.uk/news/2002/021204a.htm
  Successful bids in round 3: http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/waste/localauth/funding/wastefund/index.htm

  Sluice Gates (Queenborough)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who owns the sluice gates that lead into the tidal pond at the bottom of Borough Road, Queenborough, Isle of Sheppey.

  Mr. Morley
  I understand that Swale borough council are currently in the process of establishing the ownership of the land on which the sluice gates are located. These investigations will enable the council to establish, among other things, who is responsible for their maintenance. The council expect to conclude their investigations within a few weeks and I have asked them to inform my hon. Friend of the outcome.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what her policy is on the regulation of prices paid to farmers by supermarkets. [174208]

  Alun Michael
  The price that supermarkets pay for their supplies, including those purchased direct from farmers, is a commercial matter. We have no plans to regulate this.

  Two Tree Island
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received from English Nature regarding(a) contaminated materials on Two Tree Island and (b) the management of the site. [171534]

  Mr. Morley
  No representation have been made by English Nature to the Secretary of State in respect of Two Tree Island landfill site. Since 2001, English Nature, as a statutory consultee on planning applications, has attended meetings about proposed developments to repair sea wall defences at two locations (NE corner & south) within the perimeter of Two Tree Island. English Nature has made formal representations to a planning application by Southend-On-Sea Borough Council in respect of the NE corner in 2004. No formal planning application has yet been received for the areas within Castle Point Borough Council.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on how many occasions the Water Resources Act 1991 has been breached by release of contaminated material from Two Tree Island. [171535]

  Mr. Morley
  Since 1991, The Environment Agency and its predecessor body (The National Rivers Authority) have only had one report (12 October 1993 Councillor Peter Wexham, Borough of Southend-On-Sea) of a suspected breakout of landfill leachate in the area of Two Tree Island The investigating officer at the time of the incident indicates in the file note, that he was unable to substantiate the report, as he could not pin point the exact location of the suspected leachate breakout.

  The Agency does not routinely monitor Two Tree Island, but would investigate reports and concerns from external bodies including members of the public, as it normally does.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what basis she relies for refusing to answer questions relating to the responsibilities of the Environment Agency in respect to(a) public safety and (b) contamination from reaching the closed Two Tree Island landfill site into the Thames estuary; and if she will make a statement. [174127]

  Mr. Morley
  The licence for the disposal of waste on Two Tree Island was held by Essex county council until 1994 when the licence was rescinded. The land was owned by, and continues to be owned by, Southend-on-Sea borough council, who is also responsible for monitoring emissions from the site.
  1299W
  As land-owner, the council has public safety responsibilities and must ensure that contamination does not leave the site.

  The Environment Agency is not responsible for monitoring the site, but would wish to liaise with the land-owner if pollution was identified.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what(a) short-term and (b) long-term solutions she plans to protect the (i) public and (ii) environment from leachate from the closed Two Tree Island landfill site. [1742228]

  Mr. Morley
  As noted in the response I gave on 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 344W, Southend-on-Sea borough council and Castle Point district council are responsible for the Two Tree Island landfill site. I understand, however, that the local authorities are planning to implement the recommendations contained in the report prepared by Halcrow Fox.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will publish the results of the Environment Agency investigations into leachate from the closed Two Tree Island landfill site. [174229]

  Mr. Morley
  Detailed results of the Environment Agency's investigations into leachate from the closed Two Tree Island landfill site are already publicly available on the Agency's public register that is held at Swift House, Frimley Business Park, Camberley, Surrey, GU16 5SQ.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when the landfill site on Two Tree Island was closed. [174229]

  Mr. Morley
  The Two Tree Island waste disposal site was used for landfill operations, reportedly from the 1930s until the 1980s. The licence for the activity was rescinded in 1994.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Statutory Instruments
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will propose a change to the standing orders of the House to make provision for statutory instruments to be amended; and if he will make a statement. [175551]

  Mr. Hain
  A change to the standing orders of the House would not be sufficient to allow amendment of statutory instruments: an amendment of each enabling power would be needed.

  In its 1996 report on Delegated Legislation, the Procedure Committee considered whether statutory instruments should be made amendable and recommended against, on the grounds that it would involve excessive complication, run directly counter to the past intentions of Parliament and would frustrate the very purpose for which delegated powers were given.

  Very little legislation currently in force allows for secondary legislation to be amended. An exception is proposed to be made in respect of emergency regulations under the current Civil Contingencies Bill.
  1300W
  This reflects the exceptionally broad scope of the delegated powers conferred by the Bill and the circumstances in which those powers are likely to be exercised. A similar exception is made in the Emergency Powers Act 1920, which the Bill supersedes.

TRANSPORT

  Speed Cameras
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much money raised in fines from speed cameras during the last year for which records are available was spent in(a) West Sussex and (b) the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. [175039]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Sussex Safety Camera partnership joined the cost recovery scheme in October 2002. Details of partnership operations for 2002–2003 will be published shortly.

  Blackpool Light Rail
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of(a) Blackpool borough council's previous relations with light rail contractors and (b) the lack of need to divert utilities as part of the proposed Blackpool light rail upgrade on the overall risk assessment of the Blackpool light rail bid in the light of the conclusions of the National Audit Office report, "Improving public transport in England through light rail", on cases of cost overruns in light rail schemes. [175504]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department will be taking both of these factors into account in its assessment of the level of 'optimism bias' to apply to the estimated capital costs of the project, to reflect possible cost overruns.

  Capital and Revenue Expenditure
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken to assess the relative costs and benefits of capital expenditure and revenue expenditure on transport. [173313]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State assesses each scheme on its merits, capital or revenue, against a range of appraisal criteria under the New Approach to Appraisal before taking individual investment decisions. Decisions must be consistent with the Government's overall spending allocations determined as part of the budgetary process. The Government meet their golden fiscal rule, so over the economic cycle, we only borrow to invest.

  Car Clubs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what financial support his Department gives to promote car clubs. [174867]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 12 May 2004 Official Report, column 399W.
  1301W
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has undertaken into the reduction in car journeys attributable to car clubs. [174869]

  Mr. McNulty
  Last year the Department commissioned research into the influence of soft factors on travel demand. The final report, which will include a chapter on car clubs, is expected to be completed shortly.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list the local authorities which support car clubs. [174870]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department does not collect this information centrally.

  Departmental Officials
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many officials in his Department and associated agencies have withheld details of their salaries and performance related pay in each year since 1997. [172086]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since the Department was formed in May 2002, there have been seven officials, out of a possible total of 42, who have withheld details of salaries.

  Highway Code
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he intends to review the stopping distances of cars shown in The Highway Code. [175079]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The stopping distances shown in The Highway Code will be reviewed as part of the major revision of the code which will start later this year, including full consultation with all stakeholders with an interest in The Highway Code and road safety matters.

  Journey Times
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment his Department has made of the impact of increasing time taken by commuter rail journeys into London on modal shift. [174074]

  Mr. Darling
  Minor timetable changes are regularly made to ensure timetables are robust and provide more reliable journey times for passengers. Where major timetable changes are proposed—for instance to address capacity problems—they invariably involve consultation with local or regional stakeholders.

  Motoring Costs
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of motoring has been in each year since 1997, expressed at today's prices. [175075]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The following table shows how the cost of motoring1, as measured by the Retail Prices Index, has changed in real terms each year since 1997. The cost of motoring decreased by 4.8 per cent. between 1997 and 2003.
  1 "All motoring" includes the cost of purchase, maintenance, fuel, tax and insurance.
  1302W

  Index (2003=100)

  1997

  105.0

  1998

  104.7

  1999

  105.6

  2000

  106.6

  2001

  104.1

  2002

  101.6

  2003

  100.0

  Source:

  Consumer Prices and Inflation Division, Office for National Statistics

  MOTs
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total expenditure of the MOT computerisation project from its start was, broken down by(a) staff salaries, (b) office accommodation, (c) travel and subsistence and detached duty expenses and (d) fees to consultants. [173889]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The total costs incurred by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency (VOSA) on the MOT Computerisation project from its start are £13,362,000. Of this staff salaries account for £3,816,000; office accommodation £2,950,000; travel and subsistence and detached duty expenses £817,000; fees to consultants £3,615,000; and other costs £2,164,000.

  Railways
  Lawrie Quinn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effect upon costs in the rail industry of regulations prepared by the Health and Safety Commission concerning rail safety. [1748813]

  Mr. Darling
  In accordance with Cabinet Office guidance first issued in 1999, all the railway safety regulations prepared by the Health and Safety Commission since then have been accompanied by Regulatory Impact Assessments (RIAs). Copies of all the RIAs were laid in the Houses of Parliament Libraries with the regulations.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the Freight on Track campaign. [174999]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government are committed to developing a competitive and efficient freight distribution system that supports economic growth while protecting the environment and recognise the economic importance and environmental benefits of rail freight to the UK.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many containers and what tonnage of freight was carried by freight trains in each year since 1997. [175002]

  Mr. McNulty
  The tonnage for freight carried by freight trains on a yearly basis is contained in the Strategic Rail Authority's publication National Rail Trends, which has been placed in the Library of the House. The number of containers moved is not reported in the publication as that information is commercially sensitive.

  Roads (Derby)
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment has been made of the means of completing the road linking the A50 at the A514 junction at Chellaston with Wilmore Road in Derby. [174826]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The proposed link-road in question is a local road and as such is the responsibility of Derby city council. I understand that the scheme is to be appraised by the city council as part of a major transport study, currently under way, for the Derby Joint Local Transport Plan Area.

  School Buses
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of school buses in each local authority are fitted with seat belts. [175099]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department does not collect this information.

  Sea ports (Transport Links)
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his policy is on providing rail and road links to ports. [175093]

  Mr. Darling
  We recognise the importance of good road and rail connections to ports and further improving access to them is an important objective of our 10-Year Transport Plan as well as being a significant issue for the regional planning process. Access to ports featured in several of the recent multi-modal studies and a number of the transport projects now being taken forward as a result of these studies will benefit ports related as well as domestic traffic

  Ship and Port Security
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what level of training is required for a ship security officer to be compliant with the International Ship and Port Facility Security Code. [174608]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The International Ship and Port Facility Security Code requires the ship security officer to have received training in accordance with the guidance given in Part B of the Code. The guidance lists 25 training topics.

  Ship security officers on UK registered ships are required to attend a training course that the Maritime and Coastguard Agency has approved as meeting the Merchant Navy Training Board specification. 35 training providers have been approved to run ship security officer courses.

  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 782W, not shipping, how control measures for ships that do not provide evidence of having an International Security Ship Plan will be enforced.171293

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Department for Transport's Transport Security Directorate (TRANSEC), in conjunction with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency (MCA), are developing appropriate response 1304W
  procedures to deal with ships that fail to provide evidence of an International Ship Security Certificate when seeking entry into a UK port. Consultation is on-going with a number of Departments and agencies including the MOD, Police, and Customs.

  Tachographs
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects digital tachographs to be introduced. [175402]

  Mr. Jamieson
  We do not expect the first digital tachograph to be type-approved until the end of this month at the earliest. Therefore, the first vehicles fitted with digital tachographs are unlikely to be on sale before the end of the year. This means that the current date of 5 August 2004 for mandatory fitting to all relevant new vehicles cannot be met. On 8 March, I announced that we would not enforce the August 2004 deadline in the UK. Since that announcement, the European Commission has proposed an EU-wide moratorium in the enforcement of mandatory fitting by member states until August 2005. We will continue to monitor developments and will make further announcements as and when appropriate.

  Traffic Accidents (Bootle)
  Mr. Joe Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the percentage change has been in the number of(a) deaths and (b) serious injuries on the roads of Bootle since 1997. [175490]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The available information relates to local authority areas. In the Sefton local authority area there were 10 deaths in road accidents in 1997 and 10 deaths in 2002, the latest year for which information is available. The number of serious injuries fell by 12 percent from 100 in 1997 to 88 in 2002. Estimates on the basis of parliamentary constituencies will become available in the summer, where I shall write to my hon Friend with figures for Bootle and place a copy of my letter in the Libraries of the House.

  Traffic Congestion
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the level of congestion on the M54 was in each year since 1997. [175076]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Highways Agency does not currently take regular measurements of congestion levels on the M54. Once the agency's National Traffic Control Centre is fully operational by March 2005, information on journey times and speeds will become widely available.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Colombia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much(a) money and (b) aid in kind the UK has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to date to (A) UNICEF and (B) the UN Industrial Development Organisation within the

  1305W
  framework of the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Colombia (HAP) 2003; and if he will make a statement; [174638]

  (2) how much (a) money and, (b) aid in kind the United Kingdom (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to date to (A) the United Nations Population Fund and (B) the UN High Commission for Refugees within the framework of the UN Consolidated Inter-Agency Appeal for Colombia 2003; and if he will make a statement. [174638]

  Hilary Benn
  The UK did not contribute funds or provide aid in kind to the United Nations Children Fund, UN Industrial Development Organisation, UN Population Fund, or UN High Commission for Refugees within the framework of the UN's 2003 Appeal for Colombia. I refer the hon. Member for Moray to the reply I gave him on the 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 867–68W, for details of the nature of DFID's response to this appeal.

  Departmental Projects
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the Department's medium-risk bilateral projects referred to on page 190 of the 2004 Departmental Report which have been evaluated as successful. [174116]

  All low risk projects with a commitment value of £1 million or over only partly achieving their output purpose during 2003

  Region

  Title

  Commitment

  African Division

  DFID Ghana

  Ghana

  Civil Service Performance Improvement Project Phase Two

  5,602,000

  DFID Kenya

  Kenya

  Approtech LTMIP

  1,700,000

  Business Partnerships Programme Kenya (BPP)

  2,000,000

  DFID Malawi

  Malawi

  Support to National Democratic Institute

  3,000,000

  DFID Mozambique

  Mozambique

  National Health Plan—TC

  1,433,000

  Demining in Mozambique: HALO Trust

  3,908,048

  DFID Southern Africa

  Botswana

  ACORD Ngamiland

  1,681,000

  South Africa, Republic of

  SAUVA HIV AIDs

  1,000,000

  Free State community policing.

  1,920,000

  DFID Tanzania

  Tanzania

  Parastatal Sector Reform Programme III

  5,400,000

  DFID Uganda

  Uganda

  Uganda Fish Farming

  2,197,000

  DFID Zimbabwe

  Zimbabwe

  Empowerment of Farm Worker Communities

  1,614,778

  DFID Ethiopia

  Ethiopia

  SCF Emergency Drought Relief Fik Zone

  1,425,318

  Oxfam: Emergency Nutrition. Boloso Sorie

  1,443,803

  Farm Africa: Farmer Research

  2,654,235

  Asia Division

  DFID Bangladesh

  Bangladesh

  Research and Extn. In Farm Power Issues (REFPI)

  1,623,000

  Rural Bridges Project

  4,500,000

  Bridge Replacement Project

  7,600,000

  GIDP—SCADA/MSIP—Gas Infrastructure Development

  23,609,000

  DFID India

  India

  Urban Public Health Engineers (MDSUPHO)

  1,464,000

  West Bengal Reproductive Child Health Project

  2,990,000

  West Bengal Sexual Health Project

  4,780,000

  Reproductive Health Project Orissa

  4,997,780

  Pub. Admin. Training Prog.

  4,650,000

  1306W
  Hilary Benn
  The medium risk projects, referred to on page 190 of DFID's Departmental Report, are listed on a table I have deposited in the Library called "DFID Medium Risk Projects: Written Question 174116". Each project is given a score ranging from one to five based on the likelihood of achieving their intended objectives. These scores are a forecast of success for projects of £1 million or more that have been in operation for at least two years. It records work in progress and is a twelve-month snapshot view on a particular date reflecting those projects that meet the above criteria. The table lists those projects that have a score of one or two.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the Department's low-risk bilateral projects referred to on page 190 of the 2004 Departmental Report that have not been evaluated as successful. [174117]

  Hilary Benn
  The low risk projects, referred to on page 190 of DFID's Departmental Report, are listed on the table below. Each project is given a score ranging from one to five based on the likelihood of achieving their intended objectives. These scores are a forecast of success for projects of £1 million or more that have been in operation for at least two years. It records work in progress and is a twelve-month snapshot view on a particular date reflecting those projects that meet the above criteria. The table lists those projects receiving a score in the range of three to five which means they will achieve only some of their objectives.
  1307W

  All low risk projects with a commitment value of £1 million or over only partly achieving their output purpose during 2003

  Region

  Title

  Commitment

  DFID Nepal

  Nepal

  Right-based response to HIV/AIDS

  1,750,000

  DFID Nepal

  Russian Federation

  SPS for Health and Social Care

  2,525,000

  REAREF project

  2,689,000

  Support to BAS—Samara

  2,000,000

  Europe, Middle East and Europe and central Asia

  Albania

  Albania Tax Reform

  1,287,615

  Kyrgyzstan, Republic of

  Kyrgyz Tariff project

  1,249,542

  Latin America Department

  Bolivia

  Mink'a Agricultural Development Project Phase IV

  2,827,000

  Brazil

  Participatory Management of Natural Resources

  3,000,000

  Central America

  PAHO Disease Control

  2,771,150

  Middle East and North Africa

  Egypt, Arab Republic

  Environment (SEAM 2)

  6,316,000

  Overseas Territories

  Anguilla

  Secondary School Development Project

  3,088,000

  St Helena

  Cargo Handling Equipment

  1,031,000

  Link Committee

  1,589,680

  Policy Division

  Non Specific Country

  WHO HQ Roll Back Malaria

  48,000,000

  Commonwealth Local Govt. Forum

  2,000,000

  Joint UNDP UMP Phase III

  2,562,000

  CLS: Homeworker Mapping

  1,213,380

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the(a) number and (b) location of Liberian refugees; and if he will make a statement. [175476]

  Hilary Benn
  In February 2004 the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) estimated a total of 324,000 Liberian refugees in neighbouring countries; 147,000 in Guinea, 68,000 in Sierra Leone, 67,000 in Ivory Coast, and 42,000 in Ghana. It has since been estimated that up to 17,000 refugees have returned spontaneously to Liberia from these countries. With improved conditions, services and stability inside Liberia, UNHCR expects up to 100,000 of the remaining refugees to return by the end of 2004, and the remainder in 2005. DFID has assisted with the provision of services and support to refugees and internally displaced persons by providing £10.6m in humanitarian support in 2003 and 2004. DFID has committed a further £6m for Disarmament, Demobilisation and Reintegration, as an additional contribution to post-conflict recovery and the creation of conditions for a return to peace and stability.

  Occupied Palestinian Territories
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) how much expenditure is planned by his Department in the next three years for projects to work with young people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories; [174554]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the projects his Department is supporting in the Occupied Palestinian Territories specifically aimed at giving young people an alternative to violence and extremism; and at what cost in 2003–04. [174554]
  1308W
  Hilary Benn
  The best way of giving young people an alternative to violence and extremism is to ensure they have a full and effective education with good prospects of future employment. DFID's support to the United Nations Relief Works Agency (UNRWA) for which planned expenditure over the next three years is about £15 million per calendar year, provides substantial support to education and emergency employment creation. Over two thirds of UNRWA's annual budget is allocated for the education needs of Palestinian children in the West Bank, Gaza Strip, Lebanon, Syria and Jordan. DFID provides project funding for UNRWA to help improve the school management by involving the local community. Planned funding is about £500,000 per year for the next two years.

  DFID recently agreed a £7 million contribution to the World Bank's Public Financial Management Reform Trust Fund to support the Palestinian Authority. This will have an indirect impact on supporting young people, as the money will help maintain public services including education and keep PA employees at work by paying salaries.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research he has(a) commissioned and (b) evaluated on the level of disruption to the schooling and vocational education of young people in the Occupied Palestinian Territories over the last five years. [174556]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID has not commissioned any such research but monitors the level of disruption to education through regular contact with our Palestinian and international partners including the Palestinian Authority Ministry of Education, United Nations Relief Works Agency and Non Governmental Organisations. Many pupils and teachers now face difficulty in getting to school, which in effect reduces the number of full school days. There is also a reduction in the financial resources
  1309W
  available for education as a result of the severe downturn of the Palestinian economy. The high priority given to education by Palestinian communities means that there has been no increase in the very low dropout rate, and only a small reduction in the high rate of enrolment of pupils in schools. The disruptions and violence nevertheless have a high psychological impact on students and on student achievement.

  South Africa
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the statement released by South Africa's Deputy President Jacob Zuma's office on 11 May 2004; what his Department's assessment is of the scale of the problem highlighted by Mr. Zuma; and if he will make a statement. [174640]

  Hilary Benn
  The statement by South Africa's Deputy President Zuma's office, highlighted the extent of food insecurity and vulnerability in the Southern African region. At the 15 May Southern African Development Community Summit on Agriculture and Food Security in Dares Salaam the South African government announced a contribution of R 100 million (approximately £8 million) to help meet these needs. DFID welcomes this and believe that South Africa has an important role to play in improving food security in the region, including as a major food producer and grain market.

  Food security is a continuing challenge in Southern Africa. At the peak of the recent humanitarian crisis, the United Nations assessed that 15.2 million people (26 per cent. of the population) were in need of food aid. DFID spent over £88 million in 2002–03 in response to the Southern African food crisis (in Malawi, Zambia, Zimbabwe, Mozambique, Swaziland and Lesotho). Acute needs appear to be lessening now as a result of improved harvests in many but not all countries, However, chronic poverty appears to have increased and more communities are now likely to become destitute as a result of variable rainfall or other shocks such as illness or loss of work.

  The impact of HIV/AIDS has placed a major burden on households and increased their vulnerability. Increasing food production is necessary but not sufficient, since many people do not grow their own food, and lack resources to buy food even if it is available. Increasing employment, land reform, better infrastructure and access to markets, and more private sector investment are also required.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Department had observers at the 2004 Southern African Development Community Heads of State and Government Summit on Agriculture and Food Security held on 15 May 2004 in Dar es Salaam; what reports of the(a) proceedings and (b) conditions of this summit he has received; and if he will make a statement. [174639]

  Hilary Benn
  The British High Commissioner in Tanzania attended the opening ceremony of the Southern African Development Community (SADC)1310W
  Summit on 15 May. The Summit launched an action plan to address the food security problems in the region. It emphasised the extent and depth of vulnerability in the region and the need for concerted international action on a wide range of issues. Member states re-endorsed their commitment to increase their financing to agriculture to 10 per cent. of national budgets within five years.

  The official communiqué sets out the agreed action and priority areas for short and longer-term support. DFID, in collaboration with partners, is supporting a number of programmes to address the issues discussed at the Summit. DFID's collaboration emphasises access to food, as well as increasing production; monitoring vulnerability and targeting vulnerable groups; and the important role of the private sector and regional trade. DFID welcomes SADC's renewed commitment to food security as a development priority.

  Sudan
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) what assistance his Department is providing with demobilisation disarmament and the reintegration of combatants in Sudan; [174774]

  (2) what is the nature of the support being provided by his Department to assist reintegration in the Sudan. [174773]

  Hilary Benn
  Full demobilisation, disarmament and reintegration (DDR) of combatants will only take place in Sudan after a peace agreement has been signed between the Government of Sudan and Sudan People's Liberation Movement. However, as part of the international effort to promote successful DDR, DFID is currently supporting both the preparation and planning for full-scale demobilisation and the demobilisation of Child Soldiers.

  DFID has provided about £505,000 of assistance to UNICEF for child soldier disarmament and demobilisation, as well as the return, reunification and reintegration of vulnerable children. We have also provided about £312,000 of assistance to the United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) for three DDR field advisers under their preparatory support for reintegration for former combatants and community based weapons reduction. In addition we are also providing a DDR adviser to act as a resource person to the Inter Governmental Authority on Development (IGAD) in the IGAD-led peace talks, and to the international community through the UN Resident Coordinator for Sudan.

  Both DFID and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office are also pressing the UN at the highest levels to ensure that DDR is given the utmost priority, and is fully supported during coming peacekeeping missions.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action his Department is taking to support the development of effective governance in Sudan. [174775]
  1311W
  Hilary Benn
  DFID hopes that a framework peace agreement will emerge from the Sudan peace talks soon. DFID sees a sustainable and just peace as key to effective governance in Sudan so the United Kingdom has committed itself to supporting Sudan in implementing the peace agreement.

  One of DFID's objectives for the programme in Sudan is the development of effective public administration, security and judicial systems. To this end we are supporting policy development, for example, by helping the Sudan People's liberation Movement (SPLM) to develop good governance principles for the new Government of South Sudan. DFID is also working on plans to support capacity building on safety, security and accessible justice; on local government; and on public financial management. In addition we have financed a consultancy report on the development of policing in Sudan, and are considering support for security sector reform.

  Zimbabwe
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the secretary of State for International Development what discussions(a) he, (b) members of his Department and (c) other members and representatives of the Government have had with (i)representatives of the World Food Programme (WFP) and Food and Agriculture Organisation (FAO), (ii) members and representatives of the Government of Zimbabwe and (iii) members and representatives of the Government of South Africa concerning the WFP and FAO's crop assessment missions recently cancelled by Zimbabwe officials; what assessment his Department has made of this incident; and if he will make a statement. [174641]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Zimbabwe's recent decision to cancel the crop assessment mission has been discussed extensively in numerous meetings in Harare involving DFID Zimbabwe, the British embassy, United Nations agencies, and other donors. Officials from DFID and the embassy, as well as the UN, have expressed concerns to the Zimbabwean Government. DFID and embassy officials have also discussed this issue with South African officials.

  The Government of Zimbabwe's cancellation of the mission means that there is no internationally accepted estimate of Zimbabwe's harvest, and their decision not to request international food aid means that normal advance planning processes will not take place. The Zimbabwean claim that they have produced 2.4 million metric tonnes (MT) of maize this year is simply not credible. The actual harvest is probably below 1.2 million MT, compared to a requirement of about 1.8 million MT. Given the significant shortage of foreign exchange in Zimbabwe, it will be difficult for the Government to import enough grain to fill this gap. Many poor and vulnerable people may therefore go very hungry, if not worse, as a result of these decisions.

  DFID Zimbabwe, in collaboration with other major donors and the UN system, will monitor the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe closely, while continuing to provide targeted food assistance and other humanitarian support to the most vulnerable sections of Zimbabwe society through NGO programmes which DFID is able to fund directly. DFID will press the Government of Zimbabwe to
  1312W
  recognize the humanitarian need within the country and to collaborate with the international community to provide an apolitical and co-ordinated response.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment he has made of the continuing need for international food aid to Zimbabwe. [174776]

  Hilary Benn
  The Government of Zimbabwe have decided to cancel the joint crop assessment mission with the UN which had started in late April. This means that there is no internationally accepted estimate of Zimbabwe's harvest. Their separate decision not to request international food aid means that normal advance planning processes for delivery of food aid will not take place. The Zimbabwean claim that they have produced 2.4 million metric tonnes (MT) of maize this year is simply not credible. The actual harvest is probably below 1.2 million MT, compared to a requirement of about 1.8 million MT. Given the significant shortage of foreign exchange in Zimbabwe, it will be difficult for the Government to import enough grain to fill this gap. Many poor and vulnerable people may therefore go very hungry, if not worse, as a result of these decisions.

  The UN and donors, including the UK, have expressed our concern to the Zimbabwean Government about their handling of the humanitarian situation. DFID, in collaboration with other major donors and the UN system, will monitor the position in Zimbabwe closely, while continuing to provide targeted food assistance and other humanitarian support to the most vulnerable sections of Zimbabwe society through NGO programmes which we are able to fund directly. DFID will press the Government of Zimbabwe to recognize the humanitarian need within the country and to collaborate with the international community to provide an apolitical and coordinated response.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  VAT
  Claire Ward
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners what response he has received from churches to the announcement by the Chancellor of the Exchequer of the extension of VAT for listed places of worship. [174918]

  Sir Stuart Bell
  I and my colleagues in the Churches receive many indications of appreciation from parishes for the Chancellor's extension of the Listed Places of Worship Grant Scheme to repay the full amount of VAT paid on repairs to listed church buildings after 1 April 2004.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Museums and Galleries Month
  Linda Perham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on activities and events that have taken place and are taking place in museums and galleries month. [174900]
  1313W
  Estelle Morris
  Museums and Galleries Month comprises more than 1,100 special events that will attract an estimated 10 million people during May. The month shows that museums and galleries are becoming ever more interesting and accessible to all sections of society, and I congratulate the organisers and all those taking part.

  Cinema
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve access to the cinema for small towns and rural communities. [174901]

  Estelle Morris
  The UK Film Council, the Government's strategic agency for film, oversees several strategies to improve access to cinema, including in small towns and rural areas.

  These include the establishment of a Digital Screen Network; the installation of audio-descriptive captioning in 78 cinemas to enhance the cinema-going experience of visually impaired people; continued funding for film societies; and a fund to help film clubs, societies and community groups to buy digital projection equipment.

  Amateur Sports Clubs
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the take-up of rate relief support for amateur sports clubs. [174902]

  Tessa Jowell
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave earlier today to my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Parmjit Dhanda),Official Report, column 1293.

  Landmark Buildings
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assistance is available for the preservation of landmark buildings within small communities. [174903]

  Estelle Morris
  English Heritage and the Heritage Lottery Fund run a number of grant schemes which provide assistance for the preservation of listed buildings of historic or architectural importance in both large and small communities. Additionally, English Heritage and local authorities provide advice on practical measures with preservation.

  Ofcom (Television Access)
  Tom Levitt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects Ofcom to publish its code on television access services for people with hearing or sight difficulties. [174904]

  Tessa Jowell
  I understand from OFCOM that they expect to publish the code in the summer.

  Olympics 2012
  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will report progress on London's bid for the 2012 Olympics. [174905]
  1314W
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on progress on the Olympics bid for 2012. [174910]

  Tessa Jowell
  On 18 May the International Olympic Committee announced that London had been accepted as a Candidate City for the 2012 Olympic and Paralympic Games, together with Paris, Madrid, New York and Moscow.

  London 2012 is now working on the completion of the Candidate files, which will be submitted to the IOC by 15 November 2004,

  Paul Flynn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans there are to hold Olympic events in Wales. [174907]

  Tessa Jowell
  The bidding company, London 2012 announced the venues for the bid to host the Olympic and Paralympic Games on 16 January. The Olympic football competition will be held in stadia in Cardiff, Belfast, Birmingham, Glasgow, Manchester, Newcastle and London. There will be opportunities for sporting facilities across the UK to be used by national teams for training camps.

  In addition the Cultural Olympiad will take place across the UK over the four years up to and including 2012 and the 2012 Olympic Torch Relay is likely to involve every major city and town throughout the UK over several months.

  Community Radio
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she will announce the funding arrangements for community radio. [174906]

  Estelle Morris
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State announced on 5 March 2004 that £0.5 million pounds has been made available for community radio for each of the next two financial years. OFCOM will administer the fund.

  Athletics
  Mr. Amess
  to ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps her Department is taking to promote participation in athletics; and if she will make a statement. [174908]

  Mr. Caborn
  Athletics is benefiting from the Government's investment of £10 million into Club Links, which aims to increase the percentage of young people moving between School Sport Partnerships and governing body accredited clubs. This will build new, and strengthen existing, links between schools and clubs and increase participation opportunities.

  King Edward VII Convalescent Home
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the future of the former King Edward VII convalescent home for officers, Osborne. [174909]

  Tessa Jowell
  English Heritage has considered a range of options. A recent study suggests that the most feasible would be to convert the former convalescent home at Osborne House into a high quality hotel.

  Audio-description Technology
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what proportion of British live theatres are(a) equipped for and (b) operating equipment for audio-description of live performances; and if she will make a statement. [175015]

  Estelle Morris
  Arts Council England estimates that of the 283 theatres they fund in England, 53 (about 19 per cent.) are equipped with and operate their own audio description equipment. 11 additional theatres have their own equipment and use Vocaleyes, an Arts Council England funded organisation, to provide audio description. In the last 12 months, 12 additional theatres have used Vocaleyes for both their equipment and audio description service.

  Arts Council England has committed £165,000 to the core funding of Vocaleyes in 2005–06, an increase of 68 per cent. since 2003–04.

  Licensing Act
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what account she has taken of representations from the circus industry in developing the draft guidance under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003. [175556]

  Mr. Caborn
  We considered carefully the views expressed to us by, and on behalf of, the circus industry when drawing up the draft Guidance to licensing authorities which was laid before Parliament on 23 March. We have, in so far as possible, made the draft Guidance clearer in relation to circuses. We did not accept their case for exemption during the passage of the Licensing Bill, nor for amending the arrangements for temporary events. Further, it is not possible to create exemptions to the Licensing Act 2003 through the Guidance, as it cannot amend the Act.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will delay further parliamentary consideration of the draft guidance issued under section 182 of the Licensing Act 2003 until further representations from the circus industry due to be received on 27 May have been considered. [175557]

  Mr. Caborn
  We want to see the Licensing Act 2003 implemented as soon as possible so that consumers, industry and local communities can benefit from the reforms. We do not, therefore, wish to delay Parliament's consideration of the draft Guidance to licensing authorities which was laid on 23 March. I do, however, understand the concerns of circuses and I look forward to meeting the hon. Member and circus industry representatives on 27 May to consider how to assist this important and popular part of our cultural heritage to adjust to the requirements of the new regime in a way that is as smooth and manageable as possible.

ELECTORAL COMMISSION

  Electoral Registration
  Mr. Barnes
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what information the Electoral Commission holds on the shortfall in electoral registration. [174920]

  Mr. Viggers
  Last year, the Electoral Commission published research assessing the impact on levels of registration of new registration arrangements in Northern Ireland. I understand that the Commission does not currently hold up-to-date information relating to registration shortfalls in England, Scotland and Wales. However, the Commission is currently establishing a research project to identify the extent and nature of under-registration in Great Britain, as well as reviewing the operation and impact of rolling registration since 2001.

  All-postal Voting
  Bob Russell
  To ask the hon. Member for Gosport, representing the Speaker's Committee on the Electoral Commission what arrangements the Electoral Commission has made for spot checks on households in all-postal voting areas. [174917]

  Mr. Viggers
  While the Electoral Commission has a statutory duty to evaluate the pilot schemes in June, it has no operational role in the conduct of the elections. The Commission has advised Returning Officers of the post-election checks they might use to provide assurance of the security of postal voting, but has no plans to undertake any checks itself during the course of the election period as this could interfere with the conduct of the ballot.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Crown Prosecutors
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the annual leave allowance is for each grade of Crown Prosecutor. [167303]

  The Solicitor-General
  The annual leave allowance for all grades of crown prosecutor below the Senior Civil Service grade (SCS) is 25 days per year on entry to the department, and 30 days upon completion of 10 years' service. Crown prosecutors in the SCS and the Chief Crown Prosecutor grades, are entitled to 30 days' annual leave on entry to the department.

  Discontinued Cases (Merseyside)
  Mr. Mark Field
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many cases in the Merseyside area were referred to(a) the Crown court and (b) a magistrates court in each year since 1997; and how many of those cases were subsequently discontinued. [173129]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following tables show the number of cases received by CPS Merseyside in the magistrates courts and in the Crown court in each year
  1317W
  since 1997. Magistrates courts receipts include cases referred to the Crown Prosecution Service by the police for pre-charge advice and non-criminal proceedings, as well as cases referred to the Service for prosecution. Crown court receipts include appeals and committals for sentence, as well as cases committed for trial.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  47,080

  —

  45,557

  —

  47,969

  —

  49,158

  —

  42,307

  —

  46,876

  —

  48,383

  —

  5,451

  13.1

  5,550

  13.7

  6,502

  15.2

  6,759

  15.9

  6,084

  16.3

  5,447

  14.0

  5,584

  13.9

  3,138

  7.6

  2,112

  5.2

  3,434

  8.0

  3,042

  7.2

  2,255

  6.0

  2,260

  5.8

  1,749

  4.4

  41

  0.1

  39

  0.1

  48

  0.1

  11

  0.0

  7

  0.0

  0.0

  67

  0.2

  47

  0.1

  56

  0.1

  81

  0.2

  78

  0.2

  85

  0.2

  88

  0.2

  110

  0.3

  946

  2.3

  673

  1.7

  457

  1.1

  708

  1.7

  622

  1.7

  520

  1.3

  647

  1.6

  25,603

  61.7

  26,374

  65.0

  25,615

  59.9

  24,487

  57.6

  23,173

  61.9

  24,706

  63.4

  25,088

  62.4

  4,226

  10.2

  4,137

  10.2

  5,012

  11.7

  5,883

  13.8

  3,989

  10.7

  4,985

  12.8

  5,834

  14.5

  2,051

  4.9

  1,662

  4.1

  1,619

  3.8

  1,541

  3.6

  1,200

  3.2

  945

  2.4

  1,114

  2.8

  9,623

  23.2

  8,430

  20.8

  10,522

  24.6

  10,598

  24.9

  9,053

  24.2

  8,315

  213

  8,757

  20.3

  31,880

  76.8

  32,173

  79.2

  32,246

  75.4

  31,911

  75.1

  28,362

  75.8

  30,636

  78.7

  32,036

  79.7

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  No.

  %

  5,022

  —

  4,854

  —

  4,411

  —

  4,569

  —

  3,947

  —

  4,183

  —

  4,518

  —

  447

  10.9

  637

  14.8

  443

  12.7

  589

  16.0

  687

  19.0

  654

  18.0

  686

  18.9

  45

  1.1

  123

  2.9

  188

  5.4

  123

  3.3

  142

  3.9

  123

  3.4

  78

  2.2

  56

  1.4

  52

  1.2

  49

  1.4

  61

  1.7

  64

  1.8

  75

  2.1

  85

  2.3

  273

  6.7

  253

  5.9

  259

  7.4

  263

  7.1

  330

  9.1

  299

  8.2

  301

  8.3

  2,969

  72.4

  2,843

  66.0

  2,178

  62.6

  2,330

  63.2

  2,062

  56.9

  2,105

  57.8

  2,151

  59.3

  313

  7.6

  397

  9.2

  363

  10.4

  323

  8.8

  338

  9.3

  384

  10.5

  324

  8.9

  821

  20.0

  1,065

  24.7

  939

  27.0

  7,036

  28.7

  7,223

  33.8

  7,757

  37.6

  7,750

  31.7

  3,282

  80.0

  3,240

  75.3

  2,541

  73.0

  2,653

  77.9

  2,400

  66.2

  2,489

  68.4

  2,475

  68.3

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Joint Custody
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many separated parents have joint custody of their children; and if he will make a statement. [173556]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since the Children Act 1989 was implemented in 1991, "custody" of a child has ceased to be a concept in the law of England and Wales. Under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989 a court has the power to make a residence order, being"an order settling the arrangements to be made as to the person with whom a child is to live".

  Section 1(5) of the Children Act provides that a court cannot make an order unless it considers that doing so would be better for the child than making no order at all ("the no order principle"). It follows that, if parents are agreed on the arrangements for their child, then it may be that the matter never comes before a court, or that, if it is before a court, the court considers that it is better for the child that no order be made. In other cases, such as those where there is no agreement between the parents, it is open to the court to make a residence order, if it considers that it is in the best interests of the child to do so. Such an order might be a "shared residence" order (so that the child lives with both parents, at different times, usually spending around half his time with each). The following table shows the latest available judicial statistics (2002). During 2002 a total of 103,191 section 8 orders were made in private law.
  1318W
  The tables show the outcome of cases prosecuted, both in numerical terms and as a proportion of completed cases. The number and percentage of cases discontinued in the magistrates courts, and the number and percentage resulting in a judge ordered acquittal in the Crown court, are included for each year.

  Disposal of selected applicants in private law in all tiers of court, 2002

  Nature of application

  Applications withdrawn

  Orders refused

  Orders of no order

  Orders made

  Parental responsibility

  773

  290

  132

  8,240

  Section 8

  Residence

  1,536

  158

  431

  30,006

  Contact

  2,373

  518

  945

  61,356

  Prohibited steps

  300

  40

  77

  8,889

  Specific issue

  207

  33

  67

  2,940

  Connexions
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the effects on the private sector of his Department's decision to reduce the amount it will offset against Connexions partnerships' VAT costs. [172650]

  Margaret Hodge
  We have recommended that partnerships look to improve their tax efficiency. It does not automatically follow that this will have any effect on sub-contracting to private providers. The Department is monitoring how partnerships are dealing with the reduction in VAT transitional funding and we have made it clear that we expect them to continue to involve the private sector. We know that the lead body model is the most tax efficient and an increasing number of areas are adopting this, leaving private sector careers contracts in place.
  1319W
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received from private providers of Connexions services concerning his Department's decision to reduce the amount it will offset against partrnership's VAT costs. [172671]

  Margaret Hodge
  In total my Department has received 12 representations from private providers about the decision to reduce the amount of transitional support to Connexions partnerships.

  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether it is his Department's policy to ensure that Connexions partnerships commit themselves to maintaining the pension benefits of private providers' staff if a partnership opts to shift from a sub-contracting operational model to a system of direct delivery and to incorporate the private providers' staff. [172676]

  Margaret Hodge
  Connexions Partnerships are private companies with obligations to their individual boards. As such the Department is unable to become involved in individual decisions about pension benefits for Connexions staff. This includes where a partnership opts to shift from a sub-contracting operational model to a system of direct delivery and to incorporate the private providers' staff. We would however expect Connexions partnerships to give due regard to any incoming staff and to make every effort to ensure that they are not disadvantaged in any way.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the production of his Department's latest annual report cost; how many copies were printed; how many copies of it were sold at its cover price; to whom copies of the report have been provided free of charge; and how many copies were provided free of charge. [171137]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  While the Department pays for some production costs of its annual report, these only cover the design and typesetting. The costs of printing are met directly by the publisher, The Stationery Office (TSO) and do not fall to the Department. The Department buys in copies from the TSO to distribute internally and to our partners.

  The costs for the Department for Education and Skills 2004 Report was:

  £

  Typesetting and design

  17,500

  Buying in copies from TSO

  12,000

  Total

  29,500

  Other costs of printing and publication are met directly by the publisher, The Stationary Office Limited (TSO), and do not fall to Government. It is also for TSO to decide how many are printed. As the reported was published on 30 April, there is no meaningful information yet available on numbers of copies sold by TSO.
  1320W
  The number of copies distributed free of charge was:

  Number of copies

  Vote Office

  150

  Paper Office

  50

  HMT

  10

  Ofsted

  15

  DfES internal

  Parliamentary Office

  22

  Library

  20

  Press Office

  25

  Labour Attachés

  50

  SoS, Ministers, Special Advisers

  9

  Board, DGs, Directors

  32

  DMs and policy contributors

  125

  Total

  508

  The report is also available on the departmental website free of charge at http://www.dfes.gov.uk/deptreport2004/.

  Disabled Children
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many families of disabled children have been provided with short breaks through the Quality Protects programme; what proportion that represents as a total of such families; and if he will make a statement. [170610]

  Margaret Hodge
  £60 million was earmarked for services for disabled children and their families for the years 2001–04 through the Quality Protects programme. This funding was mainstreamed into local authority budgets from 2004–05. We do not count the number of additional children supported by the Quality Protects grant. The Children in Need Census 2003, collected information of any disabled child receiving resources from the Local Authority Social Services Department within the Census week, and identified a total of 4,560 disabled children as receiving short term breaks from a total of 29,700 receiving a service. There are approximately 320,000 disabled children in England, including 110,000 severely disabled children.

  Education Services (Essex)
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average class size in state primary schools was 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. [173326]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Maintained primary schools1: average class size2—position in January each year 1980 to 2003

  Average size of one teacher classes

  Essex LEA3

  Southend-on-Sea4

  Thurrock4

  1980

  27.1

  5—

  5—

  1981

  26.8

  5—

  5—

  1982

  26.7

  5—

  5—

  1983

  26.4

  5—

  5—

  1984

  26.5

  5—

  5—

  1985

  26.6

  5—

  5—

  1986

  27.1

  5—

  5—

  1321W

  Maintained primary schools1: average class size2—position in January each year 1980 to 2003

  Average size of one teacher classes

  Essex LEA3

  Southend-on-Sea4

  Thurrock4

  1987

  26.5

  5—

  5—

  1988

  26.1

  5—

  5—

  1989

  26.0

  5—

  5—

  1990

  26.1

  5—

  5—

  1991

  26.7

  5—

  5—

  1992

  26.6

  5—

  5—

  1993

  26.8

  5—

  5—

  1994

  26.9

  5—

  5—

  1995

  26.9

  5—

  5—

  1996

  26.9

  5—

  5—

  1997

  27.3

  5—

  5—

  1998

  27.6

  5—

  5—

  1999

  27.7

  28.4

  27.6

  2000

  27.4

  28.0

  26.9

  2001

  26.9

  28.0

  26.4

  2002

  26.5

  28.0

  25.5

  2003

  26.6

  27.9

  26.3

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—Brent East Parliamentary Constituency

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number of pupils on roll3

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  Primary schools

  7,590

  2,340

  30.9

  1,910

  25.2

  Secondary schools

  2,730

  930

  34.0

  780

  28.7

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3 Includes pupils with single and dual registration.

  4 The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the census.

  5 Pupils expressed as a percentage of total pupils on roll.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—London local education authority areas

  Primary schools

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number of pupils on roll3

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  London

  628,490

  167,530

  26.7

  139,060

  22.1

  Inner London

  229,910

  88,380

  38.4

  74,780

  32.5

  202

  Camden

  11,460

  4,900

  42.8

  4,040

  35.2

  201

  City of London

  0

  0

  6—

  0

  6—

  204

  Hackney

  17,950

  7,360

  41.0

  6,400

  35.7

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  9,780

  4,350

  44.5

  3,700

  37.8

  309

  Haringey

  21,920

  7,860

  35.9

  6,850

  31.2

  206

  Islington

  14,740

  6,000

  40.7

  5,230

  35.5

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  7,040

  2,810

  39.9

  2,360

  33.6

  208

  Lambeth

  19,900

  7,500

  37.7

  6,410

  32.2

  209

  Lewisham

  22,130

  6,260

  28.3

  4,920

  22.2

  316

  Newham

  31,280

  11,480

  36.7

  9,240

  29.5

  210

  Southwark

  23,630

  8,480

  35.9

  6,910

  29.2

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  22,030

  11,880

  53.9

  9,910

  45.0

  212

  Wandsworth

  17,220

  5,110

  29.7

  4,960

  28.8

  213

  Westminster

  10,830

  4,390

  40.5

  3,860

  35.6

  1322W
  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Classes as taught during a selected period on the day of the census.

  3 Definition of the local education authority area changed in 1999 as a result of government office reorganisation.

  4 Applicable from 1999—after local government reorganisation.

  5 Not applicable.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  school Meals
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children in(a) Brent East and (b) each London borough claim free school meals; and what estimate he has made of those eligible to claim free school meals in each case. [172817]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  Available information relates to (i) the number of pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim a free school meal, and (ii) the number of pupils who took a free school meal.

  Figures for Brent East are given in the table. The same information for local education authorities in London has been placed in the House of Commons Library.
  1323W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—London local education authority areas

  Secondary schools

  Number of pupils on roll3

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  London

  420,270

  100,400

  23.9

  77,310

  18.4

  Inner London

  126,160

  49,460

  39.2

  39,080

  31.0

  202

  Camden

  9,700

  2,890

  29.8

  2,450

  25.3

  201

  City of London

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  6—

  204

  Hackney

  7,350

  3,060

  41.7

  2,130

  28.9

  205

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  7,220

  2,350

  32.5

  1,900

  26.3

  309

  Haringey

  11,250

  4,290

  38.1

  3,710

  33.0

  206

  Islington

  7,880

  3,540

  45.0

  2,590

  32.9

  207

  Kensington and Chelsea

  3,500

  990

  28.4

  830

  23.8

  208

  Lambeth

  7,800

  3,050

  39.1

  2,550

  32.7

  209

  Lewisham

  11,650

  3,560

  30.6

  2,570

  22.1

  316

  Newham

  18,140

  7,830

  43.2

  6,240

  34.4

  210

  Southwark

  10,040

  4,650

  46.3

  4,110

  40.9

  211

  Tower Hamlets

  12,930

  7,680

  59.4

  5,350

  41.4

  212

  Wandsworth

  10,300

  2,710

  26.3

  2,070

  20.1

  213

  Westminster

  8,410

  2,850

  33.9

  2,590

  30.8

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10

  3 Includes pupils with single and dual registration.

  4 The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the census.

  5 Pupils expressed as a percentage of total pupils on roll.

  6Not applicable; no schools of this type

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—London local education authority areas

  Primary schools

  Number of pupils on roll3

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  Outer London

  398,580

  79,150

  19.9

  64,270

  16.1

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  18,490

  4,510

  24.4

  3,840

  20.8

  302

  Barnet

  25,830

  4,900

  19.0

  4,130

  16.0

  303

  Bexley

  21,480

  2,770

  12.9

  1,960

  9.1

  304

  Brent

  22,820

  6,670

  29.2

  5,550

  24.3

  305

  Bromley

  24,210

  3,320

  13.7

  2,570

  10.6

  306

  Croydon

  30,300

  6,650

  22.0

  5,350

  17.6

  307

  Ealing

  26,200

  6,720

  25.7

  5,450

  20.8

  308

  Enfield

  26,840

  6,710

  25.0

  5,710

  21.3

  203

  Greenwich

  20,660

  7,380

  35.7

  5,680

  27.5

  310

  Harrow

  19,520

  3,090

  15.8

  2,520

  12.9

  311

  Havering

  20,110

  2,400

  11.9

  1,920

  9.6

  312

  Hillingdon

  24,210

  3,950

  16.3

  2,900

  12.0

  313

  Hounslow

  18,980

  4,250

  22.4

  3,660

  19.3

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  11,640

  920

  7.9

  750

  6.4

  315

  Merton

  14,570

  2,030

  13.9

  1,670

  11.4

  317

  Redbridge

  23,680

  3,870

  16.4

  3,240

  13.7

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  12,590

  1,180

  9.4

  970

  7.7

  319

  Sutton

  15,140

  2,030

  13.4

  1,670

  11.0

  320

  Waltham Forest

  21,320

  5,810

  27.3

  4,750

  22.3

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—London local education authority areas

  Secondary schools

  Number of pupils on roll3

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  Outer London

  294,110

  50,940

  17.3

  38,220

  13.0

  301

  Barking and Dagenham

  12,090

  3,220

  26.6

  2,140

  17.7

  302

  Barnet

  21,150

  3,280

  15.5

  2,530

  12.0

  303

  Bexley

  18,020

  1,530

  8.5

  1,120

  6.2

  304

  Brent

  15,940

  3,500

  21.9

  2,590

  16.2

  305

  Bromley

  22,240

  2,300

  10.4

  1,780

  8.0

  1324W 1325W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: School meal arrangements as at January 2004 (provisional)2—London local education authority areas

  Secondary schools

  Number of pupils on roll3

  pupils who are known to be eligible for and claim free school meals

  Pupils who have free school meals4

  Number

  Percentage5

  Number

  Percentage5

  306

  Croydon

  18,680

  3,490

  18.7

  2,770

  14.8

  307

  Ealing

  14,950

  4,210

  28.1

  3,410

  22.8

  308

  Enfield

  21,640

  4,350

  20.1

  2,690

  12.4

  203

  Greenwich

  14,410

  4,250

  29.5

  3,100

  21.5

  310

  Harrow

  9,050

  1,650

  18.2

  1,380

  15.2

  311

  Havering

  16,520

  1,630

  9.9

  1,280

  7.7

  312

  Hillingdon

  17,810

  2,960

  16.6

  2,310

  12.9

  313

  Hounslow

  16,680

  3,110

  18.7

  2,780

  16.6

  314

  Kingston upon Thames

  9,340

  810

  8.7

  680

  7.3

  315

  Merton

  8,600

  1,370

  16.0

  1,030

  11.9

  317

  Redbridge

  20,020

  2,960

  14.8

  2,060

  10.3

  318

  Richmond upon Thames

  7,350

  1,210

  16.5

  940

  12.7

  319

  Sutton

  15,730

  1,280

  8.1

  940

  6.0

  320

  Waltham Forest

  13,890

  3,840

  27.6

  2,710

  19.5

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2 Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3 Includes pupils with single and dual registration.

  4 The number of pupils who took a free school meal on the day of the census.

  5 Pupils expressed as a percentage of total pupils on roll.

  6 Not applicable; no schools of this type

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census

  Head Lice
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the prevalence of head lice in schools. [175279]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department does not keep records of the incidence of head lice in schools and has not made an assessment. To help schools combat this problem the Department of Health have produced a leaflet, "The prevention and treatment of head lice". The local primary care trust can also provide information which teachers can pass on to children and parents as part of an overall health education policy.

  Inter-country Adoption
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what steps he is taking to facilitate inter-country adoption with all signatories of the 1993 Hague Convention. [172218]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: The UK ratified the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in relation to inter-country adoption on 1 June 2003. My Department, which under the Convention acts as the central authority for the UK, is working closely with other signatories to remove any obstacles to the successful operation of the Convention.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many signatories of the 1993 Hague Convention have suspended inter-country adoption with the UK. [172215]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: Romania has introduced a suspension on all inter-country adoptions, not just with the UK. No other signatories to the Convention have suspended work on inter-country adoption with the UK.
  1326W
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned into the impact of the arrangements for inter-country adoption which came into effect on 1 June 2003. [172217]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: My Department launched a full public consultation on arrangements for intercountry adoption on 31 January 2004. This will bring intercountry adoption within the framework of the Adoption and Children Act 2002.

  The consultation document specifically asked for comments and feedback on the implementation of the current arrangements for intercountry adoption, which came into effect on 1 June 2003. The consultation closed on 30 April. My Department also held consultation meetings with frontline staff and other stakeholders to discuss the impact of the 1 June 2003 changes.

  All of the feedback received on the changes made on 1 June 2003 will be taken into account before the new arrangements to be made under the Adoption and Children Act 2002 are finalised.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions he has had with Belarus regarding intercountry adoption. [172219]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: My Department has opened a dialogue with the Central Authority in Belarus regarding the procedures for intercountry adoption following Belarus' ratification of the 1993 Hague Convention on Protection of Children and Co-operation in respect of Intercountry Adoption.

  International Baccalaureate
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) state secondary schools and (b) sixth form colleges offer the International Baccalaureate as an alternative to A-levels. [174860]
  1327W
  Mr. Miliband
  There are 18 maintained secondary schools that offer the International Baccalaureate. Of these, nine submitted results for 16 to 18-year-olds for publication in the 2004 Performance Tables.

  There are two Sixth Form Colleges that offer the International Baccalaureate. Neither of these submitted results for 16 to 18-year-olds for publication in the 2004 Performance Tables.

  Local Network and Children's Funds
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money has been allocated through the(a) Local Network Fund and (b) Children's Fund to the North East of England; what criteria his Department has laid down for the allocation of this money; and how the arrangements are audited. [173699]

  Margaret Hodge
  The total allocation for the Local Network Fund for Children and Young People and the Children's Fund, in the North East, since May 2001 when the programmes were launched is as follows.

  £

  Local Network Fund for Children and Young People

  7,215,152

  Children's Fund:

  38,122,961

  Criteria

  The Local Network Fund and Children's Fund are key elements of the Government's agenda to improve outcomes and opportunities for disadvantaged children and young people. The two programmes have different criteria and delivery arrangements:

  The Children's Fund targets 5 to 13-year-olds and aims to develop local preventive strategies for children and young people at risk from social exclusion. The Fund contributes to the development of the wider Local Preventative Strategy which the Government have asked each local authority to devlop for 0 to 19-year-olds. Local Children's Fund partnership boards, covering unitary authorities, decide local priorities for preventive services and allocate Funds through direct commissioning or by inviting applications.

  The Local Network Fund targets 0 to 19-year-olds and is delivered through the voluntary sector. Grants up to £7,000 and capacity building support are available to small community groups working with children and young people facing disadvantage. Applicants can bid for funding under one of four themes: economic disadvantage, isolation and access, aspirations and experiences and children's voices. Decisions on funding are taken by panels of local people with experience of the issues faced by young people in their area.

  Audit

  The Children's Fund, in the North East is administered through 12 programmes each with their own partnership board, lead agency and accountable body. Partnership boards comprise voluntary organisations, statutory agencies as well as members of the local community. The
  1328W
  lead agency is responsible for the operational direction of the programme while the accountable body ensures the financial probity of the Fund.

  The Local Network Fund is delivered through a network of 57 local Funds run by voluntary organisations with grant-making and community development experience. Local Funds report, quarterly, to DFES on financial and service performance. DFES also undertakes regular monitoring visits to Funds to assess and improve performance and undertakes an annual financial and performance audit of the Fund.

  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money from(a) the Children's Fund and (b) the Local Network Fund has been allocated to projects serving Newcastle East and Wallsend parliamentary constituency. [173700]

  Margaret Hodge
  Information on both the Local Network Fund and Children's Fund is not collected on a parliamentary constituency basis.

  Newcastle East and Wallsend is covered by the Tyne and Wear Local Network Fund which has a total allocation since 2001 of £3,146,297.

  Newcastle East constituency is within the Newcastle Children's Fund which has a total allocation since 2001 of £4,965,059.

  Wallsend is within the North Tyneside Children's Fund which has a total allocation since 2001 of £2,080,433.

  Allocations for both programmes are based on indices of child poverty.

  Panjabi
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for the teaching of Panjabi in schools. [175047]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Department encourages schools to offer a wide range of languages, including community languages. Under current national curriculum requirements, schools are free to offer any modern foreign language, including Panjabi, as long as the offer includes at least one of the working languages of the European Union.

  Learners of Panjabi will be able to have their language skills recognised by the Languages Ladder—the National Recognition scheme—which will be rolled out nationally from September 2005.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the budget was in each of the last five years for prisoners undertaking(a) distance learning courses, (b) Open University or other degree courses, (c) basic skills qualifications, (d) GCSE qualifications and (e) A-level qualifications. [172423]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Funding for the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit is ring-fenced and administered jointly by DfES and the Home Office. Prisons are allocated a total education budget and have flexibility to use this to purchase education to meet their learners' needs.
  1329W
  Budgets are not disaggregated by level of course or qualification. Core funding for prisoners' education for the last five years is:

  £ millions

  Financial year

  Education expenditure

  1999–2000

  40.9

  2000–01

  41.9

  2001–02

  52.6

  2002–03

  59.4

  2003–04

  70.9

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prisoners in each of the last five years successfully completed(a) distance learning courses, (b) Open University or other degree courses, (c) basic skills qualifications, (d) GCSE qualifications and (e) A-level qualifications. [172425]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The table as follows shows all prisoner achievements in Open University courses over the past five years.

  Completed

  Passed

  1998–99

  185

  160

  1999–00

  220

  189

  2000–01

  245

  211

  2001–02

  250

  213

  2002–03

  343

  307

  We do not hold information on the completion of Distance Learning courses and current data collection systems do not allow us to report on awards gained across the prison estate at GCSE and A level.

  The table as follows shows prisoner achievement in basic skills against national targets over the past four years. In 2000–01 and 2001–02 targets were set at level 2 because qualifications at this level are considered key to enhancing individual employability.

  We widened targets from 2002–03 to cover all levels to enable prison establishments to be more responsive to the range of learning needs among their population.

  Target

  Achievement (percentage)

  2000–01

  114,500

  12,500 (86)

  2001–02

  118,000

  16,000 (88)

  2002–03

  228,800

  41,518 (144)

  2003–043(provisional)

  236,631

  46,517 (127)

  1 Level 2

  2 All levels

  3 Provisional

  Recycling
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will introduce measures to promote recycling in schools. [173198]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  The Citizenship curriculum includes teaching pupils about issues that impact on the society and the environment. Pupils should learn about what improves and harms their local environment and about the importance of recycling. This is part of 1330W
  Education for Sustainable Development which is a statutory requirement in the Science, Geography, Design and Technology and Citizenship curricula.

  school Councils
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to promote school councils in primary schools. [173330]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To support schools to introduce a school or class council, the Department has funded School Councils UK to produce a primary schools toolkit to help teachers and pupils to set up effective councils. The primary toolkit was made available to schools in September 2000. The Department has just issued statutory guidance to LEAs and school governing bodies ("Working Together: giving children and young people a say") on pupil participation, which promotes the value of school councils in actively engaging pupils in decision making processes.

  The National Assembly for Wales which has responsibility for Education there has decided to make school councils mandatory in all Welsh schools.

  School Governors
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to give special recognition to school governors with 25 years' service. [175430]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department is currently examining ways in which the profile of school governors can be raised and their efforts celebrated and better recognised. A project board has been established and will hold its first meeting early in June. The board's representatives are drawn from the National Governors' Council, the National Association of Governors and Managers, the National Co-ordinators of Governor Services, the Trades Union Congress, the Confederation of British Industry, HSBC Bank, The Rayne Foundation, The Education Network and the School Governors' One-Stop Shop. Long-service awards are being considered as part of this initiative.

  School Nurses
  Mrs. Brooke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidance he issues to(a) primary care trusts and (b) local education authorities on the employment of school nurses. [170372]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Department for Education and Skills has not issued specific guidance to primary care trusts or local education authorities on the employment of school nurses, as school nurses come within the remit of the Secretary of State for Health. We do, however, recognise that school nurses play an important role in offering health and nursing advice and support to schools, such as in advising and training staff on managing pupils' medical conditions. This is acknowledged in the joint DfES and Department of Health good practice guide 'Supporting pupils with medical needs'.

  Schools (Capital Investment)
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 17 May,Official Report, column 709W, on schools (capital investment), what priority will be given in subsequent waves to schools excluded from a wave one bid which did not cover all schools in a local education authority. [175235]

  Mr. Miliband
  Schools in a local authority that have been successful in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future which are not in its wave 1 project will not be given any special priority in subsequent waves of investment. Decisions on prioritisation of all groups of schools submitted by local authorities for the next waves of investment will be taken on the basis of the published criteria.

  Schools (South Ribble)
  Mr. Borrow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the effects on schools of changes since 1997 in the level of investment in schools in South Ribble. [171673]

  Mr. Miliband
  Details of investment in education initiatives in schools in the South Ribble constituency have been placed in the Library.

  Secondary Transfer (Barnet)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on secondary transfer in Barnet, with reference to children whose birthdays fall close to 31 August. [173927]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  I am aware that in Barnet some parents are encountering problems in transferring their child to secondary school because the child has been educated below its chronological year group. My officials have written to the Local Education Authority to ask it to work with its schools to broker a solution. We understand that an established Working Party, set up by the Admissions Forum, has agreed to look into the issue, and to consider strategies for dealing with the current situation.

  Bid A—Rugeley reorganisation

  Schools included

  Type of school

  Location of school

  Purpose

  Amount of bid

  Successful (yes or no)

  Chancel Infants

  Community

  All Rugeley

  To rationalise the schools, provide additional early years places, community and special Education need (SEN) facilities and remove 520 surplus places.

  3,531,000

  Yes

  Churchfield C of E (C)

  Voluntary controlled

  Junior

  Flaxley Primary

  Community

  Hob Hill C of E/Methodist

  Voluntary controlled

  Primary

  Nursery Fields Primary

  Community

  Pear Tree Community

  Community

  Primary

  Ravenhill Primary

  Community

  Western Springs Primary

  Community

  1332W
  All admission authorities have a duty to consider applications for places at their schools in accordance with their published admission arrangements. Where places are sought for children who are out of their normal year groups, the School Admissions Code of Practice advises admission authorities to consider such requests fully and to make decisions on the basis of the circumstances of each case, even if it is not their general practice to educate children out of year group.

  Sure Start
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has further to develop Sure Start programmes in Tamworth constituency, with particular reference to rural areas. [173279]

  Margaret Hodge
  Children's centres represent the next stage of the Government's plans to expand high quality integrated service provision for young children. By March 2008 we aim to have children's centres services available to all under-fives and their families living in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards, which include Glascote in Tamworth.

  As a first step to achieving this, local authorities have been allocated funding and targets to enable them to reach 65 per cent. of under-fives and their families through children's centres by March 2006. We expect them to build on their existing Sure Start local programmes, Early Excellence Centres and Neighbourhood Nurseries. Additional funding has also been made available to cover the extra costs of providing children's centre services in rural areas. It is the local authority's responsibility to determine how to allocate these resources to best serve the needs of families.

  Targeted Capital Fund
  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the bids he received from Staffordshire Local Education Authority for the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund by(a) name of school, (b) type of school, (c) location of school, (d) purpose of bid, (e) amount of bid and (f) whether the bid was successful. [174732]

  Mr. Miliband
  Staffordshire local education authority (LEA) submitted three bids to the Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) for 2004–05. One was for a project at LEA schools and two were for projects at voluntary aided (VA) schools. These are in the following table:
  1333W

  Bid C—Extension/alterations to St. John Fisher Catholic School.

  Schools included

  Type of school

  Location of school

  Purpose

  Amount of bid (£)

  Successful (yes or no)

  St. John Fisher Catholic High School

  VA

  Newcastle

  To raise standards, by expanding opportunity and flexibility of provision especially at 14–19: extending provision for SEN and the wider inclusion agenda providing for worksorce reform

  3,329,054

  No

  Bid D—St John the Evangelist Catholic School Amalgamation

  Schools included

  Type of school

  Location of school

  Purpose

  Amount of bid (£)

  Successful (yes or no)

  St. John the Evangelist Catholic Primary

  VA

  Stoke on Trent

  To amalgamate St. John the Evangelist Catholic split site primary school onto the upper site in Gloucester Road.

  1,875,465

  No

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what the purpose is of the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund; [174736]

  (2) if he will list the criteria by which bids for the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund were judged; [174737]

  (3) what plans the Department has to invite bids for a further Targeted Capital Fund; [174729]

  (4) how many bids for the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund were made by (a) state schools and (b) voluntary-aided schools; [174731]

  (5) if he will list the 68 projects which were successful in making bids of £186 million to the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund; [174734]

  (6) how many bids for the 2004–05 Targeted Capital Fund were made by schools in the West Midlands region; and how many were successful. [174730]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Targeted Capital Fund (TCF) is a relatively limited programme and is intended to support projects which contribute directly to meeting the

  2004–05 TCF projects

  LEA

  Project

  Net cost (£)

  Hackney

  Replacement and expansion of primary school

  4,803,120

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Establishment of centralised single-site pupil referral unit

  507,500

  Islington

  Physical and Sensory SEN Service Area Development—school co-location

  3,896,000

  Tower Hamlets

  To raise standards by improving premises

  681,264

  Croydon

  Autistic resource at special school

  960,000

  Ealing

  Replacement SEN School with new centre of excellence

  4,520,000

  Enfield

  Wilbury Primary School, new build and remodelling to replace huts

  3,868,000

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  Regeneration of primary school

  2,694,268

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  To provide a learning centre based on the City Learning Centre model

  1,862,436

  Merton

  Improvement of SMART centres to meet pupils medical educational needs

  692,000

  Coventry

  New replacement 1.5 FE community primary school and nursery

  3,000,000

  Sandwell

  New build primary school and children's centre, Tipton

  3,019,753

  Walsall

  To open a two FE primary with a 26 FTE nursery class

  2,550,818

  Wolverhampton

  Primary rationalisation

  3,506,090

  Liverpool

  New building for amalgamated school

  3,157,472

  Wirral

  Rationalisation of science accommodation

  644,010

  Wirral

  Construction of sports hall

  1,540,887

  Bury

  A new high school for Radcliffe

  5,000,000

  Manchester

  Development and expansion of two successful and popular primary schools

  4,960,000

  Rochdale

  Transformation in Central Heywood primary schools

  3,391,635

  Stockport

  Inclusive space to raise standards and to deliver the Workplace Reform

  1,772,290

  Trafford

  Replace school with significant defects and remove surplus places

  3,999,163

  Bradford

  Specialist provision for pupils with emotional and behavioural needs

  4,106,500

  Cornwall

  Improve primary and SEN provision in Penzance

  1,415,248

  Tameside

  To replace one primary school with a 1.5 FE building

  2,125,000

  Wigan

  New primary school in Platt Bridge

  2,405,601

  Sheffield

  Woodthorpe

  3,100,000

  Calderdale

  New sixth form and community facility

  4,786,444

  1334W
  Government's educational priorities, and which might not otherwise be supported through formulaic allocations to local education authorities (LEAs) and schools.

  The key criteria for 2004–05 TCF bids focused on schools causing concern, curriculum improvements, expansion of popular and successful schools, surplus place removal, improved special education needs provision and innovative use of buildings. Full details of the bid criteria for 2004–05 are listed in the guidance, a copy of which can be found in the Library. Bids for TCF projects are made to the Department by LEAs on behalf of their schools.

  We hope to announce shortly the arrangements for the TCF for 2005–06. For the 2004–05 TCF round, we received 202 LEA bids covering 373 schools in total, and 199 voluntary aided school bids covering 223 schools. For the West Midlands region, 39 bids were made, nine of which were successful.

  The following table shows the 68 successful 2004–05 TCF bids:
  1335W

  2004–05 TCF projects

  LEA

  Project

  Net cost (£)

  Kirklees

  Refurbishment and remodelling of two schools in special measures

  2,492,000

  Leeds

  Establishment of a new school in the Holbeck area

  3,507,930

  South Gloucestershire

  King Edmund Target Capital Fund bid

  2,471,930

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Replacement of faculty of science and technology to enhance curriculum

  1,569,500

  North Lincolnshire

  Establishment of new school to replace existing school

  3,375,804

  York

  Performing arts and community education centre

  2,600,000

  Milton Keynes

  Successful school expansion to be enhanced by ICT Infrastructure

  4,970,000

  Derbyshire

  New library, ICT and music block

  1,640,800

  Derbyshire

  Learning resource centre

  2,590,049

  Derby

  Establish accommodation for a pupil referral unit for KS3

  1,849,600

  Durham

  21st century community school—Gurney Valley

  2,714,856

  Brighton and Hove

  Provision of post-16 places for young people with special needs

  3,028,800

  Leicestershire

  Project to support inclusion and develop SEN expertise in the area

  3,526,264

  Leicester

  Braunstone Primary Reorganisation 2

  1,649,032

  Leicester

  Braunstone Primary Reorganisation 1

  2,996,125

  Staffordshire

  Rugeley Reorganisation

  3,531,000

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Proposed Woodhouse primary school

  2,064,000

  Wiltshire

  Integrated provision for ASD pupils in Key Stages 3 and 4

  862,420

  Swindon

  Autistic spectrum disorder—centre of excellence

  1,600,000

  Bracknell Forest

  Raising performance at Brakenhale Campus through the provision of an OLC

  2,400,000

  Wokingham

  The Wokingham Special School of the Future

  5,000,000

  Cambridgeshire

  Residential provision for children with special educational needs

  435,115

  Devon

  Raising standards in Exeter

  3,621,501

  Devon

  14 to 19 Learning Centre to increase participation in rural community

  741,407

  Plymouth

  Modernisation and refurbishment of special school

  2,711,035

  Torbay

  Brixham primary re-organisation

  1,475,840

  Southend-on-Sea

  Improvement of support, PE and performing arts infrastructure

  2,464,236

  Southend-on-Sea

  Remodelling special schools as centres of excellence

  2,101,791

  Thurrock

  Improved special educational needs provision

  5,000,000

  Worcestershire

  provision of additional accommodation, science facilities and LRC

  2,268,800

  Worcestershire

  To provide enhanced management facilities and new focused entrance

  502,240

  Kent

  Replace temporary accommodation by incorporating into main building

  2,004,800

  Medway

  Creation of a full service extended school: community hub

  2,312,407

  Nottingham

  Establishment of new school to replace unsuitable 1930's school

  4,216,337

  Gloucestershire

  Archway School refurbishment

  4,999,602

  Hertfordshire

  Design technology replacement and additional accommodation

  1,869,040

  Norfolk

  South Lynn—new school and relocation of nursery

  3,066,431

  Northamptonshire

  Transfer of Raeburn Special School to Tiffield

  4,576,000

  Northumberland

  First school replacement

  1,604,000

  Suffolk

  Primary school—regeneration

  5,000,000

  Paul Farrelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the projects which made successful bids to the Targeted Capital Fund by(a) name of school, (b) location of school, (c) type of school, (d) name of local education authority, (e) purpose of bid and (f) amount of money awarded. [174738]

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

  Trafficked Children
  Mr. Dawson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what conclusions he has reached about services for trafficked children following Operation Paladin. [173797]

  Margaret Hodge
  [holding answer 19 May 2004]: I welcome the findings of the Paladin report which was published on Monday. Operation Paladin has been a valuable exercise in determining the nature of child migration to the UK. We will work with the Home Office and other organisations in considering the report and its recommendations.

  It is of course for local authorities to decide how best to provide support and services for children in need in its area, including those who are the victims of trafficking. When a child enters the country alone and claims asylum or there are concerns that he or she may have been
  1336W
  trafficked, the immigration service should immediately refer the child to the relevant local authority's social services department. The social services department will undertake a needs assessment and will provide services in the light of the outcome of that assessment. These services should be tailored to the individual needs of the child, just as they should be for any child in need.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Airports (Aid)
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland which airports in Northern Ireland receive financial aid from(a) Her Majesty's Government, (b) the European Union and (c) other public sources; what the total cost of that support was during the most recent financial year for which information is available; and how much that support represented per passenger. [174199]

  Mr. Spellar
  During the most recent financial year for which information is available, April 2003 to March 2004, no financial aid was provided from Her Majesty's Government, the European Union or other public sources, for which the Government have responsibility, to airports in Northern Ireland.

  Armagh College
  Mr. Mallon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) A5 and (b) A2 students were enrolled by Armagh College of Further and Higher Education to study (i) French, (ii) chemistry, (iii) art, (iv) physics and (v) economics in (A) 2001–02, (B) 2002–03 and (C) 2003–04. [174044]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The following table contains the requested information.

  AS/A2 level enrolments at Armagh college 2001–02 to 2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Subject area

  AS

  A2

  AS

  A2

  AS

  A2

  French

  15

  8

  12

  10

  9

  2

  Chemistry

  25

  21

  30

  23

  23

  22

  Art

  23

  5

  15

  8

  13

  3

  Physics

  31

  11

  18

  22

  4

  12

  Economics

  27

  21

  10

  14

  1

  11

  Total

  121

  66

  85

  77

  50

  50

  Source:

  Armagh College (data are provisional).

  Arts Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what conditions of(a) copyright and (b) royalty payments are attached to grant aid awarded by the (i) Arts Council of Northern Ireland, (ii) Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and (iii) Ulster-Scots Agency. [173188]

  Angela Smith
  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland does not attach conditions relating to(a) copyright or (b) royalty payments to any award. The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure does not award grant aid for the publication of creative writing in Ulster-Scots. Government support for the arts in Northern Ireland is disbursed chiefly through the Arts Council of Northern Ireland.

  The Ulster-Scots Agency has stipulated conditions relating to copyright and "royalty" payments in the letters of offer it issues on grant applications. With regard to copyright the Agency has attempted to ensure that it can use material it has grant aided, for example in promotions or on the Agency website. With regard to royalty payments the Agency has attempted to ensure that grants it has made which have a commercial aspect (such as to publishers who will sell books printed with Agency assistance) contain a 'claw back' clause, whereby a percentage of the income from such sales is returned to the Agency. Both of these practices are currently under review.

  Corporation Tax
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the impact the low corporation tax rates in operation in the Republic of Ireland has on manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland. [174198]

  Mr. Gardiner
  No formal assessment has been made as to the impact that the low corporation tax rate in operation in the Republic of Ireland (RoI) has had on manufacturing industries in Northern Ireland.
  1338W
  Although the RoI can offer a lower rate of corporation tax, in recent years, Invest NI has successfully secured new investment from the RoI by promoting Northern Ireland as a region where companies can reap the benefits of the greater competitiveness of the Northern Ireland economy. In practice, it has been found that the more competitive cost base in Northern Ireland often outweighs the corporate taxation differential between Northern Ireland and the RoI.

  Indeed, a recent report, commissioned by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister, into the cost of operating business in Northern Ireland concluded that lower labour and property costs, which represent a significant component of the cost base of many firms, places Northern Ireland businesses at a competitive advantage vis-a-vis Great Britain and the Republic of Ireland.

  Creative Writing
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the total amount of public money granted by the(a) Arts Council of Northern Ireland, (b) Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure and (c) Ulster-Scots Agency was towards the publication of creative writing in the Ulster-Scots language in Northern Ireland in each year since 1999. [173187]

  Angela Smith
  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland has not made funding available specifically for the publication of writing in the Ulster-Scots language. However, in the 1998–99 financial year, the Arts Council made a grant of £7,500 to the Ulster-Scots Language Society for the publication of a book by Philip Robinson. Since then the Arts Council has received no applications for publications in the Ulster-Scots language.

  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's funds in support of the arts in Northern Ireland are disbursed chiefly through the Arts Council of Northern Ireland and the Department has not made any funding directly available for the publication of creative writing in the Ulster-Scots language.

  The amount of funding granted by the Ulster-Scots Agency towards the publication of creative writing in the Ulster-Scots language in Northern Ireland since 1999 is detailed in the following table.

  Amount (£)

  1999

  —

  2000

  —

  2001

  —

  2002

  6,280.00

  2003

  —

  2004

  121,855.00

  1 Projected.

  Electricity Tariffs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in the application to the European Commission for clearance for a scheme to reduce electricity tariffs in Northern Ireland. [173409]
  1339W
  Mr. Gardiner
  A paper has been submitted to the European Commission outlining the Government's proposal to make an intervention aimed at bringing about a 10 per cent. decrease in electricity prices for non-domestic consumers below the level they would otherwise have been.

  It is hoped that a meeting to discuss the matter with Commission officials will be held shortly.

  Government Investment
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of financial support to business from(a) the Industrial Development Board for Northern Ireland, (b) the Local Enterprise Development Unit and (c) Invest Northern Ireland was represented by (i) capital grants, (ii) grants for research and development, (iii) grants for training, (iv) grants for marketing, (v) loans and (vi) investment in equity in each of the last five years. [173651]

  Percentage of Assistance Offered By Assistance Category (1999–2000 to 2003–04)

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04 (Provisional)

  Capital Grant

  28

  15

  19

  11

  9

  Research and Development

  8

  9

  13

  29

  18

  Training (CDP)

  7

  13

  10

  6

  12

  Loans

  0

  0

  2

  4

  3

  Equity

  1

  2

  4

  6

  6

  Revenue Grant1

  43

  47

  37

  28

  33

  Other Assistance2

  13

  14

  15

  16

  19

  Total

  100

  100

  100

  100

  100

  1 Revenue Grants include a range of grants such as marketing grant, employment grant, management salary grant and operating grant.

  2 Other Assistance includes consultancy grants, incentive grants, quality grants, trade missions, business improvement services, tourism development as well as assistance to third party organisations.

  Housing (Central Heating)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes have had(a) oil and (b) gas-fired central heating installed, broken down by Housing Executive District Office Area. [174376]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows:

  Oil

  Gas

  NIHE District Office

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Belfast 1

  310

  13.4

  1,066

  45.9

  Belfast 2

  883

  22.5

  1,645

  42.0

  Belfast 3

  783

  22.7

  1,891

  54.8

  Belfast 7

  564

  13.1

  2,404

  55.7

  Belfast 4

  374

  9.6

  1,594

  41.1

  Belfast 5

  494

  11.5

  1,934

  45.1

  Belfast 6

  261

  7.3

  1,956

  54.7

  Ballymena

  1,164

  34.9

  2

  0.1

  Antrim

  815

  28.3

  2

  0.1

  Newtownabbey 1

  386

  15.1

  591

  23.1

  Newtownabbey 2

  446

  18.0

  726

  29.4

  Carrickfergus

  374

  16.8

  360

  16.2

  Larne

  319

  17.8

  311

  17.4

  Ballycastle

  366

  38.9

  0

  0.0

  Ballymoney

  873

  53.8

  0

  0.0

  Coleraine

  1,421

  40.3

  2

  0.1

  Banbridge

  710

  35.8

  0

  0.0

  Newry

  1,350

  38.4

  0

  0.0

  Armagh

  636

  29.3

  0

  0.0

  1340W
  Mr. Gardiner
  The following table shows the percentage of financial support to business by category in each of the last five years offered by Invest NI and its predecessors. Although the question does not specifically mention the Industrial Research and Technology Unit, as this agency was responsible for providing research and development support prior to Invest NI being set up, it has also been included in the table. Information relating to training support under the Company Development Programme (CDP) as administered by the Business Support Division of DETI has also been incorporated, as this function is now included within Invest NI's remit. In all cases the figures shown relate to offers of assistance made by the organisations concerned.

  It has not been possible to provide detailed information on levels of marketing support as a marketing grant is a form of revenue grant and cannot easily be separated from other revenue grants.

  Oil

  Gas

  NIHE District Office

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Lurgan

  1,449

  46.8

  0

  0.0

  Portadown

  595

  33.5

  0

  0.0

  Dungannon

  892

  44.6

  0

  0.0

  Fermanagh

  965

  41.6

  0

  0.0

  Bangor

  429

  14.0

  416

  13.6

  Newtownards

  997

  22.7

  517

  11.8

  Castlereagh

  710

  16.3

  592

  13.6

  Lisburn

  979

  20.1

  617

  12.7

  Lisburn

  Dairyfarm

  307

  14.1

  1,203

  55.1

  Downpatrick

  1,001

  37.3

  1

  0.1

  Waterloo Place

  908

  34.8

  1

  0.1

  Waterside

  995

  36.6

  0

  0.0

  Collon Terrace

  643

  23.6

  0

  0.0

  Limavady

  522

  32.1

  0

  0.0

  Magherafelt

  511

  34.6

  1

  0.1

  Strabane

  624

  25.2

  0

  0.0

  Omagh

  740

  34.9

  0

  0.0

  Cookstown

  434

  36.2

  0

  0.0

  Total:

  26,230

  25.6

  17,832

  17.4

  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of Northern Ireland Housing Executive homes have(a) coal-fired and (b) electric and (c) no central heating, broken down by Housing Executive District Office Area. [174377]

  Mr. Spellar
  The information is as follows.
  1341W

  Coal

  Electric

  None

  NIHE District Office

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Belfast 1

  460

  19.8

  443

  19.1

  42

  1.8

  Belfast 2

  715

  18.2

  665

  17.0

  10

  0.3

  Belfast 3

  545

  15.8

  211

  6.1

  0

  0.0

  Belfast 7

  684

  15.8

  620

  14.4

  42

  1.0

  Belfast 4

  737

  19.0

  1,054

  27.2

  110

  2.8

  Belfast 5

  1,030

  24.0

  538

  12.6

  269

  6.3

  Belfast 6

  1,033

  28.9

  322

  9.0

  6

  0.2

  Ballymena

  1,274

  38.1

  850

  25.4

  37

  1.1

  Antrim

  1,263

  43.8

  725

  25.2

  9

  0.3

  Newtownabbey 1

  564

  22.0

  1,013

  39.5

  6

  0.2

  Newtownabbey 2

  643

  26.0

  656

  26.5

  0

  0.0

  Carrickfergus

  853

  38.4

  635

  28.6

  1

  0.0

  Larne

  635

  35.5

  506

  28.3

  16

  0.9

  Ballycastle

  515

  54.8

  25

  2.7

  8

  0.9

  Ballymoney

  576

  35.5

  138

  8.5

  5

  0.3

  Coleraine

  1,329

  37.7

  757

  21.5

  3

  0.1

  Banbridge

  1,048

  52.9

  201

  10.1

  11

  0.6

  Newry

  1,719

  48.9

  419

  11.9

  1

  0.0

  Armagh

  1,230

  56.7

  274

  12.6

  15

  0.7

  Lurgan

  834

  26.9

  761

  24.6

  26

  0.8

  Portadown

  784

  44.2

  395

  22.3

  1

  0.1

  Dungannon

  889

  44.5

  160

  8.0

  14

  0.7

  Fermanagh

  1,145

  49.3

  201

  8.7

  1

  0.0

  Bangor

  1,059

  34.7

  1148

  37.6

  3

  0.1

  Newtownards

  1,878

  42.7

  997

  22.7

  2

  0.0

  Castlereagh

  912

  21.0

  2,130

  49.0

  0

  0.0

  Lisburn

  2087

  42.9

  1,140

  23.4

  38

  0.8

  Lisburn

  Dairyfarm

  457

  20.9

  184

  8.4

  0

  0.0

  Downpatrick

  1,196

  44.6

  474

  17.7

  5

  0.2

  Waterloo place

  1,183

  45.3

  465

  17.8

  12

  0.5

  Waterside

  1,244

  45.8

  452

  16.6

  1

  0.0

  Collon terrace

  1,478

  54.3

  583

  21.4

  20

  0.7

  Limavady

  47

  52.1

  224

  13.8

  6

  0.4

  Magherafelt

  780

  52.8

  142

  9.6

  0

  0.0

  Strabane

  1,701

  68.6

  83

  3.3

  56

  2.3

  Omagh

  1,173

  55.4

  183

  8.6

  19

  0.9

  Cookstown

  552

  46.0

  86

  7.2

  1

  0.1

  Total:

  37,052

  36.2

  19860

  19.4

  796

  0.8

  Note:

  Properties where no central heating is recorded include redevelopment properties, properties due for demolition, and properties not within the Rent Scheme.

  Marching Season
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the role played by local community activists during the 2003 marching season; and what plans he has to provide support for local community activists during the 2004 marching season. [174091]

  Mr. Pearson
  During 2003, a wide range of people in the community played an important role in easing tensions and resolving problems around parading and I am most grateful for that. In preparing for the forthcoming marching season, the Secretary of State and I intend to hold a series of meetings similar to last year, which will include all those who have the ability to help ensure that 2004 passes off as peacefully as 2003.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what his assessment is of the Police Service of Northern Ireland security assessment relating to Portadown recently received by the Parades Commission; and if he will make a statement on his assessment of security over the forthcoming marching season. [174094]
  1342W
  Mr. Pearson
  The Parades Commission is independent of Government and the Secretary of State does not see PSNI advice to the Commission. There is currently no information which would suggest this marching season will be significantly different from 2003. However, with regard to the forthcoming marching season, the Secretary of State and I intend to hold a series of meetings similar to last year, which will include all those who have the ability to help ensure that 2004 passes off as peacefully as 2003.

  PPP Contracts
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether a company which successfully bids for inclusion in an education-related public private partnership scheme retains the right(a) to put the contract on the market at any stage, (b) to sell the contract at a profit and (c) to keep the profit from the sale of the contract without a requirement to provide guarantees that the scheme will be completed to the specifications to which they initially signed up; and whether revenue generated through weekend and evening openings of buildings constructed under such a scheme is required to be invested in the school or its pupils. [174008]
  1343W
  Mr. Gardiner
  (a) A PPP contractor, which successfully bids for inclusion in an education related PPP project, may put the contract on the market at any time during the life of the contract. The prior written consent of the school authority is required and this can be withheld at its discretion.

  (b) Provided the prior written consent of the school authority has been obtained, a PPP contractor may sell a PPP contract at a profit.

  (c) A PPP contract specifies the level of service which an authority can expect to receive in return for payment of the unitary charge. If a contractor were to sell, or otherwise dispose of a PPP contract, it would retain any profit accruing and the service requirements and obligations would transfer to the new contractor. The new contractor would be expected to deliver the full range of services as if there had been no change in ownership.

  The net income from any third party usage of a school that has been procured under PPP is shared between the school authority and the contractor on the basis agreed in the contract.

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

  Mr. Pearson
  In May 2002, the Northern Ireland Executive agreed an overall budget of £3 million for the Review of Public Administration. To date a total expenditure of £1.71 million has been incurred by the Review.

  Racial Attacks
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what information he has received about the extent and trend of racial attacks in Northern Ireland; what action is being taken with regard to them; and if he will make a statement. [174188]

  Mr. Spellar
  The following table sets out the number of racial incidents reported to the police in Northern Ireland since 2001.

  The Government have frequently put on record their abhorrence of all forms of intolerance and racism. They are committed to eradicating such manifestations of hatred, whether based on racism or on sectarianism and are developing a co-ordinated response to the problem in Northern Ireland.

  I will shortly bring forward an Order in Council to enable courts to deal more severely with crimes motivated by racist, sectarian and homophobic hatred.

  The proposals will require sentencers to treat racial and religious aggravation as aggravating factors, where proven, when sentencing and to extend this legislation to offences motivated by hatred of sexual orientation.

  The proposals also increase maximum sentences available for certain specified, mainly violent, offences including where racial, religious or sexual aggravation is proven.
  1344W
  The Community Safety Unit (CSU) is leading the development of a Hate Crime recording and monitoring system for Northern Ireland. The minority ethnic communities are represented and fully participating on the Working Group. Integral to the development of the System will be the engagement with the various minority ethnic communities to establish protective and preventive security schemes, and the carrying out of research into racially motivated crime. The CSU has provided funding to a number of counter-racism/sectarian projects under the Challenge Competition— seven at a total cost of £384,000.

  The final version of the Race Equality Strategy (which takes account of extensive consultation with all sections of NI society) will be published by the Office of the First Minister and Deputy First Minister this summer and specific actions will be included in a detailed implementation plan developed in line with the strategy.

  These measures will send out a clear message that racism has no place in our society.

  Number of racial incidents reported to the police in Northern Ireland 1998–2004

  Total number of racial incidents

  1998–99

  93

  1999–2000

  237

  2000–01

  260

  2001–02

  185

  2002–03

  226

  2003–04

  453

  Republican Intelligence Operation (Stormont)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the cost was of personal security measures introduced for individuals following the discovery of a Republican intelligence operation at Stormont in October 2002. [173743]

  Mr. Pearson
  Since 1 January 2000, the Government have committed £12.2 million to provide physical security measures at the homes of those whose personal details were compromised.

  Residents Parking Schemes
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will provide resources to introduce pilot residents parking permit schemes in Northern Ireland. [174090]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Roads Service (Dr. Malcolm McKibbin) has written to the hon. Gentleman in response to this question.

  Letter from Dr. Malcolm McKibbin to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated 20 May 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question asking if he will provide resources to introduce pilot residents' parking permit schemes in Northern Ireland. I have been asked to reply as the issue raised falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.

  Roads Service has been examining the case for introduction of a limited number of residents' parking schemes and has identified potential pilot schemes in the south Belfast area. These pilot

  1345W
  schemes would take at least 12 months to implement and Roads Service is willing to allocate the necessary resources. We are in discussions with the PSNI regarding enforcement.

  I hope this information is helpful.

  Water Cannon Vehicles
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland on what date he received the request from the Irish Government for the loan of two water cannon vehicles used by the Gardai for dispersing antiglobalisation protestors on 1 May 2004; what the duration of the loan was; how many Police Service of Northern Ireland and other personnel(a) accompanied the vehicles and (b) were involved in their operation; what the cost was of the loan arrangement; and what charge has been levied upon the Irish authorities. [174535]

  Mr. Pearson
  I am advised that on 23 March 2004 the Police Service of Northern Ireland received a written request from the Commissioner of An Garda Siochana to provide two water cannon vehicles for the period 18 April to 4 May inclusive. This was to facilitate the training of Garda officers to work in the use of water cannon and cover the period of potential protests from 1 to 3 May. The request was made direct from one police service to another and not from the Irish Government. A service level agreement was drawn up between the two services to cover this arrangement.

  I am given to understand that no PSNI officers accompanied the vehicles to the Republic of Ireland nor were PSNI officers involved in their operation in Dublin. On this occasion no charge was levied for the provision of the vehicles in the spirit of joint co-operation between An Garda Siochana and PSNI, as set out in chapter 18 of the report of the Independent Commission on policing in Northern Ireland.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what requests for loans of water cannon vehicles have been received from the Irish authorities for days during(a) June and (b) July. [174536]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised that PSNI has received no requests from either An Garda Siochana or the Irish Government for the provision of PSNI water cannon during June or July 2004.

  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what training in the use of water cannons has been provided for non-UK personnel; how many persons were trained over what period; what the cost was of training provided; and what charge has been levied upon the beneficiary states. [174537]

  Mr. Pearson
  The Police Service of Northern Ireland has advised me that the service provided water cannon training for 21 non United Kingdom personnel. Eighteen officers from An Garda Siochana were trained in the operation of water cannons over a period of six days and three Senior Officers received training in command and control issues relating to the deployment and use of water cannon. No charge was levied for this training on the basis of furthering co-operation with other police services, as recommended in the report of the Independent Commission on policing in Northern Ireland.
  1346W
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what reports have been received from the Irish authorities concerning the effectiveness and safety of water cannon weaponry on loan from the Police Service of Northern Ireland for the period covering 1 May; what weight of water was discharged; and whether any persons were injured by the use of this equipment. [174538]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have been advised by PSNI that they have not received any written reports concerning the use of water cannon on this occasion. PSNI would therefore not have specific information such as the weight of water used or whether there were injuries resulting from the use of water cannon. However, they have indicated that An Garda Siochana contacts have advised that the water cannons were judged to be an effective tactical option.

DEFENCE

  A400M
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the delivery of the A400M. [173371]

  Mr. Ingram
  As previously stated to my hon. Friend on 5 March 2004,official Report, column 1151W, the in-service date of the A400M (defined as acceptance into service of the seventh aircraft) is 2011. We expect delivery of the final (twenty fifth) aircraft to be in 2015.

  Al Yamamah Contracts
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he met Prince Turki bin Nasser during 2000; where the meeting took place; what the purpose of the meeting was; and what was discussed. [171751]

  Mr. Hoon
  I met His Highness Prince Turki Bin Nasser in my office on 12 October 2000. Prince Turki introduced his successor as Head of the Al Yamamah Project within the Royal Saudi Air Force. Amongst other matters, there was also some general discussion of events in the Middle East and I was able to take the opportunity to thank Prince Turki for his work in support of the Al Yamamah programme, which has brought benefits for both nations over many years.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he intends to conduct further internal investigations into the role of his officials in alleged corruption involving the Al Yamamah arms contracts. [171752]

  Mr. Hoon
  Any evidence of improper behaviour by officials will be fully investigated. This includes any evidence uncovered during the current enquiries into allegations against a retired official formerly associated with the Al Yamamah programme.

  Eurofighter
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place on the possibility of selling Eurofighter Typhoon aircraft
  1347W
  ordered for the Royal Air Force to other countries without being delivered to the RAF; and if he will make a statement. [172420]

  Mr. Ingram
  Some consideration has been given to the scope to provide for early export of Eurofighter Typhoon to potential overseas customers. If pursued, a sale might be accomplished by adjusting the delivery profile to the RAF. The RAF remains, however, the primary customer for these aircraft and any decision made will take full account of its requirements.

  Gunnery Capability
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether the saluting battery capability in the Tower of London could be provided by a regiment with no gunnery training or capability. [174443]

  Mr. Ingram
  Only personnel with the appropriate gunnery training could provide the saluting battery capability in the Tower of London

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what plans he has for the Gun Troops, Honourable Artillery Company; [174444]

  (2) whether the Honourable Artillery Company will maintain a gunner role. [174445]

  Mr. Ingram
  Plans for future Army structures continue to evolve, but there are currently no plans to change the role of the Gun Troop, Honourable Artillery Company.

  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for how long the Honourable Artillery Company has performed a gunner role. [174446]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Honourable Artillery Company's gunner lineage dates from the early 1780s, when the City Corporation of London presented the Company with two Brass Field Pieces.

  Helicopters
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Battlefield helicopters are deployed on operations; in which theatres they are deployed; and with which units they are in service. [174543]

  Mr. Ingram
  A total of 68 Battlefield helicopters are deployed in operational areas, in Bosnia, Afghanistan, Northern Ireland and Iraq. I am withholding details of the specific units with which these assets are deployed under Exemption 1 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information as this would give a clear indication of their operational capability.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many Royal Navy(a) Merlin helicopters and (b) squadrons of Merlin helicopters are (i) fully operational and (ii) preparing to become fully operational; [1748883]

  (2) when all of the Royal Navy Merlin helicopters and squadrons are expected to be fully operational. [174881]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 May 2004] The Royal Navy currently has four commissioned squadrons of Merlin helicopters. A further squadron is planned to be commissioned in October 2004. At
  1348W
  present, all RN Merlin helicopters have been grounded as a precautionary measure pending the investigation into the crash of a Merlin helicopter on 30 March 2004. It is too early to say when flying will be resumed.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) budget and (b) cost of running, maintenance, training and other non capital costs was for the Royal Naval Merlin helicopter squadron in each year since the aircraft was first acquired. [174885]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: This information is not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  HMS Turbulent
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether there are sufficient stocks of(a) foul-weather suits and (b) jumpers on board HMS Turbulent to avoid crew members coming on watch while the boat is on the surface having to wear the kit of those coming off watch. [175061]

  Mr. Ingram
  HMS Turbulent has a full allowance of 40 sets of Mk IV Foul Weather Clothing, which is an increase of 16 over the previous scale for the Mk III Foul Weather Clothing.

  Submariner's jerseys are issued to individuals on a personal basis and ample stocks were available before HMS Turbulent deployed.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many members of the Iraq Survey Group are still in the field in Iraq; how many are United Kingdom citizens; and if he will make a statement on each of the tasks carried out by the group since 1 January. [175083]

  Mr. Hoon
  On 13 May 2004, there were 1,270 people employed in the Iraq Survey Group of which 54 were UK citizens. The Iraq Survey Group's primary task is assessing the extent of Iraq's Weapons of Mass Destruction and associated programmes. The Iraq Survey Group has produced two interim reports, in October 2003 and March 2004, and a further report is expected later this year. Posted testimony for both reports can be found on the CIA website www.cia.gov.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 18 May,Official Report, column 873W, on Iraq, from which Vote each of the 49 British personnel serving with the Iraq Survey Group is paid; who in the United Kingdom has line management responsibility for each; to whom they report in the United Kingdom in respect of their work with the Iraq Survey Group; and if he will make a statement. [175101]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend for Leyton and Wanstead (Mr. Cohen) on 12 February 2004 Official Report, column 1637W on Iraq Survey Group costs.

  Line Management responsibility for the British personnel with the Iraq Survey Group rests with the Deputy Commander Iraq Survey Group, who is a United Kingdom Officer with the rank of Brigadier.

  Light Guns
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) how many light guns are on issue to the British Army; and to which units they have been issued; [174448]

  (2) how many Territorial Army batteries have a full complement of the light gun; [174449]

  (3) how many automatic positioning systems for the light gun have been issued; and to which batteries; [174450]

  (4) how many (a) Regular and (b) Territorial Army batteries have a full complement of automatic positioning systems allocated to their light guns; and how many are using dial sights. [174451]

  Mr. Ingram
  136 guns have been issued to those units designated Light Gun Units, as shown in the table.

  Serial

  Unit

  Guns fitted with APS

  Guns without sights

  Saluting Guns

  1

  7 Para RHA Aldershot

  18

  —

  —

  2

  29 Cdo Regiment RA Plymouth/Arbroath

  18

  —

  —

  3

  100 Regiment RA(V) Luton

  14

  —

  —

  4

  103 Regiment RA(V) Liverpool

  12

  —

  —

  5

  BF Falkland Islands

  8

  —

  —

  6

  RSA Larkhill

  18

  —

  —

  7

  ESTRA Larkhill

  1

  —

  —

  8

  SEME Bordon

  1

  2

  —

  9

  BATSU Wainwright Canada

  6

  —

  —

  10

  BATU Kenya

  6

  —

  —

  11

  HAC London

  4

  —

  4

  12

  40 Regiment RA Topcliffe

  6

  —

  —

  14

  104 Regiment RA(V) Cardiff

  —

  —

  4

  15

  105 Regiment RA(V) Newtownards

  —

  —

  3

  16

  105 Regiment RA(V) Edinburgh

  —

  —

  6

  17

  Royal Gibraltar Regt

  —

  —

  4

  18

  Defence Academy

  —

  1

  —

  Total

  112

  3

  2

  Missiles
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to arm Type-45 destroyers with(a) TacTom land attack cruise missiles and (b) the Mark 41 launcher; and if he will make a statement. [171861]

  Mr. Ingram
  There is currently no requirement to fit Tomahawk Land Attack Missiles to Type 45 destroyers. However, should such a requirement arise, these could

  Port

  Ship

  Start

  End

  Algeciras

  Orangeleaf

  13 August 2003

  14 August 2003

  Alicante

  Northumberland

  2 June 2003

  3 June 2003

  3 June 2003

  5 June 2003

  5 June 2003

  9 June 2003

  Barcelona

  Chatham

  25 July 2003

  29 July 2003

  Fort Austin

  20 May 2003

  23 May 2003

  Gloucester

  28 January 2004

  2 February 2004

  Norfolk

  25 March 2004

  28 March 2004

  Portland

  29 October 2003

  3 November 2003

  Sutherland

  21 November 2003

  26 November 2003

  Cadiz

  Blyth

  4 March 2004

  8 March 2004

  Campbeltown

  21 February 2004

  24 February 2004

  Sir Galahad

  29 July 2003

  1 August 2003

  La Coruna

  Bangor

  16 June 2003

  17 June 2003

  Pembroke

  10 December 2003

  14 December 2003

  Sandown

  16 June 2003

  17 June 2003

  1350W
  Three TA units, 103 Regiment, 100 Regiment and the Honourable Artillery Company (HAC) are issued with guns fitted with the Automatic Pointing System. HAC have their full complement of four guns. 103 Regiment have 12 guns, but are established for 18, and therefore operate with 3×4 gun batteries. 100 Regiment have 14 guns, but are established for 18, and therefore operate with 2×5 gun batteries and 1×4 gun battery. The number of guns issued is determined by the number of Automatic Pointing Systems (APS) available. However, although 100 Regiment and 103 Regiment are short of the establishment, the compliment is considered sufficient to meet their requirements. Other TA Units, listed at Serials 14 to 17 in the table, hold Saluting Guns only. Saluting Guns do not require sights to be fitted.

  The APS has been fitted to 112 guns as shown in the table. Those guns without APS fitted are used either for classroom purposes or for saluting only. Dial sights are no longer in service.

  be fitted in the future. The Mark 41 launcher would be one option for launching these missiles.

  Royal Navy Visits
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the Royal Navy's ship visits to(a) Spanish ports and (b) Gibraltar in the last 12 months. [173376]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of ship visits to Spanish ports in the 12 months up to 12 May 2004 are as follows:
  1351W

  Port

  Ship

  Start

  End

  Las Palmas, Gran Canaria

  Fort George

  29 November 2003

  2 December 2003

  Fort Victoria

  1 October 2003

  5 October 2003

  Ocean

  12 March 2004

  16 March 2004

  Malaga

  Grey Rover

  31 July 2003

  4 August 2003

  Liverpool

  31 July 2003

  4 August 2003

  Mallorca

  Campbeltown

  7 April 2004

  13 April 2004

  Palma, Mallorca

  Ark Royal

  29 April 2003

  5 May 2003

  Bangor

  7 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  Campbeltown

  6 May 2004

  9 May 2004

  Northumberland

  12 May 2003

  14 May 2003

  Roebuck

  30 May 2003

  3 June 2003

  Sandown

  7 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  Rota

  Ark Royal

  13 May 2003

  13 May 2003

  Blyth

  19 February 2004

  24 February 2004

  Campbeltown

  2 April 2004

  5 April 2004

  Kent

  9 June 2003

  10 June 2003

  19 June 2003

  20 June 2003

  Newcastle

  25 February 2004

  28 February 2004

  7 March 2004

  8 March 2004

  Somerset

  11 October 2003

  14 October 2003

  Santa Cruz, Tenerife

  Invincible

  1 October 2003

  5 October 2003

  Valencia

  Newcastle

  6 May 2004

  11 May 2004

  Lindisfarne

  18 September 2003

  22 September 2003

  Villagarcia de Arosa

  Blyth

  15 May 2003

  17 May 2003

  Brocklesby

  15 May 2003

  17 May 2003

  Details of ships' visits to Gibraltar in the 12 months up to 12 May 2004 are as follows:

  Ship

  Start

  End

  Brambleleaf

  14 November 2003

  20 November 2003

  Campbeltown

  7 October 2003

  8 October 2003

  Chiddingfold

  27 June 2003

  30 June 2003

  Cornwall

  12 July 2003

  13 July 2003

  17 October 2003

  19 October 2003

  Cumberland

  23 April 2004

  24 April 2004

  Echo

  26 January 2004

  4 February 2004

  Edinburgh

  21 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  26 April 2004

  28 April 2004

  Exeter

  23 March 2004

  24 March 2004

  Glasgow

  2 May 2004

  3 May 2004

  Gloucester

  26 October 2003

  28 October 2003

  Gold Rover

  16 May 2003

  17 May 2003

  Grafton

  20 February 2004

  20 February 2004

  Grey Rover

  25 March 2004

  27 March 2004

  Grimsby

  24 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  Kent

  12 December 2003

  15 December 2003

  Ledbury

  24 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  Lindisfarne

  5 December 2003

  10 December 2003

  Marlborough

  3 August 2003

  4 August 2003

  20 September 2003

  22 September 2003

  26 September 2003

  27 September 2003

  Newcastle

  9 January 2004

  9 January 2004

  Norfolk

  19 October 2003

  21 October 2003

  Northumberland

  3 August 2003

  4 August 2003

  Oakleaf

  19 February 2004

  24 February 2004

  12 March 2004

  15 March 2004

  Ocean

  21 May 2003

  24 May 2003

  Orangeleaf

  4 July 2003

  7 July 2003

  25 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  8 October 2003

  8 October 2003

  14 October 2003

  15 October 2003

  28 November 2003

  1 December 2003

  12 December 2003

  14 December 2003

  Portland

  13 December 2003

  13 December 2003

  12 March 2004

  15 March 2004

  Ramsey

  24 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  Richmond

  26 July 2003

  27 July 2003

  29 November 2003

  1 December 2003

  5 December 2003

  5 December 2003

  Sabre

  26 October 2003

  27 October 2003

  12 November 2003

  16 November 2003

  2 December 2003

  7 December 2003

  Scimitar

  16 May 2003

  22 May 2003

  Scott

  19 November 2003

  24 November 2003

  Shoreham

  24 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  Sir Tristram

  24 July 2003

  28 July 2003

  1352W

  Ship

  Start

  End

  St. Albans

  14 November 2003

  17 November 2003

  Sutherland

  13 June 2003

  14 June 2003

  Trenchant

  10 May 2004

  15 May 2004

  Turbulent

  9 October 2003

  15 October 2003

  Wave Ruler

  24 March 2004

  25 March 2004

  7 April 2004

  8 April 2004

  Westminster

  5 June 2003

  6 June 2003

  6 June 2003

  7 June 2003

  11 June 2003

  12 June 2003

  York

  11 October 2003

  13 October 2003

  Territorial Army
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Territorial Army's role in the Royal Artillery. [174447]

  Mr. Caplin
  The Territorial Army undertakes a variety of roles in supporting the Royal Artillery, which include Surveillance and Target Acquisition, Reinforcement, and provision of Multi Launch Rocket Systems and Javelin Air Defence capabilities.

  UK Defence Industry
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what areas are considered by his Department to be key industrial capabilities which the UK defence industry must maintain. [170744]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government's Defence Industrial Policy, published in October 2002, is aimed at enhancing the competitiveness and sustainability of the UK Defence industry, while continuing to provide the armed force with high quality equipment at best value for money. There are a very small number of capabilities which for national security reasons we place a high priority on retaining within the United Kingdom industrial base. Examples exist in the fields of nuclear technology, defence against biological, chemical and radiological warfare, and some counter-terrorist capabilities.

  UN Operations
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the relationship between British Armed Forces and the Iraqi Government will be following the handover of power on 30 June 2004. [169381]

  Mr. Hoon
  The relationship between British Armed Forces and the Iraqi Government following the assumption of authority on 30 June will be determined primarily by the United Nations Security Council Resolution which we expect to see concluded before 30 June. We envisage that the Resolution will cover amongst other issues the mandate of the Multi-National Force currently authorised by UNSCR1511.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what military role British troops will play following the handover of power in Iraq on 30 June 2004; [169384]

  (2) what role British troops will play in the new phase of economic, military and political co-operation between the United States of America, the Coalition and the Iraqi civilian government following the handover of power on 30 June 2004. [169383]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the assumption of authority by the Interim Iraqi Government on 30 June, British troops will contribute to the Multi-National Force in support of the Iraqi Government. We expect that the mandate for the Multi-National Force, which is currently authorised by United Nations Security Council Resolution 1511, will be set out in a further United Nations Security Council Resolution in due course.

  Mr. Keetch
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the progress of investigations in the case of Gary Bartlam of the 1st Battalion, Royal Regiment of Fusiliers; what action has been taken; and what recommendations have been made as a result. [172944]

  Mr. Ingram
  The case involving Fusilier Gary Paul Bartlam has been referred to the Army Prosecuting Authority for consideration. I am withholding details under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Maples
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to his US counterpart regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the treatment by the Coalition forces of prisoners of war in Iraq. [173405]

  Mr. Soames
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations he has made to the US Administration regarding the International Committee of the Red Cross report on the treatment by Coalition forces of prisoners of war in Iraq; and if he will make a statement. [173401]

  Mr. Hoon
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: I have had a recent discussion with Mr Rumsfeld, as part of my regular contact with him. Since before the report came to my attention the US Government has made it clear that allegations of abuse of prisoners are being rigorously investigated and that anyone found to have acted wrongly will be dealt with appropriately.
  1354W
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence at how many UK run prisons in Iraq Iraqi prisoners are being held; and where each prison is located. [174354]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom's only detention facility is in Shaibah

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each of the weapons containing uranium used in Operation Telic. [174372]

  Mr. Ingram
  Depleted uranium was contained in 120mm Armour Piercing CHARM 3 rounds fired by the British Challenger II tanks, during Operation Telic. Additionally, 20mm rounds used by the Royal Navy's Close-in Weapons System known as PHALANX, contain depleted uranium. These rounds were fired for calibration purposes only, prior to hostilities.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Arms Trade
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether it is his policy to seek a legally binding international arms trade treaty. [173278]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's objective is to work through the Transfer Controls Initiative to achieve an international agreement on transfers of small arms and light weapons.

  UN Peacekeeping
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the(a) numbers, (b) efficiency and (c) effectiveness of the UN administrative staff in New York charged with planning, launching and overseeing UN peacekeeping missions; and if he will make a statement. [175122]

  Mr. Rammell
  At the request of the United Nations General Assembly, the UN Secretary-General requested the Office of Internal Oversight Services (OIOS) to evaluate the impact of the recent restructuring of the Department of Peacekeeping Operations. Their report (A/58/746) was issued on 25 March 2004, and is available on the UN website (www.un.org).

  Following the recommendations in the Brahimi report of 2000 on peacekeeping reform, an additional number of posts were agreed for the UN Department of Peacekeeping Operations. The Civilian Police Division was granted the greatest increase, followed by the military division and then the civilian departments. Nearly all of the new posts are now filled. OIOS believe that the quality of personnel recruited has been satisfactory, and argue that reform has enhanced the UN's capacity to tackle complex, multidimensional peacekeeping missions.

  We have no reason to disagree with OIOS's assessment. However, in the light of the current surge in demand for UN peacekeeping, we are closely monitoring the UN's evolving capacity to meet new and existing challenges.
  1355W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recommendations his Department has made for the reform of the planning and administrative structure of UN peacekeeping missions; when these recommendations were last revised; what response he has received from(a) UN officials and (b) officials of other member states; and if he will make a statement. [175181]

  Mr. Rammell
  We have been at the forefront of the push for the prompt implementation of the recommendations contained in the Brahimi report of July 2000 on peacekeeping reform My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister underlined our commitment at the Millennium Summit 2000. Under the Global Conflict Prevention Pool, run jointly by the FCO, MOD and DfID, we have developed a programme of co-operation and assistance designed to enhance the peacekeeping and peace-building capacity of the UN and to strengthen the capacity and effectiveness of countries contributing troops and civilian police to UN peacekeeping missions. In addition to bilateral work with the UN and other interested parties, the Government are working multilaterally in the UN and the EU to maintain peacekeeping reform on the international agenda. The Secretary-General's High Level Panel on threats, challenges and change, which we have welcomed, may recommend changes to the peacekeeping structures within the UN. The Panel's report will be published later this year.

  World War Two Medals
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if the Government will make an exception to the rule preventing UK citizens accepting campaign medals from other countries to enable the British people who served on the Arctic convoy during World War Two to receive the Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region Medal. [170126]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government are currently considering the possibility of an exception to the rules governing the acceptance and wearing of foreign awards, to enable British veterans who served on Arctic convoys during the Second World War to receive the Russian Defence of the Soviet Arctic Region medal.

  Abdullah Ocalan
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which human rights organisations have been allowed to visit Abdullah Ocalan to see what prison conditions he is being held under; what his general state of health is; and if he will make a statement. [174357]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Council of Europe's Committee for Prevention of Torture has regularly visited Abdullah Ocalan and published its most recent report in February 2004. There have been a number of press reports on Ocalan's health, some of which have been confirmed in our Embassy's contact with Ocalan's lawyers. We note that Ocalan has daily basic health checks from the civilian doctors who attend him. There is also a military doctor on site at all times.

  Annan Plan
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications his Department is undertaking with the Greek Cypriots to seek an alternative to the Annan Plan. [174503]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government's position continues to be one of support for the UN Secretary General's Plan. We believe that this offers the best possible basis for a settlement. Now is not the time to seek an alternative to the Annan Plan.

  We look forward to the UN Secretary General's report on his Good Offices Mission and his thinking on next steps.

  Burma
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese Government regarding Thet Win Aung, who is sentenced to 60 years imprisonment. [174390]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Thet Win Aung is among a large number of political prisoners in Burma. Amnesty International estimate that there are 1,300 to 1,400, many of them prisoners of conscience.

  We have repeatedly called on the Burmese regime to release fully all political prisoners and to allow them to play an active role in national reconciliation in Burma. We shall continue to do so. Their plight was most recently raised in April's UK co-sponsored UN Commission on Human Rights resolution.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Burmese regime over the military offensives in(a) northern Karen and (b) Karenni state; and if he will make a statement. [174558]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have not made recent representations on this subject because contacts with the Burmese regime are irregular. However, human rights violations have been highlighted by successive highly critical UK and EU co-sponsored UN Resolutions, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April 2004. This referred to the violations of human rights suffered in particular by persons belonging to ethnic minorities, women and children, especially in non-ceasefire areas and the situation of the large number of internally displaced persons as well as the flow of refugees to neighbouring countries. It emphasised the obligations of Burma under international law to pursue through dialogue and peaceful means the immediate suspension and permanent end of conflict with all ethnic groups in the country and to conclude a ceasefire agreement with the Karen National Union (KNU). The Burmese regime knows how critical we are of their Human Rights abuses.

  We are, however, encouraged by the recent verbal ceasefire agreement between the regime and the KNU and hope that this will lead to a lasting peace settlement.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to urge the European Union to strengthen sanctions against Burma in response to the atrocities against the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples by the Burmese military. [174559]
  1357W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The UK and its European partners follow events in Burma closely. We remain willing to support a genuine process of national reconciliation, leading to the restoration of democracy and full respect for human rights in Burma.

  We share the view of a number of international partners that the best interests of all the people of Burma continue to be served by targeted measures against those responsible for the obstruction of reform and progress, together with humanitarian support to ensure that the ordinary people of Burma do not suffer as a result of the damaging policies of their government.

  EU Foreign Ministers agreed on 26 April 2004 to maintain the Common Position on Burma for a further 12 months. We believe that this will maintain pressure on the regime. We are closely monitoring the National Convention process and stand ready to respond proportionately to future developments in Burma, positive or negative.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to recognise the actions taken by the Burmese military against the(a) Karen, (b) Karenni and (c) Shan peoples as (i) war crimes and (ii) crimes against humanity. [174560]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British Government is one of the strongest critics of the Burmese regime's abuses of human rights. We are aware of a consistent pattern of serious violations over many years, particularly against the ethnic groups. These have been highlighted in successive EU co-sponsored resolutions on Burma in the United Nations General Assembly and UK co-sponsored resolutions in the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. But we do not consider that the atrocities constitute "war crimes" and "crimes against humanity", which have specific definitions under international law. Nor does the United Nations Special Rapporteur for Human Rights in Burma. Professor Sergio Pinheiro, who has regular access to Burma, used these terms to describe the situation there.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to raise the Burmese military actions against the Karen, Karenni and Shan peoples at the UN Security Council. [174561]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have raised our concerns about the security situation in Burma and the resulting human rights violations with our Security Council Partners. However, there is no consensus at present to bring Burma before the Security Council.

  Atrocities against ethnic groups in Burma have been highlighted in successive EU co-sponsored UN Resolutions on Burma, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April 2004.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is on relationships with the military Government in Burma; and if he will make a statement. [175171]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  We have full diplomatic relations with Burma and continue to press the military regime to enter into a substantive and genuine dialogue with all political parties and ethnic groups in Burma leading to national reconciliation, democratisation and full respect 1358W
  for human rights. We fully respect the decision of the National League for Democracy (NLD) not to participate in the constitutional convention which opened in Rangoon on 17 May 2004 and urge the regime to reconsider the NLD's reasonable requests. We have repeatedly called on the regime to release Daw Aung San Suu Kyi and the NLD's Vice Chairman U Tin Oo from house arrest, to release all political prisoners, and to reopen all NLD offices in Burma.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168674]

  Mr. Rammell
  Figures for staff with Government Information and Communications Service qualifications are not available prior to 2003–04 without incurring disproportionate costs.

  For details of Press Office staff between 1997 and 2002, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 63W. For details of Press Office staff in 2003, I also refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Leicester East (Keith Vaz) on 2 July 2003, Official Report, column 310W. For details of special advisers costs and staff numbers, I refer the hon. Member to the answer my hon. Friend the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mike O'Brien) gave to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 23 January 2003, Official Report, column 467W.

  For details of other staff in the communications field (Information Department) between 1997 and 2002, I refer the hon. Member to the answer the then Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Exeter (Mr. Bradshaw), gave to the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) on 10 April 2002, Official Report, column 63W.

  The salary costs of Information Directorate, including employee contributions for 2001–02 was £9.6 million of which the Press Office (News Department) was £1.1 million and Information Department was £2.3 million. For 2002–03 the figures are £4.6 million, £1.3 million and £2.2 million respectively. Figures for previous years are not readily available and obtaining them would incur disproportionate costs

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what intra EU arrangements are in place for co-ordination between hospitals and emergency services in the event of a major civil emergency. [174684]
  1359W
  Mr. MacShane
  A community mechanism to facilitate reinforced co-operation in civil protection assistance interventions was established by a council decision of 23 October 2001 (2001/792/EC, Euroatom). The community mechanism enables a stricken nation to request all forms of civil protection assistance it requires from participating States.

  In the event of a major civil emergency the EU Commission would facilitate close co-ordination and co-operation between the stricken state and states participating in the community mechanism, through the monitoring and Information Centre (MIC) established by the council decision.

  EU Constitution
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) if he will list the changes made in the text of the proposed EU Constitution since it was published by Her Majesty's Government in Cm 5897; and whether the Government(a) was consulted on and (b) approves of each change; [174936]

  (2) whether unanimity is required for changes to the draft Constitutional Treaty; [174947]

  (3) which EU member states have (a) submitted formal amendments to the official draft of the proposed constitution of the European Union published in August 2003 and (b) have given notice that they are likely to do so; by what dates such amendments have to be tabled prior to the meeting of the European Council on 17 to 18th June 2004; and what arrangements he is making for their consideration by Parliament. [175107]

  Mr. MacShane
  The draft EU Constitutional Treaty proposed by the Convention on the Future of Europe has no legal status. The European Council decided in June last year that it was a good basis for starting negotiations in the Intergovernmental Conference. The Italian and subsequently Irish Presidencies of the EU have proposed changes to the EU Constititonal Treaty as drafted by the Convention, after consulting with all Member States. Their proposals (summarised in the most recent Irish papers CIG 70/04, 73/04, 75/04, 76/04 and 77/04) have been deposited in the Library of the House and are available from the Presidency website (www.eu2004.ie). They are the subject of discussion in the Intergovernmental Conference The Government has taken part fully in these discussions. Nothing is finally agreed until everything is agreed. The EU Constitutional Treaty, like any new EU Treaty, can only be agreed by the common "accord of all Member States.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list in full the Government's red lines on the Treaty establishing a Constitution for Europe; and if he will make a statement. [174995]

  Mr. Straw
  The Government's policy towards the negotiations on the EU Constitutional Treaty remains as set out in the White Paper on the Intergovernmental Conference (Cm 5934), presented to Parliament on 9 September 2003.

  Honduras
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Government of Honduras' recent crackdown on the Mara Salvatrucha street gang. [175114]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government of Honduras has acknowledged publicly that it has a serious problem with gang-related lawlessness. Our embassy in Guatemala, responsible for our relations with Honduras, and officials in London have been monitoring the measures taken by the Honduran Government to tackle this problem, including legislation prohibiting gang membership. Since the introduction of this new law, there has been a reported reduction in gang violence. But concern has been expressed by some NGOs and members of civil society that the new legislation, which resulted in mass arrests of gang members and those suspected of being gang members, infringed human rights. The Government of Honduras has responded to this criticism by undertaking to provide training and rehabilitation schemes for those either in prison or wishing to leave the gangs. We have made clear to the Government of Honduras, bilaterally and in the company of our EU partners, the importance we attach to respect for human rights. I raised human rights, particularly those in respect of children, with Honduran Security Minister Oscar Alvarez, during his recent visit to the UK.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received concerning the fire of 17 May at the prison in San Pedro Sula in Honduras; what assessment his Department has made of conditions at(a) that prison and (b) other prisons in Honduras; and if he will make a statement. [175115]

  Mr. Rammell
  The San Pedro Sula incident has been widely reported in the UK and local media. 104 prisoners, all gang members are reported to have died and only a few injured. Our embassy in Guatemala, responsible for our relations with Honduras, is watching developments closely and the DFID representative in Tegucigalpa attended a briefing on 18 May given by the Honduran Government.

  Our non-resident ambassador, who was visiting Honduras at the time, has raised this incident with members of the Honduran Government.

  The Government of Honduras has ordered an inquiry that will include investigating claims that: prison wardens refused to open cell doors; the fire services arrived late: and the fire was started by wardens.

  We have made no specific assessment of the conditions at the San Pedro Sula Prison or that of other prisons in Honduras but we are aware of the problem of serious overcrowding. We continue to discuss human rights concerns with the Honduran authorities, particularly those relating to children.

  Iraq
  Sir Menzies Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the costs deducted from oil revenues by(a) the Coalition Provisional Authority, (b) Iraqi Government

  1361W
  institutions and (c) other parties before the oil receipts are deposited in the Development Fund for Iraq accounts; and if he will make a statement. [173910]

  Mr. Straw
  United Nations Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1483 of 22 May 2003 decided that all proceeds from the export sale of Iraq's oil should be deposited into the Development Fund for Iraq (DFI). The only exception to this is that 5 per cent. of proceeds from oil should be deposited into the United Nations Compensation Fund for Kuwait established in accordance with UNSCR 687 of 1991 and subsequent relevant resolutions. As outlined in UNSCR 1483, this latter requirement will be binding on an internationally recognised sovereign government of Iraq unless that government and the Governing Council of the United Nations Compensation Commission decide otherwise. Neither the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA), Iraqi Government institutions, nor any other parties deduct costs from oil revenues. The CPA meets its own costs from coalition funding, and Iraqi Government Departments and agencies are funded through the Iraqi budget.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment his Department has made of the effectiveness of the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175409]

  Mr. Rammell
  Figures from the World Health Organisation (WHO), the UN Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the UN, confirm that the Oil for Food programme (OFF):reduced the incidence of chronic malnutrition in children under five from 32 per cent. in 1996 to 25 per cent. in 2002 (WHO);
  reduced the mortality rate of children under five in northern Iraq from 80 per 1,000 in 1989 (i.e. before UN sanctions were imposed) to 72 in 1999 (UNICEF);
  increased the Iraqi ration (first introduced during the Iran-Iraq war) from 1,300 kCal to 2,215 kCal per day (UN); and
  reduced the incidence of tuberculosis from 78.5 cases per 100,000 in 1989 (i.e. before UN sanctions were imposed) to 43.3 cases per 100,000 in 2001 (UN).

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether his Department has seen the list of names discovered by the Iraqi Governing Council in respect of the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175410]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government have received copies of documents alleging corruption in the Oil for Food programme. These documents include a list of names. The documents have been passed to the appropriate investigative authority.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what action his Department has taken in respect of the Iraqi Governing Council's demand for an inquiry into the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175411]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UK supports both the UN and Iraqi inquiries into the allegations of corruption of the Oil for Food programme. The Secretary of State for International Development and Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials met Paul Volcker, head of the independent UN inquiry, on 6 and 7 May. Ernst 1362W
  and Young have won the contract to carry out the Iraqi investigation on behalf of the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit. We will co-operate fully with both investigations.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when his Department first received(a) representations on and (b) reports of concerns about the conduct of the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175412]

  Mr. Rammell
  Over the life of the Oil for Food programme, we and other UN member states became aware of attempts to breach the Iraq sanctions regime. The Government took action in response in a range of ways according to the circumstances. These included approaches to other Governments and the UN Secretariat, and action through the United Nations Security Council to counter attempted corruption.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the number of(a) countries and (b) individuals involved in alleged corrupt practices in the UN oil-for-food programme in Iraq. [175413]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government have received copies of documents alleging corruption in the oil-for-food programme. These documents include a list of names. The documents have been passed to the appropriate investigative authority.

  Middle East
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what plans he has to discuss suspension of the EU/Israeli trade agreement with his partners in the EU. [175041]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Government do not believe that suspension of the EU/Israel Association Agreement would bring the parties any nearer to a peaceful resolution of their differences.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of Israel's compliance with the human rights clauses in the EU/Israeli trade agreement. [175043]

  Mr. MacShane
  Along with our EU partners, we have followed a policy of constructive engagement with Israel on humanitarian and human rights issues. We have raised our concerns on human rights violations both bilaterally, most recently with Prime Minister Sharon's advisers on 18 May, and through the institutions established by the EU/Israel Association Agreement. In this respect, at the last EU/Israel Association Council in November 2003, the EU called on Israel to abstain from any punitive measures that are not in accordance with international law.

  Russian Nuclear Submarines
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has held with the Russian Government on the decommissioning of Russian nuclear submarines; and what estimate has been made of the number of such submarines. [175161]
  1363W
  Mr. Rammell
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) is responsible for the UK's programme of assistance to Russia for the dismantling of nuclear submarines. The Parliamentary Under Secretary of State at the DTI, my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, South (Nigel Griffiths) visited Russia in February, this year to view the progress of the UK programme.

  Currently, two Oscar-1 class submarines are being dismantled as part of this programme at a shipyard near Archangel and discussions are underway for further projects. The Russian Government has informed us that there are approximately 60 decommissioned nuclear submarines in North West Russia awaiting dismantling and a further 30 in the Russian Far East.

  Co-operation in this area continues to feature in regular bilateral discussions between officials. Further detail on the UK's programme of support for the G8 Global Partnership against weapons and materials of mass destruction can be found in the Department for Trade and Industry's First Annual Report on the Former Soviet Union Nuclear Legacy Programme at http://www.dti.gov.uk/energy/nuclear/fsu/news/First_annual_report.pdf.

  Sudan
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the British Government voted in favour of Sudan becoming a member of the UN Human Rights Commission; and if he will make a statement. [174595]

  UN Transitional Administration in East Timer (1999-May 2002)

  UN Mission of Support in East Timor (established May 2002)

  UN Interim Administration Mission in Kosovo (established 1999)

  UN Mission in Sierra Leone (established 1999)

  UN Mission in Bosnia and Herzegovina (1995–2002)

  2003

  0

  9 (range 0–10)

  116 (range 79–133)

  6 (range 5–10)

  0

  2002

  7 (range 0–15)

  7 (range 0–12)

  158 (range 135–166)

  0

  60 (range 0–76)

  2001 (Figures from April-December only)

  14 (range 13–15)

  0

  142 (range 135–168)

  0

  77 (range 76–80)

  Victor Bout
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions his Department has held with the(a) US authorities, (b) French authorities and (c) UN about Victor Bout. [174782]
  1364W
  Mr. Rammell
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Sudan's membership of the UN Commission on Human Rights was agreed by the African Group, who put them forward as part of an agreed regional nomination. There was, therefore, no vote on the matter. The Government believe members of the Commission on Human Rights should meet certain minimum standards of behaviour regarding the implementation of human rights in their own countries. We are working with others to identify ways to improve the quality of membership.

  UN Civilian Police
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many UK citizens are serving as civilian police for the UN; what operations they are involved with; where they are stationed; and how many were serving in each of the last seven years. [175188]

  Mr. Rammell
  A total of 127 UK citizens (serving and retired police officers) are currently serving as civilian police in UN peacekeeping missions. Four are serving in UNMISET (East Timor), 113 in UNMIK (Kosovo) and 10 in UNAMSIL (Sierra Leone).

  The following table sets out the average numbers of UK police officers who served in UN missions in each year from 2001–03. This information can also be accessed through the UN peacekeeping website:http://www.un.org/Depts/dpko/dpko/contributors/)

  Figures before April 2001 are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office has, over many years, had many discussions with international partners including the US and France, bilaterally and in the United Nations about Victor Bout. The UK has supported international efforts to end Bout's illegal activities. For example, we co-sponsored Security Council Resolution 1521 (2003) on Liberia, which imposed a travel ban on him. UK Ministers have publicly welcomed action taken against his sanctions-busting activities.

PRIME MINISTER

  Correspondence
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter of 19 April from the hon. Member for Richmond Park. [174391]

  The Prime Minister
  I have replied to the hon. Member today.

  India
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on the Indian Congress Party's electoral win. [174842]

  The Prime Minister
  I have spoken and written to the new Prime Minister of India, Manmohan Singh, to congratulate him on his appointment. We have strong relations with India and look forward to developing them further with the incoming Government.

  Iraq
  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 385W, on Iraq, what inquiries are made by the Coalition Provisional Authority into methods employed by Coalition forces in gathering information important to the CPA's aim. [174327]

  The Prime Minister
  None. Under the Geneva Conventions, responsibility for the methods employed by Coalition forces in gathering information lies with the states supplying the military forces concerned.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will instruct the British representative of the Coalition Provisional Authority to require the Coalition forces to conduct an inquiry into the attack upon Mukaradeeb in western Iraq in which it is reported 40 civilians were killed. [175777]

  The Prime Minister
  The attack referred to in Mukaradeeb involved US forces. We understand that the US authorities are undertaking a formal investigation.

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will institute a debate in Government time before 30 June, on the situation in Iraq. [175778]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House gave to the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) at business questions on 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 473.

  Secondments
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Prime Minister how many staff in his Office were seconded from the(a) private and (b) academic sector in each of the last three years. [174816]
  1366W
  The Prime Minister
  There were no secondments to my Office from the private or academic sectors in 2001 and 2002. In 2003, one member of staff was seconded to my Office from the academic sector.

  Tibet
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make a statement on discussions he had on Tibet with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao and other Chinese official representatives during their recent visit to the U K. [174831]

  The Prime Minister
  I discussed a wide range of issues with Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao, including the issue of Tibet. The Government support another visit to China by representatives of the Dalai Lama and believe a peaceful resolution is best achieved through meaningful dialogue without pre-conditions.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Child Maintenance Payments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how much child maintenance has not been paid in each of the last 10 years; and how much of this is due to one of the parents moving(a) abroad and (b) to another EU member state. [166729]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply. The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Barry Sheerman, dated 24 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 much child maintenance has not been paid in each of the last 10 years; and how much of this is due to one of the parents moving (a) abroad and (b) to another EU member state.

  As at 31 March 2003 the reported cumulative debt figure on full maintenance assessments was £664 million (page 86 para 6.1 of the Child Support Agency Annual Report and Accounts 2002/03.) I have no information to determine how much of this is due to parents residing either abroad or in the EU.

  Fine Enforcement
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many persons were fined by magistrates courts in England and Wales in each of the last three financial years; and what percentage of the fines were collected in each year. [173119]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the number of offenders is not available from magistrates courts systems. The latest Home Office statistics available, for the 2002 calendar year, showed that 970,400 offenders were fined by magistrates courts.
  1367W
  A national payment rate of 76 per cent. was achieved in the last quarter of 2003–04. The full year outturn stood at 74 per cent. The payment rate in 2001–02 was 59 per cent. and 55 per cent. in 2002–03. These figures are not comparable with the 2003–04 data due to collection and calculation changes. In 2003–04 the payment rate was revised so that it focused clearly on fines and excluded confiscation orders, civil and family moneys and cancelled fines.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Tyler
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many staff

  Number of staff employed

  Annual budgets in 2004–05 (£ million)

  (a)

  Public Guardianship Office

  291

  5.081

  (b)

  The Civil Justice Council

  4

  0.214

  (c)

  The Strategic Investment Board

  0

  0.13

  (d)

  The Information Tribunal

  0

  0.6

  (e)

  The Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act

  —

  —

  (f)

  The Advisory Group on the Delivery of Enforcement Services

  —

  —

  (g)

  The Review of Procedures Consequent on the Decision to Transfer or Commit Fraud Trials

  —

  —

  (h)

  The Office of the Public Trustee

  58

  1.7

  Total

  353

  7.725

  The Strategic Investment Board does not employ staff as such. It has a Chairman and five Appointed Members (one vacancy at present) who are all non-executive, but in receipt of fees. Both the Information Tribunal and the Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act do not directly employ any staff. The Advisory Group on the Delivery of Enforcement Services was formally dissolved during the last financial year. The Review of Procedures Consequent on the Decision to Transfer or Commit Fraud Trials ceased to exist about eight years ago.

  Unified Court Boundaries
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the unified court boundaries to be introduced next year will be coterminous with(a) probation and (b) prison service boundaries. [173126]

  Mr. Leslie
  The unified courts agency will be established in April 2005 and will have 42 local management areas. These areas will directly align with the local boundaries of the National Probation Service. Her Majesty's Prison Service has a 12-region structure that is coterminous with the boundaries of the 42 management areas.

  The local management areas of the unified courts agency will be contained within seven regions. The boundaries of these regions are coterminous with the regional Prison Service boundaries with the exception of Cheshire and Hampshire and the Isle of Wight, which for the way court business is currently organised, will link with Wales and the South West respectively. The Government will review this position in 2006–07.
  1368W
  are employed by (a) the Public Guardianship Office, (b) the Civil Justice Council, (c) the Strategic Investment Board, (d) the Information Tribunal, (e) the Advisory Group on Implementation of the Freedom of Information Act, (f) the Advisory Group on the Delivery of Enforcement Services, (g) the Review of Procedures Consequent on the Decision to Transfer or Commit Fraud Trials and (h) the Office of the Public Trustee; and what their annual budgets are in 2004–05. [174665]

  Mr. Lammy
  The information requested is set out in the following table.

  The Government announced in January 2004 the creation of the National Offender Management Service (NOMS), which will oversee the management of probation and public sector prisons. The proposed structure of the NOMS is still being considered.

HEALTH

  Ambulance Services
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether there is a national standard for clinical performance in ambulance services. [174098]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Ambulance services have been set response time targets by the Government that include the target that, immediately life-threatening emergency calls (Category A) should be responded to 75 per cent. of the time within eight minutes, irrespective of location.

  The national service framework (NSF) for coronary heart disease emphasises the importance of ambulance services providing advanced life support to patients with suspected heart attack or cardiac arrest, within eight minutes, to maximise the benefits of resuscitation should it be necessary.

  The latest information about ambulance performance is contained in the Department of Health Statistical Bulletin, "Ambulance Services, England 2002–03". A copy of the bulletin is available in the Library and on the Department's website at www.publications.doh.gov.uk/public/sb0313.htm.

  Asthma
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley suffer from asthma. [173763]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  In 2002–03, there were 1,549 finished admission episodes with a primary diagnosis of asthma for Lancashire area, of which 286 were for the area covered by Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust.

  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. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Asylum Seekers
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether a failed asylum seeker is entitled to free NHS prophylactic bronchodilators from a general practitioner;[171044]

  (2) how a doctor who has treated a failed asylum seeker may demonstrate to a funding primary care trust that the person's treatment was immediately necessary;[171046]

  (3)which ailments will entitle failed asylum seekers requiring NHS treatment to free treatment in (a) primary care and (b) secondary care. [171047]

  Mr. Hutton
  Each primary care trust (PCT) has a duty to meet all reasonable requirements to provide or secure national health service primary medical services in its area. For their part, general practitioner practices have discretion to accept a failed asylum seeker as a registered NHS patient. However, since the NHS is intended for those living lawfully in the United Kingdom, existing guidance discourages GP practices from accepting failed asylum seekers as patients.

  On 14 May, I issued a consultation document setting out proposals to clarify eligibility and introduce charges for those overseas visitors, including failed asylum seekers, who would then be ineligible for free routine NHS primary medical treatment.

  Under these proposals, practices would continue to be required to provide treatment, including potentially for asthma, which they regard as emergency or immediately necessary to anyone who needs it. Where a practice provides such treatment to an individual not registered at the practice, it notifies the PCT in writing of the clinical care given.

  In secondary care, if an asylum seeker has been in the UK for more than 12 months when their asylum claim is finally rejected, any course of treatment already under way at the time of the final rejection remains free of
  1370W
  charge. Furthermore, certain secondary care services are exempt from charges for everyone, irrespective of their immigration status. This includes treatment provided solely in an accident and emergency department, treatment of certain specified communicable diseases and compulsory mental health treatment. In the case of services which relate to HIV/AIDS only the initial test and counselling is free. Influenza immunisations are given to those who are in at risk categories. These categories include anyone over six months with respiratory disease (including asthma), chronic heart disease, renal disease, diabetes and immunosuppressant or staying or living in long stay facilities, or who at the GP's discretion needs to have a flu jab on the basis of clinical need.

  Blood Transfusion Service (Edgware Hospital)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on progress concerning the relocation of the blood transfusion service at Edgware hospital. [173528]

  Mr. Hutton
  I understand arrangements are in place between Barnet Primary Care Trust and the National Blood Service to relocate the blood transfusion clinic on the Edgware Site in June 2004.

  Breastfeeding
  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission an economic analysis of the benefits of breastfeeding to(a) the NHS and (b) the UK economy. [173946]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department remains fully committed to promoting breastfeeding but has no current plans to commission an economic analysis its benefits.

  Ms Drown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make recommendations in support of World Health Organisation findings that infants should continue to be breastfed up to two years of age and beyond. [173947]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Government support the World Health Organisation's global recommendation that infants should continue to breastfed up to two years of age. The Department recommends exclusive breastfeeding for the first six months of life, then continuing breastfeeding with appropriate types and amounts of weaning foods until the end of the first year of life or longer.

  Cardiac Deaths
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many sudden cardiac deaths there were in each of the last five years, broken down by age range; and if he will make a statement. [175164]

  Ruth Kelly
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1371W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Mrs. Iris Robinson, dated 24 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question asking how many sudden cardiac deaths there were in each of the last five years broken down by age range. I am replying in his absence. (175164)

  It is not possible to give an exact number of cardiac deaths which occurred suddenly, as information on whether or not a death was sudden is not currently recorded at death registration. We have therefore provided figures for all heart diseases, sudden cardiac death (so described), acute ischaemic heart disease and cardiac arrhythmias.

  The latest year for which data are available is 2002. Figures are shown in the attached table for each year from 1998 to 2002.

  Number of deaths from (a) all heart diseases, (b) sudden cardiac death, so described, (c) acute ischaemic heart disease and (d) cardiac arrhythmics1, by age England and Wales, 1998 to 20022

  Cause of death

  Age

  0–14

  15–44

  45–64

  65–84

  85+

  (a) All heart diseases

  1998

  101

  1,775

  17,332

  86,487

  41,719

  1999

  104

  1,748

  16,470

  82,090

  41,169

  2000

  89

  1,702

  15,756

  76,195

  39,822

  20013

  96

  1,680

  14,952

  73,047

  40,906

  20023

  81

  1,712

  14,355

  70,775

  41,194

  (b) Sudden cardiac death, so described

  1998

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  1999

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  2000

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  4—

  20013

  0

  6

  4

  1

  1

  20023

  0

  4

  1

  5

  0

  (c) Acute ischaemic heart disease

  1998

  4

  621

  8,017

  38,395

  13,597

  1999

  3

  579

  7,435

  34,899

  12,917

  2000

  1

  555

  6,694

  31,470

  12,292

  20013

  4

  552

  6,184

  28,879

  11,306

  20023

  1

  553

  5,928

  27,875

  11,453

  (d) Cardiac arrhythmias

  1998

  13

  46

  99

  1,526

  1,405

  1999

  6

  49

  110

  1,528

  1,546

  2000

  5

  50

  133

  1,409

  1,554

  20013

  10

  50

  84

  1,348

  1,625

  20023

  5

  40

  75

  1,365

  1,764

  1 The cause of death was defined using the ICD-9 for the years 1998 to 2000, and ICD-10 for 2001 and 2002. The codes used are listed below: All heart diseases ICD-10 120–151, ICD-9 410–429 Sudden cardiac death, so described ICD-10 146.1, ICD-9 no equivalent code Acute ischaemic heart disease ICD-10 121, 124, ICD-9 410–411 Cardiac arrhythmias ICD-10 144–149, ICD-9 426–427.

  2 Figures are based on deaths occurring in each calendar year.

  3 The introduction of ICD-10 for coding cause of death in 2001 means that data for heart diseases are not completely comparable between ICD-9 and ICD-10. In particular there is no equivalent code for I46.1—Sudden cardiac death (so described). Any sudden changes in the above figures in 2001 should therefore be interpreted with caution. An article describing the changes to circulatory diseases in more detail is due to be published in Health Statistics Quarterly on May 27. (Griffiths C, Brock A and Rooney C (2004) The effect of the introduction of ICD-10 on mortality from circulatory diseases in England and Wales. Health Statistics Quarterly 22, in press.

  4 Figures only available from 2001, after the introduction of the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) for coding cause of death.

  Community Care (Ribble Valley)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have received care packages to enable them to stay in their homes in the Ribble Valley in each of the last five years. [173471]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of clients aged 18 and over who received community based services following a community care assessment in Lancashire councils with social services responsibilities for the years 2000–01 to 2002–03. Data for previous years are not available.

  Information on the number of clients who received community based services in the Ribble Valley is not centrally available.

  Number of clients receiving community based services1 in Lancashire, 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Lancashire

  2000–012

  35,100

  2002–02

  28,200

  2002–03

  29,400

  1 Community based services include services such as day care, meals, respite care, direct payments, professional support, transport and equipment as well as home care.

  2 Care should be taken when comparing data across the years, as levels of completion and quality may have changed.

  source:

  RAP form P1.

  Advisers/Consultants
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many consultants had signed the new consultant contract by the end of April. [173842]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data collected on the take up of the consultant contract as at 30 April 2004 shows that nearly two thirds of those consultants who had expressed an interest before 31 October 2003 in moving onto the new contract had either moved onto the new contract or received a final job plan offer.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health 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; [171713]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The expenditure by the Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies is shown in the table.

  All those units that could provide details without incurring disproportionate costs have been included.

  Total (£)

  2001–02

  9,078,407

  2002–03

  10,508,410

  2002–04

  13,153,386

  Dentistry
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of(a) adults and (b) children in the United Kingdom were registered with a NHS dentist at the end of February. [173030]
  1373W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  At the end of February 2004, 44.3 per cent. of adults and 60.7 per cent. of children in the United Kingdom were registered with a general dental service (GDS) dentist.

  However, patients do not necessarily have to be registered with a dentist to receive national health service treatment. The community dental service, personal dental service, the salaried service of the GDS and the hospital dental service are all services which do not require the patient to be registered with a dentist before treatment.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists per 10,000 population there are in England. [173032]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are 4.7 dentists per 10,000 of the population in England.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in England are accepting new adult patients to be treated on the NHS; and what the equivalent number was 10 years ago. [173821]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  On 17 May, 2,716 surgeries in England were registering new charge paying adults to be treated on the national health service; 3,049 surgeries were registering new charge exempt adults to be treated on the NHS and 1,583 surgeries were offering occasional treatment to non-registered patients. Personal dental services pilots, including dental access centres, provide NHS dental care to patients without registration.

  Comparable information is not available for 10 years ago.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS dentists are practising in(a) Lincolnshire and (b) England. [173822]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The number of national health service dentists practising in both Lincolnshire and England as a whole as at 30 September 2003 is shown in the table.

  England

  Lincolnshire

  General dental service (GDS)

  18,536

  243

  Personal dental services

  802

  13

  Community dental services

  1,518

  10

  Hospital dental services

  2,245

  36

  Salaried service of GDS

  128

  1

  Total

  23,229

  303

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many registered dentists in Lincolnshire are accepting new adult patients to be treated on the NHS. [173823]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are four primary care trusts (PCTs) in the Lincolnshire area: North East Lincolnshire PCT, West Lincolnshire PCT, Lincolnshire South-West Teaching PCT and North Lincolnshire PCT.

  Information on the number of dental surgeries accepting new national health service patients in these PCT areas, as at 17 May 2004, is shown in the table.
  1374W

  Dental surgeries in Lincolnshire accepting new NHS patients by type of patient

  PCT

  Charge paying adults

  Charge exempt adults

  Occasional non-registered patients

  North East Lincolnshire

  —

  —

  1

  West Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  —

  Lincolnshire South West Teaching

  1

  2

  —

  North Lincolnshire

  1

  —

  —

  source:

  www.nhs.uk.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of patients on an NHS dental surgery list was in each of the last five years. [170632]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information in the table shows the number of registered patients, number of general dental service (GDS) principals and the average dentist list size at September each year between 1999 to 2003.

  Registrations cover patients seen in the last 15 months who are registered with the dentist. Many people choose not to register with a GDS dentist and only visit the dentist when they require treatment.

  GDS: Average dentist list size at September each year in England

  Number of patients registered per million

  Number of GDS principals

  Average list size

  1999

  23.47

  16,089

  1,459

  2000

  23.66

  16,276

  1,454

  2001

  23.58

  16,451

  1,433

  2002

  23.47

  16,445

  1,427

  2003

  23.32

  16,648

  1,401

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times on average an NHS dental patient visited an NHS dentist in each of the last five years. [170633]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not collected in the requested format.

  The total number of courses of treatment for adults in the general dental service has risen from 25.9 million in 1999– 26.6 million in 2003–04.

  £million

  Period

  Adult courses of treatment in GDS—England

  1996–97

  24.6

  1997–98

  25.3

  1998–99

  26.2

  1999–2000

  25.9

  2000–01

  26.4

  2001–02

  26.3

  2002–03

  26.3

  2003–04

  26.6

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people joined private practice dental surgeries in 2003–04 in(a) Worthing and (b) England. [170631]
  1375W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of people joining private dental surgeries is not collected centrally. The Office of Fair Trading report, "The Private Dentistry Market in the UK", published in 2003, stated that some 210 practices are totally private in the United Kingdom out of 11,000 Practices in total. This equates to less than two per cent.

  Dermatology
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action he is taking to encourage more practice nurses to undertake dermatology training. [173926]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for the national health service locally. Post registration training for NHS staff is determined against local NHS priorities, through appraisal processes and training needs analyses. Training needs analyses are informed by local delivery plans and the needs of the service.

  The Department published an "Action on Dermatology" good practice guide in January 2003, drawing on the experiences of 15 Action on Dermatology pilot sites. The guide suggested the development of a structure of specialist clinics, as well as a comprehensive nurse-led service.

  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the impact on waiting times for secondary dermatology care is of treating actinic keratosis in secondary rather than primary care. [174126]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is not collected centrally. No assessments have been made of the impact of waiting times based on the setting where a treatment is provided.

  Doctor Vacancies
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many doctor vacancies there were in(a) North West London Hospitals NHS Trust, (b) Brent Primary Care Trust and (c) each strategic health authority in England in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for strategic health authorities in (i) London and (ii) England were in each year. [172818]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department's doctor vacancy survey started in 1999. It collects all hospital and community health service three-month vacancies, excluding the house officer, senior house officer and registrar staff groups.

  The Department's annual general practitioner (GP) recruitment and retention vacancy survey started in 2000. This is a count of all GP vacancies that have occurred during each year. It will include existing posts that doctors have left and also new posts created to increase the workforce, even where they were filled very quickly.

  The average doctor three-month vacancy rate and number for strategic health authorities (SHAs) in London and England since 1999 has been placed in the Library. Data are provided from 2000 for North West London Hospitals National Health Service Trust. Data are not collected for the Brent Primary Care Trust (PCT) area.
  1376W
  The number of GP vacancies in Brent PCT for the year April 2002 to March 2003, the first year data was collected at PCT level, was 16. The number of GP vacancies for each SHA since 2000 has been placed in the Library.

  Drug Treatment (Manchester)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in Manchester, Central are receiving drug treatment. [174365]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  In 2000–01, there were 3,652 people receiving drug treatment in Manchester. This is the latest available data. Data broken down by drug action team for 2001–02 and 2002–03 has not yet been finalised and published.

  Eating Disorders
  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are on a waiting list to receive treatment at each of the specialist eating disorders units; and what the average waiting time to receive treatment is. [172472]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the requested format.

  The finished admission episodes, mean and median time waited in days for treatment for eating disorders on the national health service are shown in the table.

  Primary diagnosis (ICD-10 F50) eating disorders. Method of admission—elective (waiting list and booked) cases. Count of finished admission episodes, mean and median time waited—NHS hospitals, England 2002–03

  Number

  Mean time waited

  38 days

  Median time waited

  8 days

  Count of finished admission episodes

  226

  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. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the hospital episodes statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

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

  4. Time waited statistics from HES are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they have been on the waiting list. Also, HES calculates the time waited as the difference between the admission and decision to admit dates. Unlike published waiting list statistics, this is not adjusted for self-deferrals or periods of medical/social suspension.

  Source:

  HES, Department of Health.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people in the UK have been admitted as inpatients for the treatment of eating disorders in each of the last five years; and how many of these in-patients were admitted to general psychiatric wards. [172473]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the requested format.
  1377W
  The number of finished admission episodes in national health service hospitals with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Finished admission episodes, NHS hospitals in England, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Anorexia nervosa

  Bulimia nervosa

  1998–99

  1,022

  170

  1999–2000

  1,148

  137

  2000–01

  1,061

  136

  2001–02

  1,139

  137

  2002–03

  1,156

  123

  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. These figures do not represent all people with an eating disorder, as many do not require admission to hospital.

  3. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the hospital episode statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  4. Diagnostic criteria for Anorexia nervosa is based on ICD-10 (F50.0 and F50.1); Bulimia nervosa is based on ICD-10 (F50.2 and F50.3).

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

  Source:

  HES, Department of Health.

  Brian Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people have been diagnosed as suffering from(a) Anorexia nervosa and (b) Bulimia nervosa, in each of the last five years. [172475]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information is not available in the requested format.

  The number of finished consultant episodes in national health service hospitals with a primary diagnosis of eating disorder in each of the last five years is shown in the table.

  Finished consultant episodes, NHS hospitals in England, 1998–99 to 2002–03

  Anorexia nervosa

  Bulimia nervosa

  1998–99

  1,157

  189

  1999–2000

  1,264

  157

  2000–01

  1,193

  151

  2001–02

  1,273

  160

  2002–03

  1,315

  131

  Notes:

  1. Finished consultant episodes—a count of the number of hospital episode statistics (HES) records submitted on behalf of English national health service hospital providers that relate to episodes of in-patient care which ended during the HES year. These figures do not represent the number of patients, as a person may have more than one episode of care within the year.

  2. The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the HES data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  3. Diagnostic criteria for Anorexia nervosa is based on ICD-10 (F50.0 and F50.1); Bulimia nervosa is based on ICD-10 (F50.2 and F50.3).

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

  Source:

  HES, Department of Health.

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how closely co-ordination health authorities are with those bodies that would provide airlift relief in the event of a serious emergency. [174682]

  Mr. Hutton
  In addition to its own helicopter air ambulances, the National Health Service has long-standing arrangements to seek additional support, if required, from the armed forces. Further support is available, as and when required, through arrangements made at the local level.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how well advanced Government plans are for the co-ordination of NHS casualty units and coordination between hospitals in the event of a serious emergency. [174683]

  Mr. Hutton
  National health service organisations have well developed major incident plans, including mutual aid, and national guidance to NHS organisations requires that all major incident plans be reviewed and tested on a regular basis. The NHS has been conducting major incident training exercises for many years, often in conjunction with local emergency partners.

  Initially, the ambulance service will co-ordinate the NHS response; deploy vehicles to the scene; and put hospitals on stand-by to take casualties. If the incident continues, local health services will take on further coordination of the response.

  The NHS is an integral part of the integrated approach across government to protect the public and maintain essential services.

  Departmental Staff
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many of his Department's staff work in each of the English Government Office regions. [173839]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information requested can be found in Table D (page 40–41) in the publication, "Civil Service Statistics 2002". This is the latest published information available. Copies are available in the Library and also at www.civil-service.gov.uk/statistics/css.

  Epsom and St. Helier Trust
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what study has been carried out by the East Elmbridge and Mid Surrey Primary Care Trust on the viability of demerging the Epsom and St. Helier Trust. [173233]

  Mr. Hutton
  The South West London and Surrey and Sussex Strategic Health Authorities advise me that there are currently no plans to demerge Epsom and St. Helier University Hospitals National Health Service Trust.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the representation by East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey Primary Care Trust to the Chief Executive of the South West London
  1379W
  Strategic Health Authority during the recent arbitration hearing about the possibility of demerging the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust. [173234]

  Mr. Hutton
  No plans exist within Epsom and St. Helier National Health Service Trust or South West London Strategic Health Authority for the demerger of Epsom and St. Helier. East Elmbridge and Mid-Surrey Primary Care Trust raised the matter during an arbitration hearing, but it has not been explored further.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the secretary of State for Health what changes would be required to maintain accident and emergency services at Epsom hospital following a demerger of the Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust. [173230]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for the local national health service. Epsom and St. Helier NHS Trust has not undertaken any detailed studies on the effect of demerger of Epsom and St. Helier hospitals.

  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what capital charges are payable on the Epsom hospital site. [173231]

  Mr. Hutton
  The total capital charges for Epsom Hospital for 2003–04 were £3.295 million.

  Foundation Hospitals
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places on the boards of governors of the first wave of foundation hospitals which(a) are vacant and (b) were filled unopposed. [168067]

  Mr. Hutton
  This is a matter for the office of the independent regulator of National Health Service foundation trusts. The chairman will write to the hon. Member and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  GP Contracts
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce quality measures for dermatology into the general practitioner contract. [173924]

  Mr. Hutton
  Changes to the quality and outcomes framework (QOF) of the new general medical services contract will be negotiated between the NHS Confederation and the British Medical Association, following recommendations from an independent, United Kingdom-wide review group. The independent review group will decide which disease areas to consider for addition to the QOF.

  Health Services (Derby, North)
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Derby, North saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each year between 1997 and 2003. [173740]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. However, information from 1999 onwards for the organisations that service the Derby, North constituency is shown in the table.
  1380W

  All Cancer waiting times, Southern Derbyshire Acute Hospitals NHS Trust Urgent referrals received within 24 hours

  Total referrals seen during the year

  Number of patients seen during the year by a specialist within 14 days of the decision to refer by their general practitioner

  Number of patients seen during the year by a specialist after 14 days of the decision to refer by their general practitioner

  Percentage compliance with the two week standard

  1999–2000

  470

  461

  9

  98.1

  2000–01

  1,336

  1,306

  30

  97.8

  2001–02

  4,185

  4,019

  166

  96.0

  2002–03

  5,300

  5,212

  88

  98.3

  2003–041

  4,338

  4,300

  38

  99.1

  Note:

  1 Only three quarters data is available for 2003–04. Date for quarter ended March 2004 will be published on 4 June 2004.

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW

  Health Services (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) nurses, (b) midwives and (c) health visitors were working within Nottinghamshire health authority areas in each year since 1997. [173525]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many prescriptions were issued to NHS patients within Nottinghamshire health authority areas in each year since 1997. [173552]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not available in the format requested. However, information for the years that are available is shown in the following table.

  Number of prescription items prescribed in general practitioner practices in Trent Strategic Health Authority (SHA) at primary care trust (PCT) level and total number of prescription items prescribed in general practitioner (GP) practices in England that were dispensed in the community—for 2001–02,2002–03 and 2003–04

  PCT/SHA where prescriptions prescribed

  Financial Years

  PCTs

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Mansfield District

  1,250,648

  1,319,701

  1,380,595

  Newark and Sherwood

  1,528,463

  1,601,288

  1,676,492

  Gedling

  1,038,381

  1,087,665

  1,132,335

  Nottingham City

  3,282,767

  3,433,254

  3,623,316

  Bassetlaw

  1,405,639

  1,492,650

  1,547,934

  Broxtowe and Hucknall

  1,505,645

  1,603,861

  1,645,517

  Ashfield

  1,086,997

  1,145,424

  1,194,587

  Rushcliffe

  1,253,255

  1,314,968

  1,383,004

  Notes:

  1. This information was obtained from the prescribing analysis and cost (PACT) system, which covers prescriptions prescribed by GP practices in England and dispensed in the community. Prescriptions written within a GP practice but dispensed outside the PCT will be included in the PCT in which the GP practice is based. Prescriptions written in England but dispensed outside England are included. Prescriptions written in hospitals/clinics that are dispensed in the community, prescriptions dispensed in hospitals and private prescriptions are not included in PACT data.

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

  3. With effect from October 2002, the prescription pricing analysis (PPA) information systems were changed to reflect Shifting the Balance of Power. Shifting the Balance of Power saw the creation

  1381W
  of SHAs and PCTs, which shifted the balance of power within the national health services away from Whitehall and towards front line clinical staff and their patients. Due to Shifting the Balance of Power, from the October 2002 release of ePACT.net, PCT data reflects the organisational structures in place on 1 October 2002. This was true for all 36 months historic data on ePACT.net, so data on ePACT.net prior to October 2002 was also amended retrospectively so that it was in line with Shifting the Balance of Power.

  Wigan and Leigh Health Services NHS Trust 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Average daily number of available beds, by sector

  Year

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and Acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  1,021

  729

  611

  118

  233

  59

  31

  1997–98

  990

  710

  580

  131

  220

  60

  33

  1998–99

  927

  703

  620

  83

  170

  54

  31

  1 999–2000

  886

  695

  612

  83

  137

  54

  33

  2000–01

  919

  719

  636

  83

  146

  54

  35

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Wrightington Health Services NHS Trust 1996–97 to 2000–01

  Year

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and Acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  148

  148

  132

  16

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1997–98

  154

  154

  140

  14

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1998–99

  158

  158

  158

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1999–2000

  158

  158

  158

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2000–01

  158

  158

  158

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust 2001–02 to 2001–03.

  Year

  All specialties (excluding day only)

  General and Acute

  Acute

  Geriatric

  Mental illness

  Learning disability

  Maternity

  Day only

  1996–97

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1997–98

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1998–99

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  1999–2000

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2000–01

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  -

  2001–02

  1,083

  900

  817

  83

  130

  -

  53

  36

  2002–03

  899

  850

  801

  49

  -

  -

  49

  70

  Source:

  Department of Health form KHO3

  Heroin
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the latest figures are for heroin addiction within the Greater London area. [174485]

  Mr. Hutton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  ICT Training
  Mr. Simon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his targets are for improving the information and communication technology (ICT) skills base of staff

  Health Services (Wigan)
  Mr. Neil Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS beds were available in Wigan in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [169350]

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

  within (a) his Department and (b) its agencies; and what method he uses to certify the competence levels achieved by staff receiving training in ICT. [173719]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Neither the Department nor its executive agencies have targets for improving the information and communication technology (ICT) skills base of staff.

  Staff are encouraged to improve their ICT skills and every major corporate application implementation or upgrade of desktop software packages is accompanied by training opportunities. The Department offers a range of training options: classroom training, at-desk training, computer based training, short seminars and

  1383W
  workshops. Staff are also able to undertake the European computer driving licence, leading to formally recognised qualifications in ICT.

  The Department and its agencies are very heavily reliant on ICT for the conduct of their business and, while there is no formal, corporate process for validating staff competence in ICT, staff are assessed, as part of the performance appraisal process, on their ability to undertake their roles effectively. This may include ICT related tasks.

  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what funds will be made available to(a) strategic health authorities and (b) primary care trusts to cover the costs of (i) training clinical staff to use new IT systems as part of the National Programme for IT rollout and (ii) covering for clinical staff while they are training. [174104]

  Mr. Hutton
  Training plans to support the national programme for information technology in the national health service in England (NPfIT) are still evolving, as is to be expected when approaching a phased programme of implementation and roll out of new applications, systems and services.

  General IT skills are now an everyday element for any public service and service based organisation, including the NHS, and provision for this will form part of the normal continuing professional and personal development for all NHS staff within existing budgets and training plans. The Europe computer driving licence is helping to improve general skills across the NHS. The move to e-learning and development and the NHS university will both create more demand for computer and online skills and provide more channels and solutions to bring training to people.

  As we complete the more detailed plans for each geographical cluster and local service provider contract we will map out the extent of IT support for clinical practice and patient care to support the implementation of the NPfIT. This will generate clearer training requirements and will enable us co consider the most appropriate ways of providing training and development and produce firmer costs. The bids submitted by the service suppliers for the NPfIT include an element for supporting the delivery of training within the NHS.

  Infleximab/Remicade
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what steps he is proposing to take to ensure that Infleximab/Remicade is made available on the NHS for all patients requiring this treatment; [174141]

  (2) what steps he is taking to ensure that (a) Cherwell Vale Primary Care Trust and (b) other primary care trusts are operating in line with the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidelines on the prescription by consultant rheumatologists of Infleximab/Remicade. [174142]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  National health service bodies are under a statutory obligation to fund treatments recommended in National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) technology appraisals. We expect primary care trusts to meet their statutory obligations and strategic health authorities to follow up any allegations of non-compliance.
  1384W
  However, clinicians may depart from the NICE guidance if, in their view, the circumstances of the individual patient justify doing so. But they will be held accountable, through clinical governance arrangements, for their clinical decisions.

  Maternity Services
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many full-time midwives are employed in the NHS; and how many were employed(a) five years ago and (b) 10 years ago. [173581]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the following table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: registered midwives by nature of contract in England as at 30 September each year

  Headcount

  Total

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Blank/Unknown

  2003

  23,941

  10,462

  11,796

  1,683

  1998

  22,841

  11,638

  9,511

  1,692

  1993

  23,353

  12,205

  7,185

  3,963

  Notes:

  1. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995.

  2. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the merits of permitting people to commence midwifery training without having to undergo prior training as a nurse. [173738]

  Mr. Hutton
  Entry requirements, content or structure of pre-registration nursing and midwifery training programmes are matters which are the responsibility of the Nursing and Midwifery Council as the regulatory body for these professions. The arrangements for direct entry midwifery training leading to professional qualifications and the right to practice have proved successful over the last decade and have the support of the professional bodies and higher education institutions.

  NHS Direct
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many calls were made to NHS Direct in 2003–04. [173844]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004, NHS Direct answered 6,427,321 calls.

  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of NHS Direct was in 2003–04. [173845]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The total budgeted cost for the NHS Direct telephone service, NHS Direct Online and other related services for 2003–04 is £124 million.

  NHS Recruitment
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of healthcare workers from overseas who have been granted work permits were employed by(a) the NHS and (b) the private

  1385W
  health sector for their first job on entering the United Kingdom in each of the last five years for which figures are available. [170665]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 4 May 2004]: I have been asked to reply.

  The structure of the Work Permits (UK) database and record storage facilities does not allow for a breakdown of the number of work permits awarded to healthcare workers by employer type, i.e. in NHS or private healthcare sector. This information therefore can only be obtained at disproportionate cost.

  Midwives/Nurses
  Mr. Hurst
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives were employed in the national health service in each year from 1974 to 2003. [173637]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  NHS Hospital and Community Health Services (HCHS): Registered midwives in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalent

  Headcount

  2003

  18,444

  23,941

  2002

  18,119

  23,249

  2001

  18,048

  23,075

  2000

  17,662

  22,572

  1999

  17,876

  22,799

  1998

  18,168

  22,841

  1997

  18,053

  22,385

  1996

  18,262

  22,595

  19951

  18,034

  22,022

  1994

  19,291

  23,050

  1993

  19,554

  23,353

  1992

  20,283

  24,020

  1991

  19,685

  23,368

  1990

  19,897

  23,143

  1989

  19,213

  22,391

  1988

  19,290

  22,319

  1987

  19,312

  22,117

  1986

  18,850

  21,549

  1985

  18,431

  21,067

  1984

  17,820

  20,438

  1983

  17,309

  19,814

  19822

  16,268

  18,439

  1981

  12,743

  14,763

  1980

  13,056

  15,209

  1979

  12,525

  14,617

  1978

  12,115

  14,078

  1977

  12,277

  14,192

  1976

  12,248

  14,144

  1975

  11,380

  13,311

  1974

  10,562

  12,300

  1A new system of occupation coding for NHS non-medical staff was introduced in 1995. The new codes classify staff according to what they do rather than the terms and conditions under which they are employed i.e. national pay scales. Figures based on new occupation codes are not directly comparable with those based on the old pay scale classification. Therefore figures since 1995 are not comparable with earlier years.

  2 From 1982 onwards data are taken from the Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census. Prior to 1982 data are taken from the Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England (HPSSS). Data from HPSSS contains hospital-based staff only and is therefore not directly comparable with later years.

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest whole number.

  All figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census.

  Health and Personal Social Services Statistics for England (HPSSS).

  1386W
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have(a) entered and (b) completed training since 1997; and how many of those have (i) been recruited into the national health service and (ii) are still working in the national health service. [174105]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of nurses and midwives entering training each year since 1997 is shown in the table.

  Pre-registration nursing and midwifery training commissions

  Headcount

  1996–97

  14,984

  1997–98

  16,539

  1998–99

  17,689

  1999–2000

  18,707

  2000–01

  20,021

  2001–02

  21,770

  2002–03

  22,956

  Source:

  Quarterly Monitoring Reports.

  Information on the number of nurses who complete training each year was collected by the English National Board for Nursing, until its abolition in March 2002 with the creation of the Nursing and Midwifery Council (NMC). The latest complete information is only available for the 1997–98 cohort of nursing and midwifery students, of whom 72 per cent. had completed training by October 2001.

  Information is not collected centrally on the number of nurses completing training recruited into the national health service or still working in the NHS. The NMC holds information on the number of nurses and midwives initially entering the register, a pre-requisite for employment in the NHS and other sectors in the United Kingdom. This information can be found on the NMC website at www.nmc-uk.org.

  Between 1997 and 2003, there has been a net increase of 67,503 qualified nurses employed in the NHS.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action is being taken to increase the input of front-line nurses into departmental policy formation. [173737]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Frontline nurses contribute directly to policy development as individual members of working groups, policy boards and clinical advisory networks. They also contribute though their national health service trusts modernisation programmes and professional organisations which meet regularly with the Chief Nursing Officer (CNO). The contribution of frontline nurses to policy is being increased by engaging the new strategic health authority lead nurses, greater use of electronic communication, visits to the NHS by Ministers and officials and linking modernisation programmes to policy work.

  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of nursing students withdrew from university courses in each of the past five years. [173766]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information for England on the percentage of pre-registration student nurses who have left their university course is shown in the following table. The recently received attrition data for the
  1387W
  2002–03 academic year administered by the Higher Education Statistics Agency is in the process of being analysed.

  Percentage withdrawn

  1996–1997

  20.38

  1997–1998

  20.16

  1998–1999

  18.16

  1999–2000

  13.44

  2000–2001

  6.21

  Note:

  This data is based on a snapshot in time of a particular cohort(s) and therefore each year there will still be students who have yet to complete their course.

  Obesity
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many children have undergone stomach stapling operations for obesity related problems in each of the last five years;[172587]

  (2) how many adults have under gone stomach stapling operations in each of the last five years. [172589]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 11 may 2004]: The table shows the number of finished admission episodes for stomach stapling operations performed on adults over the last five years. No children had stomach stapling operations in relation to obesity during the time period.

  Children: 0–18 years

  Adults: 19 years and over

  1998–99

  0

  4

  1999–2000

  0

  12

  2000–01

  0

  14

  2001–02

  0

  10

  2002–03

  0

  6

  Source:

  Department of Health, Hospital Episode Statistics.

  Opticians
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether his Department plans to offer financial support to the compulsory continued education and training programmes for(a) opticians and (b) dispensing opticians. [171045]

  Primary Diagnosis (ICD-10 C00-D48)—Neoplasms: Count of finished admission episodes for London Strategic Health Authorities (SHAs) of treatment NHS hospitals. England 2002–03

  SHA of treatment

  Female

  Male

  Not known

  Not specified

  Total

  Q04

  North West London HA

  22,179

  18,842

  6

  —

  41,027

  Q05

  North Central London HA

  18,975

  17,048

  1

  —

  36,024

  Q06

  North East London HA

  18,519

  17,883

  —

  —

  36,402

  Q07

  South East London HA

  13,369

  12,714

  —

  4

  26,087

  Q08

  South West London HA

  22,057

  19,705

  2

  —

  41,764

  London SHAs

  95,099

  86,192

  9

  4

  181,304

  Finished admission episodes

  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.

  Diagnosis (Primary Diagnosis)

  The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (7 prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

  Ungrossed Data

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  1388W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  As part of a three-year agreement on fees for sight-tests under the general ophthalmic services (GOS), the Department has agreed to make a financial contribution towards the costs of continuing education and training. These arrangements cover optometrists who are obliged to undertake continuing education to maintain their registration with the General Optical Council and also those ophthalmic medical practitioners who undertake no professional work other than conducting sight tests and who are also obliged to undertake continuing education as part of the registration requirements of the General Medical Council.

  Under the terms of the three-year sight-test fee agreement, the financial support towards continuing education has been set at £270 for the year 2004–05 and £425 for the year 2005–06.

  Dispensing opticians are not contracted to provide GOS and are therefore outside of these national health service arrangements and were not part of the pay agreement reached with contractors.

  The Department is due shortly to begin a review of the GOS and the position of dispensing opticians within the NHS will be considered as part of that review.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health for what reasons dispensing opticians are not recognised by his Department as healthcare professionals. [172703]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Dispensing opticians are recognised as health care professionals and are regulated under the Opticians Act. Under legislative changes introduced in 1986, dispensing was deregulated and became a private transaction. Dispensing opticians are therefore not included on primary care trust lists.

  Cancer
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) men and (b) women are being treated for cancer in the Greater London area. [174496]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on treatment for cancer is not available in the format requested. Information on the number of finished admission episodes with a primary diagnosis of neoplasms for the five London strategic health authorities for 2002–03 is shown in the table.

  Patient Statistics (Wandsworth)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients there were per general practitioner within the London borough of Wandsworth at the most recent recorded date. [174494]

  Mr. Hutton
  The information requested is collected by primary care trust (PCT) rather than London borough. Information for Wandsworth PCT is shown in the table.

  Patients of unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1 for Wandsworth PCT

  Wandsworth PCT

  UPEs

  174

  Patients of UPEs

  302,798

  Average list size

  1,740

  1 UPEs include general medical service unrestricted principals, personal medical services contracted general practitioners and personal medical service salaried GPs. Data as at 30 September 2003.

  Source:

  Department of Health general and personal medical services statistics.

  PFI Schemes
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the aggregate annual revenue payments from 2004–05 onwards are in respect of NHS private finance initiative schemes which have reached financial close. [173841]

  Mr. Hutton
  The annual aggregate revenue payments for all national health service private finance initiative (PFI) schemes with a capital value of £10 million or over which have reached financial close are in the table.

  Payment (£ million)

  2004–05

  389.2

  2005–06

  477.7

  2006–07

  567.9

  2007–08

  599.0

  2008–09

  641.3

  2009–10

  641.5

  2010–11

  641.1

  2011–12

  642.2

  2012–13

  642.5

  2013–14

  642.8

  2014–15

  643.6

  2015–16

  643.5

  2016–17

  642.1

  2017–18

  641.0

  2018–19

  640.4

  2019–20

  640.7

  2020–21

  640.8

  2021–22

  640.4

  2022–23

  639.8

  2023–24

  637.1

  2024–25

  634.2

  2025–26

  631.9

  2026–27

  613.5

  2027–28

  613.9

  2028–29

  613.4

  2029–30

  609.3

  1390W
  These figures are submitted bi-annually to Her Majesty's Treasury. Table C19 of the Budget report contains an aggregate figure for the revenue payments from all Government Departments and they appear in Treasury Ministers' autumn report to Parliament.

  Statistics are not collected centrally for schemes with a value less than £10 million.

  Prescription Charges
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost to his Department of freezing prescription charges at their current price over the next five years. [173184]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The level of the prescription charge is considered annually and no forecast is made of future charge levels. It is therefore not possible to estimate the cost of freezing the current charge.

  Prostate Cancer
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many men are being treated for prostate cancer in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [173762]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information is not available in the format requested.

  In 2002–03, there were 1,263 finished admission episodes with a primary diagnosis of prostate cancer for Lancashire area, of which 189 were for the area covered by Chorley and South Ribble Primary Care Trust.

  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) The primary diagnosis is the first of up to 14 (seven prior to 2002–03) diagnosis fields in the Hospital Episode Statistics (HRS) data set and provides the main reason why the patient was in hospital.

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

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics, Department of Health.

  Psychiatrists
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) by what percentage the number of NHS psychiatrists has changed since 1997; [175036]

  (2) how many consultant psychiatrists are employed by the NHS in (a) Leicestershire and (b) England. [175037]

  Mr. Hutton
  The number of staff within the psychiatry group in England increased by 21.8 per cent. between September 1997 and September 2003. The number of consultants within the psychiatry group in England increased by 35.1 per cent. between September 1997 and December 2003.

  The table shows the number of consultants within the psychiatry group, broken down by psychiatry specialties, in England and Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic Health Authority as at December 2003.
  1391W

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Consultants within the psychiatry group in England and Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland Strategic Health Authority by organisation: as at 30 December 2003

  Numbers (headcount)

  of which

  Psychiatry group

  Child and adolescent psychiatry

  Forensic psychiatry

  General psychiatry

  Learning disabilities

  Old age psychiatry

  Psychotherapy

  England

  3,305

  526

  216

  1,804

  206

  442

  111

  Of which

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland SHA

  Q25

  84

  13

  1—

  40

  7

  19

  5

  Of which

  Leicestershire & Rutland Healthcare NHS

  Trust

  RT5

  58

  8

  1—

  29

  5

  14

  2

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  RNS

  3

  3

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  Northamptonshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  RP1

  23

  2

  1—

  11

  2

  5

  3

  1ZERO

  Source:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures are planned to increase the recruitment and retention of psychiatrists in the NHS. [175038]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Government's agenda to improve the recruitment and retention of psychiatrists is being taken forward by the National Institute for Mental Health in England national world tree programme.

  The Department and the Royal College of Psychiatrists have issued a joint action plan providing recommendations to increase the recruitment and overall numbers and the retention of consultant psychiatrists in January. The recommended actions cover the whole career pathway from initial recruitment of medical graduates into psychiatry through to the timing of retirement and improving international recruitment.

  The national workforce programme is currently producing an analysis of demand and supply of staff to influence the commissioning of funding for education and training by the work force development confederations by way of the national workforce numbers advisory board.

  The programme is also exploring proposals to create more flexibility between specialist registrar and senior house officer posts with a view to reducing potential difficulties in filling them.

  Radiography Services (Berkshire)
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many qualified radiographers have been employed at the Royal Berkshire Hospital in each of the last five years. [173730]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Requested information on number of qualified radiographer s is provided in the table.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified radiography staff in the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS Trust by area as at 30 September each specified year.
  1392W

  headcount

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Total qualified radiographers

  94

  74

  90

  91

  90

  95

  of which:

  Diagnostic radiographers

  75

  58

  70

  73

  74

  76

  Therapeutic radiographers

  19

  16

  20

  18

  16

  19

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Rubber Ferrules
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the expenditure was on the acquisition of rubber ferrules in each year since 1997. [174158]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Ferrules are supplied to the national health service as part of the NHS Purchasing and Supply Agency's national agreement for the supply of walking aids. The Department holds information on ferrules bought since 1998–99. The contract is not mandatory, and therefore some NHS bodies may buy ferrules from other sources.

  The expenditure on the contract was as follows:

  £

  1998–99

  96,670.37

  1999–2000

  103,094.37

  2000–01

  87,739.36

  2001–02

  96,896.97

  2002–03

  101,855.81

  2003–04

  106,347.92

  Note:

  All figures include Value Added Tax.

  Radiology
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many interventional radiologists practise in the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [174967]

  Mr. Hutton
  Interventional radiology is the use of imaging guidance for the purpose of treating patients.

  There is no certificate of completion of specialist training in interventional radiology. Therefore, the Department does not collect data on the numbers of interventional radiologists practising in the national

  1393W
  health service. Many clinical radiologists undertake interventional radiological procedures and most of them combine diagnosis and intervention in their practice.

  Sick Leave
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the staff of his Department were absent from work due to sickness as a proportion of the staff time available in each year since 2000. [173838]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on sickness absence in the Department is available in the publication, "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". Copies of "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service" are available in the Library and at www.cabinet-office.gov.ukcivilservice/publications/sickness/index.htm. The website also contains reports for the previous three years.

  Information on the number of staff employed by the Department can be found in the publication, "Civil Service Statistics".

  Copies of "Civil Service Statistics" are available in the Library and at www.civil-service.gov.uk/Statistics/css/htm. The website contains publications since the financial year 1970.

  Skin Cancer
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effect of the two week wait rule on the management of suspected skin cancers. [174124]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  A two-week outpatient waiting time standard was introduced for urgently referred cases of suspected skin cancer from October 2000. In the last quarter (October to December 2003), 99.5 per cent., of urgently referred patients with suspected skin cancer were seen within two weeks of urgent referral. We have issued general practitioner cancer referral guidelines to assist GPs in determining those patients who need to be referred urgently to see a specialist within two weeks, those patients that can be referred for a routine appointment and those who can be safely watched at a primary care level. The referral guidelines are currently being reviewed by the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.

  Smoking
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what consultation he has undertaken on a possible ban on the smoking of tobacco in public places. [174383]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  On 3 March, the Government launched "Choosing Health?", a consultation on action to improve people's health. This sets out a range of questions on which the Government are seeking views.

  Questions regarding smoking of tobacco in public places are:

  Should the Government pass a law to make all enclosed workplaces/public places smoke-free?

  What about restaurants?

  What about pubs and bars?
  1394W
  Would local authorities be better placed than central Government to introduce laws?

  Apart from bans how else could local towns and cities respond to calls for more smoke-free public places?

  The consultation continues until 28 May.

  Social Care
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the recent TV advertising campaign in respect of social care careers. [173952]

  Dr. Ladyman
  During the five weeks of the campaign, the social care careers helpline received more than 66,000 calls against a forecast of 23,000, with the majority of the calls generated by television. This is a very high response and indicates that for many people, social care is a viable career option.

  The website, www socialcarecareers.co.uk, attracted more than 23,000 unique visitors and to support those interested in jobs, links were established to local authority job pages and to Jobcentre Plus.

  St. George's Hospital
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many assaults there were on members of staff during the last 12 months at St. George's Hospital, Tooting. [174495]

  Mr. Hutton
  During 2002–03, there were 60 violent incidents1 on directly employed staff at the St. George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust.
  1 Violent incidents are counted as any incident where staff are abused, threatened or assaulted in circumstances related to their work, involving an explicit or implicit challenge to their safety, well being or health.

  Notes:

  1. Data at individual hospitals are not available centrally as information is collected at NHS trust or primary care trust level.

  2. Data are collected on a financial year basis.

  Source:

  Department of Health Violence, Accidents and Harassment Survey 2002–2003.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses are employed at St. George's Hospital, Tooting; and how many are(a) agency nurses and (b) recruited from overseas countries. [174498]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of nurses at St George's Healthcare National Health Service Trust is shown in the table. Information is not available centrally on the number agency nurses or the number of nurses recruited from overseas countries by the trust.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff in the St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust as at 30 September 2003

  Headcount

  RJ7

  St. George's Healthcare NHS Trust

  2,375

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Supporting People Scheme
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he is putting in place for health agencies
  1395W
  on the effects on the provision of (a) learning disability and (b) mental health services of changes in the Supporting People budgets. [167857]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  No guidelines are being issued with regard to any changes in the Supporting People budgets.

  Waiting Lists/Times
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time is for a patient to get an appointment to be seen at a genito-urinary medicine clinic in each strategic health authority area in England. [174038]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: Data on average waiting times are shown in the table.

  Estimated average out-patient wait for those seen under the genito-urinary medicine specialty for March 2004 by Strategic Health Authority (SHA)

  SHA name

  Median (weeks)

  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire

  2.00

  Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire

  2.11

  Essex

  2.25

  North West London

  —

  North Central London

  2.07

  North East London

  2.00

  South East London

  2.01

  South West London

  —

  Northumberland, Tyne and Wear

  2.02

  County Durham and Tees Valley

  —

  North and East Yorkshire and Northern Lin olnshire

  2.00

  West Yorkshire

  2.02

  Cumbria and Lancashire

  —

  Greater Manchester

  2.04

  Cheshire and Merseyside

  2.14

  Thames Valley

  2.00

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  2.00

  Kent and Medway

  2.41

  Surrey and Sussex

  —

  Avon, Gloucestershire and Wiltshire

  2.72

  South West Peninsula

  3.13

  Somerset and Dorset

  2.00

  South Yorkshire

  2.01

  Trent

  —

  Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland

  2.03

  Shropshire and Staffordshire

  —

  Birmingham and The Black Country

  2.02

  Coventry, Warwickshire. Herefordshire and Worcestershire

  2.03

  Source:

  Department of Health form QM08.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will list the(a) average and (b) maximum waiting time to see (i) an occupational therapist, (ii) a physiotherapist and (iii) a speech and language therapist in (A) England and (B) each strategic health authority; [174479]

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2, on applications, by gender, 2001–03

  Applications

  Initial decisions

  Total applications

  Total initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP/DL

  Refusals

  Male

  20013,4

  315

  830

  5

  15

  n/a

  810

  20024

  280

  230

  *

  5

  n/a

  225

  20034

  205

  230

  —

  5

  *

  225

  1396W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information on waiting times for these services is not collected centrally.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many places have been designated as areas of persistent antisocial behaviour by the Metropolitan police since the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003 came into force; how many dispersal orders have been issued in those areas; and how many unsupervised children have been escorted home from those areas. [172402]

  Ms Blears
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis tells me that the information requested is not currently held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Asylum
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money has been spent by the National Asylum Support Service in each year since its inception(a) on subsistence only support, (b) on NASS accommodation and (c) in total. [173399]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]: The information requested on the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) accommodation costs and total NASS expenditure is as follows.

  £ million1

  Financial Year

  (a) Subsistence only support2

  (b) Expenditure on NASS Accommodation

  (c) Total NASS Expenditure

  2000–01

  Not recorded separately

  Not recorded separately

  783

  2001–02

  Not recorded separately

  439

  1,082

  2002–03

  Not recorded separately

  594

  1,124

  2004–04

  Not recorded separately

  Not yet available

  Not yet available

  1 All figures rounded to the nearest million.

  2 Specific information on the costs of providing subsistence only are not readily available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women from the Ukraine have sought political asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many applications have been granted. [173539]

  Mr. Browne
  The tables show asylum application and initial decision data for Ukranian nationals, by gender, for those years for which data are available:
  1397W

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2, on applications, by gender, 2001–03

  Applications Total applications

  Initial decisions

  Total initial decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP/DL

  Refusals

  Female

  20013,4

  130

  345

  *

  15

  n/a

  330

  20024

  80

  80

  —

  5

  n/a

  75

  20034

  90

  120

  —

  *

  5

  115

  n/a = not applicable.

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals determinations or other subsequent decisions.

  3 Revised figures.

  4 Provisional figures.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions, by gender, is published in the annual statistical bulletin, "Asylum Statistics United Kingdom". Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at: http://NAAAAw.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Glenda Jackson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many citizens of the new EU accession states, previously maintained as asylum seekers, have(a) had that maintenance removed, (b) lost their housing and (c) applied for work registration. [173873]

  Mr. Browne
  On 5 and 6 April 2004, the National Asylum Support Services (NASS) sent 1,131 letters to nationals from those countries due to join the EU on 1 May (Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia, Slovenia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Poland, Hungary, Cyprus and Malta). The letters explained that, after 1 May, as EEA nationals, they would no longer be entitled to National Asylum Support Service (NASS) support and that they would have the options of working, and registering under the Worker Registration scheme where appropriate, becoming self sufficient or returning to their country of origin. Support can be provided if it is necessary to avoid a breach of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) and a process has been set up to consider ECHR representations.

  Provisional figures indicate that as at 14 May, of the 1,131 cases, 571 were remaining in NASS accommodation and a further 108 were receiving cash only support, pending an individual assessment of their circumstances. These figures are subject to change as cases find work or if they decide to leave the United Kingdom voluntarily.

  Figures are not currently available for those supported by local authorities under the interim provisions but local authorities have been advised of the procedures being followed by NASS.

  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate is monitoring the impact of accession and will be making information available on the Worker Registration Scheme on a regular basis, when it is meaningful and appropriate to do so.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers and their dependants in each parliamentary constituency in the City of Newcastle in December 2003 were supported by 1398W
  the National Asylum Support Service; and how many of those were (a) from the EU accession countries and (b) potentially covered by amnesty schemes. [170863]

  Mr. Browne
  The total number of asylum seekers (including dependants), and those from the EU accession countries (including dependants), in each parliamentary constituency in the City of Newcastle as at the end of December 2003 that were supported by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are shown in the table:

  Parliamentary constituency

  Number of asylum seekers supported by NASS1 (including dependants)

  Number of asylum seekers supported by NASS1 from the EU accession countries (including dependants)

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  430

  20

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend

  475

  20

  Newcastle upon Tyne North

  145

  10

  Tyne Bridge

  515

  40

  Total

  1,565

  90

  1 Number of asylum seekers supported by NASS includes those supported in NASS accommodation and those in receipt of subsistence only support

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Data about how many of the asylum seekers supported by NASS in the City of Newcastle that are potentially covered by amnesty schemes are not available.

  An announcement detailing the results of the exercise announced by my right hon. Friend, the Home Secretary in October 2003, including the available statistical information, will be made when the exercise is completed. We would not wish to release figures until all those potentially qualifying applicants have had an opportunity to respond to our queries.

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

  Information on the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS is published quarterly. The next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 (January to March) will be available on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many asylum seekers in(a) the UK, (b) West Yorkshire, (c) Kirklees and

  1399W
  (d) Huddersfield have exhausted the appeals process and have been refused on asylum and human rights grounds and are unable to be returned to their own country because it is not considered safe. [171374]

  Mr. Browne
  I regret that the information requested on appeal rights exhausted is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.

  Where an asylum seeker has had their claim refused and has exhausted their appeal rights it is considered safe for them to return to their own country.

  Statistics on initial asylum decisions, appeals and removals are published quarterly. Copies of the most recent publications are available from the Library of the House or on the Home Office

  Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken is for the removal of asylum seekers whose claims have been unsuccessful following judicial review. [171416]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on final decisions made on asylum applications, and on the interval between the final refusal of the application—including any appeal—and subsequent removal of the person concerned is not readily available. This could be obtained only by examination of individual case files to obtain information on the outcomes of initial decisions, of subsequent appeals to the Immigration Appellate Authority, the Tribunal and for Judicial Review, and of cases which have been reconsidered, which would incur disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which countries' citizens can claim hard case support if their asylum claims are refused on appeal. [171887]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: Failed asylum seekers of any nationality may seek support under section 4 of the 1999 Act if they are seeking to return but cannot do so immediately, and fulfil the other criteria set out in the National Asylum Support Service Policy Bulletin 71 which was published on 25 March.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when failed Iraqi asylum seekers are expected to return home. [171888]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 12 May 2004]: All asylum and human rights claims are considered on their individual merits in accordance With our obligations under the 1951 UN Refugee Convention and the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR). Should a claim be refused and any appeal before the Independent Immigration Appellate Authority be unsuccessful, it means for that individual it is safe to return. We would expect these individuals to return home.

  We have reached agreement with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Iraq to begin enforced returns. Work is currently under way on the practicalities of the returns programme, and returns will begin as soon as these arrangements are finalised.
  1400W
  We are currently facilitating the return of those who wish to go home through the International Organisation for Migration.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what progress he has made towards setting a target for the proportion of asylum claims, including final appeal, to be determined within six months. [173136]

  Mr. Browne
  The confirmed target will be published shortly.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) men and (b) women from Russia have sought political asylum in the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; and how many applications have been granted. [173288]

  Mr. Browne
  The table shows asylum application and initial decision data for Russian nationals, by gender, for those years for which data are available:

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2, on applications, 2001–03, Russian males and females

  20013,4

  20024

  20034

  Applications

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Male

  Female

  Total applications

  310

  140

  170

  125

  175

  110

  Initial decisions

  Total initial decisions

  610

  285

  235

  120

  235

  135

  Grants of asylum

  15

  5

  10

  5

  5

  5

  Grants of ELR

  25

  10

  15

  5

  5

  *

  Grants of HP/DL

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  5

  5

  Refusals

  570

  270

  210

  110

  215

  130

  n/a Not applicable

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2. Figures may not sum to totals due to rounding.

  2 Information is of initial decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals determinations or other subsequent decisions,

  3 Revised figures

  4 Provisional figures.

  Information on asylum applications and initial decisions, by gender, is published in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Sir Sydney Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many failed asylum seekers were removed from the UK in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [173300]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information is in the table.

  Removals and voluntary departures of asylum applicants1,2

  2001–023

  2002–03

  April-December 20033

  Principal applicants

  9,630

  10,915

  9,870

  Dependants

  1,970

  4,065

  3,180

  Total

  11,600

  14,975

  13,050

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

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, and may not sum due to rounding.

  3 Provisional figures.

  1401W
  Information on asylum seekers who were removed from the UK in the first quarter of 2004 will be published on 25 May on the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the last five years have sought asylum from(a) Zimbabwe and

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions 2, on applications, 1999 to 2003, nationals of Afghanistan

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Applications3

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP

  Grants of DL

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria5,6

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria5,7

  1999

  3,975

  2,610

  1,365

  1,295

  15

  1,180

  n/a

  n/a

  90

  10

  —

  2000

  5,555

  2,610

  2,945

  2,590

  375

  695

  n/a

  n/a

  1,515

  10

  —

  20018

  8,920

  4,560

  4,360

  12,365

  2,320

  7,500

  n/a

  n/a

  2,545

  n/a

  n/a

  20029

  7,205

  1,765

  5,440

  8,175

  115

  4,765

  n/a

  n/a

  3,300

  n/a

  n/a

  20039

  2,290

  700

  1,590

  3,920

  40

  205

  *

  350

  3,320

  n/a

  n/a

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions 2, on applications, 1999 to 2003, nationals of Zimbabwe

  Principal applicants

  Decisions

  Applications

  Cases considered under normal procedures4

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Total

  Port

  In Country

  Total decisions

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP

  Grants of DL

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria5,6

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria5,7

  1999

  230

  180

  50

  115

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  105

  10

  *

  2000

  1,010

  820

  190

  595

  20

  10

  n/a

  n/a

  525

  35

  5

  20018

  2,140

  1,510

  625

  2,130

  120

  45

  n/a

  n/a

  1,970

  n/a

  n/a

  20029

  7,655

  5,305

  2,350

  6,235

  2,240

  110

  n/a

  n/a

  3,885

  n/a

  n/a

  20039

  3,280

  715

  2,565

  4,175

  870

  10

  5

  20

  3,275

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a = Not applicable.

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5, with * = 1 or 2.

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January and March 2000.

  4 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  5 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 act asylum backlog.

  6 May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  7 May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  8 Provisional figures.

  9 Revised figures.

  The table shows the available data, for outcomes of adjudicator appeals at the Immigration Appellate Authority (IAA) for nationals of Afghanistan and Zimbabwe, the latest period for which published data are available. Appeals may relate to initial decisions made in earlier periods. Corresponding information on appeals

  Outcome of Appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority excluding dependants, nationals of Afghanistan, 2001 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  2001

  595

  110

  18

  260

  44

  225

  38

  2002

  2,040

  230

  11

  1,235

  60

  580

  28

  2003

  5,535

  710

  13

  4,420

  80

  405

  7

  1402W
  (b) Afghanistan; how many have been refused; and how many have been returned. [174246]

  Mr. Browne
  The table shows the number of asylum applications and initial decisions for nationals of Afghanistan and Zimbabwe (excluding dependants), 1999 to 2003 where available. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications received in the same period.

  to the Immigration Appellate Tribunal (IAT) relating to Afghan and Zimbabwean nationals (including appeals made by the Secretary of State) is not available and could be produced only at disproportionate cost by examination of individual case files.
  1403W

  Outcome of Appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants, nationals of Zimbabwe, 2001 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  Total

  As a percentage of Determined

  2001

  1,115

  255

  23

  815

  73

  40

  4

  2002

  2,405

  925

  38

  1,370

  57

  110

  5

  2003

  4,080

  1,165

  29

  2,735

  67

  180

  4

  1Provisional figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages), with * = 1 or 2. Figures may not add up due to independent rounding. Data on appeal outcomes by nationality in this table are derived from electronic sources.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  Removal of failed asylum seekers to Zimbabwe was suspended on 15 January 2002; we did not at the time consider that it was unsafe to return them but in view of the rapidly changing circumstances it was appropriate not to enforce returns. The suspension has been maintained since that date and although we still consider it would not be unsafe to return failed asylum seekers there, enforced returns would be inappropriate in the wider context of the Government's position on Zimbabwe. An exception to the suspension policy in cases where a failed asylum seeker has a serious criminal record or their presence in the United Kingdom is not otherwise conducive to the public good was announced on 5 February 2004. In such circumstances enforced return to Zimbabwe would be considered by Ministers on a case-by-case basis.

  Removals and voluntary departures1of asylum applicants, excluding dependants, Afghan and Zimbabwean nationals, January 1999 to September 20032

  Principal applicants

  Nationality

  19993

  20003

  20013,4,5

  20023,4,5,6

  January to September 20033,4,5,6

  Afghanistan

  —

  —

  125

  395

  460

  Zimbabwe

  —

  —

  210

  110

  45

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

  2 Figures rounded to the nearest five, with * = 1 or 2, and may not sum due to rounding.

  3 Figures may include a small number of dependants leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes

  4Figures exclude dependants of asylum seekers removed. Data on dependants removed have only been collected since April 2001.

  5 Data have been estimated due to data quality issues.

  6 Provisional figures.

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions, appeals and removals are published in quarterly web pages, the next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 will be available on the 25 May 2004, and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research
  1404W
  Development and Statistics Directorate website at
  http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his latest estimate is of the number of asylum seekers who have failed the appeal process and are ineligible for National Asylum Support Service, Government or local authority financial support in(a) the UK and (b) Leeds. [174248]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested is not available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Information on asylum appeals and the number of asylum seekers supported by NASS are published quarterly; the next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 will be available on the 25 May 2004. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate website at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html

  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what instructions and guidance have been given to officials on the number of days asylum seekers who have failed the appeal process must spend on the streets before they qualify for hard case support; and if he will make a statement. [174249]

  Mr. Browne
  There is nothing to prevent the majority of failed asylum seekers from leaving the country voluntarily and there is no need for them to become homeless or destitute. They can seek assistance with return from either the Immigration Service or the International Organisation for Migration. Those unable to leave immediately who are complying with the process for return may, on application, be provided with accommodation under section 4 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, as amended. There is no need for anyone in this group to become homeless or destitute. They can seek accommodation as soon as they receive the final decision on their asylum claim. In addition, letters sent to failed asylum seekers by the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) notifying them of the termination of support now give advice on the availability of section 4 support. MASS has also now introduced a one-stage application process in order to reduce the time taken to process applications.
  1405W
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people in the last five years have sought asylum from Iraq; and how many have been refused. [174337]

  Mr. Browne
  The tables show applications and initial decisions and appeal decisions for nationals of Iraq, 1999–2003 where available. Initial decisions do not necessarily relate to applications made in the same period, neither do appeal outcomes necessarily relate to decisions made in the same period.

  Initial decisionsCases considered under normal procedures7

  Backlog clearance exercise

  Grants of asylum

  Grants of ELR

  Grants of HP

  Grants of DL

  Total refusals

  Grants of ELR under backlog criteria4,8

  Non compliance refusals under backlog criteria8,9

  1999

  315

  320

  n/a

  n/a

  100

  5

  10—

  20004

  845

  2,455

  n/a

  n/a

  2,220

  10

  10—

  20015

  830

  1,885

  n/a

  n/a

  6,315

  n/a

  n/a

  20026

  715

  8,195

  n/a

  n/a

  2,995

  n/a

  n/a

  20036

  75

  2,105

  10—

  45

  4,530

  n/a

  n/a

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5

  2 Information is of initial determination decisions, excluding the outcome of appeals or other subsequent decisions.

  3 May exclude some cases lodged at Local Enforcement Offices between January and March 2000.

  4 May include a small number of cases where asylum has been granted.

  5 Revised figures

  6 Provisional figures

  7 Cases considered under normal procedures may include some cases decided under the backlog criteria.

  8 Cases decided under pragmatic measures aimed at reducing the pre '96 act asylum backlog.

  9 May include a small number of cases where the application has been refused on substantive grounds.

  10 Equals 1 or 2

  Outcome of appeals1,2 determined by adjudicators of the Immigration Appellate Authority, excluding dependants: Nationals of Iraq, 2001 to 2003

  Number of principal appellants

  Appeals determined by adjudicators2

  Allowed

  Dismissed

  Withdrawn

  Total

  Total

  As percentage of determined

  Total

  As percentage of determined

  Total

  As percentage of determined

  2001

  1,655

  445

  27

  1,065

  64

  145

  9

  20023

  4,570

  1,130

  25

  2,970

  65

  470

  10

  20033

  5,400

  495

  9

  4,465

  8

  445

  8

  1 Figures rounded to nearest 5 (except percentages). Figures may not add up due to independent rounding. Data on appeal outcomes by nationality in this table are derived from electronic sources.

  2 Figures include cases withdrawn by the Home Office, as well as the appellant.

  3 Provisional figures

  Information on asylum applications, initial decisions and appeals are published in quarterly web pages, the next publication covering the first quarter of 2004 will be available on the 25 May 2004, and in the annual statistical bulletin Asylum Statistics United Kingdom. Copies of these publications and others relating to general immigration to the UK are available from the Library and from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigrationl.html.

  Biometric Technology
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) cost to date and (b) projected cost is of developing biometric technology for inclusion in passports, broken down by financial
  1406W

  Asylum applications1 received in the United Kingdom, excluding dependants, and initial decisions2 on applications, 1999–2003: Nationals of Iraq

  Principal applicants

  Applications3

  Total

  Port

  In country

  Total initial decisions

  1999

  1,800

  1,385

  415

  745

  20004

  7,475

  1,920

  5,555

  5,530

  20015

  6,680

  2,315

  4,365

  9,035

  20026

  14,570

  1,525

  13,045

  11,905

  20036

  4,045

  415

  3,635

  6,755

  year; and whether any portion of the expenditure is included in the identity card set-up costs cited in his statement of 11 November 2003, Official Report, column 178. [163325]

  Mr. Browne
  The cost incurred by the UK Passport Service to develop a facial biometric chip enabled passport is shown in the table.

  Year

  (£)

  2003–04

  850

  2004–05

  4,645

  2005–06

  625

  The work being carried out to develop biometric technology for inclusion in passports is necessary to

  1407W
  meet current International Civil Aviation Organisation (IACO) recommended standards for passports and therefore no portion of this expenditure is included in the identity card set-up costs.

  Charity Commission
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many receivers and managers were appointed by the Charity Commissioners in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04; what the total cost was to all charities of such appointments in each period; and what the (i) shortest and (ii) longest duration of receiver and manager appointments to a charity have been since April 2001. [172154]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  These are matters for the Charity Commission as the Government Department responsible for the regulation of charities in England and Wales. The Director of Operations of the Charity Commission will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what consultations his Department has undertaken with race relations bodies about the effects of the Commission for Racial Equality Getting Results programme. [174388]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: It is the responsibility of the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE) to set its own criteria for grant funding under the provisions of section 44 of the Race Relations Act 1976, and then to make decisions on individual applications on the basis of how well they meet those criteria. The CRE consulted widely on its proposals to move away from its previous policy of funding posts in bodies it supports, mainly Race Equality Councils, to funding projects focused on outcomes (ie the Getting Results programme). I understand that its partners welcomed the new approach, as do the Government.

  Mr. Alan Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact the Commission for Racial Equality's Getting Results programme on the delivery of race equality schemes. [174398]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The publication of a race equality scheme is a specific duty placed on certain public bodies under the Race Relations Act 1976 (Statutory Duties) Order 2001. The responsibility for delivering these schemes lies with the bodies listed in the order. Section 44 funding has never been intended to fund the delivery of this particular aspect of the Race Equality Duty. However, the Commission for Racial Equality informs me that one of the specific priorities for Getting Results funding in 2004–05 has been measuring the impact of the Race Equality Duty, and that £193,200 has been awarded to organisations under this priority. This is distinct from the delivery of race equality schemes.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Kaufman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter from 1408W
  the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton dated 1 March, with regard to Ms N. Islam, transferred from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office. [170698]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I wrote to my right hon. Friend on 6 May 2004.

  Criminal Records Bureau
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the Criminal Records Bureau is permitted to access Department of Health and Department of Education and Skills List 99 records when checking the suitability of individuals for work with children. [143483]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 10 December 2003]: Section 115(6) of the Police Act 1997 gives provision for the Secretary of State for the Home Department to access lists held by the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills when checking individuals for work with children.

  Criminals (New Identity Costs)
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make it a policy of the Government to require those convicted of crimes, who are provided with a new identity upon their release, to contribute to the costs involved where they have the means to do so. [163151]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 23 March 2004]: Most of the very small number of convicted criminals who need new identities on release from prison do so because, at some point in the criminal proceedings, they have decided to turn Queen's Evidence and appear as witnesses for the prosecution against their former partners in crime. Since in doing this they have helped to convict other (often more serious) offenders, then it is cost-effective for the state to offer to pay for any necessary change to their identity, and any other associated costs. In other cases the state is required to take reasonable steps to fulfil its duty to protect the lives of those threatened by others. Only in the most exceptional circumstances would this include a formal change of identity and only where the threat to life is clearly evidenced and the change of identity considered appropriate by the police.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what(a) renovation and (b) maintenance projects on buildings (i) owned and (ii) rented by his Department were undertaken in each of the last five years; and what the associated costs were of each. [163954]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Department does not maintain central records of the cost of every building refurbishment project carried out by the Department including its Executive agencies and to provide the information requested would be at disproportionate cost. However, in central London and Croydon, the approximate expenditure on such projects which includes elements of maintenance and alterations to house additional staff, over the last five years, is as follows.
  1409W

  £ million

  1999–2000

  6.7

  2000–01

  135.2

  2001–02

  11.5

  2002–03

  9.2

  2003–04

  4.0

  1 Figures for 2000–01 reflects the refurbishment of Lunar House, Croydon which had a major upgrade that year.

  Departmental Contracts
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether companies that tender for his Department's contracts have to recognise the relevant trade union as a condition of winning that contract. [166592]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office does not ask companies to recognise the relevant trade union as a condition of winning Home Office contracts.

  Government policy requires that all procurement must be transparent and non-discriminatory, and that contracts must be awarded on a value for money basis.

  Departmental Staffing
  John McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to his Department of employing temporary staff through agencies was in each of the last five years. [163632]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 31 March 2003]: The employment of temporary staff through employment agencies for the Core Home Office over the last five years is as follows:

  £

  1999

  6,500,408

  2000

  11,768,105

  2001

  20,669,056

  2002

  41,713,675

  2003

  54,466,279

  The Stage 2 RAB Resource DEL for the Home Office over the same period was:

  £

  1999–2000

  7,076,102,000

  2000–01

  8,398,131,000

  2001–02

  10,261,856,000

  2002–03

  11,088,502,000

  2003–04

  11,836,009,000

  Expenditure expressed as a percentage of the Home Office total DEL during the last five years was as follows:

  Percentage

  1999–2000

  0.09

  2000–01

  0.14

  2001–02

  0.20

  2002–03

  0.38

  2003–04

  0.46

  1410W
  The Immigration and Nationality Directorate accounted for around half of the cost for each financial year.

  The use of temporary staff provides the Home Office with cost effective, flexible resources which can be employed at very short notice. Their employment often allows the Department to react quickly to changes in the demands that it faces by deploying appropriately skilled and experienced individuals quickly to those areas of the business where they are most needed.

  Deportations/Removals
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been(a) removed and (b) deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last three years. [173289]

  Mr. Browne
  The available information is in the table.

  Persons removed from the United Kingdom, 2000 to 20021,2: United Kingdom

  Number of persons

  2000

  2001

  2002

  Total persons removed3,4

  46,645

  50,625

  68,630

  Of whom: removed as a result of Deportation action5

  1,280

  450

  100

  1Under sections 3(6), 3(7) or 33(1) of the Immigration Act 1971, or under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999.

  2 Including persons departing 'voluntarily' after enforcement action had been initiated against them.

  3 Includes dependants of asylum seekers removed from April 2001 onwards only. This information was not collected prior to this although figures up to March 2001 may include a small number of dependants of port principal asylum applicants removed.

  4 Includes persons leaving under Assisted Voluntary Return Programmes run by the International Organisation for Migration.

  5 Figures for 2001 and 2002 have been estimated. Deportation figures may be under-recorded in 1999 and 2000.

  The substantial reduction in the number of persons deported after October 2000 is due to a change in the categories of person liable to deportation. Under section 10 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, overstayers, persons who breach their conditions of stay, and persons who gain leave to remain by deception are administratively removed and deportation is now restricted to more serious cases.

  Information on all those removed from the UK in 2003, including the number of deportations, will be published in the Home Office Statistical Bulletin "Control of Immigration Statistics UK 2003" which is due to be published at the end of August, and will be available from the Home Office Research Development and Statistics Directorate web site at http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/immigration 1.html.

  Detention Centres
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the written ministerial statement of 30 April 2004,Official Repiort, columns 63–64WS, on Yarl's Wood Immigration Removal Centre, if he will ensure that the results of the investigation recommended by Mr. Shaw into two further allegations of assault are made public. [173543]
  1411W
  Mr. Browne
  Stephen Shaw recommended that Global Solutions Ltd. (GSL) should investigate the allegations referred to and they will. GSL will report the outcome to the Immigration and Nationality Directorate and, for the sake of completeness, Stephen Shaw will be asked to review the investigation. I can confirm that the outcome will be made public.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints were made in(a) 2003 and (b) 2004 to date by those detained at Yarl's Wood about the escort service taking them to and from Yarl's Wood; how many are under investigation; and if he will make a statement. [173545]

  Mr. Browne
  The Monitor responsible for overseeing the contract which covers in-country escorting and holding rooms at ports received three complaints in 2003 and one so far in 2004 to date, from persons detained in Yarl's Wood. All complaints are subject to an investigation by the Monitor, none are currently under investigation.

  In the same period, there were no complaints regarding the contractors responsible for escorting persons on scheduled flights overseas, from persons detained at Yarl's Wood.

  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many complaints about the activities of those escorting detainees to and from detention centres and detention and removal centres he has received; how many are being investigated; and if he will make a statement. [173547]

  Mr. Browne
  Since January 2003, there have been over 100,000 escorted movements. In this period there have been 78 complaints to the Monitor from detainees regarding the in-country escorting contract, which is responsible for movements of detainees from any location in the UK and supervision of detainees in the holding rooms at ports. All complaints are subject to investigation by the Monitor, at present 12 complaints are under investigation.

  In the same period there have been 22 complaints against the overseas escorting contractor, which has responsibility for escorting people on scheduled flights to their removal destinations.

  Dirty Bombs
  Michael Fabricant
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what steps he is taking to inform the general public of the precautions they must take to avoid contamination by a dirty bomb explosion; and if he will make a statement; [173710]

  (2) what system is in place to alert the general public that a dirty bomb has exploded in an area in which they may become contaminated; and if he will make a statement. [173711]

  Mr. Blunkett
  In the event of an attack, unless people are under the direction of the emergency services, they should go indoors and tune into the TV or radio for further instructions. The media is the main system through which the Government and the emergency services will alert the public. The message is 'go in, stay in, tune in'.
  1412W
  As part of a deliberate strategy over the last 18 months, I have made sure that we have increased the information available to the public on how to prepare for and respond to emergencies. The Government will continue to do this and we are regularly reviewing the best way to keep the public informed.

  The main sources of advice for the general public and our partners are the Home Office, the MI5 and the UK Resilience websites, www.homeoffice.gov.uk/terrorism/, www.ukresilience.info/ and www.mi5.gov.uk/.

  Drugs Misuse (Manchester)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what public funds were spent on tackling drugs misuse in Manchester, Central in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2002–03. [174367]

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

  The period 1997–98 pre-dates National Drug Strategy, during this time the local council and primary care trust allocated funding for tackling drug misuse. Accounting procedures mean that the 1997 figures are no longer available and that 1998 figures are not accessible by the DAT.

  In 2002–03 the total drugs allocation was £5,678,000. In order to ensure consistency figures supplied are based on funding streams associated with the National Drug Strategy and are readily verifiable. These funding streams are specifically targeted at tackling the harm caused to individuals, families and communities by the misuse of drugs. Other mainstream funding is made available at a local level, this varies both in amount and origin; as a result it is not possible to provide robust financial information.

  (£)

  2002–03

  Partnership Capacity

  77,000

  Adult Pooled Treatment Budget

  3,389,000

  Pooled Treatment Budget (Young People element)

  207,000

  Young People's Substance Misuse Planning Grant

  80,000

  Communities against Drugs

  710,000

  Street Crime Initiative (Drugs funding)

  1,215,000

  Total

  5,678,000

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many staff in his Department took early retirement, and at what total cost, in the last financial year. [171868]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Details of normal early retirements and their costs for the last financial year are shown in table 1. The table also shows the full cost to the Department to age 60.

  The Home Office also ran an additional scheme in 2003–04 using funds bid from Her Majesty's Treasury. The costs for that scheme and the staff numbers involved are contained in table 2.
  1413W

  Table 1: Home Office early retirements 2003–04

  £

  Number of staff

  12

  Cost for year 2003–04

  116,956

  Full cost to Department

  621,965.98

  Table 2: Home Office early retirements scheme 2003–04

  £

  Number of staff

  67

  Cost for year 2003–04

  4,638,139.97

  Full cost to Department

  13,227,687.88

  EU Enlargement
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports belonging to former asylum seekers, since 1 May EU citizens, are held by the Immigration and Nationality Service; when he expects that these documents will be returned to their owners; and if he will make a statement. [172928]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: Once a decision has been reached on an asylum seeker's application, their passport or identity card, where one has been submitted, is normally returned to them with the decision letter. An exception to this is when a passport or identity card is found to be a forgery or otherwise to have been tampered with.

  The numbers of such documents belonging to former asylum seekers who are now EU citizens is not recorded centrally and could only be obtained, at disproportionate cost, by examination of individual cases.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change there has been in the number of people claiming benefits since 1 May 2004. [173181]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is not available.

  Information on the number of people claiming benefits is available each quarter. Data for the quarter ending February 2004 will be published in June. Data for the quarter ending May 2004 will be available later this year.

  Guantanamo Bay
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 22 April 2004,Official Report, column 592W, on Guantanamo Bay, whether MI5 officers at Guantanamo Bay raised with (a) his Department and (b) the US authorities the interrogation methods deployed by the US. [173485]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]As explained in the earlier answer, these interviews were conducted as part of the Government's responsibility to protect national security. The interviews were conducted on a voluntary basis. Officers carrying out the interviews were under an obligation to inform the relevant authorities of any complaints made by the detainees and of any concerns which they had.
  1414W

  Witness Protection
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of protection schemes for witnesses involved in gun crime cases. [175539]

  Caroline Flint
  The Home Office, in conjunction with the Scottish Executive, the Northern Ireland Office and the Association of Chief Police Officers, has appointed an independent consultant to carry out an assessment of witness protection arrangements nationally. The assessment is covering all cases where witness protection is afforded by UK law enforcement agencies including the police. It will provide us with valuable information about the circumstances in which witness protection is provided, broken down by crime type, including offences where firearms have been used.

  The assessment commenced on 2 January; it was announced in the White Paper One Step Ahead —a 21st century strategy to defeat organised crime which I published on 29 March. The assessment is due to be completed over the summer, and a final report will be available in the autumn.

  Hazardous Consignments
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans the Government have to give particularly hazardous consignments a police escort in the Central London area. [174678]

  Caroline Flint
  We have introduced, in consultation with industry and the police, a Code of Practice for the transport security of dangerous goods. The Code is a pre-cursor to formal regulations due to come into effect from July 2005. The Code is supported by a guidance document and training video. These and other helpful materials are available via the Department for Transport's website, at www.dft.gsi.gov.uk.

  Decisions on whether a particular consignment should receive a police escort are a matter for chief officers of police, in central London the Metropolitan Police Commissioner He informs me that a very limited number of particularly hazardous consignments do attract special security arrangements, such as a police escort, when being conveyed by road in the central London area.

  Highly Skilled Migrants Programme
  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many dentists have been accepted for entry to Britain(a) under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme and (b) through work permits in the past year. [172597]

  Mr. Browne
  28 Dentists were approved under the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme and 131 through work permits during 2003.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many legal professionals were accepted for entry to Britain(a) under the Highly Skilled Migrants Programme and (b) through work permits in (i) 1995. (ii) 1998, (iii) 2001, (iv) 2002 and (v) 2003. [172600]
  1415W
  Mr. Browne
  For the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme the information is not held centrally.

  For work permits, the records are only held centrally for 2001 onwards.
  In 2001–971 applications were approved.
  In 2002–693 applications were approved.
  In 2003–619 applications were approved.

  Mr. Crausby
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the average time taken to process(a) work permits and (b) highly skilled migrant applications for appointments of junior doctors to health authorities was in the last year for which figures are available; what the average time taken was for all work permits; and how many junior doctor applicants were appointed to jobs in (a) Bolton North East, (b) the Greater Manchester area and (c) England. [172622]

  Mr. Browne
  The information requested on work permits and the Highly Skilled Migrant Programme is not held centrally in relation to occupation and location in the UK.

  In 2003 the processing times of work permits were 91 per cent. of all complete applications received were cleared in one day.

  Home Office Documents
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what procedures are followed in relation to highly sensitive documents leaving Home Office premises; and what guidance is issued on this matter to Home Office staff. [173949]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The Home Office follows the national guidelines laid down in the Manual of Protective Security governing the protective marking of sensitive documents, as well as their storage and handling outside Home Office premises. These are set out in the Departmental Security Unit's Security Guidance, which confirms that all protectively marked documents should be carried securely in a twin-lock brief case, box or pouch and should remain at all times in the immediate possession of the officer concerned.

  Identity Cards
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the members of the Identity Cards Programme Board. [173130]

  Mr. Browne
  The members of the Identity Cards Programme Board are John Gieve (Permanent Secretary, Home Office and Programme Board Chair), Helen Edwards (Director General of Communities Group, Home Office, and Senior Responsible Owner), Bernard Herdan (United Kingdom Passport Service), Stephen Hickey (Department for Transport), Mark Fisher (Department for Work and Pensions), Bill Jeffrey (Home Office, Immigration and Nationality Directorate), Dennis Roberts (Office for National Statistics), Peter Unwin (Office of the Deputy Prime Minister), John Middleton (Inland Revenue) and Julian Kelly (HM Treasury).
  1416W
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has carried out of the prevalence in other common law countries of compulsory identity cards; and if he will list those countries that have such cards. [169912]

  Mr. Browne
  The Home Office carried out research into identity cards schemes in other countries. The results are in "Entitlement Cards and Identity Fraud: A Consultation Paper". Within the EU Cyprus is a common law jurisdiction which has identity cards which all Cypriot citizens over the age of 12 have to obtain.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the procedures being used to verify the identity of people taking part in the identity card pilot scheme. [170255]

  Mr. Browne
  The biometric enrolment pilot being run by United Kingdom Passport Service is not an identity cards pilot but rather intended to test the processes around, and user experience of biometric enrolment. Ascertaining the identities of the people taking part in the pilot is therefore much less important than ensuring that the people taking part form a representative cross-section of the UK population.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the biometric information that will be collected and stored on the(a) National Identity Register and (b) identity card. [170256]

  Mr. Browne
  There has been no firm decision made on the biometric data which will be collected and which biometrics will be stored on the National Identity Register and which will be stored on the identity card.

  These decisions will be made in the light of work underway on the feasibility of different technologies and the processes around identity enrolment and verification.

  The draft Identity Cards Bill makes provision for the recording of biometric information in the form of a head and shoulders photograph, fingerprints and data about a person's external characteristics including, in particular, the features of an iris or of any other part of the eye.

  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department why the iris has been selected as the basis for a biometric identifier. [170553]

  Mr. Browne
  Both retina and iris recognition were considered by the National Physical Laboratory in their evaluation of biometric technologies. Retina recognition was found to be effective but difficult to use by a large number of people and too physically intrusive to be widely acceptable.

  It has not yet been decided that iris recognition will be used in the identity card scheme. The feasibility of using iris recognition for identity cards is under investigation.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has for the storage of health information on(a) blood group, (b) organ donor status and (c) HIV condition on the National Identity Register on (i) a voluntary and (ii) a compulsory basis. [171597]
  1417W
  Mr. Browne
  Clause 1 of and Schedule 1 to the draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April set out what information could be held on the National Identity Register. In general the storage of medical information on the Register would not be allowed by the draft Bill as medical information does not fall within the definition of registerable facts as set out in the draft Bill. However the draft Bill does allow for the storage of voluntary information with the consent of both the person who is registered and the Secretary of State.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how the subsidy for the price charged for an identity card for those on low incomes will be funded. [171598]

  Mr. Browne
  The expectation is that when the scheme is established, running costs will be covered by charges for the application and issue of cards and for identity verification services provided by the scheme. Any subsidy for those on low incomes will therefore be funded by fee income.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1299–300W, on identity cards, if he will list the non-arrestable criminal offences, enforced by a summons, for which the police have powers of arrest where a person refuses to provide evidence of identity. [171916]

  Mr. Browne
  Where a constable has reasonable grounds for suspecting that any offence which is not an arrestable offence has been committed or attempted, or is being committed or attempted, he may arrest the relevant person if it appears to him that service of a summons is impracticable or inappropriate because any of the general arrest conditions are satisfied.

  Two of the general arrest conditions are:

  (a) that the name of the relevant person is unknown to, and cannot be readily ascertained by, the constable; and

  (b) that the constable has reasonable grounds for doubting whether a name furnished by the relevant person as his name is his real name.

  Non-arrestable offences are all those not covered by the categories set out in Section 24 (1) of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) which states:
  "The powers of summary arrest conferred by the following subsections shall apply:

  (a) to offences for which the sentence is fixed by law;

  (b) to offences for which a person of 21 years of age or over (not previously convicted) may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term of five years (or might be so sentenced but for the restrictions imposed by S 33 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980); and

  (c) to the offences listed in Schedule 1A

  and in this Act 'arrestable offence' means any such offence."

  The offences which are not covered by this section are too numerous to list and could be identified only and listed at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department pursuant to the answer of 29 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1299–300W, on identity cards, whether the police have powers to require a person to verify their identity other than those set out in his answer. [171917]
  1418W
  Mr. Browne
  The Government have made it clear that it will not be a requirement to carry an identity card or to produce a card to a police officer on demand.

  Police powers in England and Wales to identify a person arrested for a recordable offence are contained in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act (PACE) 1984. The powers will be unaffected by the introduction of an identity card however the introduction of identity cards will make it much easier and simpler for people to prove their identity when they wish to do so. As at present with existing documents, people will be free to produce an identity card on a voluntary basis (if they have one) to a police officer or to any other official as a means of establishing their identity.

  The draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April also includes a power in clause 24 for information relating to a biometric to be disclosed if it is not reasonably practical for the person to whom this is disclosed to have obtained this information by other means. This means that if it were not possible to identify an arrested person by other means, for example by checking police records, a check could be made on the person's biometric against the National Identity Register.

  In addition to powers under PACE, powers under s 41 (1) Terrorism Act 2000 allow a constable to arrest without a warrant a person whom he reasonably suspects to be a terrorist, which is defined in s 40. In this case, powers under Schedule 8, paragraph 2 permit an authorised person to take any steps which are reasonably necessary for photographing, measuring or identifying a person detained under s 41. Again, these powers will be unaffected by the introduction of an identity card but again a power is available under the draft Identity Cards Bill that would allow a check of a biometric of a person detained under this section if it were not reasonably practical for this information to be obtained by another means.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether an individual's unique learner number will be recorded in the National Identity Register under the proposal in the draft Identity Cards Bill. [171918]

  Mr. Browne
  Schedule 1 to the draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April sets out what information may be held on the National Identity Register including the personal reference numbers that may be recorded in any individual's entry. Schedule 1 does not include the unique learner number. Clause 3(4) does allow the Secretary of State to modify Schedule 1 and the information that may be held on the Register. However, any changes must be agreed by Parliament and be consistent with the statutory purposes of the scheme.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what categories of people resident in the UK for three months or more will not be eligible for the identity card proposed under the draft Identity Cards Bill. [171919]

  Mr. Browne
  Under Clause 2 of the draft Identity Cards Bill, all individuals over the age of 16 who are residing in the UK for longer than a prescribed period,
  1419W
  proposed to be three months, are eligible to be entered in the National Identity Register and thereby obtain an identity card.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what information will be(a) printed on the face of and (b) held but not shown on (i) the identity card proposed under the draft Identity Cards Bill, (ii) the proposed biometric passport and (iii) the proposed biometric driving licence. [171920]

  Mr. Browne
  The UK Passport Service is planning to implement a facial recognition image biometric in the British passport booklet during 2005. No additional data other than the digital signature which "locks" the data on to the chip will be held but not shown on the bio-data page of the passport.

  There has been no firm decision made on the information which will be printed on the face of the identity card and which will be held but not shown on the card. These decisions will be made in the light of work under way on the feasibility of different technologies and analysis with key user groups of the business requirements of the scheme. These arrangements must be approved by Parliament and no information may be held unless it is required for the statutory purposes of the scheme as set out in the primary legislation.

  The passport and driving licence may be designated as identity cards under the draft Identity Cards Bill. In which case these documents may require certain additional information to be included in or on the face of the document which reflects the common standards of the identity cards family. However, as set out above no firm decisions have yet been made on what these will be.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether the names of people who have not applied for identity cards will be recorded on the National Identity Register(a) before and (b) after the card becomes compulsory; and whether the names of certain categories of individuals who have not applied for identity cards will be recorded. [172298]

  Mr. Browne
  The National Identity Register will hold information about those people who have registered and been issued with an identity card. Entries will be created as people apply for identity cards. There is no intention to record on the Register the names of people who have not yet applied for identity cards although the final decision will be made following the detailed design phase.

  Clause 2(4) of the draft Identity Cards Bill does provide that in some circumstances, a person who has not applied may be entered into the Register. For example, a failed asylum seeker who has not applied for an identity card but whose information was available may be entered on the Register so that if he applies to stay in the UK again using a different identity, his previous status as a failed asylum seeker will have been recorded.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which private sector databases will be used to check identities under proposals contained in the draft Identity Card Bill. [172299]
  1420W
  Mr. Browne
  Identity Cards: the Next Steps (CM 6020) made clear that applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks to be made against other databases to help establish that an application for a card is genuine. Data-sharing gateways established for this purpose will be used only when processing applications for cards or related purposes (e.g. when issuing a replacement) and do not confer any general power to share data for wider purposes.

  This approach to identity verification follows proposals included in the Cabinet Office study on Identity fraud (published in July 2002) which recommended greater use of biographical checks on applicants for passports and driving licences. The most effective way of confirming this biographical information is to check some of the information provided by applicants with information held on a range of Government and private sector databases. These checks could for example confirm that a person had been known by a certain identity and lived at known addresses for a number of years.

  The databases that could be checked would include public sector bodies (such as the National Insurance or Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) databases) as well as private sector organisations (such as credit reference agencies or banks) but it is at this stage too early to know precisely which databases would be checked.

  Information requested would be restricted to that needed to confirm the identity of an individual who has made an application to register. Clause 11 (1) and (2) of the draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April places a duty on a person to provide information to the Secretary of State or a designated documents authority for the purposes of verifying an individual's entry to the Register. Clause 11 (4) sets out that the requirement may be imposed on any person specified in an order subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. This means that particular gateways could be established only with the consent of Parliament and for the limited purpose of validating information on the Register.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list his Department's services which will have access to the National Identity Register without being named on the face of the Draft Identity Cards Bill. [173009]

  Mr. Browne
  Proposals to permit information held on the National Identity Register to he disclosed without an individual's consent are set out in "Legislation on Identity Cards: A Consultation" [CM6178] published on 26 April.

  Clause 20(5) of the draft Identity Cards Bill published on 26 April will permit disclosure of information that does not fall within paragraph 9 of Schedule 1 (access records) if it is made to a prescribed officer of the Secretary of State's department in order to carry out prescribed functions of the Secretary of State. Disclosure of information held in paragraph 9 will be permitted if it is made for purposes connected with the prevention or detection of serious crime and it is authorised under s20 (3) to (6).
  1421W
  Clause 20(5) will allow for disclosure of information held on the National Identity Register to other parts of Government which are the responsibility of a Secretary of State e.g. the Department of Work and Pensions, and will also include disclosure to parts of the Home Office such as the Immigration and Nationality Department (IND), subject to Parliament's consent.

  At this stage, it is not possible to list the Home Department's services that may require information from the National Identity Register. In assessing whether a departmental service should be granted disclosure, we will look closely at the justification for this information. Disclosure will only be allowed to specified persons for specified purposes, Parliament's consent will be required and the disclosure arrangements will be subject to proper authorisation procedures with independent oversight.

  Brian White
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what research he conducted on the impact of identity theft in countries where identity cards have been introduced. [173049]

  Mr. Browne
  Home Office officials have had detailed discussions with colleagues involved in the operation of identity card schemes in Italy, Sweden, Germany and the Netherlands and comprehensive information has been supplied by each of the EU member states on the operation of their card schemes. Home Office officials have also liaised with colleagues involved in the operation of card schemes in Singapore and Japan and with officials in countries such as Canada, USA and Australia that do not have card schemes on emerging crime trends.

  Many card schemes were developed with specific aims and objectives such as population registration and not specifically implemented for countering identity fraud. As such, many identity cards are issued locally after checking available information, for example, birth certificates and information relating to an applicant's parents. In many countries it is not necessary to give biometric information when applying for an identity card.

  "Identity Cards: The Next Steps" (CM 6020) states that applications for one of the family of identity cards will require checks against other databases. These checks would confirm that a person had been known by a certain identity and lived at known addresses for a number of years. This information is more difficult to forge than birth certificates or other similar documents and follows recommendations in "Identity Fraud: A Study" conducted by the Cabinet Office and published in 2002.

  Many card schemes in other countries were implemented some time ago and use mainly paper cards, which do not hold biometric data. With the passage of time, there is an increasing risk that fraudsters could obtain access to modern printing technology and use it to produce forged paper cards for the purpose of committing identity fraud. The absence of a central electronic identity register in many countries increases the risks because an identity card (or biometric data) cannot be checked against a centrally held record of that information. Organisations checking a card are therefore able only to make visual checks, for example, to check
  1422W
  that the photograph on an identity card looks like the person presenting the card and to check for obvious signs of tampering with the card itself.

  In "Identity Cards The Next Steps" the Government stated that the National Identity Register will link each individual record to a biometric. This will help to prevent multiple identities from being established and allow organisations to check a card at a level appropriate for the service they are providing.

  While a modern and effective card scheme would help to combat identity fraud, it does not mean that every card scheme, especially those that have been implemented some time ago, would have a similar or significant effect on countering this type of crime unless they have been regularly updated to stay one step ahead of fraudsters. It is therefore not possible to assess the effect that other card schemes have had on identity fraud.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the number of adults whose details will appear on the National Identity Register by 2013. [172403]

  Mr. Browne
  We would expect that by 2013, 80 per cent. of the economically active population would be entered on the National Identity Register and therefore have an identity card. The latest figures (relating to December 2003 to February 2004) show that there are currently 29.756 million economically active people aged 16 and over in the United Kingdom, 80 per cent. of which is around 23.8 million people.

  Immigration
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his review into whether all immigrants should be tested for HIV upon entry into the United Kingdom; and when the review will be completed. [174039]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the response given by my hon. Friend the Minister for Public Health on 8 March 2004, Official Report, column 1334W.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many individuals have been(a) refused permission to board and (b) arrested by UK authorities for (i) immigration offences and (ii) other offences following checks by French immigration staff on passengers boarding ferries at Dover; and if he will make a statement. [172404]

  Mr. Browne
  Since the implementation of the juxtaposed controls at Dover and Calais on 1 February 2004 the Police aux Frontieres (French authorities) have operated an immigration control in Dover.

  The information requested is not currently published and would therefore not normally be released.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the longest unresolved immigration case being dealt with by his Department is; when the person concerned in this case first arrived in the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [173538]
  1423W
  Mr. Browne
  Information on individual decisions, up to and including the outcome of all potential appeals, is not readily available and could be obtained only by examination of individual case files. This would incur disproportionate cost.

  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many arrests for immigration offences there were in each of the last five years in each(a) police force area and (b) local authority, broken down by (i) month and (ii) offence. [167966]

  Mr. Browne
  Information collected centrally is based on persons arrested for 'notifiable' offences within main offence groups only, and as such it does not separately identify immigration offences in the "Other" offence group within which they fall.

  Justice and Home Affairs Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the outcome was of the Justice and Home Affairs Council held on 29 to 30 April 2004; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if he will make a statement. [171291]

  Caroline Flint
  I represented the United Kingdom at the Justice and Home Affairs Council held in Luxembourg on 29 April 2004. Good progress was made on a number of issues and the Council finished a day early.

  Firstly, subject to Member States' parliamentary scrutiny reserves, including the UK's, and completion of the certificate that will accompany the Framework Decision, Ministers reached a general approach on the Framework Decision on the application of the principle of mutual recognition to confiscation orders.

  The Eurojust President, Mike Kennedy, then presented the Eurojust Annual Report for 2003 noting, in particular, that there had been a 50 per cent. increase in cases referred to Eurojust compared to the previous year. The Commission indicated that it planned to publish its report on Member States' implementation of the Council Decision establishing Eurojust by the end of June. Ministers then agreed Council conclusions noting the report and requesting the Presidency to report to the Council with recommendations for further enhancing the role of Eurojust.

  The Presidency reported on progress in meeting the European Council conclusions on counter terrorism, but acknowledged that much remained to be done. It was therefore preparing a comprehensive roadmap on implementation of the counter terrorism strategy, indicating the body or group responsible for each action and deadlines for completion.

  The Commission said that it was preparing Communications on practical measures for the exchange of information and on the interoperability of data in the field of visas and border management. It also wanted to bring forward proposals for allowing Schengen Information System data on lost and stolen passports to be sent to Europol. In order to launch the invitation to tender in September the Commission recommended adoption of the Council Decision establishing the Visa Information System.
  1424W
  I presented an initiative on the retention of telecommunications traffic data and explained why the UK believes that a common EU approach to the retention of this data is essential. I outlined some of our practical experience of investigations and prosecutions which had depended on such data to establish the link between the suspects and offences in question.

  The EU counter-terrorism coordinator welcomed the progress made and suggested that work now needed to focus on practical action and implementation of agreed legislation.

  The Council was unable to secure the required unanimity on the decision as to who should be appointed as the new Europol Director. The Presidency therefore concluded that the Council would need to return to the issue in June. In the meantime the Europol Management Board would need to consider whether interim arrangements would need to be put in place pending a final decision.

  Discussion on the draft Asylum Procedures Directive focussed on the application of the safe third (i.e. non EU) country concept (Articles 27 and 35A).

  I made clear that the UK would not accept anything which would prevent us from pursuing the approach in the Asylum and Immigration (treatment of claims etc.) Bill whereby an applicant who has transited a safe third country before coming to the UK may only challenge his removal on ECHR grounds. One other Member State initially felt that consideration should be given to all aspects of an applicant's claim. However, following discussion with them, the Presidency and the Commission, a compromise strengthening the wording on individual consideration and guaranteeing as a minimum that the applicant could bring a challenge on the ECHR elements in his claim was agreed.

  It was also agreed, in relation to Article 35A, which sets out what may happen when an asylum applicant enters a Member State from a bordering country designated as safe, that Member States' national lists of these safe third countries would expire once a common EU list was in place.

  All other reservations, apart from four parliamentary scrutiny reservations, including the UK's, were lifted from the text and the Council reached a General Approach, pending submission of the draft Directive to the European Parliament for re-consultation. This is a good result for the UK as the draft Directive will allow us to maintain all significant elements of our domestic asylum procedures.

  It was also agreed, in relation to Article 35A, which sets out what may happen when an asylum applicant enters a Member State from a bordering country designated as safe, that Member States' national lists of these safe third countries would expire once a common EU list was in place.

  All other reservations, apart from four parliamentary scrutiny reservations, including the UK's, mere lifted from the text and the Council reached a General Approach, pending submission of the draft Directive to the European Parliament for re-consultation. This is a good result for the UK as the draft Directive will allow us to maintain all significant elements of our domestic asylum procedures.
  1425W
  The Council also agreed a Minutes Statement, placing Bulgaria and Romania on a common minimum EU list of safe countries of origin and committing the Council to complete work on the definitive list of such countries prior to re-consulting the European Parliament.

  Under Any Other Business the Commission confirmed that it had been in discussions with key third countries about visa requirements for the new Member States and that it would be presenting a proposal to facilitate the procedures relating to short stay visas in relation to EU and Russian citizens.

  Finally, I have placed in the Libraries of both Houses a copy of the list of "A" points which, with the exception of item 25, were approved (see documents 8847/04 PTS A 19 and ADD 1). This included item 20 on the Obligation of Carriers to Communicate Passenger Data. The UK believes that this will be a useful tool in helping to tackle terrorism and organised crime and we therefore supported the European Council Declaration on Terrorism calling for its adoption. However, as a Member State initiative, it would have fallen if not agreed before 1 May 2004 and, regrettably, I therefore felt unable to block its adoption despite it being held under scrutiny in the House of Lords.

  Marsham Street
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department for what reasons additional funding is necessary for works on Marsham Street; and how this money will be used. [165877]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  When the contract between the Home Office and Anne's Gate Property (AGP) for 2 Marsham street was signed, it was recognised that changes to the original specification were likely to be required during the contract period—in particular for security, information communication technology (ICT) cabling and external design. It was not at the time possible to determine precisely what those changes might be, and the contract therefore made provision for a further £11 million to be raised via a Variation Bond.

  The final scope of the changes, and their cost, is still being determined. They will, however, include security and business continuity enhancements to provide greater protection and resilience; enhancements to the design to support the Government's Better Public Buildings initiative; compliance with the latest standard of ICT cabling; internal changes to better meet business requirements; and some spend to save investments in energy efficiency, internal communications services and the provision of electronic rather than manual IT switching. The Home Office has made provision for a contribution of £2 million towards the cost of the additional works.

  Bernice Wiarimu Kamau
  Mr. Malins
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the total cost was of removing Ms Bernice Wairimu Kamau to Nairobi, broken down by each itemised cost associated with the removal. [172795]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]Information held by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) relating to individuals is confidential and it is not our policy to disclose it.
  1426W
  Any attempt to calculate the cost of removal on individual cases would need to take into account a large number of factors and this could only be done at disproportionate cost.

  Neighbourhood Watch
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will ensure that public liability cover for local neighbourhood watch districts will be guaranteed if the National Neighbourhood Watch organisation goes into liquidation. [173421]

  Ms Blears
  [holding answer 14 May 2004]Neighbourhood Watch Schemes are important partnerships between communities, the police and local authorities, and they will continue to have our support.

  If the need arises we will take steps to safeguard existing arrangement: for local organisations.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Hertsmere on 23 April 2004, reference 168914. [172361]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]I replied to the hon. Member on 10 May 2004.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will provide a substantive reply to the question tabled by the hon. Member for Faversham and Mid Kent, ref 168371, on processing of seasonal agricultural workers scheme visas from Romania and Bulgaria. [172926]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: I replied to the hon. Member on 30 April 2004. The PQ reference number relating to the processing of seasonal agricultural workers scheme visas from Romania and Bulgaria is 168377 and not 168371 as shown above.

  Passports
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department which(a) private companies and (b) Government Departments have taken part in the UK Passport Service's Personal Identification Project; which databases were used in the exercise; and how the scheme is being evaluated. [173175]

  Mr. Browne
  Two private companies have been involved in the trials. These are Experian in 2001 and Equifax from 2002 to date. The databases used are:

  Electoral roll

  County court data within the public domain

  Linked addresses (Equifax)

  Date of birth validation (Equifax)

  Previous searches (Equifax)

  INSIGHT for ID verification (Equifax)

  Thompson Data (Business telephone directory)

  Companies House data

  BAGS

  BT 192 Database.

  1427W
  Three Government Departments are working with the UK Passport Service in this project:
  DVLA to verify driving licence details submitted against current records held on the drivers record;
  DWP to verify national insurance numbers submitted against current DWP records;
  IND to verify Naturalisation Certificates submitted against lists of valid certificates.

  No data is returned from these systems, only confirmation of the accuracy of data supplied.

  The current trials are assessing the potential benefits to applicants and UKPS in terms of customer service against security of identity. Statistics are being gathered to show the impact in both these areas.

  Mr. Wareing
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many passports have been lost or mislaid by the Immigration and Nationality Directorate since 31 January; and if he will make a statement. [173023]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 17 May 2004]For the period 1 February 2004 to 30 April 2004, a total of 169 letters have been issued for passports reported lost or mislaid in the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. For the same period last year, 185 letters were issued. This represents a drop of 9 per cent.

  People Trafficking
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions have taken place with European Union countries regarding the issue of people trafficking into Europe. [172508]

  Mr. Browne
  The UK is working with EU partners and countries beyond the borders of the EU to combat the trafficking of people.

  The UK participated fully in the drafting of the EU framework decision on trafficking and has been involved in discussions at EU level on provisions within this and the Protocol to Prevent, Suppress and Punish Trafficking in Persons which supplements the United Nations Convention against Trans- National Organised Crime. We are currently involved with, and in discussion with EU partners about, the drafting of a Council of Europe Convention on trafficking.

  Through Reflex, the NCS chaired multi-agency taskforce on organised immigration crime, the UK continues to discuss and work in partnership with other EU countries and organisations such as Europol and Eurojust to take effective enforcement action against trafficking.

  Building relationships with international partners is an important element of the UK strategy to combat trafficking. The UK has successfully bid for a twinning project under the EU Phare scheme in the Czech Republic. The aims of the project are to strengthen the fight against trafficking into and through the Czech Republic. This will be run in partnership with the Czech Republic and the Netherlands and is due to be launched in June 2004.

  Prisons
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were held in prisons in England and Wales for drug-related offences in each of the last five years, broken down by class of drug. [163549]

  Paul Goggins
  On 30 November 2003 there were 11,777 persons held in Prison Service establishments in England and Wales, under sentence or on remand, for drugs offences. Equivalent figures for each of the last five years can be found in tables 1.5 and 2.8 of the publication 'Prison Statistics England and Wales'. A copy of this publication is available in the House of Commons Library.

  The number of prisoners held under sentence in Prison Service establishments for drugs offences in 1999 and 2000, broken down by type of drug, is given in the table. Information for later years is not yet available.

  Table 3.11 Persons under sentence in Prison Service establishments1 for drug offences on 30 June: by principal drugs offence2, type of controlled drug and year, England and Wales

  Estimated number of persons3 2000

  Type of drug

  1999

  Male

  Female

  All persons

  Cocaine

  1,400

  1,000

  300

  1,350

  Crack

  250

  300

  0

  350

  Heroin

  2,750

  2,900

  400

  3,300

  LSD

  100

  50

  0

  50

  Ecstasy-type

  650

  800

  50

  900

  Methadone

  50

  50

  0

  50

  Amphetamines

  500

  300

  0

  300

  Cannabis

  1,650

  1,200

  100

  1,300

  Other drugs

  950

  900

  50

  950

  All drugs

  8,150

  7,500

  950

  8,450

  1Excluding persons committed in default of payment of a fine.

  2In the case of offenders with two or more sentences of immediate custody the offender is shown against the longest one which is the principal drugs offence.

  3Total number of persons under sentence in prison offences by type of drug offence and average time spent under sentence provided by Prison Statistics. Breakdown by type of drug estimated from drug offenders sentenced to immediate custody by sentence length. Figures rounded to nearest 50.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisons were operating at greater than their certified normal accommodation rate in each of the last 10 years. [166797]

  Paul Goggins
  I will write to the right hon. Member.

  Probation Service
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the additional probation staff employed since December 1999 are trainee probation officers; and what their average caseload is. [168392]

  Paul Goggins
  There have been 3,646 trainee probation officers appointed since 1998, and there are 780 projected trainee officer appointees for 2004.
  1429W
  It is not possible to calculate the average caseload of a trainee because this varies significantly during the two-year programme, according to their stage of training.

  Trainee probation officers are classified as supernumerary to the workforce, which means that they do not form part of the establishment for casework purposes. During their training they undertake the amount and type of cases appropriate to their experience and knowledge and identified development needs. Their casework contribution is therefore incidental to meeting their training needs.

  The information previously collected and held on starters and leavers to the service is very limited in terms of the analysis that can be performed against it. With this in mind, since 1999, the number of probation staff1 (senior probation officers, senior practitioners, probation officers, trainee probation officers and probation services officers), employed by the National Probation Service has increased by 3,089 full-time equivalents, which equates to a growth of 31.9 per cent. The proportion of this, which can be broadly attributed to growth among qualified probation staff, is 12.5 per cent. with the remainder being a growth in probation services officers.

  1These figures exclude staff employed in family Court Welfare in 1999 and 2000, as these were subsequently transferred in 2001.

  Commission for Racial Equality
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what involvement his Department has had in the allocation of Commission for Racial Equality section 44 funding for 2004–05. [172864]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]The responsibility for setting criteria for section 44 funding, assessing applications against those criteria and making final decisions lies with the Commission for Racial Equality (CRE). The Home Office role is to agree the level of funding which the CRE proposes to allocate. We welcome the CRE's policy of using the Getting Results programme to support any innovative project which makes a difference to race equality and good relations within its local community.

  Road Safety
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many speeding fines were issued in Essex in(a) 2001 and (b) 2002;[174723]

  (2) how many speeding fines were paid by motorists in Essex in (a) 2001 and (b) 2002; and how many speeding offences were detected in Essex in (i) 2001 and (ii) 2002. [174724]

  Caroline Flint
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: Available information showing the total number of police disposals and court proceedings for speeding offences within Essex police force area for 2001 and 2002 are given in the tables.

  Information on the number of fixed penalties or fines paid for speeding offences is not collected centrally.
  1430W

  Table A: Fines and fixed penalties data for speeding offences1, Essex, 2001 and 2002

  Number of offences

  2001

  2002

  Court proceedings fines issued

  9,131

  14,570

  Fixed penalty notices issued

  168,885

  199,201

  1Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  Table B: Speeding offences1 detected by type of action, Essex,2001 and 2002

  Number of offences

  Type of action

  2001

  2002

  Court proceedings total findings of guilt

  9,208

  14,660

  Fixed penalty notices issued

  168,885

  199,201

  Written warnings issued

  49

  —

  Total

  178,142

  213,861

  1Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  Sexual Offences
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many foreign nationals convicted by courts in the United Kingdom of being involved in the trafficking to and within the United Kingdom of women and children for sexual purposes have been sent to prison and upon their release have been, or will be, deported from the United Kingdom in each of the last five years; [173534]

  (2) how many (a) male and (b) female foreign nationals convicted by courts in the United Kingdom of sexual offences and sent to prison have been deported on their release from prison in each of the last five years. [173535]

  Mr. Browne
  Information on the nationality of offenders convicted in the UK and on offenders deported following their release from prison is not collected centrally and would be available only at disproportionate cost.

  A person convicted of a criminal offence may be recommended for deportation by the court which has the power to sentence him. The Secretary of State also has the power to consider a person for deportation on conducive grounds. However, we would not seek to deport a person who had an outstanding claim for asylum.

  Departmental Expenditure (Sittingbourne and Sheppey)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the expenditure of his Department in the constituency of Sittingbourne and Sheppey was between(a) 1992 and 1997, (b) 1997 and 2001 and (c) 2001 and 2004. [159492]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information is as follows:

  Funding for Kent police

  Grants for policing are not hypothecated to individual areas such as Sittingbourne and Sheppey. Grants are allocated to Kent police as a whole and it is for the Chief Constable to decide how best to deploy the resources across the force area.
  1431W
  Police grant distribution has been formula-based since 1995–96. Prior to that, grant was based on a proportion of forces' net expenditure.

  Home Office police grant is one element only of the total general police grant forces received. Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates make up the total of the general grant. These have not been included in the answer as they are administered by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (ODPM).

  In line with all forces in England and Wales, Kent police will receive a general grants increase of 3.25 per cent. next year. Their allocation is £182.6 million. Kent is one of the shire forces who benefit most from this arrangement. If the formula alone had been applied, they would have received £167.9 million. Because a floor of 3.25 per cent. on top of last year's grant was given, they will in fact receive £182.6 million, £14.7 million more.

  £

  Police grant (HO only)

  Capital grant1

  Crime Fighting Fund

  Rural Policing Fund

  DNA Expansion Programme

  Airwave

  1992–93

  68,815,000

  2,491,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1993–94

  71,825,000

  2,404,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1994–95

  76,008,000

  2,574,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1995–96

  78,591,413

  3,481,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1996–97

  82,321,694

  4,803,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1997–98

  84,673,351

  4,476,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1998–99

  91,724,083

  2,263,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  92,098,019

  1,853,000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  2000–01

  96,482,918

  1,503,000

  1,347,740

  298,863

  655,232

  —

  2001–02

  102,643,758

  2,003,000

  4,505,000

  599,342

  1,283,474

  —

  2002–03

  102,446,510

  2,680,000

  6,190,000

  599,700

  1,533,389

  —

  2003–04

  106,107,422

  3,372,000

  7,270,500

  595,161

  1,494,810

  7,153,000

  2004–05

  105,806,169

  2,684,000

  7,633,906

  594,228

  1,051,206

  1,483,000

  £

  Basic Command Unit Fund

  Community Support Officers

  Special Priority Payments

  South East Allowance

  Total

  1992–93

  —

  —

  —

  —

  71,306,000

  1993–94

  —

  —

  —

  —

  74,229,000

  1994–95

  —

  —

  —

  —

  78,582,000

  1995–96

  —

  —

  —

  —

  82,072,413

  1996–97

  —

  —

  —

  —

  87,124,694

  1997–98

  —

  —

  —

  —

  89,149,351

  1998–99

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93,987,083

  1999–2000

  —

  —

  —

  —

  93,951,019

  2000–01

  —

  —

  —

  —

  100,287,753

  2001–02

  —

  —

  —

  1,483,554

  112,518,128

  2002–03

  —

  264,418

  —

  1,719,156

  115,433,173

  2003–04

  1,051,206

  871,426

  992,100

  2,200,000

  131,107,625

  2004–05

  1,051,206

  2871,426

  2992,100

  23,125,375

  125,292,616

  1Capital grant figures prior to 2000–01 include an element of grant specifically for major capital schemes under the Priority Planning List scheme. Figures include Premises Improvement Fund allocations (£500,000 in 2002–03 and £1 million in 2003–04). Figures exclude revenue support for capital provided by ODPM and Supplementary Credit Approvals/Supported Capital Expenditure.

  2 Estimated figures for 2004–05. Subject to change.

  Sources of police grant data:

  1.1992–93 to 1994–95 figures—CIPFA Police Statistics.

  2.1995–96 to 2004–05 figures—Police Grant Reports.

  Terrorism
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions he has had with(a) the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs and (b) police authorities on a strategy to combat illegal access to fertilisers to prevent use by terrorists. [169328]
  1432W
  In addition, funding is provided to forces for a number of specific programmes such as the Crime Fighting Fund, to assist the recruitment of extra police officers, and the Rural Policing Fund, to enhance policing in areas with the most widespread populations.

  Active Community Unit grant

  For the past three years via our mentoring programme the Home Office has been providing financial support to mentoring organisations throughout England. Home-Start Sittingbourne and Sheppey successfully bid for three years project funding under the Active Community Unit's Mentoring Fund in 2001–02. The project helps those families experiencing difficulties and breakdown. The organisation received revenue grants of £6,219 in 2001–02, £12,715 in 2002–03 and £13,034 in 2003–04. The organisation also received a one-off capital grant of £2,682 in 2002–03 to buy equipment to support the project. Home Office funding has (finished in March 2004) now ceased.

  Mr. Blunkett
  Policy on protective and preventative security measures to counter the threat of terrorism is directed by a ministerial group which I chair. I would also refer to the answer given by my right hon. Friend the Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality on 27 April 2004,Official Report, column 857W.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Advisers/Consultants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much his Department and its agencies and non-departmental public bodies spent on external consultants and advisers each year since its creation. [172397]

  Yvette Cooper
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister was created in May 2002. In the two years since then the spend on external consultants and advisers for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its agencies and the non-departmental public bodies are as follows:

  £

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  2002–03

  76,000,000

  2003–04

  47,000,000

  The Executive agencies and NDPBs

  2002–03

  5,356,822

  2003–04

  6,305,906

  The above figures do not include the Audit Commission, as its expenditure is an operational matter. I will ask the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Antisocial Behaviour
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what responsibilities housing associations have to(a) monitor and (b) control antisocial behaviour by tenants in their properties. [175405]

  Keith Hill
  The Government do not believe that placing a statutory duty on housing associations to act on antisocial behaviour is the best way forward. To do so would risk the danger of landlords being endlessly caught up in long and expensive court cases to establish whether any action taken by the landlord met the statutory requirement. This would not help in tackling the problem.

  The Government have amended the Housing Act 1996, through the Anti-social Behaviour Act 2003, to place a duty on all social landlords to publish policies and procedures on tackling antisocial behaviour. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is consulting on statutory guidance at the moment; this guidance contains a section on monitoring.

  Early Retirement
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many employees in his Department took early retirement in the last financial year; and at what total cost. [171744]

  Yvette Cooper
  The number of employees who took early retirement from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, its agencies and the Government office network in the last financial year was 16, at a cost of £2.8 million.

  East of England Regional Assembly
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many(a) letters and (b) other representations he has received from individuals in support of an elected East of England Regional Assembly. [175870]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Between 2 December 2002 and 18 May 2004 the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has received 79 e-mails and letters from individuals and organisations in connection with the White Paper "Your Region, Your Choice" relating to an elected regional assembly for the Eastern region. One individual and one parish council expressed support for an elected regional assembly for the Eastern region. 43 correspondents opposed the idea. The remainder of the inquirers either did not express a definite opinion or were merely seeking information. In the light of this response, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has not proposed a referendum in the Eastern region on an Elected Regional Assembly.

  Fire Service
  Mr. Caton
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when he expects personnel in the fire services who respond to emergencies to be provided with insurance cover for terrorist incidents; [171857]

  (2) what action he is taking to ensure that personnel in all fire services who respond to emergencies are provided with insurance cover for terrorist incidents. [171858]

  Mr. Raynsford
  There are provisions within the Firefighters' Pension Scheme and Conditions of Service which provide for awards in the event of death or injury either occurring in, or as a result of, the exercise of duty.

  Employer liability insurance is a matter for fire and rescue authorities who have a duty as employers to ensure that the necessary cover is provided.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has had discussions with The Association of British Insurers regarding private insurance arrangements entered into by individual firefighters to determine the extent of any problem about life insurance policies. I understand that in the case of most life insurance policies there are no terrorist exclusions although individuals should check their policies.

  Where occupation is a determinant of risk I understand that there should be no increase in premiums.

  Housing (North East Lincolnshire)
  Mr. Austin Mitchell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what residual housing costs will fall on North East Lincolnshire Council's general fund following the transfer of housing stock; and what further public consultation will take place on the effects of the changes. [174583]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is working with North East Lincolnshire Council to identify and manage the residual housing costs and the actions that the Council will take to manage this. It is usual for such costs to be finalised during the period between ballot and transfer.
  1435W
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister understands that the Council intends to embark on a series of newsletters, letters to tenants and probably a formal consultation process specifically around the capital improvement programme.

  Local Authority Officers
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister under what circumstances councillors who have made inappropriate appointments of council officers may be surcharged for(a) salary costs, (b) legal costs and (c) medical costs incurred because of the appointments. [174944]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Local Government Act 2000, which provided for the establishment of the Standards Board for England and the new regime for handling allegations of misconduct by councillors, repealed the powers to surcharge councillors.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether a local authority has the power to reallocate the duties of a returning officer for local elections when the current returning officer is one of the authority's statutory officers and a designated independent person has been appointed under the Local Authorities (Standing Orders) (England) Regulations 2001 to investigate allegations of misconduct by that statutory officer. [174973]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Pursuant to section 35(1) of the Representation of the People Act 1983 non- metropolitan county councils have the power to appoint a returning officer for local elections of councillors of the county, and district councils have the power to appoint a returning officer for elections of councillors of the district and a returning officer for elections of councillors of parishes within the district.

  The precise terms of the returning officer's appointment are a matter for the local authority.

  Local Government Finance
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the total central funding for local government was in each of the last 25 years, expressed at today's prices. [175003]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The total central funding for local government for the period 1981–82 to 2003–04, expressed at 2003–04 prices, appears in the table.

  Year

  £ million

  1981–82

  26,462

  1982–83

  25,400

  1983–84

  24,906

  1984–85

  24,527

  1985–86

  22,837

  1986–87

  22,575

  1987–88

  22,762

  1988–89

  22,078

  1989–90

  21,063

  1990–91

  33,821

  1991–92

  42,364

  1992–93

  43,986

  1993–94

  42,814

  1994–95

  43,588

  1995–96

  42,755

  1996–97

  42,580

  1436W

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  41,676

  1998–99

  42,707

  1999–2000

  44,233

  2000–01

  47,131

  2001–02

  49,537

  2002–03

  50,654

  2003–04

  53,135

  The data are taken from the RS (outturn) forms for all years except 2003–04, when the data are taken from the RA (budget) form. The forms are completed each year by individual local authorities.

  For the period 1981–82 to 1989–90 non-domestic rates were collected and retained locally. As such, they are not regarded as a central government grant. However, from 1990–91 onwards non-domestic rates were collected locally, pooled on a national basis and redistributed by central Government to each authority from the non-domestic pool. Consequently, figures for non-domestic rates from 1990–91 have been included above. From 1993–94 onwards the non-domestic rates figure includes City offset.

  The figures have been revalued for previous years at 2003–04 prices using the current Her Majesty's Treasury GDP deflators.

  Planning (North Devon)
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will decide whether to call in planning application no. 31760 (Anchorwood Bank, Barnstaple) to North Devon district council; and in doing so, what account he will take of the area's housing and employment needs. [175768]

  Keith Hill
  The application was formally referred to the Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister by North Devon district council as it represents a Departure from the Development Plan for the area. A decision will be made in due course.

  The hon. Member for North Devon can rest assured that all material for planning considerations will be taken into account in the consideration of the application.

  Show People
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister, (1) on what basis a site may be ruled inappropriate for locating show people by his Department; [175019]

  (2) what definition his Department uses of a realistic assessment of the amount of accommodation required in relation to identifying sites for show people; [175018]

  (3) what account of the rights of local residents (a) his Department and (b) local planning authorities take in identifying appropriate sites for winter quarters for show people; and what weight is attached to the (i) appropriateness of the site, (ii) suitability of the location, (iii) availability and adequacy of vehicular access and (iv) availability of existing locations in taking such decisions. [175017]
  1437W
  Keith Hill
  All applications for planning permission are decided on their individual merits with reference to the local authority's development plan for the area and other material considerations including national planning policy guidance. The Government's advice to local planning authorities on travelling showpeople is contained in Circular 22/91 'Travelling Showpeople'.

  Social Housing
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many non-decent social homes there are; how many there were in 1997; and what funds he has allocated to reducing the numbers in future years. [174843]

  Keith Hill
  In 1997 there were 2.13 million non-decent homes in the social sector. The estimate for March 2004 is 1.17 million.

  Between April 2004 and 2006 Local Authority plans indicate that they will spend £5.7 billion on their existing stock, the majority of which is allocated by Central Government with some from Local Authorities' own resources. This includes work beyond the decent homes standard and work to prevent dwellings from becoming non-decent as well as work to the existing non-decents. Registered Social Landlords will mainly use their own resources on improving their stock.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  China (Renewable Energy)
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to encourage the development of renewable energy in China. [174020]

  Mr. Timms
  The Department of Trade and Industry maintains close contact with the Chinese authorities with regard to energy matters, and including renewable energy. This contact is managed day-to-day through the Commercial Sections of the British diplomatic posts in China, and export and trade promoters of UK Trade and Investment and of the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme.

  We are currently working with the Chinese to assist with their design and drafting of regulations to increase their use of renewable energy over the coming years. In close co-operation with the Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Partnership (REEEP), we received a delegation of Chinese law makers in March, for a programme of meetings when they were able to discuss the issues involved with UK Government Departments and with UK industry. In May we sent a specialist who works with our Distributed Generation Working Group, and a Trade Promoter of the DTI's New and Renewable Energy Programme, to Beijing to join a working group developing the drafting of these regulations, which are expected to come into force next year.

  We will continue to support this initiative, and also to promote contact between companies and industry bodies of our two countries. We have commissioned the development of a website designed specifically to make
  1438W
  available information on renewable energy capabilities and opportunities in each country. This website is nearing completion, and can now be viewed on www.ukchinarenewables.co.uk. We understand that a UK specialist wind energy company is once again going to engage in training Chinese companies in the development of wind energy, in June; at least partially as a result of our trade promotional activities. And we are preparing to sponsor a presence by UK industry at a wind energy conference and exhibition in Beijing at the end of October.

  Accountancy Standards
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations the Government has made to the European Commission in respect of(a) IAS 39 and (b) IAS 32; what assessment she has made of their impact on British (i) insurance companies and (ii) pension schemes; and if she will make a statement. [172916]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have made it clear to the European Commission that the adoption of all standards is essential to the success of the EU's approach to accounting harmonisation. It would be difficult for Europe to maintain international credibility without key standards on financial instruments.

  We accept that IAS 32 and 39 are not perfect standards, but experience from countries where similar standards are in use show that concerns about their impact are exaggerated. Discussions with the British insurance industry indicate that companies are primarily concerned now to get the finalised standards in place so they can move forward. IAS 32 and 39 are not expected to have any particular impact on pension schemes.

  Fuel Prices
  Mr. Redwood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total tax payable on the average pump price of a litre of unleaded petrol was on(a) 1 May 2003, (b) 1 January, (c) 17 March and (d) 17 May 2004. [174573]

  Mr. Timms
  Pump prices are not available for the specified dates. The table below gives the average prices for ultra low sulphur petrol on the Monday closest to the date.

  Date

  Amount of Duty per litre

  Amount of VAT per litre

  Pump Price per litre

  28 April 2003

  45.82

  11.53

  77.42

  29 December 2003

  47.10

  11.31

  75.94

  15 March 2004

  47.10

  11.53

  77.39

  17 May 2004

  47.10

  12.14

  81.49

  Source:

  DTI

  Bribery/Corruption
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many allegations of overseas bribery and corruption were received by her Department since the date that would not incur disproportionate costs. [174004]
  1439W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The DTI has received one allegation of overseas bribery. Under the terms of the published memorandum of understanding copy in Libraries of the House, this was passed on to NCIS for investigation.

  Civil Servants
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list for each civil service grade within her(a) Department and (b) Department's executive agencies, the total number of staff employed, broken down by (i) gender, (ii) ethnic group and (iii) age group; and how many are registered disabled. [166396]

  Ms Hewitt
  Data on staffing levels in the Civil Service is collected by the Cabinet Office and published in Civil Service Statistics. A copy of Civil Service Statistics, 2002 is available in the Libraries of the House and at http://www/civil-service.gov.uk/statistics. The 2003 edition will be published in summer 2004.

  Company Liquidations
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many redundancies have been made by(a) companies and (b) administrators in each of the last 10 years. [173827]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table shows the available statistics. Estimates of the total number of employees made redundant each year are from the Office for National Statistics' Labour Force Survey which is based on a sample of over 61,000 households. The estimates are subject to sampling variability. The statistics of employees made redundant because their employer has become insolvent are from records of claims made to Redundancy Payments Offices. Employees of insolvent employers may claim redundancy payments and other contractual debts such as unpaid wages, notice pay and outstanding holiday pay. Though some qualifying employees may not make a claim, it is thought that almost all do.

  Estimates of employees made redundant each year in Great Britain

  Thousand

  Total number of employees made redundant:

  Number of employees making a claim to a Redundancy

  Estimates from the Labour Force Survey

  Payments Office because of the insolvency of their employer

  1994

  1—

  1—

  1995

  680

  1—

  1996

  623

  1—

  1997

  610

  1—

  1998

  697

  75

  1999

  686

  82

  2000

  639

  91

  2001

  722

  106

  2002

  700

  99

  2003

  580

  91

  1Not available.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will take steps to ensure that the administration of a company following its liquidation is used as an effective tool to safeguard the interests of shareholders and stakeholders, including employees. [173853]
  1440W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Enterprise Act 2002 introduced changes that allow a liquidator to apply to court for an administration order. The court would have to be satisfied that the company would achieve the purpose of administration, the primary objective of which is to rescue the company as a going concern and failing that to achieve a better result for the creditors than on a winding up. If companies and their businesses can be rescued rather than wound up, then the outcome will be better for the company itself, its employees, its creditors, its shareholders and the economy as a whole.

  Corporate Identity Theft
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what action is being taken to deal with the problems of industrial sabotage as a result of corporate identity theft; [174691]

  (2) what action is being taken to encourage UK firms to take precautions against corporate identity theft. [174692]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Companies House is considering what steps it can actively take within the scope of the present law to reduce the risk of corporate identity theft. In particular it is considering further enhancing its electronic filing services to provide greater security for companies that feel at risk. Companies House is also an active member of the North East Fraud Forum, which is a unique partnership between the public and private sectors to share knowledge and experience with a view to defeating economic crime.

  However, this is also a matter for companies themselves to consider how best to protect themselves against the risk of corporate identity theft. Companies House also offers a service known as "Monitor" which companies can subscribe to which will alert them to the filing of any documents on their public record. Companies can also easily make regular checks of their public record on the Companies House Website (companieshouse.gov.uk) to make sure their records reflect the true position.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many cases of corporate identity theft have been reported in each of the last five years. [174693]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Companies House began to record figures for corporate identity theft as a particular statistic in May 2004. It would be of disproportionate cost to isolate allegations of corporate identity theft from the previous records of all complaints about the false filing of documents.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the costs to(a) UK consumers and (b) UK companies of corporate identity theft in each of the last five years. [174694]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  No such assessments have been made.

  Democratic Republic of the Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether her Department is investigating allegations of breaches of OECD
  1441W
  guidelines by British-based companies and individuals made by the UN Panel of Experts in respect of the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [175511]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A formal complaint was never lodged against De Beers. However following the final UN Expert Panel report and discussions between De Beers and the U.K. National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines, an NCP Statement was published on 5 May 2004 and is available on the U.K. OECD Guidelines webpage (http://164.36.164.37/ewt/debeers.doc)

  The NCP is not an investigatory body. Its role, as defined in the Guidelines, is one of facilitation and mediation between the parties. This presupposes the existence of a complainant.

  If the NCP is in receipt of information (e.g. from the UN expert panel) this can be put to the company, but without a complainant the NCP cannot engage in the dialogue process envisaged by the Guidelines.

  Following repeated requests for evidence over a six month period, the UN has now agreed to provide copies of their background documentation. This arrived on 17 May 2004 and is currently being examined in detail to see what it adds to the report. A decision can then be taken as to the appropriate way forward on each company concerned.

  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what information her Department has received from the UN and the panel of experts on the Democratic Republic of the Congo in support of allegations against British-based companies or individuals made by the panel of experts; and what steps her Department has taken to investigate such allegations; [175553]

  (2) whether her Department requires a complaint to be made in order for an investigation to be pursued in respect of an alleged breach of OECD guidelines; [175554]

  (3) whether a complaint was received against De Beers in respect of an alleged breach of OECD guidelines as referred to in the initial UN expert panel report on the illegal exploitation of natural resources in the Democratic Republic of the Congo. [175555]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  A formal complaint was never lodged against De Beers. However following the final UN Expert Panel report and discussions between De Beers and the U.K. National Contact Point (NCP) for the OECD Guidelines, an NCP Statement was published on 5 May 2004 and is available on the U.K. OECD Guidelines webpage (http://164.36.164.37/ewt/debeers.doc)

  The NCP is not an investigatory body. Its role, as defined in the Guidelines, is one of facilitation and mediation between the parties. This presupposes the existence of a complainant.

  If the NCP is in receipt of information (e.g. from the UN expert panel) this can be put to the company, but without a complainant the NCP cannot engage in the dialogue process envisaged by the Guidelines.
  1442W
  Following repeated requests for evidence over a six month period, the UN has now agreed to provide copies of their background documentation. This arrived on 17 May 2004 and is currently being examined in detail to see what it adds to the report. A decision can then be taken as to the appropriate way forward on each company concerned.

  Departmental Staff
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168682]

  Ms Hewitt
  The detailed information requested is not held in the form requested and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, I refer the hon. Member to my reply to the hon. Member for Yeovil (Mr. Laws) on 4 February 2003,Official Report, column 180W, giving details of the number of press officers and press office costs for 1996–97 and 2001–02.

  DVDs/Videos
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what regulations are in place on the sale by(a) national supermarket chains and (b) small independent retailers of DVDs and videos at below-dealer wholesale prices. [174598]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: There are no regulations governing the prices at which goods may be sold by retailers relative to the prices at which they were purchased from wholesalers. The main legislation relating to commercial practices and fair competition is the Competition Act 1998 and the Enterprise Act 2002.

  Elderly People
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what(a) initiatives, (b) campaigns and (c) advisory bodies relating to older people her Department (i) is responsible and (ii) has provided funding since 2001; and what the cost in each year was for each one. [166243]

  Ms Hewitt
  As part of our commitment to protecting the rights of all consumers, employees and employers, the Department of Trade and Industry is responsible for numerous activities that have particular relevance for older people. Examples include: introducing legislation under the European Employment Directive that will outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training from October 2006; the Age Advisory Group, set up in 2001, and Taskforce, set up in 2004, have been advising the Government on matters to do with implementation of the Directive; and establishment of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHRs), which will provide, for the first time, institutional support for the proposed provisions on age discrimination. In its first few years of operation particular attention will need to be paid to age
  1443W
  issues, including awareness raising among, and support for, those with rights and responsibilities under the age legislation. In addition, the CEHR will be able to act in a broad range of areas and not just those where there is specific legislative protection—for example, encouraging good practice in the provision of goods and services to help prevent unfair treatment of older people.

  Further examples include funding for the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux and Citizens Advice Scotland to provide support and training to the Citizens Advice Service across the UK. The service deals with in excess of 6 million cases annually, of which over 50 per cent. involve older people; and joint support with DEFRA in 2001 (500,000) for a three-year pilot programme of Warm Zones to assess the merits of a systematic local approach to client identification and assistance: the formal evaluation of this work is expected by the end of 2004.

  In April 1999, DTI launched a three-year campaign specifically targeted at older people entitled "Avoiding Slips, Trips and Broken Hips" working with Help the Aged and others. This campaign ended in 2002. However, DTI provided a grant of £50,000 directly to Help the Aged to continue to deliver the existing resources, and at present materials continue to be available for free distribution.

  Energy Efficiency
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to promote the use of more energy efficient electrical motors within industry. [174763]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Proposals to develop more efficient engines and vehicles through the design and application of electric power drives and systems, where they are used in the development of environmentally friendly transport, are being considered under the collaborative research and development arm of the DTI Technology Programme. The Technology Programme seeks to promote innovative technologies to help companies bring products to market. Calls for outline proposals from industry are requested by 21 June.

  A further call for proposals is planned for later this year and ideas for new priority areas to be covered are welcomed from business and should be submitted to the, industry led, Technology Strategy Board through the DTI.

  Additionally the Enhanced Capital Allowance (EGA) Scheme allows businesses investing in designated energy saving products published in the approved Energy Technology List (ETL) to claim 100 per cent. first-year capital allowances on their investment. Motors and Variable Speed drive s were included in the first wave of technologies published in 2001. Currently there are over 2,800 products listed under Motors and Drives section of the approved ETL Product List. The full list of energy saving products eligible for Enhanced Capital Allowances can be found at www.eca.gov.uk.

  Fireworks
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made in tackling the issue of noisy night-time fireworks. [174848]
  1444W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Department launched a formal consultation on 23 April 2004, which details proposed regulations to be made under the provisions of the Fireworks Act 2003. One of the proposed measures is to create a curfew on the use of fireworks between the hours of 11 pm and 7 am, with the exception of November 5, New Years Eve, Chinese New Year and Diwali.

  We expect that the police will enforce this measure—and that the police will have the power to issue Fixed Penalty Notices for infractions of the curfew.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many young people in Hull, North have benefited from the introduction of the minimum wage for 16 and 17 year olds. [174795]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide an estimate specifically for the constituency of Hull, North because of small sample size. However, the number of people in the UK who stand to benefit from the new rate for 16 and 17 year olds is likely to be in the low tens of thousands.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) how many people have legitimately not been paid the minimum wage in each year since its introduction; what the reason was in each case; what estimate she has made of the number of people not being paid the minimum wage for illegitimate reasons; and she will make a statement; [170311]

  (2) how many employees have been affected by employers not complying with the National Minimum Wage in each year since its introduction. [170464]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  [holding answers 4 May 2004]: The Office for National Statistics publishes an estimate of the number of jobs paying below the National Minimum Wage—See table 1, which reproduces this estimate for the years since the National Minimum Wage was introduced).

  Table 1: Number and proportion of jobs paying below the National Minimum Wage

  As at spring each year

  Number

  Percentage

  20001

  240,000

  1.0

  20012

  250,000

  1.0

  20023

  330,000

  1.3

  20034

  260,000

  1.0

  1Rate was £3.00 per hour (aged 18–21) or £3.60 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  2Rate was £3.20 per hour (aged 18–21) or £3.70 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  3Rate was £3.50 per hour (aged 18–21) or £4.10 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  4Rate was £3.60 per hour (aged 18–21) or £4.20 per hour (aged 22 and over).

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics' central estimates of low pay.

  However, these figures do not constitute an estimate of non-compliance since there are certain circumstances where the usual minimum wage rates do not apply, in which case it may be legitimate for an employer to pay below National Minimum Wage rates.
  1445W
  There are two main instances when individuals may legitimately earn less than the appropriate minimum wage for their age. Firstly, individuals may be on certain Government training programmes or apprenticeships, in which they are exempt for the first year up to the age of 26. Also, employees aged over 21 who receive accredited training (such as those doing NVQs) may be exempted from receiving the full adult national minimum wage for the first six months of training in a new job with a new employer. Secondly, employees may be exempted if they are receiving accommodation that is tied to their employment. Such employees do not have to be paid all of their minimum wage entitlement in cash terms because employers can legitimately reduce rates to take into account the cost of accommodation provided; from October 2003 this has amounted to a daily offset of £3.50, leading to a maximum weekly offset of £24.50.

  Using the Labour Force Survey, the DTI estimates the maximum number of workers whose job characteristics mean they can be paid less than the National Minimum Wage.

  Table 2: Maximum number of workers whose job characteristics mean they can legitimately be paid less than the National Minimum Wage

  As at spring each year

  Number

  2000

  320,000

  2001

  250,000

  2002

  260,000

  2003

  220,000

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey.

  In practice, the number of workers who can legitimately be paid below minimum wage rates is likely to be substantially lower than these figures. This is because a significant proportion of people receiving free accommodation as part of the job, holding apprenticeships or taking part in Government training programmes are likely to be earning in excess of the minimum wage.

  Maternity Leave
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many and what percentage of women in Oldham, West and Royton have taken 26 weeks' maternity leave since 1997. [170938]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Data on maternity leave is not available by constituency. However, a DTI survey of working parents in Autumn 2000 showed that of mothers who had taken maternity leave in the previous five years, 51 per cent. had taken 18 weeks or less and 79 per cent. had taken 19 to 29 weeks or less.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what proportion of the budget of each of the nine regional development agencies has been spent on administration in each year since their inception. [174697]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown) on 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 247W.
  1446W

  Regulations
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for what reasons she rejects the British Chambers of Commerce estimation of the costs to businesses of regulations introduced since 1997. [173260]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The British Chambers of Commerce estimation of the burden does not appear to offset the benefits accrued. Objective measurement of regulation must consider the total impact, taking account of associated benefits.

  Scottish Power
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to her answer of 12 May to question reference 171781, if she will list the issues discussed at the meeting with representatives of Scottish Power on 11 March. [173696]

  Ms Hewitt
  The specific issue relating to electricity supply discussed at the meeting was wind farms and their interaction with radar. Also discussed was security of supply.

  Software Patents
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether the Council of Ministers has received the report from the Council Working Group on Intellectual Property on the draft Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions. [174745]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The Council of Ministers discussed the report of the Working Group at the meeting of the Competitiveness Council on 17 and 18 May 2004, and reached political agreement on a Common Position on the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the latest position is regarding the opt-out from the 48-hour limit on the working week under the Working Time Directive; and if she will make a statement. [174871]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Working Time Regulations 1998 (WTR) which implement the provisions of the Working Time Directive in UK law came into force on 1 October 1998. The Regulations currently include an opt-out provision to the weekly working time limit. Under the opt-out, an individual worker may agree to work more than 48 hours a week.

  The opt-out was initially granted for a period of 15 years but has since been extended. A review has been carried out and the European Commission have decided to consult more widely over working time changes. The Commission published a consultation communication on 5 January 2004.

  The UK response to the Communication (31 March 2004) argued strongly for the retention of the opt-out. While the Government are in favour of providing fair minimum standards of employment protection, they are

  1447W
  also keen to maintain the flexibility our individual labour market requires, and, which many individual workers prefer.

  The second stage consultation paper from the European Commission was recently published on 19 May. It presented the following options:
  Option 1—Keep the individual opt out with tighter conditions of application.
  Option 2—Opt-out only available through collective agreement.
  Option 3—Opt out available through collective agreement, but retain the possibility of individual opt out in the absence of such an agreement and for undertakings without worker representation.
  Option 4—Phase out the opt out.

  Option 1 is the only one to ensure workers have real choice and ensure working hours are tailored to what individual workers want.

  The UK and the Commission agree that extending the reference period for working hours, so that these can be averaged over a period of up to 12 months without the need for a collective agreement would increase the flexibility of both employers and workers. This is of particular value in the UK because, as the Commission's Communication notes, collective or workforce agreements are not widespread here.

  There is now in a 6-week period of negotiation with the social partners: UNICE, the European employers' federation; ETUC, the European employees organisation; and CEEP, the public sector employers organisation. If the social partners do not agree to negotiate on a workable solution during this time, the Commission will propose legislation by co-decision by the summer 2004.

TREASURY

  Conceptions
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many conceptions in women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000; [174950]

  (2) what the rate of conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority was in each year since 2000; [174951]

  (3) how many conceptions resulted in abortions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [174953]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Ann Winterton, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (174950,174951 & 174953)
  1448W
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 120JW–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Overseas Charity Workers
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many United Kingdom citizens working overseas for charities in the field of overseas development have lived overseas for more than five years; [175830]

  (2) how many United Kingdom citizens are employed overseas by United Kingdom based charities involved in international development. [175832]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Alistair Burt, dated 24 May 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to reply to your request for information on (a) how many United Kingdom citizens are employed overseas by UK-based charities involved in international development and; (b) how many UK citizens working overseas for charities in the field of overseas development have lived overseas for more than five years. I am replying in his absence. (175830,175832)
  The information you requested is not available. Migration data are not collected by specific sectors, or specific types, of employment.

  Psepho-analysis
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which 20 United Kingdom mainland constituencies experienced the greatest fall in electorate between 1997 and 2004 in(a) numerical and (b) percentage terms, listed in descending order. [175125]

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

  Letter from Colin Mowl to Chris Ruane, dated 24 May 2004:
  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question concerning the 20 United Kingdom mainland constituencies that have experienced the greatest fall in electorate between 1997 and 2004.1 am replying in his absence. (175125)
  For the purposes of this question, the United Kingdom mainland excludes Northern Ireland. The effect of the introduction of a new system for registering electors in Northern Ireland is explained in an answer to an earlier Parliamentary Question on this subject (Official Report, 9 March 2004, Column 1416W).
  Two tables are attached. Table 1 shows the 20 constituencies that experienced the greatest decrease in parliamentary electors between 16 February 1997 and 1 December 2003, the latest date for which data are available. Table 2 shows the 20 constituencies who experienced the greatest percentage decrease in parliamentary electors over the same period.
  1449W

  Constituencies experiencing the greatest decrease in electorate between 1997 and 2003, Great Britain.

  Constituency

  1997 figures

  2003 figures

  Electorate decrease

  Portsmouth South

  80,907

  66,162

  14,745

  Brentford and Isleworth

  79,644

  67,934

  11,710

  Sheffield Central

  68,976

  58,708

  10,268

  Rhondda

  57,487

  48,332

  9,155

  Sheffield, Brightside

  59,287

  51,031

  8,256

  Edinburgh Central

  63,969

  55,714

  8,255

  Bradford West

  72,671

  64,663

  8,008

  Tyne Bridge

  61,602

  53,971

  7,631

  Sheffield, Heeley

  67,011

  59,428

  7,583

  Leeds Central

  67,911

  60,398

  7,513

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend

  63,799

  56,340

  7,459

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  70,271

  63,408

  6,863

  Paisley North

  50,261

  43,590

  6,671

  Aberdeen Central

  54,548

  47,903

  6,645

  Sunderland South

  68,477

  61,872

  6,605

  Salford

  58,961

  52,443

  6,518

  Dulwich and West Norwood

  69,994

  63,489

  6,505

  Paisley South

  54,573

  48,248

  6,325

  Halifax

  72,384

  66,126

  6,258

  Edmonton

  64,184

  57,988

  6,196

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Constituencies experiencing the greatest percentage decrease in electorate between 1997 and 2003, Great Britain.

  Constituency

  1997 figures

  2003 figures

  Percentage decrease

  Portsmouth South

  80,907

  66,162

  18.22

  Rhondda

  57,487

  48,332

  15.93

  Sheffield Central

  68,976

  58,708

  14.89

  Brentford and Isleworth

  79,644

  67,934

  14.70

  Sheffield, Brightside

  59,287

  51,031

  13.93

  Paisley North

  50,261

  43,590

  13.27

  Edinburgh Central

  63,969

  55,714

  12.90

  Tyne Bridge

  61,602

  53,971

  12.39

  Aberdeen Central

  54,548

  47,903

  12.18

  Newcastle upon Tyne East and Wallsend

  63.799

  56,340

  11.69

  Paisley South

  54,573

  48,248

  11.59

  Glasgow Baillieston

  51,589

  45,738

  11.34

  Sheffield, Heeley

  67,011

  59,428

  11.32

  Cynon Valley

  48,713

  43,260

  11.19

  Leeds Central

  67,911

  60,398

  11.06

  Salford

  58,961

  52,443

  11.05

  Bradford West

  72,671

  64,663

  11.02

  Glasgow Maryhill

  52,854

  47,525

  10.08

  Newcastle upon Tyne Central

  70,271

  63,408

  9.77

  Dundee West

  57,809

  52,196

  9.71

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Stamp Duty
  Mr. Watson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been saved by housebuyers in stamp duty exempt areas as a result of not having to pay the duty, broken down by local authorities in England. [174463]

  Ruth Kelly
  The available information cannot be given at this level of detail.

  Suicides
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many suicides there were in England and Wales in 2002. [174486]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1450W
  Letter from Len Cook to Tom Cox, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question how many suicides there were in England and Wales in 2002. (174486)
  There were 4,665 deaths with a verdict of suicide or an open verdict1 in England and Wales in 20022.
  1Data for England and Wales are for deaths occurring in the calendar year.
  2 Causes of death were defined using the International Classification of Diseases, Tenth Revision (ICD-10) codes X60–X84 (suicide verdict) and Y10–Y34 (open verdict) excluding Y33.9 where the Coroner's verdict was pending.

  Abortion
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many conceptions resulted in abortion among those aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 in each year since 2000; [174459]

  (2) what the rate of conceptions for females aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000; [174466]

  (3) what the rate of conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in the Essex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000; and how many conceptions there were in each age group. [174578]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Bob Spink, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary questions on conceptions and abortions. (174459, 174466 & 174578)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many conceptions in women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [174510]

  (2) what the rate of conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [174511]

  (3) how many conceptions resulted in abortions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [174513]

  (4) what the rate of conceptions for women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000; [174504]
  1451W
  (5) how many conceptions resulted in abortion among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000. [174506]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Sir Teddy Taylor, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (174510, 174511, 174513, 174504 & 174506)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the rate of conceptions was for women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 in England and Wales in each year since 2000; and if he will make a statement. [174521]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer my hon. Friend the Economic Secretary gave to him on 20 May 2004,Official Report, columns 1197–200W

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the rate of conceptions for women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in each year since 2000; [175395]

  (2) how many conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 there were in West Cumbria in each year since 2000; [175420]

  (3) what the rate of conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 was in West Cumbria Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175421]

  (4) how many conceptions resulted in abortions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in West Cumbria Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000; [175425]

  (5) how many conceptions resulted in abortion among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in each year since 2000. [175516]

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

  letter from Len Cook to Tony Cunningham, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (175395, 175420, 175421, 175517 & 175516)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 9.1, Column 1201W–1208W.
  1452W
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.
  Please note that information for the West Cumbria area is not available. However, information for the Cumbria and Lancashire Strategic Health Authority area is given at both the above references.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex is not available.

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the rate of conceptions in women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175619]

  (2) how many conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175620]

  (3) how many conceptions resulted in pregnancy terminations among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [175625]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Adrian Flook, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (175619, 175620 & 175625)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) how many conceptions in women of 19 years and under there were in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by age; [175782]

  (2) what the rate of conceptions in women of 19 years and under was in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority since 2000, broken down by age; [175783]

  (3) what the rate of conceptions for women of 19 years and under was in each year since 2000, broken down by age; [175786]

  (4) how many conceptions resulted in abortion among women of 19 years and under in each year since 2000, broken down by age; [175787]

  (5) how many conceptions resulted in abortions in women of 19 years and under in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by age. [175763]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1453W
  Letter from Len Cook to Jim Dobbin, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (175763, 175782, 175783, 175786 & 175787)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the rate of conceptions in women aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175388]

  (2) how many conceptions in women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000; [175391]

  (3) how many conceptions resulted in abortions among women aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000. [175386]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Paul Goodman, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (175386, 175388 & 175391)
  The information you requested on conceptions, and conception rates was given in answer to a recent question from David Amess MP, which appears in the Official Report of Monday 24 May, No. 91, Column 1201W–1208W.
  Information on conceptions resulting in abortions was given in answer to another question from David Amess MP, which appears in the same Official Report at Column 1197W–1200W.

  Child Tax Credit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in Hull North are eligible for the child tax credit; and what the take-up rate is. [174793]

  Net council tax paid by households within each Government Office Region by equivalised disposable income quintile, 2001–02-England

  North East

  North West and Merseyside

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  242

  3.1

  —

  396

  4.7

  —

  370

  4.0

  9,112

  —

  —

  9,995

  —

  —

  10,245

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  420

  3.3

  —

  430

  3.4

  —

  375

  3.0

  12,790

  —

  —

  13,483

  —

  —

  13,622

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  500

  2.6

  —

  664

  3.4

  —

  524

  2.7

  17,972

  —

  —

  17,937

  —

  —

  17,920

  —

  —

  1454W
  Dawn Primarolo
  For the number of recipient families, I refer my hon. Friend to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W.

  Council Tax
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will update the information set out in the answer of 17 November 2003,Official Report, columns 520–22W, on council tax, to take account of the effects of taxes and benefits on household income in 2002–03. [174862]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Edward Davey, dated 24 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question asking for an update of the information set out in the answer of 17 November 2003, Official Report, columns 520–22W, giving how much council tax was paid as a proportion of gross income for households in each income quintile group in each English region. (174862)
  Estimates have been produced from the Office for National Statistics' analysis "The effects of taxes and benefits on household income" published on the National Statistics website on 6 May 2004 at http://www.statistics.gov.uk/taxesbenefits. The analysis includes measures of income inequality for the United Kingdom as a whole based on data from the Expenditure and Food Survey. This is a sample survey covering about 7,000 households in the UK and sample sizes for each region are only sufficient to give approximate estimates.
  The current analysis presents data for the category 'Council tax and Northern Ireland rates', as opposed to the category 'Local taxes' used in previous analyses. This is because, from this year, charges made by water authorities for water, environmental and sewerage services have been excluded. This treatment conforms to the National Accounts classification and definition of taxes where water rates and related charges are considered a charge for services rather than a tax. They have therefore been excluded from the calculation of disposable income. This reply is based on the new methodology and includes updated 2001–02 figures on this basis for comparison.
  The table shows, for 2001–02 and 2002–03, the average net council tax paid for all households in each Government Office Region and for each income quintile group within each region where households are ranked by equivalised disposable income. Equivalisation is a standard methodology that takes into account the size and composition of households and adjusts their incomes to recognise differing demands on resources. The net council tax figures are gross council tax less reported council tax benefits and discounts. The table also shows the boundaries between equivalised disposable income quintiles, which have been calculated separately for households in each Government Office Region. For example, the 1st quintile boundary is the income level below which one fifth of those households are estimated to lie.
  1455W

  Net council tax paid by households within each Government Office Region by equivalised disposable income quintile, 2001–02-England

  North East

  North West and Merseyside

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  4th

  —

  707

  2.3

  —

  750

  2.6

  —

  647

  2.4

  26,154

  —

  —

  24,290

  —

  —

  23,907

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  872

  15

  —

  936

  1.8

  —

  846

  1.7

  All households in region

  —

  548

  2.2

  —

  635

  2.6

  —

  553

  2.3

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Eastern

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  484

  5.1

  —

  426

  4.8

  —

  468

  5.3

  10,517

  —

  —

  10,071

  —

  —

  11,116

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  549

  3.5

  —

  429

  3.5

  —

  527

  3.4

  14,894

  —

  —

  13,958

  —

  —

  16,206

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  679

  2.8

  —

  598

  2.6

  —

  722

  2.7

  19,777

  —

  —

  18,032

  —

  —

  22,332

  —

  —

  4th

  —

  725

  2.3

  —

  782

  2.3

  —

  786

  2.1

  26,917

  —

  —

  25,358

  —

  —

  30,455

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  785

  1.4

  —

  781

  1.5

  —

  885

  1.4

  All households in region

  —

  644

  2.4

  —

  603

  2.3

  —

  678

  2.2

  London

  South East

  South West

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  444

  4.6

  —

  473

  4.8

  —

  474

  5.4

  11,647

  —

  —

  12,758

  —

  —

  10,955

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  559

  3.1

  —

  643

  3.3

  —

  570

  3.8

  17,770

  —

  —

  18,203

  —

  —

  14,643

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  753

  2.2

  —

  746

  2.6

  —

  674

  3.0

  25,855

  —

  —

  24,832

  —

  —

  19,555

  —

  —

  4th

  —

  789

  1.7

  —

  831

  1.9

  —

  746

  2.5

  38,166

  —

  —

  35,472

  —

  —

  26,542

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  886

  1.0

  —

  981

  1.3

  —

  897

  15

  All households in region

  —

  686

  1.7

  —

  735

  2.0

  —

  672

  2.5

  Note:

  1 Boundary point between equivalised disposables income quintiles.

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, based on the analysis 'The effects of taxes and benefits on household income'

  Net council tax paid by households within each Government Office Region by equivalised disposable income quintile, 2002–2003-England

  North East

  North West and Merseyside

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  395

  4.1

  —

  378

  4.0

  —

  368

  4.0

  10,600

  —

  —

  10,952

  —

  —

  10,378

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  474

  3.5

  —

  487

  3.3

  —

  490

  3.4

  14,052

  —

  —

  14,832

  —

  —

  14,181

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  541

  2.6

  —

  597

  2.7

  —

  556

  2.7

  18,501

  —

  —

  19,287

  —

  —

  19,533

  —

  —

  4th

  —

  697

  2.5

  —

  753

  2.4

  —

  670

  2.3

  24,518

  —

  —

  26,993

  —

  —

  25,829

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  883

  1.8

  —

  979

  1.9

  —

  847

  1.6

  All households in region

  —

  598

  2.4

  —

  639

  2.4

  —

  586

  2.4

  1456W 1457W

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Eastern

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1(£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  513

  5.1

  —

  406

  4.3

  —

  591

  5.4

  10,992

  —

  —

  10,865

  —

  —

  12,113

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  558

  3.4

  —

  497

  3.3

  —

  580

  3.3

  15,238

  —

  —

  14,259

  —

  —

  16,944

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  691

  2.9

  —

  656

  2.9

  —

  784

  2.9

  20,734

  —

  —-

  19,323

  —

  —

  22,195

  —

  —

  4th

  —

  835

  2.3

  —

  802

  2.4

  —

  855

  2.3

  28,150

  —

  —

  26,717

  —

  —

  33,990

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  956

  1.6

  —

  883

  1.7

  —

  958

  1.5

  All households in region

  —

  711

  2.4

  —

  649

  2.5

  —

  753

  2.4

  London

  South East

  South West

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1(£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Income boundary1 (£)

  Net council tax (£)

  Net council tax as percentage of gross income

  Quintile

  Bottom

  —

  395

  3.7

  —

  553

  5.3

  —

  480

  5.6

  11,904

  —

  —

  12,545

  —

  —

  11,576

  —

  —

  2nd

  —

  507

  3.1

  —

  660

  3.6

  —

  602

  4.0

  17,009

  —

  —

  18,310

  —

  —

  16,173

  —

  —

  3rd

  —

  714

  2.3

  —

  851

  2.9

  —

  769

  3.0

  26,286

  —

  —

  24,805

  —

  —

  21,231

  —

  —

  4th

  —

  918

  1.9

  —

  938

  2.3

  —

  844

  2.5

  37,876

  —

  —

  33,743

  —

  —

  29,152

  —

  —

  Top

  —

  928

  1.0

  —

  1050

  1.5

  —

  988

  1.8

  All households in region

  —

  693

  1.8

  —

  811

  2.4

  —

  737

  2.7

  Note

  1Boundary point between equivalised disposable income quintiles.

  Source:

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

  Labour Statistics (Eastern Region)
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what the change in the number of jobs in the manufacturing sector in the Eastern Region has been in(a) the last 12 months for which figures are available and (b) in the 24 months prior to this; [174544]

  (2) how many people are employed in engineering and engineering related industries in the Eastern region; and how many were employed in these industries in (a) 2003, (b) 2002 and (c) 2001. [174545]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Alistair Burt dated 24 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions about employment in the manufacturing industry and engineering sectors in the eastern region. (174544, 174545)

  The latest year for which figures are available is 2002. The attached table shows the information requested for the years 2000–2002.
  1458W

  Employee1 jobs in manufacturing, and in engineering and related industries—Eastern region: 2000–2002

  £000

  Year2

  Manufacturing

  Change year on year

  Engineering

  Change year on year

  2000

  333

  —

  120

  —

  2001

  328

  -5

  118

  -2

  2002

  307

  -21

  109

  -9

  1Employee jobs only, does not include self-employed.

  2The Annual Business Inquiry is released in December of each year.

  Source:

  Annual Business Inquiry (ABI).

  Financial Statistics
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the Government consumption expenditure deflator and (b) the level of public sector inflation for each year since 1997. [174980]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1459W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Howard Flight, dated 24 May 2004.

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning (a) the Government consumption expenditure deflator and (b) the level of public sector inflation for each year since 1997. (174980)

  The implied annual deflator for general government consumption derived from the national accounts estimates published in March 2004 is presented in the attached table.

  Please note that these estimates do not present price measures directly, since with a few exceptions (e g. passport fees), there are no directly observable prices for the services provided by government. The estimates are therefore derived by comparing the spending on producing government services with measures of the output of those services. As derived statistics, they should not be confused with measures of the price of the inputs such as public sector earnings or prices paid for other purchases.

  In calculating the deflator, the quality and reliability of the output measures are crucial. However, public service delivery and management mechanisms have developed and become more complex in recent years, and there is an increasing emphasis on the quality of service for the customer. As a result there are greater demands on, and expectations of, measures of government output. In order to ensure that output measures can respond to these demands, in December 2003 I announced an independent review, led by Sir Tony Atkinson, of the future development of government output and productivity measures, and the associated price indices.

  General Government consumption—implied deflator1 UK, 1997–2003

  Year

  Index

  1997

  88.8

  1998

  91.1

  1999

  95.4

  2000

  100.0

  2001

  105.7

  2002

  113.3

  2003

  122.7

  1Indexed, with value of 100 in year 2000

  Source:

  UK National Accounts, 26 March 2004

  Gershon Review
  Brian White
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to publish the results of the Gershon review. [175431]

  Mr. Boateng
  Sir Peter Gershon continues to work closely with all Departments to prepare detailed efficiency proposals for consideration in the 2004 Spending Review. A further announcement will be made at the Spending Review.

  Holiday Bond Schemes
  Mr. Salter
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to ensure that companies promoting holiday bond schemes make potential investors aware of the financial risks involved. [174533]

  Ruth Kelly
  Where firms carry on regulated activities relating to specified investments, including holiday bond schemes, firms must be authorised by the Financial Services Authority (FSA). The FSA also regulates promotions of holiday bonds involving controlled investments and activities, which includes checking that promotions are clear, fair and not misleading.

  Large Business Office
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the operating costs have been for the Large Business Office for each year since 1997. [174937]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Large Business Office developed during 1997–98 so 1998–99 was the first full year of operation.

  The operating costs of the LBO for each year, together with those of the prior year, are set out in their Annual Report. Copies of those for 2000–01 and 2002–03 are held in the House of Commons Library.

  Low Sulphur Petrol
  John Thurso
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what steps he has taken to ensure the availability of low sulphur petrol after 1 September in the North East of Scotland and the Highlands and Islands; and if he will make a statement. [174481]

  John Healey
  Following the announcement by the Chancellor that a duty differential of 0.5p/1 in favour of sulphur free petrol will apply from 1 September 2004, we anticipate that this will rapidly replace low sulphur petrol. The marketing of sulphur free fuels is a matter for the oil industry, however we do expect that the duty differential will be sufficient to ensure widespread availability across the UK generally. Certainly, early indications from the oil industry are that Scotland will be among the first areas to see the introduction of sulphur-free fuels.

  Northern Ireland
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much public money has been spent in Northern Ireland in each of the last seven years, broken down by main budget heading; and what the general receipts were in each year, broken down by revenue source. [175232]

  Mr. Boateng
  Identifiable public spending by function, region and country is published annually in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses. The latest data for Northern Ireland is shown in the tables 8.5,8.6,8.7,8.8 and 8.9 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2004 (Cm 6201). Information on current receipts is published in Table C8 of the Financial Statement and Budget Report (HC 301). No Northern Ireland-specific figures are available for current receipts.

  Public Sector Inflation
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list(a) the Government consumption expenditure deflator and (b) the level of public sector inflation for each year since 1979. [175243]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1461W
  Letter from Colin Mowl to Chris Ruane, dated 24 May 2004:

  The National Statistician has been asked to reply to your recent question concerning (a) the Government consumption expenditure deflator and (b) the level of public sector inflation for each year since 1979.1 am replying in his absence. (175243)

  The implied annual deflator for general government consumption derived from the national accounts estimates published in March 2004 is presented in the attached table.

  Please note that these estimates do not present price measures directly, since with a few exceptions (e.g. passport fees), there are no directly observable prices for the services provided by government. The estimates are therefore derived by comparing the spending on producing government services with measures of the output of those services. As derived statistics, they should not be confused with measures of the price of the inputs such as public sector earnings or prices paid for other purchases.

  The methodology used in calculation the volume measure of Government consumption was changed from the mid-1990s, therefore comparisons should be made with care.

  In calculating the implied deflator, the quality and reliability of the output measures are crucial. However, public service delivery and management mechanisms have developed and become more complex in recent years, and there is an increasing emphasis on the quality of service for the customer. As a result there are greater demands on, and expectations of, measures of government output. In order to ensure that output measures can respond to these demands, in December 2003 the National Statistician announced a review of the future development of government output and productivity measures, and the associated price indices.

  General Government consumption—implied deflator1 UK, 1979–2003

  Year

  Index

  1979

  27.8

  1980

  34.4

  1981

  38.8

  1982

  42.0

  1983

  44.7

  1984

  46.8

  1985

  49.5

  1986

  52.4

  1987

  56.2

  1988

  60.4

  1989

  64.8

  1990

  70.0

  1991

  74.9

  1992

  79.1

  1993

  81.1

  1994

  83.1

  1995

  84.9

  1996

  87.4

  1997

  88.8

  1998

  91.1

  1999

  95.4

  2000

  100.0

  2001

  105.7

  2002

  113.3

  2003

  122.7

  Source:

  UK National Accounts, 26 March 2004

  Travellers
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many visits income tax and VAT inspectors have made to unauthorised traveler 1462W
  developments to ensure the proper collection of income tax and VAT in the year to 5 April 2004 in (a) England and Wales and (b) South Bedfordshire. [171777]

  John Healey
  Both HM Customs and Excise and the Inland Revenue are committed to treating all taxpayers fairly and equally and do not target or classify businesses by demographic or racial group. An approach to managing non-compliance is taken which deploys resources on the basis of risk assessment. It is not therefore possible to quantify the number of visits made to unauthorised traveller developments.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Child Poverty
  Gregory Barker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the Government's aim to eradicate child poverty in this country by 2020. [172912]

  Mr. Pond
  I refer the hon. Member to the oral answer given by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Redcar (Vera Baird) on 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 625–26.

  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions using the 1999 Millennium Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey, how many children he estimates lived in families with below 70 per cent. of the before housing costs national median income who also lacked(a) one or more and (b) two or more of the necessities proposed in the annex of the document Measuring Child Poverty; and how many of those categorised as missing out on (i) one or more and (ii) two or more of the list of necessities did not have before housing cost income; below 60 per cent. of median income in 1999. [173450]

  Mr. Pond
  We have not made any estimates using the 1999 Millennium Poverty and Social Exclusion Survey.

  The official Government estimates of low income are derived from the Family Resources Survey-based Households Below Average Income dataset. Data for the material deprivation element of the measure outlined in the document Measuring Child Poverty will be collected on the Family Resources Survey from 2004–05, and will be published in 2006.

  Copies of the 'Measuring Child Poverty' document are available in the Library.

  Council Tax Benefit (Hampshire)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have claimed council tax benefit in(a) Portsmouth, (b) Southampton and (c) the rest of Hampshire in each of the last three years. [174195]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is in the table.
  1463W

  Council tax benefit recipients in Portsmouth, Southampton, and Hampshire local authorities

  Thousand

  Council tax benefit recipients

  Local authority

  August 2001

  August 2002

  August 2003

  Portsmouth

  14.2

  12.8

  13.8

  Southampton

  17.9

  18.0

  17.3

  Basingstoke and Deane

  6.3

  6.5

  6.6

  East Hampshire

  4.1

  4.1

  4.2

  Eastleigh

  4.7

  4.8

  4.9

  Fareham

  3.7

  3.7

  3.6

  Gosport

  4.7

  4.4

  4.7

  Hart

  2.0

  1.9

  2.1

  Havant

  8.7

  8.0

  8.2

  New Forest

  8.9

  8.5

  8.5

  Rushmoor

  3.5

  3.4

  3.7

  Test Valley

  4.3

  4.3

  4.5

  Winchester

  4.5

  4.3

  4.4

  Notes:

  The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  The figures have been rounded to the nearest hundred and expressed in thousands.

  Figures for any non-responding authorities have been estimated.

  Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System Quarterly 100 per cent. caseload stock-count taken in August 2001, 2002 and 2003.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many national insurance numbers have been issued in each year since 1992. [172917]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of National Insurance Numbers (NINOs) created each year since 1992 on the Departmental Central Index (DCI) is in the table.

  Year January to December

  NINOs created on DCI

  1992

  9,765,000

  1993

  3,292,000

  1994

  1,057,000

  1995

  1,008,000

  1996

  979,000

  1997

  1,018,000

  1998

  1,027,000

  1999

  1,023,000

  2000

  996,000

  2001

  928,000

  2002

  1,082,000

  2003

  1,142,000

  Advertising and Publicity
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the expenditure of his Department on advertising and publicity was in each of the last six years, broken down by campaign; and what the projected expenditure is for 2003–04. [152855]
  1464W
  Maria Eagle
  2003–04 was a major year for advertising and publicity in the Department for Work and Pensions, with a number of big campaigns rising to a peak of activity.

  During 2003–04, estimated expenditure on alerting people to their rights, responsibilities and entitlements through information campaigns was £58,179,000. Of this sum, an estimated £40,894,000 was spent on advertising using television, radio, cinema, internet and press media.

  Some campaigns, such as pension credit and new deal, have expenditure falling into more than one financial year, depending on requirements and final billing dates. Estimated total expenditure for 2003–04, broken down by campaign, is in the table.

  £

  2003–04 campaign

  Advertising expenditure

  Total publicity expenditure1

  Future Pensioners/Informed Choice

  —

  2,700,000

  Pensioners' Guide

  —

  1,250,000

  Pension Credit

  11,100,000

  15,580,000

  The Pension Service

  570,000

  2,650,000

  Direct Payment

  11,044,000

  12,474,000

  Direct Payment road show

  51,000

  480,000

  Fraud

  8,383,000

  9,362,000

  Winter Fuel

  637,000

  938,000

  Council Tax Benefit

  500,000

  652,000

  New Deal

  5,800,000

  7,600,000

  Jobcentre Plus awareness

  —

  531,000

  Jobseeker Direct help-line

  1,700,000

  1,700,000

  Jobcentre Plus employer marketing

  1,016,000

  1,016,000

  Age Positive

  46,000

  946,000

  DDA Awareness and Disability Rights

  47,000

  300,000

  Total

  40,894,000

  58,179,000

  1 The total publicity expenditure column includes the advertising costs shown in the centre column. Final expenditure April 2003-March 2004 may differ from these figures depending on actual activity and billing dates.

  Notes:

  All costs exclude VAT.

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest £1,000

  Advertising costs are total media costs excluding all production costs.

  Information campaigns costing under £250,000 and the details of highly localised publicity activity by the Department's customer-facing businesses have generally not been included as a disproportionate cost would be incurred in compiling these figures.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January 2004, Official Report, column 342W, detailing expenditure for 2001–02 and 2002–03. Information on total advertising and publicity costs by campaign for these years can be found in the Department's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  A more detailed breakdown, distinguishing between advertising and other publicity costs, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Benefits
  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Scotland were in receipt of(a) housing benefit and (b) council tax benefit in (i) 2000–01 and (ii) 2001–02. [174022]
  1465W
  Mr. Pond
  The available information is in the table.

  Housing benefit and council tax benefit recipients aged 60 and over in Scotland

  As at May

  Housing benefit

  Council tax benefit

  2000

  203,000

  275,000

  2001

  203,000

  281,000

  Notes:

  1. The figures are based on a 1 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  2. The data refers to benefit units, which may be a single person or a couple.

  3. The figures have been rounded to the nearest thousand.

  4. Council tax benefit totals exclude any Second Adult Rebate cases.

  5. Housing benefit figures exclude any Extended Payment cases.

  6. "Aged 60 and over" refers to cases where the claimant and/or partner are aged 60 or over.

  Source:

  Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit Management Information System, Annual 1 per cent. sample, taken in May 2000 and 2001.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) state pensioners and (b) non-pensioner benefit recipients within the Tamworth constituency receive (i) pensions and (ii) other benefits (A) through an order book, (B) through a Post Office Card Account and (C) paid directly into a bank or building society account. [160057]

  Mr. Pond
  Information in the following table gives the number of customers in the Tamworth constituency, by benefit, broken down by their method of payment (order book, Post Office Card Account or direct payment) as at 23 January 2004. Child benefit and war pensions information is not included as these are the responsibility of the Inland Revenue and Ministry of Defence respectively.

  Payment by order book

  Payment by Post Office card account

  Payment direct into a bank or building society account

  (a) State pensioners (women over 60 and men over 65)

  State pension (retirement pension)

  5,235

  250

  6,720

  Other benefits1

  2,835

  (1)

  1,850

  (b) Non-pensioner benefit recipients

  Total of benefits

  3,700

  455

  5,415

  1Other benefits are attendance allowance, disability living allowance, incapacity benefit, carers' allowance, industrial injuries, pensions credit, severe disablement allowance and widows benefit.

  Notes:

  The following special points should be noted:

  1. For confidentiality reasons, all figures are rounded to the nearest 50.

  2. Figures relate to payload and not caseload therefore if a claimant is receiving more than one benefit e.g. pension credit (PC) and state pension (SP) but only receives one combined payment through the PC system they will only be shown as having a pension credit account and not a state pension account.

  3. Payments made into some bank/building society accounts will still allow customers to access their cash at Post Office branches if the account provider has an arrangement with Post Office Limited.
  1466W
  4. Benefits are bereavement benefit, disability living allowance, incapacity benefit, carers' allowance, industrial injuries, income support, jobseekers allowance, pension credit, severe disablement allowance and widows' benefit.

  Source:

  DWP Information Centre, Information & Analysis Directorate (100 per cent. data).

  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Battersea are receiving at least one benefit that can be collected at the post office. [168855]

  Mr. Pond
  Based on information available at 21 February 2004, the number of pensioners in Battersea receiving at least one benefit that can be collected at the post office is 5,555.

  This figure includes payments made into post office card accounts. It also includes girocheques, which are encashable at either a post office or through a bank or building society account.

  There are no data available on the number of benefit payments collected at post offices through the wider range of banking services now available.

  This figure does not include child benefit or war pensions accounts, as these are the responsibility of Inland Revenue and the Ministry of Defence respectively.

  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the measures introduced to improve the working conditions of disabled workers it Blackpool, North and Fleetwood over the last seven years. [175892]

  Maria Eagle
  We have a number of measures in place nationally to help improve conditions for disabled people at work, as well as measures to improve their access to services generally. None of these are specific to Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, but all are available to disabled people who live and work there.

  From 1996, the employment provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act required most employers of 20 or more staff not to discriminate against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled job applicants or employees; in December 1998, we reduced this threshold to 15 employees. From October this year, the small employer exemption will be removed and most currently excluded occupations, such as police officers, fire-fighters, and partners in business partnerships will be brought within the scope of the Disability Discrimination Act employment provisions.

  Jobcentre Plus runs a number of specialist programmes providing help for disabled people, including New Deal for Disabled People, WORKSTEP, Access to Work, the Job Introduction Scheme, and Work Preparation. All these programmes provide practical advice and support to disabled people and their employers to help overcome work related obstacles resulting from disability. Since 1997–98 there have been year on year increases in both numbers helped and programme spend.

  To help people access appropriate help, Jobcentre Plus has established a network of disability service teams. The teams are made up of disability employment

  1467W
  advisers, access to work advisers and occupational psychologists; their services are accessed through local Jobcentres.

  Since April 2003, disabled people in work have been receiving financial support through the working tax credit. This is available if a person it working an average of at least 16 hours per week (self employed or for an employer); and have a disability which puts them at a disadvantage in getting a job. 70,000 families (including over 32,000 adults without children) are benefiting from the disability element within the working tax credit, compared to 38,000 who benefited from the old disabled person's tax credit.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Havant constituency have migrated from over the counter benefit payments to automated credit transfer in each of the last 12 months. [167330]

  Mr. Pond
  The number of pensioner accounts (men over 65 women over 60) in the parliamentary constituency of Havant that have migrated from over the counter benefit payments to Direct Payment in the past 12 months is in the table.

  Figures refer to accounts migrating. An individual pensioner paid two benefits separately will be counted as two pensioner accounts.

  Statistics are taken from individual scans of benefit databases at a point in time each month. New accounts opened and closed in between scans are not included in the figures. Similarly, if a person changes their method of payment and then reverts back to the old method of payment this change will not be included.

  Time period

  Number of accounts migrating

  24 January 2004 to 21 February 2004

  285

  27 December 2003 to 24 January 2004

  305

  29 November 2003 to 27 December 2003

  35

  1 November 2003 to 29 November 2003

  170

  4 October 2003 to 1 November 2003

  225

  6 September 2003 to 4 October 2003

  20

  9 August 2003 to 6 September 2003

  120

  12 July 2003 to 9 August 2003

  70

  14 June 2003 to 12 July 2003

  20

  17 May 2003 to 14 Jun 2003

  65

  19 April 2003 to 17 May 2003

  45

  22 March 2003 to 19 April 2003

  5

  22 February 2003 to 22 March 2003

  30

  25 January 2003 to 22 February 2003

  40

  28 December 2002 to 25 January 2003

  5

  Carers Allowance
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) claims and (b) successful claims for carers allowance were made in each of the last three years for which figures are available to (i) claimants under 65 years and (ii) claimants over 65 years. [173073]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table.
  1468W

  1 December 2001 to 30 November 2002

  1 December 2002 to 31 May 2003

  Claims received

  65 and over

  16,695

  24,400

  Under 65

  136,545

  68,690

  Claims decided

  Successful with entitlement

  65 and over

  11,725

  22,570

  Under 65

  120,250

  63,675

  Successful In Payment

  65and over

  840

  1,390

  Under 65

  100,305

  51,890

  Notes:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Data on new claims are not currently available for August 2003 and November 2003.

  Figures for the number of claims received refer to the number of people making claims and a person may have made more than one claim but they will only be counted once.

  Source:

  ICA Unit, 100 per cent. sample

  Chagossians (Resettlement)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will meet delegates from West Sussex county council in order to discuss the resettlement of Chagossians in West Sussex. [165573]

  Mr. Pond
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to do so.

  Chagossians arriving in the Great Britain and who are not subject to immigration control, have the same rights as anyone else to seek assistance from the social security system. Generally anyone claiming benefits has to establish a habitual residence in the UK.

  Child Benefits/Support
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions under what powers the child element of jobseeker's allowance and income support will continue to be paid after 1 April 2004. [172892]

  Mr. Pond
  For families not yet migrated to tax credits, child and family allowances in income support continue to be paid under regulation 17(1)(b) and (c) of the Income Support (General) Regulations 1987 and child and family allowances in jobseeker's allowance continue to be paid under regulation 83 (b) and (c) of the Jobseeker's Allowance Regulations 1996. The relevant primary powers are sections 124, 135 and 136 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and sections 4, 12 and 13 of the Jobseekers Act 1995.

  Subsequently, once tax credits have been awarded and put into payment, child and family allowances will be removed from income support and jobseeker's allowance under the provisions in The Social Security (Working Tax Credit and Child Tax Credit) (Consequential Amendments) Regulations 2003 S.I. 2003 No. 455.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many parents have been found guilty of avoiding paying the right amount of child support in(a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK, in each year since 1997. [173245]
  1469W
  Mr. Pond
  The administration of the Child Support Agency is a matter for the Chief Executive, Mr. Doug Smith. He will write to my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Letter from Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 24 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, how many parents have been found guilty of avoiding paying the rightful amount of child support in (a) Jarrow constituency, (b) South Tyneside, (c) the North East and (d) the UK, in each year since 1997.

  I do not have the information in precisely the form requested. I can however indicate the number of liability orders by the Child Support Agency in each year from 1997. Obtaining these orders is a pre-requisite for subsequent enforcement action leading ultimately to potential committal to prison. The figures are:

  Number

  1996–97

  1,125

  1997–98

  1,374

  1998–99

  2,033

  1999–2000

  2,523

  2000–01

  1,755

  2001–02

  1,427

  2002–03

  2,383

  2003–04

  3,885

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what action he will take to provide further support to single parents whose former partners are avoiding paying the right contribution to their child's upbringing. [173246]

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

  Letter form Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Stephen Hepburn, dated 24 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, what action he will take to provide further support to single parents whose former partners are avoiding paying their rightful contribution to their child's upbringing.

  The Agency has taken a number of steps to improve its enforcement work. It has taken action to identify and examine barriers to effective enforcement, has benchmarked its services and simplified the process by which debt is referred for enforcement. Additional staff have been deployed in this area. The Agency's Business Plan for the current year identifies enforcement activity as one of its six key priorities.

  Mr. Hepburn
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to introduce further measures to give the Child Support Agency power to take action against parents not paying the right amount of alimony. [173247]

  Mr. Pond
  None.

  The Child Support Agency already has a wide range of powers.
  1470W
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his statement on CSA Performance, Departmental Report 2004, page 19, what his forecasts were for new scheme(a) cases with maintenance calculations, and (b) compliance; and what the performance was against those forecasts. [172954]

  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 Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 24 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 statement on CSA Performance, Departmental Report 2004, page 19, what his forecasts were for new scheme (a) cases with maintenance calculations, and (b) compliance; and what the performance was against those forecasts.

  The Agency will be publishing its annual report for the year to 31 March 2004 in July. This will indicate the Agency's actual performance in the year against targets set by Ministers.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his statement on the CSA Delivery Strategy, Departmental Report 2004, page 18, on how many occasions(a) cases have stuck in the system, (b) cases have disappeared from caseworker screens and (c) telephone calls have been routed inappropriately. [172955]

  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 Mr. Doug Smith to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 24 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 statement on the CSA Delivery Strategy, Departmental Report 2004, page 18, on how many occasions (a) cases have stuck in the system, (b) cases have disappeared from caseworker screens and (c) telephone calls have been routed inappropriately.

  I am unable to provide robust information in the form requested. Ministers have however made regular reports to Parliament on the operation of the new arrangements and these were placed in the library of the House of Commons on 16 July 2003, 18 November 2003, 12 February 2004, and 21 April 2004.

  Civil Service Travel
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost to his Department of Civil Service travel expenses has been in each of the last seven years. [172919]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information is in the table. DWP was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security (DSS) and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment (DfEE). Travel expenditure information is not available for the former DfEE. Expenditure figures up to and including 2000–01 are for the former DSS only.
  1471W

  £

  Travel Expenditure

  1997–98

  26,443,081

  1998–99

  27,427,728

  1999–2000

  29,164,243

  2000–01

  30,621,828

  2001–02

  34,431,759

  2002–03

  30,813,140

  2003–04

  33,383,959

  Source:

  Former DSS and DWP payroll systems.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173362]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) publishes material available on its website www.dwp.gov.uk in HTML (hyper text markup language) generated via "active server pages" (ASP) or Adobe Acrobat (PDF). The PDF format is mainly used for longer documents that members of the public might want to print out rather than view on screen. Images, where they are used, are provided in standard graphic file formats GIF and JPEG. Information about accessibility, to help users with visual impairments or other disabilities, is given at: www.dwp.gov.uk/accessibility/

  When leaflets, guides, forms and other documents are updated older versions are removed from the website so that members of the public gel the most up-to-date information. Electronic copies of archived documents are available via e-mail on request from: www.dwp.gov.uk/publications/orderolditems/orderoldpubs.asp. These documents are provided in Adobe Acrobat (PDF) format.

  Further information about the full range of material published by the Department for Work and Pensions (DWP) can be found in our publication scheme at: www.dwp.gov.uk/pub_scheme/.

  Departmental Communications
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many staff were employed in the Department to work in the communications field, and what the total expenditure on communications for the Department was, broken down by(a) Government Information and Communication Service staff and (b) other staff, broken down by (i) press officers, (ii) special advisers and (iii) others, in (A) 1994–95, (B) 1996–97, (C) 1997–98 and (D) 2001–02. [168681]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001 from the former Department of Social Security and parts of the former Department for Education and Employment. Information on costs from 1994 to 2000–01 is not held centrally, and for the year 2001–02, is only available for the Department's Communications Directorate. The available information is in the table.
  1472W

  Total expenditure on DWP Communications Directorate staff for the Department for 2001–02

  Total staff cost (£)

  5,023,218

  Of which

  Cost of press office staff (£)

  816,725

  Total of staff employed in DWP Communications Directorate broken down by (a) Government Information and Communication Service (GICS) staff and (b) other staff broken down by (i) Press Officers (ii) special advisers and (ii) others in 2001–02

  (i) GICS

  147

  (ii) Other staff

  154

  Of which

  (iii) Press Officers (numbers)

  18

  (iv) Special Advisers (numbers)

  Nil

  (v) Others (numbers)

  136

  1Includes 21 Press Officers

  Notes:

  1. All costs exclude VAT.

  2. Figures have been rounded to the nearest 1,000.

  3. Advertising costs are total media costs excluding all production costs.

  4. Information campaigns costing under £250,000 and the details of highly localised publicity activity by the Department's customer-facing businesses have generally not been included as a disproportionate cost would be incurred in compiling these figures. Non GIGS Press Officers are Regional Press Officers.

  The total publicity expenditure column includes the advertising costs shown. Final expenditure April 2003 to March 2004 may differ from these figures depending on actual activity and billing dates.

  The Department for Work and Pensions was formed in June 2001. I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 27 January 2004, Official Report, column 342W, detailing expenditure for 2001–02 and 2002–03. Information on total advertising and publicity costs by campaign for these years can be found in the Department's annual reports, copies of which are in the Library.

  A more detailed breakdown, distinguishing between advertising and other publicity costs, could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Ethnic Monitoring
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what ethnic monitoring is carried out of staff in his Department including staff on short-term contracts. [175506]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department for Work and Pensions monitors ethnicity to assess the effectiveness of its policies and procedures in creating a diverse workforce that is representative of the communities that we serve. This includes those staff on fixed-term contracts of employment. We hold ethnicity data on 88 per cent. of the Department's workforce which enables us to obtain robust data for our monitoring activities.

  The ethnic profile of our workforce compares favourably with that of the general population and in the labour market. This information is made available within the Department by region and by grade.

  The Department collects a wide range of information about the human resources activity of staff and aims, as a minimum, to meet the mandatory requirements in respect of employment duties stipulated in the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended by the Race Relations (Amendment) Act 2000.
  1473W
  Monitoring is undertaken in relation to: job application rates; selection success rates; representation of different ethnic groups in the workforce; training application rates; promotion application and success rates; and performance and development appraisal mark distribution.

  In addition we are developing systems to monitor disciplinary action, grievances and unsatisfactory work performance by ethnicity.

  Incapacity Benefit
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of incapacity benefit claimants aged between 50 years and state pension age worked immediately prior to their claim in each year since 1997(a) in the UK and (b) broken down by region; and if he will make a statement. [175283]

  Maria Eagle
  The information is in the table.

  Proportion of those aged 50 to state pension age who were in employment prior to claiming incapacity benefits, broken down by region

  Percentage

  Region

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  North East

  52

  46

  42

  50

  56

  North west

  53

  51

  56

  55

  53

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  58

  54

  46

  58

  57

  East Midlands

  55

  58

  60

  56

  55

  West Midlands

  50

  48

  49

  51

  55

  East of England

  53

  63

  62

  65

  64

  London

  54

  53

  58

  55

  63

  South East

  43

  39

  46

  44

  45

  South West

  56

  51

  53

  58

  57

  Wales

  52

  47

  49

  52

  48

  Scotland

  54

  49

  56

  55

  58

  All GB

  53

  51

  53

  55

  55

  Notes:

  1. Includes incapacity benefit/severe disablement allowance payments and 'credits only' cases.

  2. Figures include those previously in employment and self-employment.

  3. Figures include those aged 50 and excludes women aged 60 and men aged 65.

  4. Figures are for in-flows in year to April.

  Source:

  DWP administrative data (1 per cent. sample)

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps Jobcentre Plus is taking to match the skills development of the unemployed to employer demands in the workplace. [172631]

  Jane Kennedy
  Through initiatives like the New Deal and Ambition, Jobcentre Plus provides a range of help to people needing to improve their skills in order to find work and fill vacancies.

  Employers have been involved from the start in the design of New Deal to ensure it meets business needs. New Deal is delivered by local partnerships, including training organisations and employers, and is tailored to meet the needs of local economies. Training is procured locally and linked to employer need.
  1474W
  The Ambition initiatives aim to help unemployed and disadvantaged people gain the right skills to meet employer needs in key sectors. The sectors targeted are those with skills shortages and employers are closely involved in the development and design of training.

  Jobcentre Plus also works with key economic partners at local and regional level to ensure our activities meet with business and economic priorities for the area. Since October 2002, each English region has had in place a Framework for Regional Employment and Skills Action (FRESAs). FRESAs aim to maintain and improve regional labour markets by co-ordinating a strategy for employment and skills in each region, and ensuring a more efficient and co-ordinated service.

  The publication of the 2003 Skills Strategy, "21st Century Skills—Realising Our Potential", has increased the momentum for the skills agenda for those in and out of work. Jobcentre Plus will continue to work with partners at a national regional and local level to ensure the ambitions of the skills strategy are developed in a way that makes a real difference to individuals and employers, ensuring that employers get employees with the skills they need for their business.

  ME
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many ME sufferers appealed after their initial claims for disability living allowance were rejected in the last 12 months; and how many of these were(a) successful and (b) unsuccessful in their appeals. [171341]

  Maria Eagle
  This is a matter for Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to my hon. Friend.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to John Robertson, dated 24 May 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the number of ME sufferers that appealed after their initial claims for disability living allowance were rejected in the last 12 months; and how many were successful or unsuccessful in their appeals.

  The information is not available in the format requested.

  I am sorry that I cannot be more helpful.

  Leroy Keen
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will investigate why it took two years to conclude that Mr. Leroy Keen of Paignton had been overpaid by £119.55 in income support. [173431]

  Mr. Pond
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: Details of benefit claims are confidential and I will write to the hon. Member.

  This is in line with part 2, paragraph 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  New Deal
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many young people in the East Riding of Yorkshire he estimates have gained sustained employment through the New Deal who would not otherwise have done so; [171789]
  1475W
  (2) what the cost of the New Deal in the East Riding of Yorkshire has been since its inception. [171790]

  Jane Kennedy
  The New Deal for Young People has been successful in helping 2,570 young people in the East Riding Local Authority area into work, 2,090 of which have gained sustained employment.

  Information on how many of these young people would not have gained sustained employment without New Deal intervention is not available. However, research by the National Institute for Economic and Social Research (NIESR) found that long term unemployment would have been twice as high without New Deal for Young People and that a large number of young people left unemployment quicker than they would have done without New Deal.

  Information on the cost of New Deal in the East Riding of Yorkshire is not available.

  State Pension
  Mr. George Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proportion of the average wage the state pension is in the UK; and what the figure is for each member state of the European Union. [155467]

  Mr. Pond
  The average State Pension payment to all recently retired pensioners is 20 per cent. of average earnings.

  The comparable figure is not available for EU member states because most EU countries have earnings related State Pensions schemes. The amount of State Pension will therefore vary according to the individual earnings during their working life

  Notes:

  1. State Pension is the maximum rate of basic State Pension plus the average amount of additional pension in payment based on March 2003 data for recently retired pensioners (men 65, women 60).

  2. Average earnings is the mean weekly earnings at April 2003 of £475.80

  3. The 20 per cent. figure has been rounded to the nearest percentage point.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Hull, North are eligible for pension credit; and what the takeup rate is. [174792]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The minimum income guarantee (MIG) was replaced by pension credit on 6 October 2003. Those who were receiving MIG immediately prior to that date were transferred automatically to pension 1476W
  credit. Information on the number of people who are eligible for pension credit is not available in respect of individual constituencies. However, we estimate that approximately 350,000 pensioner households in the Yorkshire and Humberside Government office region (rounded to the nearest 50,000) are eligible for pension credit. This estimate is based on data from the Family Resources Survey for 2001–02. A revised estimate, based on data from the Family Resources Survey for 2002–03, will be available early in June.

  The number of recipients of MIG and pension credit in Hull, North in October 2003 and April 2004 respectively is shown in the table.

  Minimum income guarantee and pension credit recipients, Hull, North, October 2003

  Number

  Minimum income guarantee (3 October 2003)

  Households

  3,425

  Individuals

  4,100

  Pension credit (30 April 2004)

  Households

  4,485

  Individuals

  5,565

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures for individuals include a small number of partners under age 60.

  Vulnerable Customers (Cheque Payment)
  Mr. Berry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his written statement of 11 May 2004,Official Report, columns 6–7WS, on vulnerable customers (payments by cheque), at what point the (a) Pension Service, (b) Jobcentre and (c) Disability Benefits Office will accept that a vulnerable customer's payment by cheque is late or lost; and whether a vulnerable customer, if they have not received any post on the day payment is due, will be able to contact their Pension Office and receive an emergency payment that day. [17424]

  Mr. Pond
  We will ensure that people get the money they are entitled to. Where a cheque payment does not arrive by the due payday, the customer should initially contact the office which normally pays their benefit or pension. Arrangements for replacement payments will vary depending upon the individual circumstances and needs of each customer.

  Paying by cheque is a well-established method of payment that the Department has used successfully since 1968. We already have procedures in place for dealing with missing payments. We will ensure they continue to meet the needs of those customers paid by cheque.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Fingerprinting (Asylum Applicants)
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I have today made an authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended which enables the Home Office to continue to implement measures targeting the top five nationalities in terms of third country/Dublin cases for additional examination on the grounds of nationality. This follows an authorisation made by my predecessor my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) on 24 February 2004 which enabled the Home Office to initiate these measures.

  These authorisations enable my officials to compare the fingerprints of asylum seekers of these five nationalities against other Governments' fingerprint databases of asylum seekers, failed asylum seekers and those granted some form leave to remain.

  They also allow my officials to compare the details of asylum seekers from the five prioritised nationalities with the details of individuals originally from those countries but now holding a form of immigration status elsewhere who have been granted a visa to travel to the UK.

  The purpose of these measures is to enable my officials to identify individuals who have claimed asylum, are failed asylum seekers or absconders, or enjoy some form of status in another country who subsequently claim asylum in the UK.

  I have decided to continue these measures to allow further time to gather evidence to test our assumptions that significant numbers of asylum applicants from these five nationalities are entering the country on legitimate EU and other western countries' documents and subsequently claiming asylum as a refugee, and to acquire further information on this abuse in order to
  74WS
  inform future Home Office policy. I have also decided to make this authorisation continuous, and I will review the operation of it at three monthly intervals to consider the implementation and outcome of the measures and the top five nationalities targeted.

  Iraq, Turkey, Iran, Somalia and Sudan were the top five nationalities subject to third country/Dublin action in the last six months of 2003. These nationalities remain the top five over the previous six months from October 2003—March 2004. This means that other EU member states are properly responsible to consider the asylum claim of the individuals concerned.

  Any individuals identified under these processes may be returned to the safe third country identified as responsible for them under existing immigration law.

  Immigration
  The Minister for Citizenship and Immigration (Mr. Desmond Browne)
  I have today made an authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976, as amended, which will enable immigration officers to prioritise the examination of passengers of Somali national origin. For a period of three months this will allow such people to be examined more rigorously than would otherwise be the case.

  The purpose of this measure is to enable the immigration service to obtain information on the number and profiles of Somali-born passengers entering the UK. The aim is to establish how many of in country asylum applicants claiming to be a Somali, apparently without documentation, enter the UK.

  This authorisation extends one that was made by my predecessor as Minister for Immigration on 24 February this year.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy)
  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has issued a direction that brings cases related to the running of a business, and brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, into the scope of legal aid. The standard criteria for receiving legal aid, as set out by the Access to Justice Act 1999, will still have to be met. The full text of the direction has been placed in the Library of the House.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Albans.

Crown Prosecution Service
Baroness Whitaker Baroness Whitaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to improve the performance of the Crown Prosecution Service in bringing offenders to justice.
The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith): My Lords, the CPS programme of major reform will put prosecutors at the heart of the criminal justice system from charge to sentence and increase the number of offences brought to justice. The cornerstone is the new charging scheme, under which prosecutors take on the responsibility for charging suspects, which has already been shown to improve criminal justice. In addition, there is greater support for victims and witnesses, a new COMPASS IT system, new and improved working relationships with the police and other agencies, community engagement, specialist prosecutors and an enhanced role at each stage of the justice process.
Baroness Whitaker: My Lords, I thank my noble and learned friend for that comprehensive Answer. But perhaps I may press him more on the role of the CPS as regards death in custody. There used to be a number of occasions when the families of people who died while in custody were left in the dark. They were not sure what was happening and a great amount of distress and perhaps unfairness was thereby caused. Can my noble friend tell me that things are improving now?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, my noble friend raises a very important issue. Death in custody is a matter of enormous concern for the family and friends of the person who died, but it is also a matter of public confidence. I am glad to say that the Crown Prosecution Service is implementing all the changes that I recommended in my review of prosecution practices in relation to deaths in custody in July 2003. It includes faster and more open decision-making—my noble friend is right to refer to that issue as important—the personal involvement of the director in all cases and the family being kept much more up to date on the key decisions.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, on looking at the Question, is it to be assumed that an accused on a complaint is to be treated as an offender until he has been tried and convicted? Are we to assume that the
1046
Crown Prosecution Service should prosecute when there is no reasonable prospect of a conviction? I refer to the Question.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, no. Certainly, a person will not be treated as an offender until that person is convicted, if he is. But the expressions offences brought to justice" and bringing "offenders to justice", are, of course, what the criminal justice system is about. It also ensures that people who are not offenders do not have to face the courts at all.
So far as the second part of the question is concerned, the Crown Prosecution Service will continue to prosecute only in cases where there is a realistic prospect of conviction and where it is in the public interest to do so. But it is important that when the CPS does that, it does it as efficiently and effectively as it can. This major programme of change will make that happen.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General referred briefly to his yob-busting initiative in his Answer. But he said nothing about the fact that three weeks ago he announced that designated caseworkers were to have a wide and novel right of audience in the lower courts—for example, the magistrates' courts. Is it right, as the First Division Association has said, that only two extra days' training is to be allocated to those caseworkers in order to carry out that task? What does it do to the reputation of the CPS to have people who are not professionally qualified, and who do not answer to any professional code of conduct, conducting cases in such sensitive areas as domestic violence, racial aggravation and youth justice after plea and conviction? Is that not just another cost-cutting initiative which is not in the interests of justice?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is absolutely not. It is important that we use the resources that are at our disposal in an effective way. All the magistrates to whom I talked about the quality and standard of the work that has been done by the designated caseworkers uniformly praised the work that they have done. I announced a rationalisation and an increase in their powers so that they can do work that is well within their capability. That will free fully qualified lawyers to do the important work, which it is for them to do.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, there are a number of cases in which offenders—for example, drug dealers—against whom good evidence has been garnered by the police are prosecuted by a busy lawyer who, in many respects, is a junior. Inevitably, the drug dealer, with all his money, is defended by an eminent QC, such as abound in this House. Is that not grossly unfair? It has led to certain miscarriages of justice that I could mention.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I certainly do not accept, if that is the tenor of the noble Lord's question, that cases are failing as a result of the inadequacies of those who prosecute them. I am sure that that is not the

1047
case. However, I accept that it is always important to keep it well in mind that the state—the prosecution service—has at its disposal the right resources to be able to protect the public, because that is what it is about. It should not be outgunned by those who have greater resources and are able to defend themselves in that way.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is there any parallel with employment tribunals, on which I served as a member for many years? I am referring to the question from the Liberal Democrat Front Bench. It was splendid if someone represented themselves at a tribunal or had a friend represent them, and it was equally good if they had a fully qualified legal person representing them. Unfortunately, however, there arose a home-grown industry, equivalent to cut-price lawyers, who defended people who were under the impression that they were getting really experienced representation. Is this likely to happen in this respect? Is there likely to be a growth industry of semi-qualified people who lead people into believing that they are capable of representing them?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, I am horrified at the prospect of cut-price lawyers anywhere at all. However, I can assure the noble Baroness that the situation in the magistrates' courts, where the designated caseworkers operate, is not like that. These are people who are trained—sufficiently, adequately and fully—to do their job. At present, caseworkers do a list in the magistrates' court, but when it comes to something that they are not allowed to do, the case has to be adjourned or put into another court or a lawyer has to be brought in to deal with it when everyone in court, including the caseworker and the magistrate, knows that that person is perfectly able to deal with the case. That is why it is important to make this change.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, there was a time when cut-price lawyers were in fact being used. As a result, the imbalance between the very young who were prepared to accept the cut prices and defending counsel was so marked and the consequences for the administration of justice so bad that you had to review the fees of those whom the CPS retained. You did it, of course, by paying defence counsel less so that you could pay the prosecuting counsel the right fee.
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, this Government—this party—made it a manifesto commitment that we would level the playing field and give the public the same access to lawyers by bringing prosecution fees up to those that the defence were paid. We did that, and we have equalised the situation. So the graduated fee scheme, which is at the heart of the legal aid system for many cases and which applied to defence counsel, has now been operated and is also in force for prosecuting counsel. So we equalised the fees not by cutting defence fees but by bringing prosecution fees up, and prosecution fees have increased as a result.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, following on from that last question, is there any prospect of a resolution of
1048
the dispute over defence fees in very high cost criminal cases which has led to a number of senior members of the Bar withholding their services?
Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, as the noble Lord will know, these matters are very much within the jurisdiction of my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor. However, as he will also know, it was announced that a review of very high-cost cases is taking place, to be completed by the end of this month. I have no doubt that, once that review is complete and discussions have taken place, my noble and learned friend will announce what its consequences are.

Football Clubs: Administration
2.47 p.m.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester Lord Faulkner of Worcester asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether it is appropriate in cases where football clubs go into administration for "football creditors" to take precedence over the claims of the Inland Revenue.
Lord Triesman: My Lords, the order of priority for payments for creditors within an administration is set out within the insolvency legislation, along with the rules governing how an administration is to be carried out. In some cases, however, to provide the best outcome for creditors as a whole, it may be necessary to pay certain creditors or other parties outside the normal priority. Whether any such payments are appropriate are a matter for the commercial judgment of the administrator in seeking to maximise value for the creditors and are open to challenge through the courts.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. He will know that the All-Party Group on Football, in its report on the game's finances, proposed the abolition of the football creditor rule on the grounds that it is unfair and undesirable to maintain a special category of preferential creditor, as that obviously reduces the amount that is available for other unsecured creditors.
Does my noble friend not find it strange that, while the removal of the Inland Revenue as a preferred creditor under the provisions of the Enterprise Act 2002 was intended to promote a collective approach to insolvency and rescue, in the case of football it has had the effect of, in many cases, pushing the Inland Revenue towards the back of the queue of creditors? Is he aware that in the case of Bradford City Football Club, which became insolvent in May 2002, 36 workers in club shops were sacked, the St John Ambulance brigade was left to whistle for the £5,000 owing to it, the local authorities, which were owed money from public money, were denied it, yet Mr Benito Carbone, one of the players, was allowed to collect his £40,000 a week contract without any penalty? Does my noble friend not find that very strange?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I pay tribute to the work of the All-Party Group on Football and to my noble friend

1049
for his long suffering support of Wimbledon Football Club. Mr Justice Lightman considered the Football League rules relating to the payment of football creditors. He found that, although they might be considered objectionable, they were legal. Objectionable seems to be a modest word when one considers the evidence that has just been provided about Bradford. It appears that there may be cut-price lawyers, but there are no cut-price footballers.
The aims of administration and the Enterprise Act are not intended to herald a change in the Inland Revenue's debt-collecting procedures—that would be a perception not supported by fact. The aim is to support viable businesses with genuine but temporary difficulties and ensure that administration, using the concept of business rescue, tries to get the maximum benefit for the creditors. That often means that the football club has to carry on, because that is its only asset.
Lord Addington: My Lords, does the Minister agree that the situation described by the noble Lord, Lord Faulkner, could actually encourage the incredible wage and price inflation within football, and could therefore be very damaging to football in the long run? Can the problem be looked at in terms of protecting professional sport generally and football in particular?
Lord Triesman: My Lords, I am sure that the problem will continue to be looked at. The Football League is making arrangements to try to introduce wage caps and other measures of prudence so that clubs do not extend themselves beyond where they are capable of surviving, and to try to ensure that clubs are equipped, should they suffer a fall from one Football League division to another. I am sure that all of those arrangements need constant review and that we will continue to review them.

General Practitioners: Chronic Illness. Payments
2.50 p.m.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they support the incentive scheme adopted by Torbay Primary Care Trust whereby general practitioners can be paid £100 for every patient with chronic illness whom they keep out of hospital.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, the Government are in favour of investing resources in the more effective management of chronic disease that protects patients from acute episodes of illness requiring emergency hospital admission. The scheme in Torbay has been negotiated locally. I understand that it has been welcomed by local GPs. We expect the
1050
primary care trust to monitor it carefully and ensure that it works appropriately and that there are no perverse incentives.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply, but I am concerned that a scheme established with the best intentions—as this one obviously has been—to stop unnecessary hospital admissions could end up having the opposite result from time to time. Someone who is very seriously ill and frail—probably an elderly person—could be kept out of hospital when that is really where that person ought to be. Is there some way in which the Department of Health could monitor this type of scheme to ensure that that does not happen?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in my Answer, it is down to the local PCT to monitor this particular scheme. I can see that, in theory, the noble Baroness may have a point. However, I assure her that doctors are not being relieved of their obligations ethically to provide the most appropriate care for their patients. I quote the chairman of the Devon Local Medical Committee, Dr Charlie Daniels, who backed the idea in Torbay. He said that it is a preventive scheme to avoid unnecessary admissions and that it is a reasonable aspiration.
Lord Chan: My Lords, are there other schemes that would have the same effect? I refer in particular to that by which well qualified general practitioners would be employed to screen patients at A&E departments. Would that not he a better way of ensuring that patients who need hospital care receive it and those who do not can be cared for at home?
Lord Warner: My Lords, several primary care trusts around the country are now working, like Torbay, on new approaches to deal with chronic disease management. It is worth bearing in mind that there are 17.5 million people with chronic diseases, many of whom have more than one condition. We are exploring, as are people at local level, new ways of providing a better level of care and earlier identification of patients in this area.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, if the objective of keeping people out of acute hospitals is an acceptable one, schemes of this type should be extended to people other than GPs—community health practitioners, for example, who are the people doing the work that enables people to stay out of hospital, rather than just planning their care?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are moving through a period in which we have shifted the balance of care to primary care trusts and local hospital trusts. We should welcome the fact that PCTs are using a variety

1051
of approaches and using creatively the new quality and outcomes framework in the new GP contract to provide more responsive services to their patients.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, is it right for a primary care trust to pay doctors to do the right thing? Is that the best way of trusting professionals in their professionalism?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the proposal is a feature of the new GP contract, which we discussed extensively in proceedings for the Health and Social Care Bill, to which the noble Baroness made such a magnificent contribution. We discussed the fact that there would be a new contract, with a new quality and outcomes framework and new payments arrangements, some of which would provide incentives and rewards.
Lord Berkeley: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that this is an interesting way of doctors making money? Do they get £100 per disease, per week or per day for keeping people with chronic illness out of hospital, or is it a one-off payment? When does one one-off stop and another one start?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the Government do not believe in cut-price doctors at all. We are providing £75 of the £100 to ensure that there is a proper care plan in place so that the patient gets the most appropriate treatment for their needs.
Lord Ackner: My Lords, does the Minister at least agree that, in theory, the scheme could give rise to a conflict of interest? In such circumstances, how will it to be monitored?
Lord Warner: My Lords, as I said in response to an earlier question, the chairman of the local medical committee—who is likely to be very concerned with doctors' reputations—has welcomed this particular scheme. We hope that the PCT will evaluate the project at a later stage.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, if this scheme is a carrot—which it is—what about also providing a stick? If doctors fail to refer patients who do need hospitalisation, they could be penalised. That might be a fairer scheme and would deal with the point raised by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Ackner.
Lord Warner: My Lords, we prefer rewards and incentives.
Earl Howe: My Lords, the Minister mentioned the GP contract. Does he accept that the new contract makes it increasingly likely that the doctor who sees the patient will not be the patient's own GP—both during working hours and out of hours? As such, it is more likely that patients would be admitted to hospital, because the doctor or nurse who sees them will be unfamiliar with their cases. Do the Government recognise that the introduction of the incentive scheme
1052
in Torbay is in part, at least, a direct result of the changes made by the GP contract? Is that not a concern?
Lord Warner: My Lords, that is not so. My evidence is that Torbay is performing at way above the national average in respect of the length of wait for operations and so forth. It is building on its success in this particular area to go even further in giving patients the care that they need.

Gangmasters (Licensing) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Highways (Obstruction by Body Corporate) Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.

Children Bill [H.L.]
3 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now again resolve itself into Committee on this Bill.
Moved, That the House do now again resolve itself into Committee.—(Baroness Ashton of Upholland.).
On Question, Motion agreed to.
House in Committee accordingly.
[THE CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES in the Chair.]
Clause 7 [Arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 126:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert —

"( ) their functions are discharged in a manner which takes account of the wishes and feelings of children"

The noble Lord said: The Green Paper, Every Child Matters, spelled out the Government's commitment to ensuring that children's voices and experiences are heard and that they are involved in the design and delivery of services. This aim has received widespread support and it is something that features in Article 12 of the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child. However, there is a distinct lack of emphasis on ensuring that the same aim is embedded in the structure for children's services as proposed in the Bill. The only duty that the Bill establishes for involving children is placed with the commissioner in Part I. One of the key problems highlighted by the Victoria Climbié inquiry was the lack of any focus on ensuring that she was spoken to or that her views were sought and recorded. The Bill before us needs to be unambiguous on the point.
The law is currently inconsistent about listening to children. A critical gap remains in relation to social services assessments of children's needs under Sections 17 and 47 of the Children Act. I do not propose to pre-empt the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, whose name precedes mine at the top of Amendment No. 132, but let me simply say that the addition that she has proposed to Section 17 of the Act is one that I wholeheartedly believe to be necessary. It is surely right that whenever a local authority carries out an assessment of a child who is perceived to be in need, the child's views of what is happening to him or her and his or her perspective should form an integral part of the ensuing report. That duty is not in the Bill at the moment and, in keeping with much comparable legislation relating to children, notably the Adoption Act, it really should be. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 in this group. I thank the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for the support that he has given before I have even started. Amendment No. 132 amends Section 17 of the Children Act 1989 so that, before making any decisions about the provision of any service to a child, the wishes and feelings of the child should be taken into account, they should be recorded and, if that is not possible, the reason why it was not possible should also be recorded. The amendment makes clear in statute that a child's wishes and feelings should be an integral part of the local authority's assessment of the child's needs. Of course, in doing so, better quality decision-making would occur.
Amendment No. 133 makes the same requirements for all child protection investigations under Section 47 of the Children Act 1989. Despite the fact that this Bill emerges out of the tragic case of Victoria Climbié, to whom nobody listened, it does not include any provision for strengthening the child's individual voice, except as part of the strategic function of the Children's Commissioner. The Children's Rights Alliance for England and the Children's Society, which have urged these amendments upon us, believe that there is an inconsistency in the law in relation to listening to children that must be addressed. On the day that the Children Bill was published, the Minister for children, Margaret Hodge, said of Victoria Climbié:
"Nobody talked to her, nobody asked her how she felt, nobody asked her what she wanted. That must never happen again".
Those words make the Minister's intention very clear.
The intention is there, so why do we need the amendment? The Green Paper, Every Child Matters, spells out the Government's commitment, but the law is currently inconsistent about listening to vulnerable children and critical gaps remain in relation to social services assessments of children's needs under Section 17 and in relation to child abuse inquiries under Section 47 of the Children Act. Looked-after children, children being considered for adoption and children involved in court proceedings all have a legal right to be consulted, but a child who is the subject of a child protection inquiry or of a child in need assessment has no legal right to be consulted.
1054
The DfES has stated that this is a matter for guidance. Certainly, the statutory guidance, Working Together to Safeguard Children, and other guidance such as A Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families and the new Children's Services guidance What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused emphasise the importance of seeing and communicating with children. But experience has shown that without the statutory duty the response across the country will be inconsistent. There is much practice evidence that children and young people are not always being consulted. This is particularly so in respect of certain groups of children, including the very young and disabled children.
Victoria Climbié's brutal death is testimony to the vulnerability of children, as are other recent high-profile cases. Six year-old Lauren Wright died in May 2000 with 60 bruises on her body. Her step-mother and father were convicted of manslaughter and wilful neglect. Four year-old John Smith was killed in Brighton and Hove in December 2000 by his pre-adoptive parents. He died with 54 bruises on his body and three adult bite marks. Social workers had visited his home on 20 separate occasions. They believed his foster parents when they said that his injuries were self-inflicted. Nobody talked to John. Four of the Victoria Climbié inquiry's recommendations relate to strengthening the child's voice in safeguarding.
In February 2003, the Government issued NHS organisations and local councils with a self-audit checklist to assess the implementation of the urgent recommendations of the Victoria Climbié report. All four recommendations relating to the child's voice were included in that audit and that is well and good. In October 2003, the Commission for Health Improvement, Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary and the Social Services Inspectorate reported on progress. In relation to the child's voice, the three inspectorates concluded that:
"Some councils do not include children's views and wishes in assessments as a matter of course".
In April 2004, the report was published of the case review held in order to learn the lessons from the fatal shooting in September 2003 of seven year-old Toni-Ann Byfield. It stated:
"The overriding impression … is that the primary focus of professional work was on the assessment of Mr Byfield's parental capacity … [and] inadequate attention was paid to the full and necessary assessment of Toni-Ann's needs".
It goes on to state:
"it is difficult to see how, given the very limited number of occasions made available when they were actually in a position to have a direct and private conversation with Toni-Ann, they could make a full and sensitive assessment of her needs and wishes".
The Adoption and Children Act 2002 introduced a new duty on adoption agencies to ascertain the child's wishes and feelings. From the start of that Bill's parliamentary passage, the Government were committed to include in primary legislation a requirement to have regard to the child's wishes and feelings. So why is it not

1055
in this Bill too? I hope that it will be and I hope that these amendments will be viewed with interest, at the very least, by the Government and by your Lordships' House.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I shall be very brief. Having tabled similar amendments to the Adoption Act, I support all these amendments in principle. I cannot conceive of what objection to them could be raised by the Government. I shall listen with attention.
I must apologise to the Minister for not being in constant attendance on this Bill. There have been three other Bills on which I have been engaged. I shall attend for Clause 8, which goes to the heart of this matter.
Lord Northbourne: I rise to support this amendment for a particular reason. I believe that the provisions that are suggested in the noble Baroness's amendments would be the course of action taken by any good quality, well trained social worker, if he had time to do so. If I may, I suggest that the problem is that so many social services departments are so grossly understaffed and also often undertrained. I think that it is only by having a statutory obligation that we shall force local authorities, and if necessary the Government, to provide the funds needed to do the job properly.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to support the comments of my noble friend. We depend on very many unqualified social workers. With social services so overstretched in many areas, and with the worries about extremely vulnerable children, it seems sensible to place this provision on the face of the legislation rather than in guidance.
Baroness Andrews: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken in this short debate. I say to the noble Baroness that we have listened with more than interest to this set of amendments; we have listened with what I hope is great sympathy and understanding. I hope to be able to show how well the guidance is working and to make the case for how we have responded in other ways to the findings of the Climbié report and to show that, in terms of professional practice and principle, this is better done in guidance and process. If I may, I shall work through those arguments in speaking to the amendments.
I think we should bear in mind that the burden of what the noble Lord, Lord Laming, was saying in very many respects in his report was that what is required is for the professionals to do a better job and to do the best job that they can possibly do. That meant following the guidance that was there at the time. So although we have some sympathy, we also have some very important and effective tools as well. The Children Act 1989 enshrines the principle that before decisions are taken regarding the welfare of children, children's wishes and feelings are sought in terms of both court decisions and statutory guidance.
On Amendments Nos. 126 and 206, I begin by assuring noble Lords that both this Government and the Assembly government in Wales will ensure that the guidance we make under Clauses 7 and 22 reaffirms
1056
the importance of listening to and taking account of the views of children. I have used the word "reaffirms" very specifically.
The guidance will certainly include good practice and cross-refer to other legislation and regulations—through, for example, the Government's objectives for children's social services published in 1999—and, in particular to objective 8, which relates to the active involvement of children and families as the users and carers in planning the services they use and the decisions that affect them.
On Amendments Nos. 126 and 206—I shall develop my argument on the other amendments in due course—it is important to remember that children's wishes can quite often conflict with their safeguarding needs. One of our problems with the amendment is that we need to be absolutely sure that the agencies, while they always follow the very sensible and sensitive statutory guidance available, are always clear about where the child's paramount interest lies. In making decisions, safeguarding must remain the priority. We fear that introducing a dual-edged duty could slightly confuse that. We are slightly concerned about that.
Amendment No. 132 would create a completely new clause that would amend the Children Act 1989 so that an authority was required to take "reasonably practicable" steps to ascertain a child's wishes and feelings, and to record in writing their wishes and feelings, or to record why that has not been possible. Placing the child at the centre of such considerations—listening to the voice and views of children—is absolutely consistent with everything we are trying to do in the Bill.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl have already referred to the way in which we are trying to respond to the findings of the Victoria Climbié report. That report was extremely critical of professionals who were responsible for her but who never spoke to her in her own language—French. She was never seen or communicated with. Therefore, she had no opportunity to tell anyone her own story. Those were failures in practice and it is those failures that we wish to address.
3.15 p.m.
As I said, the Children Act provides for children who may be considered in need to be assessed under Section 17. Before providing any services that follow from such an assessment, the authority is required to make an assessment of whether or not that child is "in need" in the sense of the Act and the impact of that status on their health and development. Surely those services should not be provided without the local authority social services building up sufficient information about a child's circumstances.
It is a tragic irony that while Victoria Climbié was in such peril the Government were already working up what became the 2000 framework for assessment to which the noble Baroness referred. That guidance is mandatory for local authority social services, other than in exceptional circumstances. I should like to quote very briefly from the guidance because it has stood the test of time and there is evidence, to which I shall refer, about how well it is working.

1057
The framework makes clear that the significance of seeing and observing a child cannot be overstated; that communication with children is an essential part of assessment; and that children are to be seen, observed and communicated with in their preferred language. It also makes clear that at a turning point in their lives children are enabled to express their wishes and feelings, to make sense of their circumstances and to contribute to decisions that affect them; and that throughout an assessment of the delivery system account should always be taken of their wishes and feelings. The guidance very deliberately sets out very clear steps.
In 2003, in response to the joint chief inspectors' report Safeguarding Children and the Climbié report, best practice guidance—to which the noble Baroness referred—on what to do if you are worried about a child was issued to all professionals. I understand that more than 3 million copies have been distributed. There is a clear instruction on seeing and communicating with children, especially if they have language problems. We have also commissioned Dr David Jones to write Communicating with Vulnerable Children to assist practitioners in this aspect of their work. Had that guidance and the enhanced guidance we have put out been in place earlier, Victoria Climbié might have been better protected.
The amendment may have been designed by analogy to sit alongside Section 1 of the 1989 Act, which does indeed require a child's wishes and feelings to be ascertained before courts' determinations are made in family proceedings. I suggest to the noble Baroness that the analogy does not really stand up. Section 1 deals with the deliberation of the courts in family proceedings. Section 17 deals with children who are potentially in need. That is the general duty on local authorities to look after children. Under Section 17, local authorities may well be engaged in working with loving families who temporarily cannot cope—who probably constitute the vast majority of the 380,000 children in need. Those families are intact and do not need the services of the Section 47 child protection services. As I suggested, the existing framework provides a very full process to be followed in those cases.
The noble Baroness referred also to recording practice. We have to admit that concerns about poor quality recording have been a feature not only of a number of Social Services Inspectorate reports but were a key feature of the events addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, leading up to the death of Victoria. Alongside the assessment framework, we have also published records for completion after an initial and a core assessment. Those records include a section in which the child's views have to be recorded.
We also have to admit that there is no room for complacency. Research commissioned by the Government also showed that young people's views were not always recorded. That does not mean that their views were not sought but that they were not recorded.
We have had to address that issue and three specific steps have been taken. First, additional materials to assist direct work with children and young people,
1058
including disabled children, have been developed and issued. Secondly, new resource materials have been commissioned from Barnardo's to support social workers and will be published shortly. In 2003 we published a training package to assist social workers to improve the quality of the recording. Thirdly, the assessment framework continues to be monitored through the performance assessment monitoring process. That responsibility has just passed to the Commission for Social Care Inspection and will be an important part of its work.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: I ask the noble Baroness a question of principle. We hear so much about statutory guidance, packages and secondary legislation, but surely the issue of principle is whether this measure should be on the face of the Bill, whether the extant regime has operated satisfactorily—I say no more to answer that question—and whether, as I think the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, suggested, this and relevant provisions should be produced in the form of primary legislation. Is that not the issue?
Baroness Andrews: It is the issue that is addressed by the amendments. Principles can be carried very powerfully in secondary legislation but the Government's case is that because of the weight of practice and the need to give guidance that can be implemented and monitored properly, it is better to have the measure in statutory guidance rather than on the face of the Bill, which may not in itself be sufficient. We and the noble Lord—I have heard him defend children's rights on many occasions in this House—want to see better practice. We believe that can be achieved through properly implemented statutory guidance.
There is another problem associated with the notion of recording. There is an argument about Section 17 in relation to what I said about functional families. One does not always want a very heavy intervention. Often it is extremely important that something happens rapidly. It may simply be that the child is referred for a school clothing grant, or that the family is referred to HomeStart or that someone is quickly brought in to deal with a particular problem. That has to happen within seven days. We believe that the amendment, with its requirement to make specific records before any and every decision, may be a recipe for delay and additional bureaucracy. It could deflect help when it is most needed and introduce a new bone of contention into difficult situations. It could increase the risk that children may come under more pressure than at present to express the wishes of people other than themselves.
I have asked the Committee to have confidence in the process of guidance for two reasons. First, we know that the assessment framework is having a very positive effect on practice. We commissioned research that was published this year which found that the use of the assessment framework had increased family involvement in the process, consultation with the family and recording the views of family members. We believe that that is very positive. Secondly, over the past four years there have been 250,000 initial assessments and 50,000

1059
core assessments. All the evidence suggests to us that the participation of children and young people in that period has increased and is working well. It will certainly remain an important feature.
I hope that in the light of what I have said noble Lords will allow us to continue to deal with this matter through flexible guidance, which has the force of statute behind it, and through encouragement of good practice.
I turn to Amendment No. 133. This would amend Section 47 of the Children Act 1989 in the same way as Amendment No. 132 would amend Section 17. In so doing it would also remove the opportunity for local authorities not to seek access to a child if they are satisfied that they already have sufficient information with respect to him or her. It would require local authorities, in carrying out Section 47 inquiries—that is, inquiries into whether they need to take action to safeguard or promote a child's welfare—to take account of the child's wishes and feelings, or to record why they have not been able to do so.
Further, guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children on making Section 47 inquiries, the subject of this amendment, makes clear that,
"enquiries should always involve separate interviews with the child who is the subject of concern".
That guidance, too, is issued under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970.
Of course, there are times when it is not possible to ascertain the wishes of a child. For example, child protection conferences can be held about unborn children, who are clearly unable to express their wishes. However, guidance makes clear that the child should always be seen, and their views and wishes ascertained in the light of their age and understanding.
There are also times when a Section 47 inquiry is started quite appropriately but during the early stages of the inquiry new information comes to light which means that the inquiry should be ended, or information is obtained about the child from another source which means that it would not be reasonable to pursue seeing the child as part of the Section 47 inquiries. For that reason it is important that local authorities retain the discretion to complete a Section 47 inquiry without having seen the child. I am pointing out the difficulties that the amendment would create in that respect. The child will, however, have been seen during the initial assessment which will have preceded the decision to initiate Section 47 inquiries. However, flexibility is built into that.
I hope I have convinced noble Lords that we are fully sympathetic to the arguments and that we are intent on ensuring that the wishes and feelings of children throughout the entire process of assessment, protection and care are implicit in the entire range of practice that we will enhance, and have been enhancing, since the publication of the Victoria Climbié report. I hope that on that basis the amendment will be withdrawn.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: Although I understand the points that the noble Baroness made I am still a
1060
little puzzled why it is not possible, or is not thought desirable, to have the same points on the face of the Bill as in guidance. To my mind that would reinforce the issue, which we all wish to see reinforced because of the problems that have occurred over time. With the greatest respect, it has not been all that long since the Climbié case occurred. Although, obviously, practice has improved, it is not yet sufficiently improved for us to be other than still very worried about it. As there seems to me in both Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 to be sufficient situations where it is not appropriate to consult the child due to his or her age or whatever, I should be most grateful if the noble Baroness could further explain why it is not possible to have the same points in the Bill as in guidance to reinforce the force of the argument.
Baroness Andrews: The Government often have to say that we think it is better to do something in a different way even when that does not meet noble Lords' wishes. Part of the problem with putting measures in primary legislation is that they are fixed and are difficult to change. It is much easier to change something that is less fixed. For the professionals in the front line who have to improve their practice, it is better to have measures that you can change, update and amend. Legislation involves definitions as opposed to feelings. I am afraid that is the only explanation that I have. I hope that I have convinced the noble Baroness of the validity of my arguments although I understand the points that she made.
Earl Howe: The Minister did the best job that it is possible to imagine in trying to persuade us of the strength of her case, but I am not sure that I am persuaded. She said that the guidance was working. I took that as, if you like, the bedrock of her argument. That statement is at best questionable. It was not the conclusion reached by CHI, the Social Services Inspectorate and HM Inspectorate of Constabulary last October when reviewing the self-audit of local authorities and the NHS. I quote a sentence from their report:
"Some councils do not include children's views and wishes in assessments as a matter of course".
That must be of concern.
We currently have a situation in which looked-after children, children being considered for adoption and children involved in court proceedings, all have a legal right to be consulted. But a child who is subjected to a child protection inquiry or a child in need assessment has no such legal right. I do not believe that can be defended. Statutory guidance emphasises the importance of seeing and communicating with children in both those contexts, as the noble Baroness rightly said. But experience seems to show that without a statutory duty the response is always going to be patchy. That cannot be satisfactory. The Minister spoke of the difficulty of giving local authorities a dual-edged duty, yet she conceded fully, I believe, that listening to children was of fundamental importance in all cases and was rightly part of the guidance which has the force of statute.

1061
So I am not quite sure that I accept the intellectual case against my amendment and that of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley. I agree that by its very nature guidance is a flexible instrument, but it is not apparent to me why flexibility is needed when the issue itself is pretty clear cut. I agree entirely with what the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, said in that connection. It would be possible to tweak the wording of my amendment or that of the noble Baroness, to allow for exceptional cases.
This is a matter on which we shall have to reflect further between now and the next stage of the Bill. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
3.30 p.m.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 127:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert —
"( ) Each person and body to whom this section applies must in discharging their duty under this section have due regard to—

(a) the need, where opportunities for disabled children are not as good as those for other children, to promote equality of opportunity between disabled children and other children by improving opportunities for disabled children; and

(b) the need to promote equality of opportunity between;—

(i) children of different racial groups, religions or beliefs, family status or sexual orientation; and

(ii) between boys and girls generally."

The noble Baroness said: This amendment would impose a duty on all agencies working with children and young people locally to have a positive focus on eliminating discrimination and delivering equality of opportunity as part of their duty to have regard to safeguarding and promoting the well-being of children in their care or with whom they have contact.
Many children will not benefit from general measures to promote well-being unless full account is taken of their own specific barriers relating to disability, ethnic background, religion, gender, sexual orientation or family status. Equality must be embedded in the new duty if it is to have any impact on such inequalities. That is an argument which we have made in a number of small debates on amendments on earlier days in Committee.
Such a duty is particularly essential in the light of recent research by the NSPCC and the National Working Group on Child Protection and Disability, which reveals that disabled children are more likely than other children to become victims of physical or sexual abuse and are less likely to get support from child protection services. Perhaps it is because their voice is not heard quite so much.
Disabled children are almost four times more likely to be sexually, physically and emotionally abused and neglected than non-disabled children, according to the NSPCC report—I should declare an interest in that organization—"It Doesn't Happen to Disabled Children": Child Protection and Disabled Children,
1062
which was published last year. Despite that, the report states that there is a common belief that disabled children are not abused. It also reveals widespread failure to protect disabled children from abuse or to take action when abuse is even suspected.
Sir William Utting, the former chief inspector of the Social Services Inspectorate, in his foreword to the report said,
"We should long be past the point of a 'one-size-fits-all' system of child protection. Disabled children are particularly vulnerable to abuse. Additional measures are therefore needed to prevent, investigate and remedy incidents of abuse".
The Disability Rights Commission, which is backing this amendment, also argues that local safeguarding children boards should also have similar equality provisions written into their functions under the Bill and regulations under Clause 9 should address the need to consult and involve local disability groups who represent the needs of those children.
I hope that the Government will accept this amendment. It is very important that we have that equality written into the Bill. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: Can the noble Baroness say why learning disability has not been included as one of the major differentials? If this amendment is retabled, would she be prepared to include it? Learning disability is a huge issue in which children are vulnerable to abuse.
Baroness Walmsley: The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is right. It highlights the danger of lists. I would certainly consider including children with learning disabilities if this amendment is retabled.
Lord Rix: I do not really believe that it is necessary to differentiate between learning disability and disability because both are disabilities. One is talking about children with disabilities. I am delighted that my noble friend Lord Northbourne has suggested that learning disabilities should be in a separate category. But in the context of this amendment I do not believe that it is necessary.
Although I heartily support this amendment, I disagree with some of the wording, such as:
"where opportunities for disabled children are not as good as those for other children".
That is totally unnecessary. It is a redundancy or a pleonasm, according to my school-day memories. The amendment should read,
"the need to promote equality of opportunity between disabled children and other children by improving opportunities for disabled children".
That is a straightforward statement and order. If one puts in,
"where opportunities for disabled children are not as good as those for other children",
one is allowing differentials, street by street, house by house and school by school. The opportunities can be different all the time. We want equality of opportunity. I believe that learning disability is perfectly well included in "disabled children".
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I entirely agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, over this matter. There is a danger in specifying learning disabilities because once one does that one tends to exclude everything which is not specified.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support this amendment. The contributions made by other Members of the Committee have been very helpful, not least the discussion about learning disabilities. I agree that that should be contained within the whole issue of disability. I also support the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, which improves the amendment. It is one of a stream of amendments. The noble Baroness, Lady Finlay of Llandaff, also supports the amendments but she cannot be here today.
The whole aim is to highlight the disadvantages that are suffered by children in all the groups and, if I may return to some of my roots, the differences between the disabilities that can occur between men and women and boys and girls. It can go both ways. Boys can be disabled in many ways by not having the same opportunities as girls and vice versa. I also hope that there will be specific recognition on the face of the Bill wherever it is necessary that this is to be of paramount importance.
Earl Howe: There is little that I wish to add to the case so admirably put by other Members of the Committee. Perhaps I may hark back briefly to the previous group of amendments.
As has been said, we know that disabled children and young people are particularly vulnerable to abuse, but we also know that abuse of disabled children has been traditionally under-reported and there are quite a few case studies to show that. I shall give brief details of one graphic example. In the recent report of the national working group on child protection and disability there is a case concerning life-threatening injuries to two young girls with severe cognitive impairment, in which it emerged that only two out of 60 health and social services professionals who had had contact with those girls had directly communicated with them and recorded their words and non-verbal responses.
So, indicators of abuse are sometimes difficult to disentangle from the effects of a child's impairment, but that should never deter us from trying to listen to the voices of all children and of disabled children in particular. While there is a risk that the Minister will stand up and say that that is yet another example of a special pleading for lists, or however one could describe it, there is a powerful case to be made for focusing on the vulnerability of disabled young people.
Baroness Andrews: I do not think that children with disabilities or, indeed, disadvantaged children generally, could have a finer group of champions than those who have spoken in this debate. Of course we have sympathy with and commend the principle behind the amendments. I also think, with no small thanks to my noble friend Lady Ashton, that our policies for children with disabilities and special needs have been significantly
1064
advanced. I am afraid that the debate illustrates some of the difficulties with identifying groups of children in the Bill. It is a debate that we have already had in the course of the Bill and I entirely accept what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said. I do not want particularly to revert to the curse of the list, but it is there, it is a problem and we know that disabled children are particularly vulnerable. It is well documented and the noble Lord has just given a strong example of people not taking care to find out in time what those children felt. It is a bad example of bad practice. However, the problem is that when we single out groups of children in the Bill or any other Bill, we exclude other children by implication. That is more dangerous and puts them in a more vulnerable position. That is part of the problem.
In our debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, on disabled children, we have already referred to our record on attempting to prohibit discrimination on the grounds of race, gender and disability. I shall refer to a comment made by the noble Baroness which was that what we wished to see in the Bill was about changing cultures, styles of working practices, attitudes and professional relationships. That is what would make a permanent change; equality is not just about new laws. I wish to put on record that we have been so concerned about the vulnerability of disabled children to abuse, particularly their vulnerability if they cannot express themselves, that we gave specific guidance in Working Together to Safeguard Children and asked ACPCs to ensure that,
"local policies and procedures for safeguarding children meet the needs of disabled children".
In Framework for the Assessment of Children in Need and their Families there is specific reference to the needs of disabled children and what needs to be done. We are also funding the Council for Disabled Children to design a training resource on safeguarding disabled children for practitioners that extends and supports that. We continue to try to improve that. Next year, because we know that high family stress increases the risk of child abuse—and noble Lords will know that it is stressful to bring up children with disabilities for all sorts of reasons—we plan to introduce a performance indicator to encourage local authorities to increase the number of families with disabled children in their area who receive family support. That is extremely important.
Finally, the National Service Framework for Children, which we aim to publish later this year, will also help to ensure that disabled children are effectively safeguarded. That has brought together experts in the field in the working groups and it will introduce standards on disability and safeguarding. It will also promote the use and access by disabled children of equipment and technology to assist communication needs. All of this is about improving outcomes and I am sure that that is what noble Lords want.
To ensure that improvements are really taking effect, in their last report, the joint chief inspectors also recommended that all relevant inspectorates should ensure that appropriate inspection activity has been undertaken to safeguard children with disabilities.

1065
They have also agreed to strengthen the focus on disabled children for the next joint chief inspectors' review of safeguards. So we have some additional safeguards built into the process.
I wish to speak briefly about what we are doing about black and Asian children and young people, because the Home Office publication, Race Equality in Public Services, shows that we have taken the same approach. Again, the framework gives specific practice guidance on how to assess the needs of children in black and ethnic minority families, taking into account race and culture. Our Quality Protects programme is there to raise standards across the board with regard to those families. It aims to transform services and outcomes and has placed an increasing emphasis on ensuring high quality outcomes for black and minority ethnic children. Several demonstration projects on services are in that mode. Encouraging people to think and work in different ways is difficult, slow and is not as dramatic as putting something in the Bill. If we want permanent change that percolates down through the professions, we will have to deliver better outcomes by guidance in relation to Clause 7, which will be the most effective action that we can take.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Rix: I suggest, if the amendment is withdrawn or no Division is called, that in paragraph (a) of the amendment we look at the possibility of inserting the words "equality of opportunity", because, after all, that is what we are after. It is not just "welfare"—that means one thing. "Equality of opportunity" means something else and for disabled children it is vital, as it is for ethnic minorities and other groups. But, if one talks about "equal opportunities" and the process of welfare and equal opportunities" for all children one achieves our aim without putting in a list.
Baroness Andrews: The noble Lord is always ingenious and persuasive and we never turn a deaf ear to anything that he says. The duty of Clauses 7 and 22 of the Bill is not aimed at ensuring equality, it is about safeguarding and promoting the welfare of such children. However, the noble Lord has made a strong point.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply and I do not fail to acknowledge the many initiatives that the Government have taken to try to improve the lot of children with disabilities of all kinds. There are many noble Lords who support the principle behind the amendment, although we may play around with the wording before we get it absolutely right. I understand what the Minister has said about guidance and that is all very well if people follow it properly. But Bills are about principles and guidance is then supposed to fill in the details and help people to implement the legislation properly. That principle of equality of opportunity is not there in the Bill. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and "equality of opportunity" is there in paragraph (b) of the amendment. That is what we seek for all children.
1066
So I shall withdraw the amendment for the moment, but perhaps we can get together and come up with wording that can command even wider support and that may possibly even be accepted by the Government in terms of the principle of equality of opportunity, which should be at the heart of the Bill. Perhaps we can avoid a list during that process and come to an agreement. We will undoubtedly be talking about the matter between now and Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 127A:
Page 6, line 5, at end insert—
"( ) All serving and past employees of any organisation listed in subsection (1) shall be required to safeguard and promote the welfare and privacy of any child whose person or records have at any time been part of his duty.
The noble Baroness said: The purpose of the amendment is clear and it is of fundamental importance. It is to state on the face of the Bill that the duty to safeguard and promote the welfare and, crucially, the privacy of any child whose personal records have been part of the work of an employee of any of the organisations listed in Clause 7(1) is ongoing. It outlasts the person's employment with only one individual employer and it is therefore something on which a person can be taken to task at a subsequent stage. It is a key element of existing good practice that disclosure of information which has come to a practitioner during the course of his professional duties should remain confidential and that duty of confidence should outlast a person's employment with an employer.
Why the need to raise an amendment? This is, as Members of the Committee can imagine, a curtain-raiser for an interesting debate that we shall have for the rest of the afternoon. It is an acknowledgement that should the provisions of Clause 8 go ahead, it will be easier for such disclosures to take place. It will be easier for them to take place by accident, perhaps rather than by intent, but they will be no less grave for that. I suggest that it will be easier for individuals to disclose not only information which has come to them in the course of their duty, but may well have come to other professionals with whom they work.
It is not undue to suggest that if the potential for disclosure increases, the safeguards against disclosure ought also to be increased. And so, too, should the potential penalties. That is why we believe in reinforcing the point. I fully accept that the Minister will say that it is in existing good practice, but it is worth making it a duty—and one which transcends employers. Statistics indicate that there is now a tendency for individuals who work in social care to move from one employer to another. In London, children's social services departments in particular would collapse were it not for the high numbers of temporary and agency appointments. For those reasons, we believe that the duty should be underlined deliberately on the face of the Bill. I beg to move.
The Earl of Northesk: I support the amendment. I need not elaborate on the comments of the noble

1067
Baroness, Lady Barker, in detail. It is enough to say that there is a certain tension at the heart of the Bill. On the one hand, the Government have committed to the aim of the sharing of information as a means to offer protection to children and to promote their welfare. The method by which this is intended to be achieved is a database or databases. On the other hand, it is equally important, particularly in the context of any deployment of IT solutions, that this be balanced by appropriate safeguards of children's fundamental rights.
Of course, I acknowledge that in individual cases, this necessitates a delicate balancing act. The protection and welfare of children requires the considered judgment of those involved in their care and it could well mean that the sanctity of their rights is offended against. Nevertheless, particularly as they reach adulthood, it is essential that the position of their data and their rights in respect of it should be protected. We should avoid the impulse of compromising those rights simply because they are children. As currently drafted, the Bill ducks that issue.
I have no doubt that the Minister will proffer assurances along the lines that any databases that may be instigated on the back of the Clause 8 provision will be subject to the existing constraints of both the Human Rights and Data Protection Acts. Such an assurance would offer some comfort. None the less, instinct persuades me to believe that because we are touching on issues of such gravity and seriousness, the Bill would benefit from the amendment or something like it.
At the end of the day, I cannot help feeling that practitioners in the field should be under no illusion that one of their primary duties is to,
"safeguard and promote the welfare and privacy of any child"
for whom they have responsibility. Hence my support for the amendment.
Earl Howe: I should like to be able to support the amendment and I sympathize with its aim. However, to be honest, I find the wording a touch on the strange side. I understand and accept the point about privacy and the need to keep confidences sacrosanct indefinitely. That is a powerful point and I agree entirely with my noble friend Lord Northesk. But to require all former employees of a local authority or any other body to carry on promoting the welfare of children for ever and a day, even when they may have moved to other employment, emigrated or become so old that they cannot even promote their own welfare, is surely going a little far.
I can see the point that the noble Baroness and my noble friend are trying to address and, broadly speaking, I have sympathy with it. However, perhaps the wording needs adjustment.
Baroness Andrews: I assure the noble Baroness that this is not a Front-Bench conspiracy, but the noble Earl has made my case most eloquently. We, too, have sympathy. How could one not have sympathy with the
1068
aim of requiring former employees to keep confidential information about children with whom they have come into contact in the course of their work? The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, made a powerful statement to that effect.
I do not want to anticipate Clause 8 and I am sure that we will spend a lot of time on all its aspects. However, like the noble Earl, Lord Howe, we believe that the amendment goes too far. Any employee would remain not only under a duty to keep confidential information about a child with whom he had worked but also under a duty to safeguard and promote the welfare of that child long after contact with the child had finished. And a former employee would remain under the same duty after he had left the employment of the agency even if he had emigrated or retired.
I have a surreal image of an elderly caseworker in a residential home feeling bound to telephone long-gone clients to make sure they were still wearing their motorcycle helmets. We must be careful about how we draft such amendments. If, in the worst case, the child died, it might even mean that the social worker could be sued for something over which he had no control. They are unintended consequences of the amendment, but we must take them into account.
Working to safeguard children is a difficult and demanding job. We all know that it is not easy to find social workers as the job places unique demands on people emotionally, intellectually and physically. I hope I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, that social workers are under no illusions that they must keep information confidential and private. It is central to ethical practice and professional training, to which the noble Baroness paid tribute.
However, if the intention is simply to ensure that employees remain bound by a duty of confidence, as I am sure it is, I can reassure Members of the Committee that it is covered by the common law duty of confidence. That is owned by the worker and it would not cease simply because the employment had ended or the person was no longer involved with the case. Nor would that individual's professional code of conduct or practice cease to apply.
I am sure that Members of the Committee know more about the common law duty of confidence than I do, so I say simply that the circumstances in which a common law duty of confidence arises have been built up by case law over time. The duty arises where a person shares information with another in circumstances where it is reasonable to expect that the information will be kept confidential.
4 p.m.
The courts have found a duty of confidence to exist where there is a special relationship between parties, such as patient and doctor, where a contract provides for such information to be kept confidential, or when an agency or government department collects and holds personal information. Disclosure can be justified only when the information is not confidential in nature, such as when the person to whom the duty is

1069
owed has expressly or implicitly authorised it, where there is an overriding public interest, or disclosure is required by a court order or other legal obligation.
In conclusion, for all the reasons that have been expressed, it is very important that individuals who work with children understand that they should not broadcast information about those children or young people, either during their employment or afterwards. It is for the employers of those staff to make clear to them their responsibilities bound by this common law duty. We have enhanced that in the booklet, to which I referred when speaking on an earlier amendment, What To Do If You're Worried A Child Is Being Abused, published last year. The booklet stressed very clearly that practitioners should treat as confidential all personal information they acquire or hold in the course of working with children or families. It states that they should take particular care with sensitive information. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that that is a reasonable argument and on that basis she will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker: This has been an extremely useful and helpful debate, not least because it flags up one of the problems that we shall confront all afternoon—safeguarding does not always consist solely of confidentiality. Indeed confidentiality in the role of social care can itself become a problem. Part of the inspiration for the amendment was the work of adoption agencies where the issue is not straightforward confidentiality. In fact, it may be an issue of disclosure at a later stage. I accept that there are defects in the wording of the amendment as the people concerned will no longer be children. However, they will be adults whose social welfare is, in part, dependent upon the work done with them when they were children.
I take some of the points raised by the Minister. This issue perhaps deserves the attention of a better wordsmith than I but I would say to the noble Baroness and to the noble Earl that the idea behind what I am suggesting is not far-fetched. In addition, I am grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for his support for another theme of the afternoon—that is, if the Government wish Clause 8 to stand in anything like its current form, then issues about protection of information and levels of disclosure will have to be set out in far greater detail. I take what the noble Baroness says about ethical codes of behaviour which govern social care workers. I also understand what the noble Earl says about the ability of employers to continue to police that. I shall consider whether it is possible to bring forward a more elegant form of wording at a future stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 128 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
[Amendments Nos. I28A and 129 not moved.].
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 130:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert —
"( ) The following subsections shall be inserted at the end of section 17 of the Children Act 1989—
"(13) A local authority must at the request of—

(i) any child who is in need as defined in subsection (10), or

(ii) any person caring for, or who proposes to care for, such a child, or

(iii) any person who has parental responsibility for such a child,

carry out an assessment of that person's needs for services appropriate to the child's needs.
(14) A local authority may, at the request of any other person, carry out an assessment of that person's needs for services in relation to a child in need.
(15) Where, as a result of an assessment, a local authority decide that a person has needs for services under this Part, the local authority must then decide whether to provide any such services to that person.
(16) If a local authority decide to provide any services to a person under this Part, the local authority must prepare a plan in accordance with which services are to be provided to the person and keep the plan under review.
(17) Regulations may make provision about assessments, preparing and reviewing plans, the provision of services in accordance with plans and reviewing the provision of services.""
The noble Baroness said: We turn to what I suspect will be one of the most important groups of amendments of the afternoon. We have not yet reached Clause 8 but we are getting very close. The amendments are inspired by what we perceive to be some quite serious defects in Clause 8. Throughout the great many discussions there have been about this clause—the proposals on information sharing—a number of fundamental questions have been posed. The most fundamental was best expressed at Second Reading by the noble Baroness, Lady David, when she asked why, after 30 years, we cannot get professionals to talk to each other.
In Clause 8, the Government have for good reason chosen a particular way to answer that question. In my view, that is a flawed way. I believe that one of the biggest flaws underlying Clause 8 is that they see a database as a solution to communications between professionals. That is the problem which we are seeking to address.
One of the very valid points made by those who support Clause 8 is that there is a desire to see professionals from different disciplines—all of whom have a duty to safeguard the well-being of children—communicate long before the child concerned is in a moment of crisis. Quite rightly, there is an intention to try to organise services in such a way that when it becomes apparent that a problem is beginning with a child or a family, the services should swing into action.
I come to this Bill as someone who does not have a great deal of experience with children's services. One of the refreshing things I have been able to do from my standpoint of ignorance is to ask people, with no loading of the question, what it is that does not work

1071
now. For 30 years we have had all these different reviews of child deaths and we have come back to this same issue.
In the amendment before the Committee there is a solution to which the Government should have paid more attention before going down the route that they have chosen in Clause 8. The solution is Section 17 of the Children Act and the duty to assess. I am told by people who work in the field of children and family support that Section 17 and its current interpretation works exactly as the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, said when she replied to an amendment a few moments ago. Section 17 sets out the general duty of an authority towards all children.
Indeed, there has been a decision in your Lordships' House to that effect in the case of R v Barnet BC and Lambeth BC. The amendment would change the interpretation of Section 17 so as to make a duty to assess all children who are in need; not children who are in such crisis that Section 47 applies, but Section 17. That covers children and families who are beginning to experience difficulties and for whom an intervention of some kind could well be a positive and preventive experience. In the context of severely overwhelmed social services departments—one need read only a couple of pages into the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, to understand exactly the state of a busy social services department—it is families who are not in crisis who do not receive at an early stage the support and help which would be most beneficial. That is the purport of the amendment.
Amendments Nos. 146 and 152 in this group deal with other issues. If you approach any of the organisations listed in Clause 7(1), you will find that their members talk at great length about the fact that any one of those agencies can come across children and families who have a problem. It may not be a problem that they can address because they do not have the wherewithal, the skills or whatever to do so. It would rightly be the duty of another agency to address the problem, but it cannot do so and cannot be compelled to do so.
I believe that, taken together—the duty to assess, the definition of a "child in need" as set out in Amendment No. 130, and the trigger for action set out our Amendments Nos. 146 and 152—the amendments provide a credible and robust framework upon which to try to achieve what the Government are, for good reason, seeking in their current Clause 8.
I believe that the amendments, taken together, are preferable to the current wording of the Bill because they provide a clear link with assessment, and assessment must have taken place because there has been a concern about a child. They contain a definition of the level of the problem and a definition of a child being in need, and they tie those to an action. Those three things together legitimise the sharing of information. As we shall repeat time and again this afternoon, no one in this Committee can have any doubt that the sharing of information by professionals is important and the key to proper childcare.
However, the terms under which information is disclosed and the details of those about whom information can be disclosed are a cause for huge practical concern. Therefore, Amendments Nos. 146 and 152 set out the basis upon which information may be disclosed and include the people about whom the information is being disclosed. Members of the Committee have already mentioned that in some of our discussions. It is accepted that, of children who are in severe need, about 80 per cent remain with their families. Such children will ideally, even if they are taken into care, return to their communities and families. Therefore, it is important that those who are involved with them are told of the information that is disclosed to different authorities.
For those reasons, we believe that the amendment clearly sets out a helpful change to Section 17 of the Children Act. It builds upon good practice and it comes as close as possible to setting out some of the key principles of practice that should govern the exchange of information about children between agencies. I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Earl Howe: I strongly support Amendment No. 130. I cannot better what the noble Baroness has already said but I want to add to it briefly. In my role as Opposition spokesman, I have frequent contact with families and child advocates who, in one way or another, have been caught up in the child protection system. As the Minister knows, I have a particular interest in parents who are falsely accused by social workers and the police of harming their children—an event, when it happens, that is every bit as damaging to the welfare of children as many forms of child abuse.
I shall not turn this into a debate about false allegations, but one frequent feature of the cases that are brought to me is that social workers, police and others have leapt to conclusions. Very often, they have done so on quite flimsy evidence and, sometimes, on no evidence at all. Once a suggestion is made that a parent is deliberately harming a child, the child protection ball starts rolling and is usually unstoppable. Time and again in such cases, when one asks whether a Section 17 assessment was carried out on the child before child protection proceedings commenced, the answer is no. The result is that it is only at a much later stage of the proceedings—sometimes when the case has gone as far as the family court—that the flimsiness of the local authority case becomes apparent and the truth of the situation is revealed.
The fact is that a whole range of medical conditions and developmental abnormalities in children are hard to diagnose. Conditions on the autistic spectrum, such as Asperger's syndrome, ADHD, CFS, ME, dyspraxia, depression and various genetic abnormalities, all require a specialist diagnosis before their presence can be established. But what the untrained eye often sees in a child with such a condition is someone who is behaving oddly or disruptively. When explanations are sought for that odd or disruptive behaviour, the possibility that the child may have a treatable organic condition and is therefore a child in need can often be

1073
overlooked in favour of the easier and less troublesome hypothesis that the child is a victim of bad or abusive parenting.
My firm belief is that many such situations could be avoided if only the duty to carry out a Section 17 assessment were made less avoidable. The amendment goes a long way towards achieving that. It does not require a local authority to provide services once an assessment has been carried out; that decision is left to the local authority—a principle which the Government insisted on preserving when we debated the adoption Act. But step one is to establish the needs of the child, and it is hoped that the rest will follow. I hope very much that the Minister will be receptive to this amendment or, failing that, to one very much like it.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for heralding Clause 8, which I think she has successfully done twice. Although there is a logic to the grouping of these amendments, the noble Baroness will know that we are dealing with Clause 7, Clause 8 and then returning to Clause 7. Therefore, perhaps I may now deal with Amendment No. 130 and say something a little wider about Clause 8 as we move towards that.
The noble Baroness and the noble Earl rightly set out their own views on why they consider this matter to be important. I have met members of organisations who have kindly come to talk to me about this issue and about the impact of the amendment.
In thinking about that, we have had to consider whether embracing a much wider category of those who would be entitled to the assessment is the right way to move forward. That applies not only in terms of resources—I would not hesitate to say that there are resource implications, which is important when considering how best to support children and their families—but in terms of what that says about the way in which we seek to support families and children as effectively as we might. I say that having spent much of six to nine months working through how best to move forward in our special educational needs framework to ensure that children are considered on a continuum rather than having specific points at which children are regarded as having particular needs.
The difficulty I have with the principle behind what the noble Baroness seeks to achieve is that it would mean moving back to the idea that an assessment needs to be done in a particular set of circumstances, which need to be defined, rather than thinking about the needs of children on a continuum, which is my personal preference for thinking through how we provide support.
The amendment would mean that up to half a million referrals would be entitled to assessment. One has to consider whether that would be the best use of resources and time in order to support families, when it would be better to ensure that the resources are available more generally. So I have a difficulty with the amendment in terms of the way forward.
I completely understand the issues that the noble Earl Lord Howe, raises about leaping to conclusions and whether there is a better way to ensure that when
1074
there are concerns about children, rightly or wrongly those concerns are addressed appropriately, including recognising that on occasion there may be a false accusation.
I am not convinced that the way to deal with that is to move towards the implications of the amendment; that is, that there would always be an assessment. I think that many things need to be done. In supporting families and children, we have tried in all our work to move to a multi-agency approach, not least because when professionals work together it is much better for the family. First, the support is there in the round and secondly, one is not relying on a particular agency to assess a family's needs.
I do not suggest to the noble Earl that there is not more that can be done. However, I would argue that there is more to be done as regards training, support and advice than about moving to a formal statutory process which states that we will invest resources in assessment.
I have great sympathy with what the noble Earl seeks to achieve. However, I am not convinced that that would not result in skewing the resources rather than, as I have tried to indicate, having a continuum of support where children and families are supported from the beginning, and moving towards a preventive strategy rather than dealing with children when a crisis point is reached. From my experience of dealing with children with special educational needs, I am not sure that we would not end up moving away from that continuum of support.
It is also important to consider our move towards a common assessment framework. The focus of our work is to bring agencies together, to work with families and to assess the needs of children and their families in a common assessment framework. It is hoped that those children who are currently subject to 10 assessments would end up with one assessment, which would be carried out by agencies which would consider the needs of that child and its family. We hope also to end up with a better set of communications between agencies and with resources available through the Children's Trust to provide for the family and child.
I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve. Having discussed this issue with various agencies, they are concerned to ensure that families receive the right kind of support. I have great sympathy with that ambition. However, I do not think that this would be the way to achieve it. That does not mean that we should not consider alternative ways to achieve what is sought by the noble Baroness and those who have supported the amendment
I hope that we would be able to continue to rely on the flexibility and relevance of the guidance and continue to look to the common assessment framework and to a continuum of support for families and through our Children's Trust to get better at ensuring, first, that we have a good preventive strategy so that families are supported as soon as we see that there is a need, and secondly that resources are part of that continuum rather than coming in at a particular

1075
point. That would be my preference. On that basis I hope that the noble Baroness and the noble Earl will recognise our sincerity in wanting to support families but our belief that the amendment is not perhaps the way forward, with the proviso that we shall continue to discuss the matter with those who feel passionately about it, including the noble Earl and the noble Baroness.
I turn to Clause 8. The noble Baroness laid out clearly her concerns. Perhaps if I comment on what I hope to achieve today in our deliberations on Clause 8, that would set the framework, if noble Lords permit, from my perspective.
There is a consensus—the noble Baroness pointed to that and quoted my noble friend Lady David at Second Reading—and a real desire to ensure timely sharing of information between professionals. That is a crucial part of promoting the well-being and safety of all our children. Many times in the passage of the Bill noble Lords have referred to the tragic outcomes which have occurred when information is not shared. However, noble Lords who have been involved with child protection will know that time and again, even when cases do not reach the extreme situation where a child may be badly harmed or, even worse, die, professionals refer to the fact that if they had known certain information perhaps they might have acted differently. It is with that spirit that we propose this clause.
It is important that everyone understands that the provisions to establish and operate databases do not, by any stretch of the imagination, represent the totality of the Government's thinking on information sharing. Noble Lords have indicated and know from their own experiences that much of what needs to be done does not require new legislation so is not reflected in the Bill. All those working for children and young people need to work together to improve the professional practice that is sharing information. That means improving the children's workforce, including recruitment, retention and training, and addressing the kind of organisational barriers that prevent information sharing. It also means ensuring that all practitioners understand what is good information sharing and how they can and should share information, under current law. We are determined to address all those issues.
With the information database we are simply trying to provide a tool to help ensure that all children get all the services they need at the earliest stage possible. We know how time-consuming and difficult it can be for practitioners even to find out who else is working with a particular child. We want there to be a record for every child so that practitioners can check that basic services are being provided and by whom. As noble Lords know, we also want to see that as part of our way of moving towards prevention and early action by facilitating the discussion of concerns before crisis point is reached.
As we debate amendments on this clause I hope to establish some common ground on the core elements of what we intend the database to cover but also to acknowledge that the question of how we use the
1076
database to support that shift towards prevention is not straightforward. I want to test with the Committee the balance between avoiding infringements of confidentiality and privacy and striving to improve communication to address a child's needs as early as possible.
I also look forward to being able to focus on key issues on which noble Lords have concerns, to take them away and to consider them carefully before Report stage. I want to be able to combine consideration of what noble Lords say in debate with examination of the experience of the Trailblazer pilots. I may have already said that it is my intention to arrange a meeting before Report so that any noble Lord who wishes can hear from the people working on those pilots. Noble Lords may know that some of those people are speaking to the All-Party Parliamentary Group for Children on 25 May where they will be able to give examples of their experiences.
It is against that backdrop that I very much look forward to having the opportunity to hear noble Lords' concerns and to explore in Committee what needs to be done between now and Report.
I turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 146 and 152, which provide for notification for parents and children whenever information is recorded on or disclosed from those databases. Automatic notification would not be required under the Data Protection Act because the population of databases and the disclosure of information from them would be required by regulations to be made under the clause. The noble Earl, Lord Northesk, referred to that issue in the previous amendment.
It is important to know that the Data Protection Act works. As noble Lords will know from the early provisions of the Data Protection Act, the purpose of putting in this regulation-making clause is to enable us to use the databases without having to refer to anyone each time a piece of information is shared. We do not expect to change data protection law in respect of notification. Nor is it our intention under this clause to create such an entitlement in relation to information sharing. We would have a bureaucratic nightmare if every time a piece of information was entered onto or shared through the database it had to be printed out and copies sent to the child and the parents.
Under the Data Protection Act parents and children of course have the right to see what is held on the database. Except where there is an exemption under that Act, those with parental responsibility for children will have access to the information held about them on the proposed information databases under the subject access provisions of the Act. They would be able to comment on what was on the database and obviously to comment particularly if something was inaccurate or in need of updating. I wish to make clear that we have absolutely no intention of altering those rights.
I welcome the opportunity to clarify our intentions about how children and their parents will be enabled to know that information would be entered onto the databases. We intend that parents and young people in

1077
areas to be covered by databases will be informed that such databases are being set up, how they will work, and, in broad terms, what information will be included on them and which professionals will have access to the information. In Trailblazer areas fair processing notices have already been issued to local households explaining the new arrangements. We intend to issue guidance on good practice in informing people about the purpose and operation of databases in any wider roll-out of databases provided for under the clause. Good practice would include telling children and parents that the practitioner may use the database to record details of involvement or concerns and for making contact with other practitioners.
We are committed to good practice that ensures children and parents are kept informed about—I would say "kept involved with"—action that practitioners are taking in respect of children. But I cannot agree that it makes sense to have an automatic notification every time a piece of information is entered, changed or disclosed from the database. Noble Lords will remember that I have said many times that there will be no case notes on this database. This is an opportunity for bringing together, in a sense, the databases that in many cases already exist. Children are on databases held by education authorities. They contain such information as which school they attend, their address, their age and so on. Databases held by the health service include their health number, their GP practice and may include information about health visitors. We shall debate that later. This is about the opportunity to bring existing databases together in a way that enables the practitioners because of that overlay to be able to provide better services. It is a tool to talk and nothing more.
I hope that with those reassurances and particularly my reassurance about the purpose for me of this afternoon's debate, noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment.
Baroness Barker: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the discussion, particularly the noble Earl, Lord Howe, for his most welcome comments. I apologise that we have strayed into Clause 8, but as I hope I made clear, there was a good reason for that—a fundamental disagreement between ourselves and the Government. We on these Benches are clear that the recording of information without a very clear tie to some action that will result from it is a fundamental flaw in the system. That is why we had to frame the amendments as we did.
Perhaps I may briefly talk about Clause 8. I shall not go through all the points which the noble Baroness talked about at the end of her reply. Many noble Lords have amendments on those points. They will discuss those points in greater detail and presumably with greater skills than I have. I simply say this: the noble Baroness talked about Clause 8 being a tool to talk. I do not think that that is good enough. Amendment No. 130 is tied to the points about information disclosure in Amendments Nos. 146 and 152. We should give a reason to talk and a basis to do something. That is the critical difference—having a purpose and an outcome to the sharing of information for children.
1078
I understand what the noble Baroness says about the assessment framework and I hear what she says about guidance. I am afraid that I did not wholly buy her argument about the resources that would be required for Amendment No. 130 because some time this afternoon we will talk about the resources that will inevitably be incurred in the setting up and the operation of the database. They will be vast. For once I believe that this side of the Chamber has an argument for targeting in respect of which the noble Baroness's argument did not hold water.
I believe, as do others, that multi-agency work is a good thing. But it only works when it works to tight definitions and when its preventive value can be measured. The whole point of Amendment No. 130 was to tie that to the Section 17 duty to assess.
It is worth reminding noble Lords that the Section 17 duty to assess can operate at very different levels. At one level there is an initial assessment, which may be minimal and may cost almost nothing. If a serious matter comes forward there is a core assessment. It is more expensive, but, in terms of promoting children's welfare, it may be a cheaper option than crisis intervention later on down the line. We will return to that subject throughout the afternoon. I believe that Clause 8 crystallises a great danger that professional will speak to professional—perhaps—but not talk to children and their families and they will not talk about specific and definite concerns which are then addressed. The heart of the amendments is about trying to tie that communication to a reason and to an output.
I hear what the noble Baroness has said. I was disappointed that she does not see that these amendments, taken together, could form a framework for something which may be an IT system, but which is much more tightly defined than that which is currently set out in Clause 8. I think that may well lead to a far better deployment of resources. I would hope that those resources would be people who work with children and not IT professionals.
I note and welcome the noble Baroness's comments about the offer to meet people who have taken part in the Trailblazer pilots. I hope it is not too churlish to say that I should like to meet those people along with a control group of people who are not in Trailblazer pilots, but who, none the less, have had vast experience of working with children. I still believe that what we tried to address in these amendments must be looked at, which is why professionals do not talk to each other. The two taken together I think would be extremely powerful. At this stage I realise that I shall not get much further and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 13`0A:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The following subsections shall be inserted at the end of section 8 of the Children Act 1989—
"(5) Where it is alleged that a party to the proceedings has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the court shall, as soon as practicable, determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings, whether the allegation of ill-treatment is proved.

1079
(6) Where the court is satisfied that a party to the proceedings (in this section referred to as the abusive party) has inflicted ill-treatment on the child or on another person, the court shall not—

(a) make any order granting the abusive party residence of the child; or

(b) make any order granting the abusive party contact (other than supervised contact) with that child,

unless the court is satisfied that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of or contact with the child.
(7) Notwithstanding subsection (5), where in any proceedings—

(a) the court is unable to determine on the basis of the evidence presented to it by or on behalf of the parties to the proceedings whether or not an allegation of ill-treatment is proved; but

(b) the court is satisfied that there is a risk of harm to the child, the court may make any order under this Act that it considers necessary to protect the child.

(8) When determining whether the child will be safe if contact or residence is granted to the abusive party, the court shall, so far as is practicable, have regard to the following matters—

(a) the nature and severity of the ill-treatment;

(b) how recently the ill-treatment occurred;

(c) the frequency of the ill-treatment;

(d) the risk of further ill-treatment occurring;

(e) the physical, sexual or emotional harm inflicted on the child or harm suffered by the child as a result of seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another person;

(f) whether the other party to the proceedings—

(i) considers that the child will be safe while the abusive party has residence of, or contact with, the child; and

(ii) consents to the abusive party having residence of, or contact with, the child;

(g) the wishes of the child, if the child is able to express them, and having regard to the age and maturity of the child;

(h) any steps taken by the abusive party to prevent further ill-treatment from occurring;

(i) any other matters as the court considers relevant.""

The noble Baroness said: The amendment is about keeping children safe when they have contact with their parents after the parents have split up. It is widely recognised that when parents separate it is usually better for children to remain in contact with both parents. That is acknowledged in the first line of the amendment. Indeed, it has been acknowledged in a great deal of debate in the media and elsewhere since the events in another place last week.
However, contact arrangements can be dangerous in cases of domestic violence or child abuse. It is worrying that in some cases orders for unsupervised contact have been granted to Schedule 1 offenders convicted of offences against children. So the measures are needed to ensure that children do not suffer harm as a result of family court decisions.
New subsections (5), (6) and (7) address the issue of safety in the most direct and practical way by stating that if a parent is found to be violent within the family, the court must not grant residence or unsupervised contact to the violent parent unless the court is satisfied that that can be arranged safely for the child. That rebuttable
1080
presumption is based on Section 16B of the New Zealand Guardianship Act. Similar measures have been adopted by 23 states in the United States of America.
The amendment also states that if there is insufficient evidence to prove abuse, but the court is satisfied that there is a real risk of harm to the child, the court can make whatever order it considers appropriate to protect the child. New subsection (8) contains a mandatory risk assessment checklist. The effectiveness of the New Zealand legislation is often attributed to that checklist, which provides a framework for court welfare reports in any cases in which there are allegations of abuse. That is an integral part of the amendment, especially as Safety and Justice failed to ask any questions about risk assessment and CAFCASS does not have national risk assessment procedures.
Last year, the Home Office commissioned the Women's National Council's Violence Against Women working group to consult with domestic violence survivors across England and Wales. On child contact, the WNC states:
"The sheer volume of concern expressed by women on this subject at every consultation workshop we held was overwhelming and illustrates the distress child contact causes women and children".
The clear message coming from all the women's groups is that you cannot keep a woman safe by ignoring the safety of her child.
I have been impressed by the extent of the support for the amendment. I have been supplied with a list of 75 organisations and many key individuals, such as lawyers, academics and other experts, who support the measures in the amendment. Those measures reflect the advice provided by two eminent child psychiatrists to the Court of Appeal. Dr Clare Sturge and Dr Danya Glazer said:
"We consider that there should be no automatic assumption that contact to a previously or currently violent parent is in the child's interests: if anything the assumption should be in the opposite direction".
It is frequently claimed that the welfare principle in the Children Act 1989 provides adequate protection for children. However, last year, a Women's Aid survey involving 178 refuge services found that only 3 per cent thought that appropriate safety measures were now being taken.
It is also frequently claimed that judges need to be able to respond to individual cases under the Act, and that it would be wrong to fetter their discretion. The Children Act does not state that contact must be granted in private law proceedings, but in 2002 the court granted 61,356 contact orders and refused contact in only 518 cases. That is less than 1 per cent. However, recent research commissioned by the Department for Constitutional Affairs found that allegations of domestic violence feature in 23 per cent of contact and residence cases. In 1999, the Family Court Welfare Service said that it was dealing with about 16,000 cases a year involving domestic violence.
The judges have clearly fettered their own discretion. Women's Aid believes that that is the result of case law precedents that place too much emphasis on contact, minimise domestic violence and set an unreasonably high standard of proof.
None of that is to say that fathers should not have appropriate contact with their children where there has been no violence and is no risk to the child or, of course, to the mother. Risk assessment is vital in cases of domestic violence, because it is strongly linked to child abuse. The Department of Health has acknowledged that nearly three-quarters of children on the at-risk register live in households where domestic violence occurs.
4.45 p.m.
That danger does not vanish when the parents separate. Research has shown that women who leave violent men face an increased rate of homicide at the point of separation and are in great danger for up to a year after it. That is exactly when the courts are likely to receive a contact application from the perpetrator, so that is the time to intervene. It is not only the mother who is in danger. A survey of 130 abused parents in 1999 found that 76 per cent of their children were said to have been abused during contact with violent parents. We cannot be complacent about the current arrangements. Since February 2002, 10 children have been killed as a result of contact arrangements.
Despite all that, as I said, the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service still does not have a national risk assessment policy. Previous domestic assault has been identified as the simplest, most robust risk marker of subsequent domestic assault. For that reason, when assessing risk, it makes sense to focus specifically on what is known about domestic violence that has already occurred in individual cases. That is what new subsection (8) in my amendment does.
It would be an appalling irony if children who have experienced domestic violence did not benefit from either the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which was debated in your Lordships' House not many months ago, or this Bill. We failed to introduce such an amendment into the former and I hope that the Government will agree to include it in this Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In response to the amendment, I am sure that the noble Baroness recognises that the Government take seriously the issue of domestic violence and, in particular, its impact on children. The Committee may know that I serve as a member of the cross-government inter-ministerial group, which is supported by what is known as a virtual unit of the Home Office but involves civil servants from all departments, including mine, that have any interest in the area. I recognise the sincerity and strength of feeling expressed by the noble Baroness and have met several organisations to discuss such issues as well as speaking to the all-party group which is concerned about them.
Clause 7 is about placing a duty on specified agencies to ensure that their functions are discharged having regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. I appreciate that the noble Baroness intends to insert the amendment in the most appropriate place, but, by contrast, it would require courts in proceedings
1082
relating to contact and residence orders to determine any allegation of ill-treatment and, if proved, not to make a residence or contact order.
We assume that it is intended to relate to applications for residence under Section 8 of the Children Act 1989. The relevance of the Children Act is that the child's welfare must already be the court's paramount consideration. The court must apply the welfare checklist as set out in Section 1(3), which includes any harm that the child has suffered or is at risk of suffering. The definition of harm in the 1989 Act, as the Committee will know, has been amended by Section 120 of the Adoption and Children Act 2002, which now further defines harm by including impairment suffered from seeing or hearing ill-treatment of another.
That provision is due to commence with effect from January 2005, as the resources necessary for the additional public legal funding of applicants and respondents, which falls to the Legal Services Commission to meet, have now been identified. That will build well on the existing practice direction issued by the President of the Family Division and the related case law judgments. While the Government have enormous sympathy with what the noble Baroness is trying to achieve, they contend that the amendment is not necessary.
The commencement of Section 120 will be accompanied by the introduction of revised court forms, which will enable the parties to Section 8 proceedings to make clear any allegations about domestic violence and its impact on children that may be relevant. That will in turn allow findings of fact to be made by the family courts at an early stage in proceedings, enabling the determination appropriately to influence the making or refusal of contact or residence orders in the ongoing context, as I have already indicated, of the child's welfare remaining the paramount consideration of the court, which I am sure noble Lords would agree is critical.
The Government's view is that we should rely on the full implementation of the Children Act 1989 as now amended by the forthcoming commencement effected by Section 120 of the Adoption of Children Act 2002 without taking what might be seen as steps to qualify or obscure the paramountcy principle, which is central to the 1989 Act. We hope that on the basis of the commencement of Section 120 and what I have said to reassure the noble Baroness about the issues that I know are at the heart of the amendment, she will feel able to withdraw it.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I have considerable sympathy with the amendment but what worries me, having listened to a great deal of evidence from various groups, is that there appears to be a postcode lottery in a court ensuring that the contact arrangements are safe.
I would be grateful if the Minister could say a little more about whether some of the arrangements she has been outlining take proper considerations. The decisions of various courts have caused a great deal of concern. We

1083
still do not know the number of children who have died as the result of inappropriate access orders, because the figures have not been kept separately.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I accept what the noble Baroness is indicating, but if her concern is to ensure that we have consistency it is not about writing this amendment in the Bill, but about some of the issues that my noble friend Lady Scotland indicated during Report stage of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill. That is to make sure that the measures set out in Section 120 are implemented properly and that, where necessary, the courts have access to the right kind of training and support.
I am not going to comment on the figures, because with the figures that I use from time to time it is sometimes difficult to know which are concerned with those who make private arrangements and which with those where the courts are involved. If any child dies as a consequence it is a tragedy, and a tragedy too far, but the measures I have indicated will be implemented, as my noble friend said on Report of the Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, and will make an impact. We should allow them to come into force and examine the consequences rather than put the amendment in the Bill.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply and the noble Baroness, Lady Howe of Idlicote, for her support. The Minister talked about the current arrangements meaning that there has to be an assessment of the harm that the child has suffered. In the amendment we are trying to look to the future and assess the possible risk that might come to that child from unsupervised contact.
The amendment is based on the fact that the current arrangements are not adequately protecting children. That could involve the way in which the current arrangements are working, but if they are not working in a way that adequately protects children we need to look around the world and see if it is being done better somewhere else. There is evidence that the New Zealand experience is better than ours. The crucial difference between their arrangements and ours is that they have risk assessment.
I will consider what the amendment achieves and carefully read in Hansard what the Minister said, but we will probably want to pursue this matter at a later stage because it could be a matter of life and death for children and it does not require an enormous amount of extra resource or anything of that nature. It simply requires a critical path to be followed in terms of looking to the future and assessing the risk.
I know that we cannot always iron out all risk from any situation, but at least if we have a proper check list and consider the risk within such a framework we are likely to spot situations where children might be in danger where we might not otherwise do so. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 130B:
Page 6, line 11, at end insert—
"( ) The Secretary of State may under this section give a children's services authority or any of its relevant partners under subsection (1), such directions as the Secretary of State thinks expedient for the purpose of securing the co-operation of the authority or its partners to ensure that the objectives of this section are fully met."
The noble Baroness said: The amendment's purpose is to insert a new subsection (5) to ensure that the new duty to make arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children can be enforced. That involves providing teeth, which we have discussed on previous days in Committee. The current arrangements to safeguard and promote the welfare of children will be covered by guidance, but I have said before in Committee that it is well known that if the guidance is breached it will not be possible to take legal action.
The amendment, like an earlier similar amendment that I moved, came from the NSPCC. It recognises that there will be inspection frameworks that can be used to determine whether the relevant partners are making arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare. But such inspections may occur only every three years and a great deal can go wrong in between. Providers of public services could meet inspection targets without necessarily providing a high-quality service.
The mandatory order will ensure that the new duties under Clause 7 will be enforceable, complementing other proposed amendments to Clause 6 and later to Clause 45 that we have submitted, which will create a new duty to develop local safeguarding plans. In the unlikely event of a breakdown in co-operation that causes detrimental harm to service deliverers, there has to be a final recourse to the Secretary of State. The amendment ensures that the direction to intervene given to the Secretary of State is stated in the Bill and is based on a similar provision inserted after Section 497(1)(a) of the Education Act 1996.
I said in a previous sitting in Committee that I am usually reluctant to give the Secretary of State more powers, but in this case the safety of children is paramount. Because we have a three-year gap between one inspection and the next there needs to be a power to intervene and to ensure that services are delivered in the interests of the safety of children. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: I recognise the noble Baroness's good intentions, but I am afraid that once again I have to part company from her as I did over her similar Amendment No. 112A. To give the Secretary of State powers of intervention that are additional to those he already has in the Bill and indeed in other legislation could prove counterproductive. Under this amendment the Secretary of State might see fit to make directions that were highly specific. If he were to do that, it could undermine the work undertaken by local authorities across the whole safeguarding system.
Under the Bill it will be up to local authorities and their partners to assess the level of need in an area and to prioritise the services required to meet that need according to available resources. If we then say that the Secretary of State has the power to override that process at will, not even when he thinks that the system may be failing, we are putting a question mark over the

1085
basis of locally elected government. We are also in danger of destabilising and placing at risk the plans that an authority will have to commission a range of different services under Clauses 6 and 9.
5 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My right honourable friend was very grateful to the noble Baroness for wishing to give him more power. But he finds himself in the same position as the noble Earl, not least because we do not believe that the power is necessary in this part of the Bill. The clause specifies the agencies that will be subject to the duty to have regard to the need to safeguard and promote the welfare of children while carrying out their normal functions. It aims to raise the priority that is given to safeguarding children in those organisations and encourage them to incorporate the duty in their objectives and priorities.
Together with the duty to co-operate in Clause 6, all those agencies will be mindful of the need to safeguard children and promote their welfare. However, the Clause 7 duty is not about co-operation. It is about how individual agencies exercise their functions. A direction-making power to secure co-operation is therefore redundant in the context of this clause. Co-operation, except where it is a function of the agency, is not a central part of the clause.
However, it might be helpful if I set out briefly what could happen if, for example, one of the key partners locally does not believe that another partner is playing its part in delivering adequate safeguarding arrangements. In Every Child Matters: Next Steps, we said that disputes can be resolved by involving the performance management or scrutiny body of the relevant organisations.
I am sure that this would never happen, but, for example, if a primary care trust was not felt to be working effectively, the strategic health authority or the performance management body could be involved. If concerns remain, the inspectorates can be invited to provide an independent assessment and develop an improvement plan. If the partners do not comply with that plan, any member of the group of partners or the performance management body can refer the case to central government. The relevant Secretary of State can then direct the partner to comply with the recommendations of the inspectorate.
That sets out the situation briefly. However, I shall write to the noble Baroness to set that out in fuller detail and send a copy to the noble Earl; I shall also place a copy in the Library of the House. Within the powers that we already have—bearing in mind the points made by the noble Earl about the appropriate nature of interventions of the Secretary of State—and the relevance of using the performance management structures already in existence, we think that we can extinguish the noble Baroness's fears. I shall therefore write to the noble Baroness. On that basis, I hope that she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply and her forthcoming letter that will explain how the Secretary of State could intervene. I am
1086
anxious to know the trigger and how it would work to ensure that something would happen if things were going wrong between the three-yearly inspections.
I take on board the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. But I do not think that my amendment would mean that the Secretary of State could intervene at will. The last few words of the amendment say that he could intervene only,
"to ensure that the objectives of this section arc fully met".
However, clearly there are problems with the amendment. I look forward to reading the Minister's letter. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 130C to 131 not moved.]
Clause 7 agreed to.
[Amendments Nos. 132 and 133 not moved.]
Clause 8 [Information sharing]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 133A:
Page 6, line 15, after "England" insert "and relevant bodies in Scotland or Northern Ireland"
The noble Earl said: We move now from the relatively calm waters of Clause 7 to the much choppier seas of Clause 8, albeit with the oil that the Minister has already poured on this clause, for which, I am sure, we are grateful. In moving Amendment No. 133A, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 134, 135, 135A, 145A, 152A and 210.
I am sure that I do not need to tell the Minister of the nature and extent of the concerns that so many individuals have voiced about this clause and the Welsh equivalent, Clause 23. We have here what your Lordships' Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee have described as "skeleton" provisions, which consist of a delegation of power, which, in the committee's words, is "very wide indeed". The clear view expressed by the committee is that much more needs to be in the Bill.
Amendment No. 134 is intended as a start to that process. Ministers have told us that a large number of decisions about the proposed databases have yet to be made, but the intention seems to be for there to be a series of local information hubs that may be supplemented by other hubs at regional or national level. Page 21 of Every Child Matters: Next Steps states that the purpose of the databases will be,
"to facilitate the sharing of information between the providers of children's services about the children they are working with, in order to safeguard their welfare and promote their well-being".
The scale of that operation is still unclear. For example, it has not been explained whether the intention is for all children to be logged on to the database or only some; in other words, only those children who are receiving services pursuant to Clauses 6 or 7.
However, the questions addressed by my amendment are twofold. What information should appear on the databases? How is it proposed that information on one local database will be passed to another local database when, say, a family moves from one end of the country to the other?
At Second Reading, the Minister made clear that there is no intention of allowing substantive concerns about individual children to appear on those databases. Rather, the idea is to have a system whereby someone with a concern can raise a flag on a database that would act as a means of initiating communication with other professionals who may be entertaining concerns of their own about the same child.
For the time being, I shall take it as read that a system of that kind is necessary and well conceived, although later I shall question that assumption. However, let us suppose that those databases do what is promised and act as a catalyst or a conductor for timely and appropriate information sharing. I believe that that can be done and, more importantly, should be done by allowing only the minimum amount of relevant information to appear on the database: that is, the name of the child and some uniquely identifying reference details about that child, such as a number, date of birth, sex, name, the contact details of the person logging the information and the date of the entry. Finally, there should be a flag, which would indicate in some way the gravity of the concern that the professional has. In my opinion, there should not be any information about what the concern consists of, nor should there be any kind of case history about the child. The point of the database should be to facilitate contact between professionals, which is what the middle section of my amendment is designed to achieve.
However, as I said, flags of concern on a local database will be of no earthly use if a child moves out of the area that the database covers. What happens then? There must be a system whereby a local authority with concerns about a child who has newly arrived in the area can find out whether anyone in any other local authority area has previously had concerns about that same child. If applicable, it should be able to access the relevant professionals in that other area.
One practical means of achieving that would be to have what might be termed a national mutual reference database. There are understandable worries about having any sort of giant national database designed to facilitate information sharing. However, my proposal could be much better described as a national signposting system, designed to put one local hub in touch with another. It is not for me to say precisely how this should be done, but the principle is that a national database would contain the name and identifying details of a child, together with the name of the local authority on whose database any flags of concern about that child are to be found. There would be no more on it than that.
I take the Government at their word that they do not want to see confidential information about children at risk or children in need accessible on the web. I believe that we should not countenance that idea, even if access to the databases is very strictly controlled and limited. The concept of it is wrong and the consequences are dangerous.
I offer Amendment No. 134 not as a blueprint to which I am inexorably wedded, but as a starting point for debate. I hope that the Minister will be receptive at least to its broad thrust and that we may have a basis here for further discussion.
Turning briefly to the other amendments in the group, Amendment No. 135A is an attempt to tighten the wording of the clause so as to make clear exactly what these databases are for. Amendment No. 145A is aimed at ensuring that there is one named person who is accountable for the operation of each database. I am absolutely sure that this is necessary if we are to have an accurate, secure and tightly run system.
Amendment No. 152A is designed purely to probe the Minister about the purpose of subsection (6). If its purpose is to allow certain officials to require that data must be exchanged under the regulations, then I believe that this should be made explicit, and a list of the officials or other persons should appear as a schedule to the Bill. I beg to move.
Baroness Walmsley: I should like to speak to Amendment No. 135 in my name. It seeks to ensure that those responsible for the operation of any and all databases have a clear and unambiguous duty to protect children and to promote their welfare in all their operations.
The amendment was suggested to us by the Children's Society, which is concerned to ensure that it is a statutory requirement upon those responsible for the operation of the database to safeguard children and to promote their welfare. That would be in keeping with the Government's aim to legislate for improved information-sharing, as set out in Every Child Matters, which stated:
"The key is to ensure children receive services at the first onset of problems, and to prevent any children slipping through the net".
It would also be in keeping with the intention that information-sharing links with the new duties be established to co-operate, to improve well-being—in Clause 6—and to safeguard and promote welfare, in Clause 7.
Under the provisions of Clause 8—should it go through your Lordships' House unamended—databases may be established and operated nationally, regionally or locally. It may therefore be that such a database is established and operated by a local authority which currently has statutory duties to safeguard and promote the welfare of children in need and at risk, and will have more general duties under proposals under Clauses 6 and 7. However, it is also possible that larger regional databases or a single national database could be established without the same clear existence of a safeguarding duty upon them. The amendment would ensure the necessary consistency and clarity that any and all databases will have a duty to protect children and promote their welfare in all their operations, whether they have duties laid upon them under Clauses 6 and 7 or not.
It is vitally important that the job of the data manager on a database of this kind is clearly understood to be one that will routinely involve the

1089
making of judgments. That will affect the rights, safety and well-being of children. It would be a matter of great concern if the operation of a database were thought to be a matter of mere technical competence in operating the system and complying with guidelines or, indeed, if it were thought that all situations and judgments to be faced could be anticipated and effectively regulated by guidance.
Making clear the statutory duty upon database operators will have a clear impact on how the database systems are constructed and operated, influence the skills sought and training needed for the staff to operate them and provide an unambiguous objective when operators are faced with difficult judgments about recording, disclosure and access.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Barker: My Lords, I should like to speak to Amendment No. 134 in my name.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, began to set out some of the concerns that have been expressed about this clause. I do not know whether the Government were trying to lead by example, but they seem to have crafted a clause which has raised a load of concerns, partly because of its lack of definition and skeletal nature.
The amendment was drafted prior to the issuing of the Minister's policy guidance statement about the regulations. I am grateful to the Minister for producing that; it has been enormously helpful to see the Government's intent about what will be covered in regulations. However, it is also accurate to say that that policy statement raised as many concerns as it answered in what it said would be included and what would he omitted from the database.
The noble Earl's amendment is extremely helpful, not least because it touches upon a very fundamental issue of confusion, experienced by a lot of people, about whether the database will be national or not. That is a key factor.
There are four extremely important points in the amendment. First, it refers to an identifying number. I believe from the department's policy statement that there is an intent that there will be an identifying number for any child who is on the database. I wish to put on record our hopes that that will not be the child's NHS number. There is a great potential for the compounding of data which may be erroneous. While using the NHS number would in many ways be the most simple and superficially attractive system—we all have NHS numbers from a very early age—it could, I believe, be extremely harmful.
Secondly, one of the many attractions of the noble Earl's amendment is that it mentions the date on which an entry was made. That is a fundamentally important piece of information in any system of this kind. The Minister's policy statement, which I have read very carefully many times, talks about an audit trail of information. Perhaps she will clarify whether an audit trail carries within it the implication that all entries on the database will be dated and that the dating will be indelible and not erasable.
1090
With regard to cases where there have been major inquiries into children's deaths, the inquiry of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the death of Victoria Climbié was damning in its indictment of the failure to observe basic administrative procedures within social services and in health. Similarly, on a previous amendment, the noble Earl talked about people who have had the grave misfortune to have been falsely accused of harming children. Often, the proof of their innocence lies in mundane, bureaucratic detail, so this is a simple but crucial element of the amendment.
I also wish to mention the degree of concern. At a later stage, with the assistance of people more able to talk about these things with authority than I can, we will discuss matters such as soft and hard data and so forth. However, it seems reasonable that it is not sufficient to register a concern without indicating the severity of that concern. I have returned to the argument about assessment that I tried to put forward on a previous amendment—about arriving at an agreed basis on which one determines that a child is in need or in danger and that action needs to be taken.
I agree that, if one is trying to compound preventive systems to create a universal system for children, with a system that addresses the needs of children who are at risk of very great harm, there must be some way of differentiating concerns that are minor and not immediate. Otherwise, there is a potential for professionals—and professionals work hard enough at the moment—to be inundated with irrelevant concerns. Equally, there is a grave danger that professionals will not use such a system because they are aware of the consequence of recording a concern—a series of potential involvements with other agencies, which may not be necessary, for example. That is the difficulty.
Whatever the fate of this measure, the most important word in the amendment—to which we will return—is "comprise". The amendment refers to,
"information for which provision may he made under subsection (1)(a) shall comprise".
In the Bill as drafted, "include" is the word used. "Include" is not a definite term: it means that other information may be included. "Comprise" is a definite term. I am not a parliamentary draftsperson and I never will be, but in the many submissions that I have read about this matter, that word has cropped up time and again. Whatever the fate of the noble Earl's amendment, it is right to record at this stage that we may return to the word "comprise", if nothing else.
Lord Hylton: In relation to this whole group of amendments, I start by thanking the Minister for sending me a copy of her statement on Clause 8 policy, in which there is reference to the supply of data When the Minister replies, will she confirm that the supply or input will be restricted to qualified professionals? That would set at rest a good many fears and anxieties.
Secondly, on the supply side, will the Minister give us further information about the possibility of recording mere suspicions or whether the supply will be restricted to established facts? I notice that the statement uses the

1091
word "concerns" about a given child. If those are to be recorded, will it be necessary to include a reason explaining why the professional in question is concerned about a particular child? With such safeguards, I hope that it will be possible totally to exclude any malicious input.
On access to the database or databases, will those wanting access be required at least to show—if not to prove—that they genuinely have a need to know? That could be another important safeguard.
The Earl of Listowel: I have one specific question for the Minister, and she may want to write to me in reply. Does she envisage that the manager of a children's home or residential care workers who work there would have access to the database?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Earl and the noble Baroness for introducing their amendments. Notwithstanding the proviso that the noble Earl placed on the amendment—that he did not want to say anything that assumed that he would not later question the existence of the database—I agree with everything else that he said. I hope that that gives him comfort. I am never sure whether it gives him comfort or makes him nervous.
I will work through the amendments and also deal with the specific points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, and the noble Earl, Lord Listowel.
I welcome the opportunity to reiterate some of the objectives that we have for the databases. They are not intended to focus exclusively on children at risk of harm or abuse or as an alternative to the child protection system. They are intended to help professionals in children's services in health, social care and education to identify quickly basic details about the child with whom they are dealing; identify children who are not getting the basic education or health services; identify other professionals already working with that child so that they can share information with them more easily when that is appropriate; and identify any other professionals who might have a concern about the child's wellbeing or safety.
To use a small and simple example, if we were to put the health service database that exists on children on top of the database that exists on every child in education authorities, my guess is that we would easily find children who were not in school. Education welfare services would be able to identify those children easily. I ask members of the Committee to keep the overlaying of databases in mind. Certainly, in my experience of working on crime and disorder partnerships and as chair of a health authority, if one gets the opportunity to overlay different types of information, one can sometimes identify where children are simply not getting the basics—when they are not in school, for example.
Amendments Nos. 134 and 210 also raise issues about what information should be held on databases. Noble Lords have referred to the policy statements put
1092
forward. It is now time for me to move into commitment stage. I offer a commitment that we will bring forward amendments on Report to address the comments made by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the concerns of noble Lords about putting more of the detail on the face of the Bill.
We intend to table a government amendment at Report that will list the types of basic information that the databases will contain. That includes: name; date of birth; address; a unique identifying number—I will return to the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker—name and contact details of the person with parental responsibility or in charge of day-to-day care of the child; educational setting; GP practice details and health visitor if there is one working with the child, although the inclusion of health visitors is subject to discussions about their new titles. Likewise, we are intending to put forward an amendment that will set out on the face of the Bill a list of statutory bodies and other bodies that will be required or permitted to supply information to the database.
5.30 p.m.
These amendments do not appear to provide for names and contact details of practitioners providing specialist services to a child to be recorded on the database, only for one initiating practitioner. But, as I have described, this is a tool for talk. It is a tool for practitioners, a telephone directory to help them share information and better identify and respond to the needs of the child. It should not be a mechanical process that initiates action only once a certain threshold is reached. So we would expect that where a practitioner, for example, a health worker, has a concern that a child is not thriving, they would take appropriate action in their own area of practice but would also readily be able to see other practitioners who were involved with that child. For example, in one place they might find the contact details of the social worker or the housing officer. It would be far easier than at present to discuss the child's needs and how best to meet them.
I welcome the opportunity to think about the issues of local, regional and national databases. We have not reached a final view on this and we have commissioned independent technical advice, taking account of the experience of the local authority pilots. We think it is right to have some flexibility relating to the operational aspects of the databases to ensure that we can implement the right approach. We need to ensure that it is technically robust and operationally possible. The noble Earl gave an example of how one might do that in terms of a national signposting system that would enable databases to get in touch with each other.
Databases might be set up on a national, regional or local basis. For example, in view of the mobility of the population in the capital, we think that it may be sensible to establish a regional database for London rather than databases based on individual local authority boundaries. As the noble Earl has indicated,

1093
it may be that we need to think about a national database to transfer details of records, but that might be achieved between local databases and the functions of a national database could be limited to records of those children whose whereabouts are unknown and to producing aggregate monitoring data, for example. We want to make sure that we have independent advice. We take on board the comments of the noble Earl about the need to be able to transfer the right kind of information, the information that I have described, to enable children to be found, especially those with particular needs. We want to do this by looking at the work of the Trailblazer project to see how best it might be done so that we do not set up a huge national database if, in fact, this is about enabling local databases or regional databases to talk to each other.
Other amendments raise legitimate concerns about what happens when children move across different parts of the UK or receive services across borders. As noble Lords will know, children's services are a devolved matter and Clause 8 therefore refers only to England, but under Clause 23 Wales has shadow information sharing provisions. We will continue to work with colleagues in Wales to ensure that systems are in place to ensure that children moving between England and Wales are picked up.
Scotland does not yet have parallel provisions in legislation but a number of information-sharing pilots in Scottish local authority areas are under way and officials from the Scottish Executive are keeping in close touch with my officials as the proposals develop. We are also working closely with colleagues in Northern Ireland. It is important that we think about the movement of children across the UK and I hope that noble Lords will feel that we have begun those discussions and that we are able to consider the implications of how best to join up databases in the most appropriate way.
Amendment No. 145A would make the appointment of a person to operate the database a matter of regulation. We do not consider that this is a necessary provision. We think that we should rightly rely on children's service authorities to make appropriate staffing arrangements for fulfilling their duties under this clause. In practice, it is likely that an individual will have day-to-day responsibility for the operation of the database and in regulations and guidance we will be setting out how such persons should operate the database. But that does not mean that we need to require the appointment of such a person in primary legislation.
I can reassure the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that we recognise that carrying out these duties is a serious responsibility. It is for that reason that we have made provision in the Bill for the duties to be among those for which a director of children's services is responsible. That is set out in Clause 13(2)(d) of the Bill. We have placed accountability for this important area on the face of the Bill but we do not believe that we need to regulate for the staffing arrangements to support the director in carrying out this duty.
Amendment No. 135, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, seeks to tie the purpose of the database specifically to the purpose of safeguarding
1094
and promoting the welfare of children. The purposes of these information databases are tied to those of Clause 6, to co-operate to improve the well-being of children, and to those of Clause 7 of the Bill and Section 175 of the Education Act 2002, to safeguard and promote the welfare of children. In one sense, the amendment is unnecessary. Clause 8(1) already makes clear on the face of the Bill that safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children is a purpose of the databases.
In another sense, it would restrict the purposes for which the databases can be used. We do not agree that the databases should be restricted only to the purpose of safeguarding and promoting the welfare of children. They are not primarily a child protection measure. They aim to enable information sharing so that a preventive approach can be taken, through early identification of the needs of children, in order to promote their well-being. There is an implied duty in Clauses 6 and 7 for practitioners working across the range of children's services to share information to fulfil their duties. That should include services in relation to education and training, social and economic well-being and the child's contribution to society: that is the full range of positive outcomes for children as reflected in the objectives set out in Clause 6(2).
We all want our children not just to be safe from harm, critical though that is, but also to thrive in education, to stay out of crime and to have good relationships with their peers. We think that these databases have some role in enabling information sharing to support children to achieve these aspirations. So we think that it is important that they are linked to the improvement of children's well-being as well as to their safeguarding.
Amendment No. 135A seeks to ensure that regulations made under Clause 8(4) should relate only to matters concerned with improving the well-being of children and safeguarding and promoting their welfare. We think that this amendment is unnecessary. Clause 8(1) already makes clear on the face of the Bill that the databases should be created only for these purposes.
Amendment No. 152A would remove the power to sub-delegate decision-making about the detailed operation of the database to local level. I understand that noble Lords have concerns that the current sub-delegation provision at subsection (6) is too widely-drawn. Again, I am offering a commitment. In response to the concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and by noble Lords today, I would like to offer a commitment that we will table a government amendment on Report to ensure that decisions about permitting or requiring disclosure of information cannot be sub-delegated and that only decisions about granting access to individuals would be sub-delegated. In other words, decisions about permitting or requiring information to be disclosed could not be sub-delegated but decisions to grant access to individuals could be, simply because the Secretary of State could not name individuals in each area who would be granted access. It would be impractical to do so; we cannot specify individual

1095
practitioners. We can talk about safeguards. I hope noble Lords will feel more comfortable that we have addressed those concerns.
These issues are being addressed in this way because, as I have indicated, we will look at this afternoon's debate on Clause 8 to see what further issues may need to be taken on board. As I said at the beginning of our discussions on this, we want to bring forward a package that reflects what I have already said. I will continue to indicate where we have already decided that we need to take action and we will reflect on our deliberations so that in good time I present the full package to your Lordship's House.
I am sure that the issue of flags of concern will come up in our further deliberations. I want to help noble Lords a little on that, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, and the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, who raised the issue. We think that recording concerns on the database is a simple way in which one practitioner can signal to another that he has a concern about a child. There will be a clear expectation that the practitioner recording the concern will do something about it, which will usually involve talking to another practitioner. If other practitioners have reason to be concerned about the same child, they too can see who they should be talking to.
We hope that such discussions will enable practitioners to form an accurate early judgment on how to work together to deal most effectively with a child's needs. I reiterate that, time and again, professionals cannot act on those early concerns because they do not know who else is involved. For example, housing issues and concerns might arise in the case of a child who frequently suffers from bronchitis. The ability to have those conversations could be critical in early prevention and addressing issues in a preventive way. I know that noble Lords would wish to see that.
We do not want to constrain the recording of concerns only to circumstances where there is a significant risk of harm to a child. We want to ensure that practitioners communicate effectively. However, we are fully aware of the existence of that concern and the fact that we will have to convey our intentions very clearly. The decision about whether a concern exists and should be recorded must remain one ultimately for professional judgment. However, as noble Lords indicated, we have to set the context for practitioners.
We are looking carefully at the different approaches currently being taken by the trailblazer pilots. I hope that noble Lords will have the opportunity to listen to the different approaches of those pilots—all of which are working very closely with all of the practitioners and, of course, with families in their area as well—to look at how they are developing the different models. We also want to consider the comments made in your Lordships' House, both on Second Reading and today in Committee, before concluding that there should be an amendment at Report to clarify how we will provide in regulations for the recording of concerns. That is to show how seriously we take the points that
1096
have been, and will be, well made by noble Lords. I am listening very carefully. We will take those points away and look at what has been said.
I should like to focus for a minute on the four points raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I heard what she said about the NHS number, but I do not think that I understood it. I apologise for that. As we have made no decisions about this perhaps she and I could have a further conversation about it. I think she was alluding to the access that such use would give. On the other hand, the NHS number is the first number that children are given; they receive it when they are born. It is therefore the obvious number to use. However, we have not made any decisions. Perhaps we can pick up those interesting concerns.
The audit trail will indeed have the date of entry. It will trace who has accessed the system and at what point and what date so that one can see the history and patterns of access by individuals as well as dates of entry on the database. I think that that deals with that point.
I have talked about the degrees of concern a little more and how we are beginning to think that through with the trailblazers. However, we are very cognisant of the need to consider that further.
As for "comprise" versus "include", all I would say to the noble Baroness at this point is that although we recognise what she is saying, we are also concerned not to become completely inflexible about adding additional factual details or the need to add in a new type of individual or organisation. So I will reflect on what she said on those issues and see whether we can do more. However, as she would expect, we want to ensure that we do not constrain the Bill inappropriately.
Finally, I say to the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, that we anticipate that it would be qualified professionals. However, we will come to the detail of that later.
I hope that I have answered all the points raised in this group of amendments and that, with those commitments, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Barker: I should like to pick up a few points, because the noble Baroness has made many extremely important remarks. She talked about overlaying different databases such as school and health databases. Let us use a different verb—compounding the databases. It is quite possible that matters of opinion, or matters of fact that are errors, may be expressed in different databases. Many people have a real and genuine concern that precisely such a system would compound errors rather than highlight them. It does not take an information anorak to make that point. It is a very serious point that can have a dramatic effect on the lives of children. That is the main reason why I mentioned not using NHS numbers.
NHS numbers will make it very easy for those with the technical ability to make their way from one database to another. If it is the NHS database, it might include, for example, mental health information. That is the sort of issue that I am very deeply concerned about.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am terribly sorry but I think that the noble Baroness has completely misunderstood what I was saying. I was not saying that we should literally overlay basic information such as name, date of birth and school attended and doctor and current information regarding health services and schools. We would most probably find children who, for example, did not have a GP but were in school and children who had a GP but were not in school. This database contains nothing that would constitute opinion about any child; it is purely detail about the matters I have already indicated: name, address, date of birth, educational setting, name of person with daily responsibility for the child and GP services. All the other information would concern which practitioners are involved with that child.
Think of it as the yellow pages of the telephone directory. There will be no consequential access into another database. My point was that we should start from an understanding that databases already exist that contain information about, for example, my children. In my education authority, for example, a database lists much of that basic information about my children including their GP's name, because schools collect that information. The local school and the GP's surgery have that information. We are not creating something that does not already exist in different forms. The difference is simply this. If we ask those with that basic health information and that basic school information to put that basic information together, not only will we find that some have an out-of-date address, we will also find children who are not, as I said, at school.
The provision is not about allowing anyone to access detailed information through another database. That would be completely and utterly outside the scope of the Bill.
Baroness Barker: I was with the noble Baroness until she said that this will be recording only matters of fact. She has used the analogy of a telephone directory. I do not believe that that is what we are talking about. I think that we are talking about a telephone directory that has lots of scribbles all over it. It will record the agencies in contact with children and people will be able to make observations based on that information. I understand what the noble Baroness is saying about the record being purely factual. However, it is not an isolated piece of information. I suggest that those with the skills to make their way between databases, as people already do, will be able to make their way into some quite serious information.
I am happy that the noble Baroness has challenged that assertion, and I should like to talk further with her about it. However, it ceases to be a factual database the moment she talks about flags of concern. That is the problem. I would go further. I began to have very serious worries when the noble Baroness talked about widening the purposes and use of the database and why she did not want to restrict it. A simple database
1098
listing all the demographic details of children in a given area is one thing, but a database that shows up flags of concern is another.
I shall read the noble Baroness's comments.
The Earl of Listowel: I thank the noble Baroness for giving way. I seek clarification. A child may be involved with a local youth offending team and may be seeing a mental health consultant. A teacher may then look at a database and say, "Oh, this child has been involved with a youth offending team and with a child and adolescent mental health service". That is quite a lot of suggestive information which might give rise to some concern. Will the Minister address that point?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Earl is right to be concerned about the matter. The noble Baroness made a similar point although I think that she came at it from a different direction. When I compared the database to a telephone directory I meant that it contained basic information. The noble Baroness and the noble Earl suggested that it was a matter of inference. I believe that noble Lords are concerned about inference rather than someone hacking into the system. The matter that is of greater concern, particularly to many children's organisations that I have met, is that of young people not feeling able to work with them because they are concerned that that will be discovered. We shall talk about such sensitive issues later. We must approach them with great care to ensure that we do not discourage young people in that regard.
One always has to strike a delicate balance in these areas. Work is being done to ascertain how this measure is working on the ground. Steps are being taken to ensure that only people of a certain professional level are allowed to access the data that we are discussing. One of the Trailblazer pilots is considering three levels of access to sensitive information to ensure that only those at a very senior level are able to access the relevant part of a child's record. I shall explain in more detail about invisible operators and so on later.
I refer to the concern that people in general should not have access to the entire database. However, we have to put the matter in context. In order to support children, health professionals, education professionals and so on need to know who else is talking with that child. We are taking on board the question of sensitive issues—we shall discuss that later—and the fact that the database should not be accessible to everyone, which would never be our wish. Very carefully screened groups of people will have access to it. None the less, I do not see how we can provide a system that enables people to support children effectively if the database contains only certain types of information but not others. It is important to recognise that already many professionals will know of a child's involvement with other professionals. However, we do not have a systematic way, by means of using this tool, of ensuring that that information is available to them for professional purposes in order to support children. The database should not be used for any old reason.
Lady Saltoun of Abernethy: I hope that I might intervene. How will the Data Protection Act operate in

1099
connection with the database? I am thinking of a case recently drawn to my attention where a mother was wrongly accused of Munchausen's Syndrome by proxy and was taken to court. The judge found her innocent and ruled that the family was not in future to be treated differently from any other innocent family. Costs were awarded against the prosecuting local authority. The record office held details of the case and later made them available to a member of the prosecuting local authority social services behind the parents' backs, although the parents were forbidden to divulge details of the case to the press. I am very worried about this database because I think that it will make it easier and easier for local authorities and anyone interested to access information to which they really are not entitled.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are not seeking to change data protection law in any respect or to make any special arrangements for Clause 8 databases under data protection law. Obviously, I cannot comment on the specific case to which the noble Baroness referred. However, this matter is not about giving local authorities or anyone else access to information of that kind. It is about the opportunity for professionals to get in touch with each other when they need to talk about a child about whom they have concerns.
The Earl of Listowel: I appreciate the Minister's response. It has given me time to think more about a possible case that might arise. For example, a head teacher may decide whether to exclude a child or admit a child to the relevant school. The head teacher may see on the database that the child is involved with a youth offending team. The head teacher may then think that the child should not continue to attend that school. I am trying to think through how the measure might work in practice. Can the Minister offer me reassurance on that specific case?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: If a head teacher noted that another professional was concerned about a child, we anticipate that the head teacher would get in contact with that professional. I would hope that in the appropriate circumstances the head teacher would talk to the relevant professionals about the child. As regards a child involved in youth offending, at the moment a head teacher or a governing body would make a decision about the exclusion of a child without any reference necessarily to any other professional who might have knowledge of the circumstances of that child.
It is always difficult to refer to examples, but there might be a flag of concern from a social worker who was concerned about what was happening within a child's family. That might support the child being retained in a school. We should not assume the worst of our professionals in this regard. I accept that the measure we are discussing will not in itself be the answer and that we need to discuss certain issues, particularly flags of concern. We could spend the next week discussing individual cases in which we could
1100
suspect the motives of professionals. The measure is about ensuring that when people make decisions about children they do so with appropriate information. The noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, is about to intervene but I was going to say that it is absolutely critical also to talk with the child's family.
Lord Northbourne: What the noble Baroness said implies that if a child makes a mistake, or if someone files some incorrect but adverse information about the child, there is no way that that child can escape that information. The medical authorities and the schools will all have that information. Short of going abroad, the child will not be able to escape that blot on his or her character. Is that really fair?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The database does not have information on it. It has the name, address, date of birth—
Lord Northbourne: But it enables professionals to ring up and get information about a blot on a child's character.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We are not talking about blots on a child's character. We are talking about children in need—children who we believe might benefit from extra support from services. Let us go back to the beginning. The reason all this came up was that it was very much part of the recommendations that emerged from the Climbié inquiry and from other people who have had years and years of experience and who say that whenever a serious incident with a child occurs, it is almost invariably the case that some professionals say, "If only I had known these other professionals were involved, I would have acted sooner or differently". We must address this issue. I accept that it is not easy.
However, we should not assume that professionals will act in the worst interests of children. Indeed, all our professionals who work with children are trying to support them. My contention is that we must give them effective tools to support children. Sometimes it is difficult and time consuming for professionals to find out whether other services are involved with a child.
I have acknowledged the concerns that noble Lords have. I have said that we need to consider more carefully the fact that flags of concern might lead people to the wrong conclusions, or constitute blots on a child's character. However, I do not believe that is the case. I believe that the registering of a concern provides an opportunity for other professionals to talk to each other. It may be thought that simply having a list of the agencies involved with a child might lead to a suggestion that the child comes from a strange or difficult family. However, without information about which other agencies are involved with a child, it is very difficult to do the work that professionals need to do. That is borne out by experience. Within that context the people accessing the database—we shall discuss that matter—will be seeking who else they need to talk with in order to support a child. They will seek to find out who else can work with them on the child's

1101
and the family's side, as it were. That is what the measure is about; it is not about people making bad or malign judgments. It is about supporting and helping children. As I say, I accept that certain issues need to be worked through, but I do not accept that there is any other principle behind what we are seeking to do.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I hope that the Minister can clarify a matter for me. It certainly seems to me that we are talking about information that is available anyway. One of the points made in the Climbié case was that the information was there; it was not put together.
I see the ambivalence in that what we are worried about is new methods of communication, which we know have been abused in other ways. Presumably, we are having to weigh up the value of the new method against the lack of co-ordination which was more likely to occur in the past.
Am I also right in thinking that there will be nothing on the database which is not available in other areas and which will not be shown to appropriate authorities? I include parents in that.
6 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: As I have already indicated, parents would have the right under the Data Protection Act to know what was on the database. That is clear. I would not know whether we would have matters which would never be on another database because one of the issues is knowing if and when information about a child is available.
I said, and I reiterate, there is the date of birth, name and address of the child, parent or other person caring for the child. If a professional is working with a child he or she can look up that very basic information and know where the child lives and who has parental responsibility. There will also be details of the other professionals and their contact in working with the child. The flag of concern and the way in which we identify that there is concern is contentious and that I have accepted. It is a difficult issue to work through. I have already indicated our interest in looking at that matter more closely.
But that is it. The purpose is to enable practitioners to identify other people with whom they can communicate. In my earlier example I said that it would also help to identify a child who is on the system because it has a GP but is not at school. Victoria Climbié was known to a number of different agencies, but was never in school. That was because there was no way of identifying that matter.
The use of new technology is a critical part of how many organisations, private and public, now talk to each other and use the system to benefit their own work. We are simply looking for a way to do that here.
Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful to all Members of the Committee who have taken part in this debate and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, for the support which she was able to give to Amendment No. 134. I also thank the Minister for her very full and
1102
illuminating replies. Her agreement with the various points I was trying to make is reassuring rather than the opposite in this context because it saves me repeating and reinforcing any of the earlier arguments.
But I have more than a little sympathy with the observation made by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, when she said that the Minister's policy statement prompted as many concerns as it answered. I believe that some of the later groups of amendments will pick up some of those worries.
One of the concerns I have is the Government's intention to make this an all inclusive system on which the names of all 11 million children in England will be entered. I need to be persuaded that this blanket coverage is either necessary or proportionate to the stated objectives of the Bill, bearing in mind the huge resource implications that we are dealing with here. However, the work of the trailblazer projects will be very informative on that score. I am prepared to be swayed by the results of that work. We shall have time between now and Report to assimilate a good many of those lessons.
As regards Report stage the Minister's commitments are welcome concerning the government amendments she intends to table. The acceptability and the adequacy of them will be judged by reference to the concerns voiced by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee and the minimalist approach to the inclusion of factual data on databases that both the Minister and I subscribe to. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, I should like to see the word "comprise" in the government amendment rather than "include". I hope that point may be borne in mind.
A number of Members of the Committee raised the spectre of the scope for misuse of the system and the information contained in it. These are issues which we shall pick up in later groups of amendments. They constitute a major area of concern. On the whole, I do not take issue with the Minister's remarks; indeed, they lead me to believe that we may be able to reach an understanding on the key issues that the clause embodies. But it is vital that the wording of the clause, when amended, ties down this and any future government very tightly. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 134 to 135A not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 136:
Page 6, line 28, at end insert—

"( ) as to the information which may not be contained in any such database;"

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 143, 147, 155A, 211, 214 and 216. These amendments continue the theme of the previous group, which is to try to deal with the question of what information should or should not appear on a database.
As I said earlier, I believe that there are certain kinds of information which from the outset should not be allowed to feature on a database at all. I am very worried by the wording of Clause 8(5)(a) which states,
"information as to the services provided to, or activities carried out in relation to, a person".

1103
This suggests much more than details of identity or flags of concern. In conjunction with paragraph (b) it suggests that someone's entire case history could be posted on the board. I know that the Minister has given us reassurances on that score, but that is what the wording implies. It needs attention.
What if a teenage girl has been having under-age sex and has contracted a sexually transmittable disease or has had an abortion? If the circumstances of such a patient gave rise to a concern on the part of a doctor, we must allow that doctor to post a flag of concern if he has a serious concern. But the system should not legally allow that doctor to do any more than that. He should not be allowed to post details of the services provided to the patient.
Less colourfully perhaps, if a teacher believed that a child was falling behind at school because his home circumstances were making him tired or depressed, and the teacher called in the school nurse to talk to the child, those facts and opinions should not be revealed to others on a database. Apart from anything else, one could not interpret such information out of context. As we said earlier, it is quite wrong in principle to do that.
I shall be raising in a later amendment the question of thresholds of concern, which is to say the point at which a concern becomes serious enough to warrant a flag. But we need to ask here where a concern should begin. Is a policeman obliged to register a concern about a child if the child's father has just been to prison? Perhaps. Should there be a flag of concern if the child's father went to prison 20 years ago and has not since re-offended? Perhaps not. But how is anyone supposed to know where the dividing line is?
In any system of this kind, much will depend—or ought to depend—on the professional judgment of the doctor, teacher, social worker, police officer or whoever it happens to be, but I hope that the Minister will agree that the regulations need to spell out clearly where the boundaries should lie regarding making substantive information about a child accessible by others without prior reference. I am not talking about what is on the database as much as what the flags denote.
The more information that is loaded on to a database, the more there is a risk of information overload. I was pleased to hear the Minister's remarks about the minimalist approach. There must not be scope for information overload, because it leads to further risks—that unauthorised people will have access to details that they should not know about and the risk that resources will be diverted away from direct services to children into maintenance of the database.
If this sort of system is to work at all it must be kept simple. The Government need to demonstrate that sharing detailed information in this way really will safeguard children and enhance their welfare. If it is not their intention that detailed information should appear on the database, then subsection 5(a) needs to be radically re-worded.
I am raising a rather different point in Amendment No. 143. What happens if it comes to the notice of a child or an adult that information contained on a database is not correct? What remedy does the person have to ensure that the misinformation is amended? That is a fundamental point. If untrue information is posted on a database for others to read or is disclosed as a result of a flag that has been posted, how does the subject of that information get it changed? A teacher might suspect that the odd behaviour of a child in class is due to abusive parenting at home, post up a flag and disclose that information to a professional who refers a query to him. What if the assumption is completely wrong? What if all the time the child is suffering from attention deficit syndrome—ADHD? If a diagnosis of ADHD is subsequently made, any hint that there might be abusive parenting should be removed from everyone's records. How does the parent see to that if he becomes aware of it?
It opens up the whole question of the extent to which information held on a database will be disclosed to the child or to his parents. To what extent does the Minister envisage that parents and children will be informed of what professionals have disclosed about them? Will there be a legal entitlement to access one's own file? What if there is a simple error involving the spelling of a child's name or a wrong digit in his date of birth? Who will be able to have those mistakes corrected and how will that be achieved?
Obviously, although mistakes are bound to happen, it is important for those who input a flag of concern about a child—and for database operators—to ensure that any information that they register with the database is subject to prior scrutiny and checking to ensure that mistakes are kept to a minimum. Will the regulations contain any mandatory procedures to ensure that such prior scrutiny and checking does happen?
It would be helpful to hear a little more from the Minister about the type and level of information that she envisages being the subject of a database entry and how open the system is intended to be. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I wish to support the amendments. I suspect that, in view of the Minister's answers to our previous debate, they may seem somewhat trivial. I do not believe that they are, because they are the stuff of which misguided and sometimes even malicious assertions are made against families and, indeed, against practitioners. That is why it is important, particularly, as the noble Earl, Lord Howe, has said, that there is a right of remedy for people to correct information about them that is wrong.
6.15 p.m.
Can the Minister also say to what extent one of the key issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, in his report will be addressed? There was a deep ignorance by professionals of data protection law in all the agencies with which Victoria Climbié was involved. When we are talking about even the minimal use of databases it is important that professionals understand both their

1105
powers and their duties to disclose information, even if that information is as minimal as the Minister has stated on this matter. I am happy to support the noble Earl, Lord Howe, particularly in view of the Minister's response to earlier amendments that the database is not simply to be used for child protection, but will have wider applications regarding promoting the well-being of children. That statement still causes me concern.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to support the intentions of this group of amendments. In particular the propositions in Amendments Nos. 143 and 214 seem to be especially useful and sensible. The Committee danced around this issue of information accuracy in some detail in the preceding amendment. In that context, one of the perverse effects of databases is that, over time, inaccurate data can all too readily assume the status of fact. Allegations assume a life of their own to an extent whereby, even if they have been shown to be unfounded and that forms part of the data record, stigma is attached to the data subject. Almost instinctively it is a case of no smoke without fire.
Moreover, in circumstances where the recording of a particular rumour or allegation has not been annotated as being unfounded, or a flagged concern has not been removed, untold damage can be done to both the data subject and their family. On that basis, we can all accept the necessity of ensuring the accuracy of data. Indeed, that is enshrined in the Data Protection Act with the fourth principle stating that:
"Personal data shall be accurate and, where necessary, kept up-to-date".
That said, there is a problem. As drafted, the Bill intends to allow the recording of, it states,
"information as to the existence of any cause for concern in relation to",
children. Obviously, we will address the merits or otherwise of the use of the phrase, "cause for concern", later, in the context of Amendment No. 148. I have no wish to pre-empt that debate. Nevertheless, the fact that it permits such a wide interpretation of what data and information could be recorded is a relevant issue.
Notwithstanding the Minister's insistence that no "opinions" will be recorded on the database, it would require practitioners in the field to record allegations, conjecture, gossip, even rumour as a basis for adding a flagged concern. In other words there is no way of telling whether the flag is rooted in fact or opinion. The flag itself becomes the opinion.
Evidence of the sort of data that might generate a flag can be adduced from the "reducing youth offending generic solution" or RYOGENS pilot, funded by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. It is being rolled out in Warwickshire, Lewisham and Tower Hamlets. A concise outline of its purpose appears on its web page. It says:
"RYOGENS is a pragmatic, web-based system that helps practitioners from different agencies to identify, assess, and refer vulnerable children … The system enables practitioners from multiple agencies to share information about children in a safe and secure manner".
1106
Clearly, it is a precursor to the way in which the Government anticipate that databases established under Clause 8 may well operate.
Helpfully, the website tells us that one of the benefits of the scheme is that it,
"identifies, assesses and refers vulnerable children capturing concerns below statutory thresholds which would not otherwise be recorded".
In its implementation guide, we are advised that the "concerns" which should trigger an entry in the database are, for example,
"denies part in/does not believe/commits anti-social behaviour";
and,
"non-constructive spare time/easily bored":
and,
"negative home influence on education";
and
"criminal area of residence".
All of these and many others constitute legitimate reasons for entering a flag within the system. Moreover, it is explicitly anticipated that the "opinions" of practitioners will form the basis of flags within the database. At paragraph 3.5.3 of the information sharing guidance toolkit, "personal data" is defined as,
"facts or opinions relating to a living individual that can be identified by the data".
I readily recognise that the judgments that practitioners have to make on individual cases are exceedingly complex and difficult. Nor should we underestimate that. But the very nature of the RYOGENS process is that it relies on conjecture and opinion. Yes, informed and trained opinion, but opinion none the less.
Inevitably, in a strict sense, the accuracy of any data or information that is recorded within the system cannot be guaranteed. In other words, while I welcome the proposition contained in the amendment, I am unconvinced that in so far as RYOGENS is the template for what the Government have in mind, it can be secured either easily or effectively.
All in all, I shall be intrigued to hear from the Minister how the Government intend to guarantee the accuracy of any data held on the database they are proposing. In particular, how do they intend to guarantee the accuracy of flagged or signposted causes for concern?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thank Members of the Committee for raising an important group of amendments. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that nothing I see in them is in any way trivial. It is important that we address the concerns raised.
I also accept that part of what needs to be addressed within the Government's proposals—not within this Bill but beyond it—is ensuring that people understand their obligations, responsibilities and rights as regards the information-sharing by professionals. I fully accept the comment of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that one of the dreadful outcomes of the Climbié report was that people were unsure about

1107
sharing information. The provision is meant to be a tool to enable that to happen more easily and to set out the circumstances more clearly.
Amendments Nos. 136 and 211 would specify in regulations the information which may not be contained on the databases. Amendments Nos. 143 and 214 look to achieve accuracy in what we do. Amendment No. 155A raises the importance of cross-checking data in pursuit of accuracy. Amendments Nos. 147 and 216 would prevent the databases from recording details of the practitioners delivering services to each child.
I have indicated on several occasions today what we are seeking to put on the database in terms of the basic factual information to identify a child clearly. I have also referred to our commitment to bring forward a package of amendments for consideration on Report. They will include measures that will address the concern that more details should be included on the face of the Bill. One of these will be a list specifying the kind of basic data that should be included.
We want, if we can, to preserve some flexibility to enable other information to be specified through regulations where that proves to be useful or essential. Local authorities piloting information-sharing have identified other factual information which may be helpful; for example, a list of organisations and practitioners delivering services in a locality to children and the criteria they apply for offering services to children, can be helpful to practitioners in facilitating effective referrals. Noble Lords who have had an opportunity to talk to the Trailblazers will understand how important it has been to have such information available. However, I understand Members' concern that they should not be an extension of the way in which we address the broader implications of the information available.
The noble Earl's amendment focuses our attention on what should not be included. I reiterate that it is not our intention that case notes about children should be recorded on the database. Nor should the system contain data on the nature of concern that a practitioner might have. We accept that it is appropriate for a practitioner to share that information within the bounds of the common duty of confidentiality outside the database with other practitioners in a meeting or conversation. Those meetings and conversations take place now and this tool will enable them to take place more speedily and in circumstances in which they otherwise would not because practitioners would not have known about each other's involvement. I agree with what the noble Earl said about professional opinion. It is about people using their best professional judgments in some cases and I accept the issues which he rightly raised.
The noble Earl, Lord Howe, rightly said that subsection (5)(a) is widely worded and it suggests that case details could be entered, which we do not want to see happen. The government amendment we are proposing will change this to the name and contact details of any person providing services. We do not know how subsection (5)(b) will change, but we do not
1108
believe it contains the same suggestion about case details. We are listening to what noble Lords have to say on that subsection as our deliberations continue.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 143 and 214. They are intended to provide that regulations ensure that information held on a database is accurate. Accuracy of data is extremely important. And of course no information system will be 100 per cent accurate for 100 per cent of the time. But we have specified in the policy statement relating to guidance and directions on the operation of the databases that one of the functions of the person operating the database will be to commission the supply of core basic data and to ensure that it is cleansed and matched.
We know from the experience of the Trailblazer authorities which have gone or are going through the process that it is no mean feat and it must be done thoroughly. One of the advantages of using data from more than one source—for example, from LEAs, primary care trusts or Connexions—to populate the basic datasets is that the matching of data can help overall to obtain better coverage and accuracy.
We are also proposing that regulations provide that where a practitioner becomes aware of a change in the child's basic details—for example, a change of address—he should notify the database manager who will be required to amend the record. Similarly, regulations will provide for practitioners to update details where, for example, they cease to provide a specialist service to a child. Regulations will also provide both practitioners and the database manager with responsibilities of putting details of children not previously known or who have newly arrived in the area on to the database and in ensuring that records relating to children who are moving to a new area are transferred on to the database in that area—notwithstanding our earlier discussions on ensuring that that is correctly in place locally, regionally and nationally.
Of course that possibility can never he excluded where professional judgment is involved. However, through encouraging multi-agency discussions, it is more likely that an accurate overall assessment of the child's needs will be made. Contesting the professional judgment of any practitioner involves much wider issues than are raised by the existence of a new type of database. We will consider, in the light of experience from the Trailblazer authorities, whether the record of a concern should be retained on the system until the child's whole record is deleted or whether the information should be removed from the record after a defined period of time. I am keen to have Members' views on that. We are looking to see what makes greatest sense in the context of the Trailblazers' experience.
6.30 p.m.
Amendment No. 155A raised the important issue of cross-checking and matching data. I am completely in agreement with the noble Earl, Lord Howe, that ensuring that information held on the database is accurate and up to date is extremely important. This will

1109
include cross-checking between databases. I am happy to accept the spirit of the noble Earl's amendment. As part of our undertaking to provide a package of amendments at Report, we will look at including in subsection (9)(e), comparison as well as transfer of information between databases.
I turn to Amendments Nos. 147 and 216. What I have tried to indicate this afternoon is that it is often the case that when information for a range of sources is put together, a child can be seen to be in need—or occasionally at risk. I have indicated the minimum core of information that we believe should be on the database to enable practitioners quickly to discuss the child's overall needs and, more importantly, how best to meet those needs.
These amendments do not recognise the importance of this function which we believe is fundamental to the added value of the proposed database. I reiterate that this is intended not to be a system focused primarily on those children who require protection from harm, but especially on children in need—those children who need, at some point, specialist services in order to thrive. It is not a substitute for a child protection scheme. It is very important that we think of this as our big opportunity to move our services on to prevention and to look at the needs of children in the round. It also aims to identify children missing education who do not appear to have access to primary health care. Inclusion of details of the practitioners delivering basic and specialist services to each child is therefore fundamental. I hope on that basis the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw these amendment.
Lord Hylton: Before the Minister goes away to consider the content of government amendments to be tabled on Report, would she think about the need for continual revision of these databases so that they do not become obsolete? This seems all too likely to happen, given that we are looking at the whole age range of a child from birth to 18. In that context, would she also consider whether the whole system should be scrapped when a person reaches the age of 18 or some other age?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The answer to those questions is yes. We are coming on to talk about the age at which the system would cease to operate for children. We are also about to discuss some of the issues about vulnerable children being able to be transferred on—children with learning difficulties, for example. However, I accept completely what the noble Lord has said about revision and updating of the databases being critical.
Earl Howe: Once again this has been a useful debate. I thank the Minister for her reply. I also thank my noble friend Lord Northesk for what he had to say about flags of concern. I thought his comments were very apropos. I wholly agree with the observations he made about the inherent dangers in posting a flag of concern which is designed to reflect someone's opinion rather than strictly a matter of fact. We shall come back to this issue later.
1110
I was considerably reassured by the Minister's commitment to amend subsection (5)(a). That lays to rest the spectre of the rather more lurid scenarios that I painted earlier. I also welcome her intent to table a further amendment to subsection (9) to the effect that the comparison and transfer of information would be included within the scope of the guidance or directions.
I listened with some scepticism to the Minister's stated wish to preserve a degree of flexibility in the way that the clause was translated into regulations. Flexibility is a perfectly honourable aim in most circumstances but at the same time it sent a slight chill down my spine. It all depends on how much scope there is for moving outside the envelope of factual details we have been discussing. We shall look at that very closely.
If I have a residual concern apart from that, it is in relation to the number of practitioners whose names might appear on a particular child's data file. Is the Minister saying that if a child has been to a particular clinic and looked after by a certain specialist, that that specialist's name might also appear on the child's file? That information could tell a story. It does not matter that only the practitioner's name appears. Anyone sufficiently well informed might be able to diagnose from that name the kind of thing that child had been treated for or advised on. There is a danger that while specific details of treatments given to children will not appear—and I accept all the Minister said about that—someone with average intelligence might be able to paint a fairly accurate picture of a child's case history. That, too, is an area on which we shall need to focus. I am willing to let the Minister make a further comment about that if she wishes to do so.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: We shall be able to tease that out a little more when we consider the next group of amendments. The noble Earl makes an absolutely valid point about sensitive information. I did not want him to think I was unwilling to respond. It is simply that it comes up very neatly in the next group of amendments.
Earl Howe: I am most grateful and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 137:
Page 6, line 29, leave out "or requiring"
The noble Baroness said: As the Minister indicated, we again reach one of those issues where principle and practice come closely together and where either can be of equal concern. The amendments are designed to probe the aspects of this clause which have caused a great deal of concern, namely those in subsection (4) which refer to the requirement by regulation,
"permitting or requiring the disclosure of information in any such database",
and,
"permitting or requiring the disclosure of information included in any such database".
It will come as no surprise to noble Lords that a number of professionals, whose work with children is confidential and sensitive, have expressed a great deal of concern about including the most basic information on their involvement with such children. Not surprisingly, we have had representations from organisations such as the BMA. These have been very much along the lines of the speech just given by the noble Earl, Lord Howe. Let us take as an example a child being referred to a child or adolescent mental health service. The noble Earl, Lord Listowel, summed it up well earlier when he spoke about inferential information, from which inferences may easily be drawn. The noble Earl, Lord Howe, was absolutely right that, once one goes beyond the name of a particular health service or health body potentially to individual practitioners, the nature of that inference becomes far more specific, possibly enabling people to make deductions.
Children are extremely sensitive and very clued up about precisely that kind of thing. Many years ago when I was involved in a children's summer play scheme, I remember that the kids used to talk regularly about other children not being there that day because they were off to the "barmy unit". They knew exactly what that meant. This matter takes us into an area where it is difficult to distinguish between factual and sensitive information.
I reiterate that there may be times when a professional does not reveal that he is working with a child for reasons of child protection. Organisations which have concerns about domestic violence, for example, have told us that even the most basic of information about where a child is and which services are being used could potentially be very dangerous for some children.
I shall underpin my arguments on this amendment with an argument which runs throughout my concerns about the whole of this clause. Studies of incidents where children have died often reveal that, in fact, agencies do know that they are all working with the children. Notwithstanding databases and simply relying on old-fashioned methods, they know who is working with whom. But they do not know what those agencies do with the children. As that information will not be recorded on the database, one returns time and again to ask what its value will be. For a number of professionals, the requirement to put information on the database may be, for them, a step too far and that may lead them to opt out of the system so far as they possibly can. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Like the noble Baroness, I am very troubled by the thought that professional relationships, hitherto characterised by the utmost confidentiality, could be put in jeopardy by the regulations under this clause. As she said, there is already a common law duty on doctors to release confidential information without consent where there is perceived to be a risk of harm to a child. I have no difficulty with that. However, I do have difficulty with the requirement for a doctor, teacher, solicitor or anyone else to release confidential information where it may not be in the child's best
1112
interests. The consequences of doing so will be an immediate haemorrhaging of trust between the child and the professional, or, indeed, between adults and professionals where information about an adult is seen by the professional as being relevant to a child's well-being.
We do not want, on any account, to see a person being afraid to discuss a mental health or sexual health problem with his or her doctor because of the thought that the doctor may feel the need to report the person's child as being at risk. Unless we are very careful here, we are looking at the statutory steamrollering of professional ethics, and we cannot have that.
One has to ask how wide the net will be cast. I do not know whether the regulations are intended to require or authorise a solicitor to disclose information to children's services authorities, notwithstanding the professional duty of confidentiality and the common law duty of legal professional privilege. Perhaps the Minister could clarify that point as well because it is one that has been raised with me. I should like to hear the Minister's explanation of why the words "or requiring" have been inserted here and exactly what significance they have.
Perhaps I may turn briefly to Amendments Nos. 137A and 139A, which are grouped with Amendment No. 137. It is important for it to be clear on the face of the Bill exactly which persons and bodies should participate in the information-sharing arrangements under Clause 8. The list of bodies and persons in Clause 7 is extensive. Their relevance to the aim of ensuring the well-being, and safeguarding and promoting the welfare, of children is, I believe, accepted. If the Government intend to allow other people or bodies to participate in the data-sharing arrangements, in my view, that should be explicit on the face of the Bill.
6.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Again, I am grateful to noble Lords for raising important issues concerning the use of professional judgment when making decisions about disclosure.
In part, our purpose behind this part of the clause is to ensure that the information-sharing aspects are carried out in a consistent manner. That means primarily that we ensure full coverage of children and young people. We consider that to be very important if the databases are to deliver benefits which are preventive in nature, helping professionals to identify the children they are dealing with; for example, as I indicated previously, whether or not they are in education or whether other practitioners are involved with a child. Therefore, we believe that it is right to require certain information to be included on the database and right to require it to be shared with other users in order to minimise the chances of a child falling through the net—for example, the basic data that I indicated, which, in a sense, form the backbone of the database.
We fully understand noble Lords' concerns about the need to preserve the trusting relationship that professionals have with the children, young people and

1113
parents with whom they work and about the fact that incredibly sensible issues are being dealt with by some of our professionals. That is why, for example, we have ensured that no detailed case notes will be on the database.
In order to indicate how far we are looking to see what will work best in those areas, I want to say something about what the Trailblazers have been doing in relation to this critical issue of sensitive services. The system being piloted in Sheffield allows people to log involvement but to do so invisibly; in other words, certain practitioners can see other practitioner involvement but cannot be seen themselves when they go on to the database. Therefore, the fact that they are working with a child remains entirely confidential, but they are able to see other practitioners who may be working with the child. The noble Baroness looks puzzled. If you are dealing with extremely sensitive issues in relation to a child, you may want to know who else is involved but you may not want others to see whether you are involved.
A system is being tested in East Sussex which involves logging invisibly when disclosure would not be in the child's best interests. Such cases can be seen only when a child protection threshold has been reached. In other words, precisely as the noble Earl and the noble Baroness indicated, it enables distinctions to be made when it is not in the best interests of a child to be seen to be part of a database. However, if issues of child protection arise, that information will be more widely available.
In Camden and Leicestershire, sensitive practitioner involvement can be seen only by certain people. Therefore, the lead or very senior professional is able to see who is involved on the database but other professionals cannot do so. In Leicestershire, a scheme is being piloted in which children can consent to information being shown only to some practitioners but not to others; for example, they can specify that it cannot be shown to the police. Again, that is overridden only if a child protection inquiry is under way.
I have given those examples very sketchily but I am happy to provide further information on them to show how the Trailblazers are considering the issue of sensitive information and, in a sense, the threshold issues around child protection, where it will be potentially important to be able to share that information. That would allow different gradations of professionals in some cases or different professionals to get on to the system but not to be seen on it in order to protect that sensitivity. Equally, as I have described, in Leicestershire the child plays a part in that and can say, "I do not want my details to be shown". That would be overridden only where child protection is concerned, which I think noble Lords would recognise as important.
We are looking at these important areas. We are trying to ensure that we are very careful in how we set up the arrangements to deal with these sensitive issues. We want to listen to what noble Lords have to say to see how best we might take this forward, and also
1114
again to allow the Trailblazers to be able to talk to noble Lords. As I have said, I am happy to supply more information specifically on the examples I have cited, because these are important issues which we want to ensure we have dealt with properly.
Amendments Nos. 137A and 139A seek to ensure that only those persons and bodies listed under Clause 7(1) will be required or permitted to disclose information. Noble Lords have already indicated that the Government's policy statement on regulations within this clause sets out those persons or bodies we envisage will be required or permitted to disclose information. It is now our intention to table a government amendment on Report that will list those persons and bodies on the face of the Bill. The policy statement sets out very clearly which persons and bodies those will be.
The government amendment will retain a little flexibility to allow the Secretary of State to add other bodies or persons to allow for such situations where new bodies are created that would have important information for inclusion on the databases, but that would be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, which I hope will deal with any issues of concern which noble Lords have.
Regulations will also provide that where practitioners are providing a specialist service they will be required or permitted to record their involvement on the system. As I said, we are considering carefully the Trailblazer authorities, and regulation will define which types of practitioner and which services are covered by this requirement. Again, that will be subject to the affirmative procedure.
It is worth saying that the amendments would prevent independent schools, for example, from contributing crucial information. Noble Lords will know that approximately 7 per cent of children are educated in the independent sector. We think it is vital that the database holds information about all children in order to be able to promote and safeguard their welfare.
I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured by our commitment to list the persons and bodies that will be required or permitted to disclose the basic information. I reassure noble Lords that concerns that professionals must be allowed to make professional judgments are being considered and consulted on in great depth with a view to informing the regulations which, as I have indicated, will be subject to affirmative resolution and therefore will give the opportunity to consider the detail of what inclusion or sharing of information will be required as well as what will be permitted.
I undertake to give further details to noble Lords about the work of the Trailblazers in dealing with these very important issues of sensitivity, not least in ensuring that young people are not put off from using services because of a fear they might have—misinformation is an issue that we always have to deal with and we must ensure that young people do not get misinformation—and of where the Trailblazers are in terms of looking at how best we can safeguard those issues while always ensuring that they can be

1115
overridden if a child was at serious risk of harm. On that basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Hylton: I was interested to hear the Minister mention information-sharing schemes in Sheffield, East Sussex and Leicester. Perhaps I may invite her to write to me to say whether they arose in the context of either the trafficking or smuggling of children into and occasionally out of this country. When replying, perhaps she would say whether the experiments and schemes she mentioned were possible under existing children's legislation or some other kind of legislation?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The schemes to which I referred are the Trailblazers, which we have set up. They do not specifically come from any angle, such as issues of trafficking. They are particular authorities which have undertaken to consider the issues noble Lords are debating today, such as sensitivity and so forth, and how best to develop the right kind of database. They can do quite a lot of what they want to do under existing legislation. Primarily, the issue is that they do so only with consent. Therefore, they have issued the relevant notices across communities. It is important to ensure that we can join up the databases. We need to provide within regulation to be able to do that right across the country in a way that is most appropriate. For example, if a family were to withhold consent and experience suggests that that could be specifically because there are issues of child abuse and child neglect, at present that could not be included and we would want to ensure that it is.
Earl Howe: There is an important point which I should like to pick up. It harks back to debates we had some two years ago on the Health and Social Care Act, in which the noble Baroness was not involved. Section 60 of that Act covers the current provisions relating to disclosure of confidential medical information to cancer registries and elsewhere. We were all reassured by the statements of the Minister at the time that the tightest possible conditions would apply and that there would be no possibility of information that should not be disclosed being disclosed or of a patient who did not wish his or her information to be disclosed having those wishes overridden.
I have recently been made aware of some shocking breaches of those undertakings. It is shocking to me because even when the patient's request not to have her details disclosed was brought to the attention of the cancer registry, it still went ahead and disclosed it, citing Section 60 of the Health and Social Care Act as the legal basis for so doing.
It seems to me that the arrangements we put in place here have to be watertight. There should be no room for doubt or uncertainty. I sound that warning because there is precedent. I shall write to the noble Lord, Lord Warner, about the case I mentioned. I do not need to take it further with the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton. However, it is pertinent to this whole area of data sharing.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I thank the noble Earl. Regardless of the fact that he will pursue this matter with the noble Lord, Lord Warner, I would be interested to see what happened in those circumstances and whether there is anything further we need to do in relation to this database.
Baroness Barker: I thank all noble Lords who have taken part in the debate. It has been a very important matter on which to spend some time. Perhaps I may say to the noble Baroness that as with most of the amendments we have discussed today, I was in part reassured by her answer and, frankly, in part alarmed by it. Albeit I understand the very brief outline she gave, the part which alarmed me concerned shadow practitioners, and so forth.
I would welcome a lot more information about those four pilots and the way in which they include some professionals and not others. I welcome the potential for children to make clear that they do not, under any circumstances, wish particular professionals to have information about them.
I believe that this is a problematic area. One of the biggest flaws of the whole clause comes to a head here. In the absence of a statement of principle on which this clause is founded, one can easily envisage different circumstances in which the clause would perhaps unintentionally work to the detriment of children.
7 p.m.
I listened to what the noble Earl, Lord Howe, said about Section 60. No one would wish to go back to those debates, but I can understand that the temptation to say, "I told you so" is very great. How medical information can be disclosed is a very big concern. What does a paediatrician do if he has a concern? Perhaps his concern is that the family are Jehovah's Witnesses and there is a blood-related condition in the family. He would rightly be concerned. Should that he disclosed?
I am not yet convinced that this provision is right or that the word "balance", which the Minister uses, has been properly circumscribed. I believe that the balance is between tests and thresholds for disclosure and that Ministers have to pay that price for flexibility. I remain convinced that the balance is well and truly not right. Perhaps the noble Baroness might like to have that debate with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt. It is one with which he is very familiar. At this stage, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 137A to 138 not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 139:
Page 6, line 32, at end insert "including the circumstances under which information may or must be available to persons with parental responsibility for a child or children in the relevant authority area"
The noble Lord said: In Amendment No. 139 I return to the question of the role of parental responsibility in our society and the effects of the register on those with parental responsibility.
What I could have guessed, and was not smart enough to notice, was that the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, sneaked in two amendments under Clause 7, which deal with the issue. What was even more stupid of me was that I was out of the Chamber having a cup of tea when they were dealt with and I did not hear what the Minister said.
However, I am given to understand that the noble Baroness said that parents will have access to the database and can comment on it. The Minister nods her head. Therefore, I shall not go over the arguments I was going to cover. I simply want to ask a couple of questions. First, how will parents know whether their child's name has been flagged on the register and therefore have the interest to go and look and make sure that the entry is reasonable and, if necessary, to challenge it?
Secondly, if parents ask to see the entry on the register will they simply see a flag saying, for example, "concern by medical adviser" or will they have access to the underlying information which would be available to other professionals if asked for?
Thirdly, will different coloured flags indicate the extent of the concern, or is there simply one flag and the extent of the concern only arises when an inquiry is made?
I have one other question. Will the flags be dated? A flag could be put against a child aged three and at the age of 17 it would still be there. That obviously would be absurd.
Another issue I should like briefly to address is the problem of malicious information. I do not think we have seriously discussed malicious information and I do not think that I can justify doing so under the amendment, but I believe it is a serious issue, particularly in the context of family disagreement. I am afraid that in America it is quite common when a man tells his wife or partner that he intends to leave her for her to tell the police that he has been abusing the children. That kind of thing can lead to misinformation and it may be quite difficult to refute.
I have one final issue which I should like to raise in connection with parents and their children. In Amendment No. 146 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, subsection (b) draws attention to the difficulty which arises as a child grows up. As he grows up he begins progressively to take more responsibility for decisions in life. At the same time his parents still have responsibility for his welfare up to the age of 18. There is a need to think more closely about what we mean by parental responsibility. The very broad definition under the Children Act 1989 does not give parents a fair chance to know what they are expected to do. If children are to have rights of confidentiality to information about them, it seems to me that parents' responsibility must be consequentially reduced. Therefore, in that context issues such as parents being sent to prison for children not attending school or for anti-social behaviour must be looked at again. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I support the amendment of my noble friend Lord Northbourne. The Minister
1118
said that she was looking to the whole of this index as support for children in need. One of the real worries is that it may begin to be seen as children in trouble. There will be a register spread around the country or one entire register, whatever it is. I should have thought that that would be a plus in a way because all children would then be on it. However, if only certain children are flagged up with these comments that sort of inference will be drawn and it will be known about within schools and so on.
Looking at the whole matter from the point of view of families, I should like to ask the noble Baroness, what more can be done to encourage families, parents and carers to think of the database as helpful in their role of parenting. It would be useful to know how much access they will have, and when, to what is on the register about them and their children. I hope that over time we will get used to it. Noble Lords have had very grave reservations about this sort of approach and no one could have listened to the debate today without realising how genuine those worries and concerns are. I should like to think that we shall reach a time when parents, families and the children—the point was made about the moment at which the children take over their own responsibility—will feel ownership of this particular process.
I should like to ask the Minister to give a little explanation of how she sees the matter developing, particularly with parents whose children may well be in need as well as possibly being problem children. How can they feel more involved in the process when perhaps they will not necessarily be the ones lo ask to see the database itself?
The Earl of Listowel: I gleaned earlier from the Minister's remarks that local authorities will have a large part to play in deciding who has access to the database. I look forward to her response. It would be helpful to have more information about how foster carers, residential childcare workers and children's home managers might fit in with those people who can have access to the database, as well as adoptive parents—except those with parental responsibility for a child away in that context.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to noble Lords who have spoken about the critical issue of parents. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, enjoyed his cup of tea. I am sorry that he missed my remarks earlier. I am looking forward to my own cup of tea before too long.
We want information databases to improve and not reduce the ways in which practitioners work with families. Practitioners should always involve the parents of the child they are working with or the person with parental responsibility—to cover some of the issues raised by the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, about foster carers, adoptive parents, step-parents and so on.
That is why we want the name and contact details for the person or persons with responsibility for the child always to be recorded on the database to help facilitate precisely that conversation. We do not think it is necessary to include such an amendment, because

1119
a parent's right to see information about their children held on the database is already provided for under the Data Protection Act, which is important.
We intend that parents and young people in areas to be covered by databases will be informed that databases were being set up, of how they will work and in broad terms what information will be included on them and which types of professionals will have access to that information. For example, in many of the local authority areas that are piloting, processing notices have been issued explaining the new arrangements.
We intend to issue guidance on good practice in informing people about the purpose and operation of the database in any wider role that it would take part in as a result of the clause. We will ensure that people know what is available to them.
The broader questions raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Howe, require a longer discussion than I can give on day four of Committee on Clause 8. I am always mindful of time, not least when the Chief Whip has appeared at least twice in the past half hour. But I take her point about making sure as part of what we are doing that we are being clear about the need to involve parents at all stages and we are considering the Bill closely to ensure that they are not forgotten, as the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, feared.
We will also consider how the database can be viewed positively. That is critical; misinformation can lead to all sorts of problems, not least young people feeling that such databases are a hindrance rather than a help in trying to support them. We are not at the stage of having detail about coloured flags. There will certainly be information about the date of access to the database and, as I understand it, parents have access to all of the record except those matters that under the health modification order young people are entitled to assume were given in confidence. The noble Lord will be familiar with that provision.
If I have not answered any other queries raised I shall of course write to noble Lords setting out information, particularly on residential social workers, which I realise I have not addressed properly. I want to check and make sure that I put my reply correctly, because I am not sure that they would be classified as having parental responsibility, but there may be circumstances where the manager of a children's home does.
I hope that on the basis that I have been clear that we want to inform people about the databases and ensure that they understand how they work, and have recognised the broader questions raised, the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am extremely grateful for that helpful and encouraging response. I particularly endorse what my noble friend Lady Howe said. There might even be scope for asking people with parental responsibility to contribute to the database in order to give them a feeling of involvement. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 139A not moved.]
7.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 140:
Page 6, line 34, at end insert—

"( ) as to the circumstances in which access to any such database may be denied:"

The noble Earl said: In moving the amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 141, 212 and 215. The questions raised by the amendments have been covered already to a degree by the Minister, so I do not intend to spend an undue length of time on them.
One of the obvious questions about the databases is who will be allowed to access them, and importantly, who will not be. If a local authority creates a flag of concern about a child, we surely would not wish to say that any employee of the local acute hospital trust should be allowed to read that child's file. On the other hand, if the child were to present to A&E with suspicious bruising we should certainly expect the doctor on duty to access the database to see whether it held any information that might serve to put his concerns and suspicions into a broader context.
Equally we cannot allow people to surf the database for want of anything better to do on a Saturday afternoon. There needs to be a gateway mechanism that asks the question, "Who are you and what is your interest in seeking to access the database?" and records the reply. That in turn will create an audit trail.
Unless there is a gateway and such an audit trail excessive numbers of people will access the database when they have no business in doing so and they will not be found out. Without an audit trail we will also have the opposite and equally serious problem that there will be no protection for professionals who access the database justifiably and legitimately and who need to prove at some later date that they have done so.
Will the Minister answer a few questions? She has already answered the first question in part; at least, I know that this idea is in her mind and in that of officials. Do the Government envisage any sort of graduated system such as that to which she referred on the previous group of amendments whereby certain people have an unrestricted right of access to the database, others have limited access and everyone else has none at all?
What systems will be in place to ensure that unauthorised persons are not only prevented from accessing information but also do not somehow obtain it from someone who has accessed the information legitimately? What regulations will govern the way in which an authorised person is allowed to use the information that he or she acquires? It is clearly not acceptable for an employee of a local authority to pass on details about a child's address or school to someone who is not authorised to have that information and who has no interest whatever in safeguarding or promoting the child's welfare. How is that system of restricted access to be enforced and policed?
One of my worst fears is that in practice the creation of the databases will result in a free-for-all, however tightly the rules are drawn up. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I wish briefly to ask one technical question, fairly confident in the knowledge that the Minister will not be able to answer it. Is it correct to assume that a database created to permit the flow of information between up to 13 different agencies, each of which will have an existing system, will by definition have to be compatible with all of them?
If that is the case, is it likely that that system will be a generic computer system? Is it therefore right to assume that it will be easier for someone with technical knowledge of computer systems to access it than it would be a bespoke system? I pray in aid the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, whom I am delighted to see in his place. I do not expect the Minister to answer me—indeed, I hope that she will not do so in any great detail—but I raise it as a concern that a number of noble Lords might wish to pursue, when we are not in Committee.
The Earl of Northesk: I almost cannot resist the temptation. Inevitably, I support this group of amendments. The issue of security of database systems is decidedly fraught. Indeed, it lies very near the top of my list of objections to the whole proposition of Clause 8. It is almost inevitable that any database devised would need to be web-based, if only to ensure that the system can communicate both within and among the relevant agencies. In turn, in all probability, that will necessitate the sharing of information across disparate computer systems; for example, as with one local authority communicating with another.
That is difficult enough to achieve in its own right. It is very much more difficult to achieve in a way that guarantees the security of the data. Not only can data be corrupted as they are transferred from one system to another, but, as I understand it, there is also the critical vulnerability to interception at the point of transfer. So this is a really live issue for the database.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Again, these are very important issues concerning the database. We are very clear that access to the database should be restricted to designated individuals who are professionals delivering statutory or non-statutory services to children, who have direct contact with children or who have responsibility for managing the database itself.
I have a slightly different speaking note, which refers back to a group of amendments that we have not yet covered: the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, very kindly degrouped his amendment. I suspect that we shall break shortly. But, had we debated Amendment No. 145, I would have already said—but I shall say now—that it is our commitment to bring forward a government amendment to remove the power of the Secretary of State and the Assembly at subsection (9)(a) to determine the conditions of access in guidance or directions and instead provide for such conditions to be set out in
1122
regulations. I think that will help Members of the Committee to feel more secure about what we intend to do about access and so forth.
We intend to ensure that this will apply to named individuals and that there will be no blanket access. I recognise some of the points that were raised by the noble Earl and the noble Baroness regarding ensuring that the database system is as secure as possible. It is our intention to achieve that. I also recognise the noble Earl's point about the critical point at which we can ensure that we have developed a system that is as hacker-proof—if I can describe it as such—as it can be.
We can be sure about two things. First, the professionals who are designated will be designated. They will be named professionals who are able to access the database in respect of the children that they are responsible for looking after. That will not be a generic responsibility. Again, some of the work by Trailblazer has been interesting, such as looking at iris recognition, fingerprint security and six random questions popping up as people go into the database. The questions would be known only to those people accessing the database and would be applicable only in that local authority area for those particular professionals. There will be all sorts of measures of security.
The noble Earl will probably say that people can get into NASA and the FBI sites. I accept that it is difficult. But I also argue that, first, we would be putting minimal information and, secondly, we are looking to do that in a way which counters those who might attempt to get into the database. That is not least because of the constant looking at the database to see points of entry and to look at the way in which the database is used.
There were some technical questions, which, as Members of the Committee rightly identified, it is not for me to be able to answer. I shall, of course, ensure that I provide further information on them. We want to ensure that they are subject to stringent controls. We want to ensure that we are very clear about those people who will have access. We will be looking to develop that so that we can produce guidance and directions on the system, including security issues.
I have also referred to the audit trails, which will identify how people have been accessing the databases. That will enable us to check for any emerging patterns of potential abuse so that they can be dealt with.
We need to specify that the conditions relating to the security of the databases be set out in guidance and directions in order for us to be able to look at the nature of the design and the technical specifications that will be developed over the coming months. The noble Earl will know better than I that information technology is a fast-moving world. We need to build on the experience of the Trailblazer pilots and the detailed work that we have commissioned, in terms of the technical specifications. Any systems of course will comply with relevant e-government British Standards that relate to information security, management or other national standards or specifications.

1123
We also need the flexibility for secure user access. The policy statement says that persons operating the database must comply with any specified user authorisation mechanisms. I have indicated some of them. Passwords, electronic keys, biometric identity verification or personally known data and other information might be included. There could be others in the future. Again, this is a fast-changing world where we would want the flexibility to decide what the appropriate mechanisms might be once we have decided on what the system should be.
I understand the concerns that have prompted the amendments. I hope that we can reassure Members of the Committee that conditions of granting access will be tightly drawn. Individuals will need to meet minimum requirements. They will need Criminal Records Bureau clearance; they must sign a relevant practitioner-level protocol; and they must have undertaken training on safe and secure use of the system, including compliance with the Data Protection Act, the Human Rights Act and, where relevant, the Caldicott principles.
With the reassurances that I have given about how we will take this forward and my promise to write about the more technical details, I hope that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
The Earl of Northesk: I am grateful to the Minister. She has explained how security will be delivered against external hacking. I should be intrigued to know what the Government have done to assess the risk of internal hacking; that is, those with express authority to access the data who then exceed their threshold of access.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: First, the audit trail is about monitoring people where there are patterns of use that one might be interested in to see whether they indicate something further: that is, abuse of the system. Secondly, Trailblazer has looked at requiring different levels of information—different passwords, different security systems and so forth—to allow different levels of access.
We are planning that the accessibility of the system is for professionals who are dealing with particular children. Security also needs to look at the professionals not being able to access information more widely on children with whom they should not have any interest. Again, I am happy to elaborate on that for the noble Earl. It is an important area.
Earl Howe: Once again, that was an extremely helpful reply from the Minister. The Committee can be largely reassured by what she had to say. Clearly, I and others will wish to read her reply carefully in Hansard. But I am most grateful to her for the trouble that she took in responding to our key concerns about the security of systems and the need to maintain tight control on access.
We may need to return to this in some form on Report. But, in the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume. In so doing, I suggest that Committee stage does not resume before half past eight.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.

Prisons: Foreign Nationals
7.30 p.m.
Viscount Bridgeman Viscount Bridgeman rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their current policy with respect to foreign nationals held in prisons and detention centres.
The noble Viscount said: My Lords, I first thank those noble Lords who have agreed to take part in this short debate.
By what can only be described as a fortunate coincidence, the Prison Reform Trust last week published a comprehensive study on the very topic which is the subject of this evening's debate. Its report is entitled, Forgotten Prisoners—The Plight of Foreign National Prisoners in England and Wales. There could have been no more apposite title, and I have drawn on the report in what I intend to say.
To put the problem in context, according to the Prison Reform Trust, foreign nationals form one in eight of the prison population in England and Wales, and there has been a 152 per cent increase in their numbers in the past five years, largely due to the increased number of foreign nationals convicted of drug-related offences.
No one, I am sure, is asking for preferential treatment for this class of prisoner. I ask simply for a greater awareness on the part of the Government of the special problems which they face.
At the heart of the problem is, in many cases, the language difficulties faced by many of the prisoners. This manifests itself in many ways—they do not understand the prison regime, they are in many cases unaware of the translation facilities available and, of course, they are likely to be in a totally strange culture. They may well have worries about their families and may be traumatised by ill treatment at the hands of the authorities back home.
The prison officers all too often fall into that peculiarly British habit when communicating with non-English speakers, by shouting at them on the mistaken assumption that they are making themselves more intelligible. The hapless and frightened prisoner may well nod his head, a signal which the prison officer erroneously interprets as being that he has been perfectly understood. It is not difficult to see how this can easily lead to frustration, and it is sadly but a short step to racist behaviour to which Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons has drawn attention.
Indeed, it is not for the first time that we have to look at the reports of the Chief Inspector of Prisons, who, as so often happens, goes straight to the heart of the

1125
problem. I hope noble Lords will allow me to quote from the report of the inspector, Anne Owers, for 2001–02, for it says it all. She says:
"As with race there is overall a recognition that the Service needs to respond to the specific needs of this group, but as yet policies and practices are not sufficiently developed. We have found that some prisons do not know how many they hold or understand their needs. Others have foreign national co-ordinators who are proactive and engaged".
I shall refer to an example of this later on. The report continues:
"In almost every prison we have inspected this year, two issues have been raised. One is the need for more translations of basic information for prisoners. The other is the detrimental effect of the new PIN phone system on foreign nationals, whose only contact with relatives is by telephone, as the cost of doing so is prohibitive. This is now being addressed".
I ask the Minister to tell the House what progress is being made on this latter issue, including an assurance that there is an adequate number of telephone instruments available at the various prisons.
In the inspector's final paragraph in the report for the next year, 2002–03, she pulls no punches. The report says:
"This institutional blind spot for foreign nationals as a whole is evident from the fact that 32 prisons that we reported on had no specific foreign national work, and many did not know how many they held until inspectors informed them. This was not helped by the dilatory attitude of the Immigration Service, which, unless pressed, was not monitoring those liable to deportation, and making arrangements for this to take place as soon as sentence had expired. In many prisons, we found prisoners well beyond sentence with no idea when they might be released and go home".
May I address again the poor liaison between the Immigration and Prison Services to which the inspector referred? There appears to be a deplorable lack of knowledge of what the other does. All too often, we find cases where, once the detainee has passed into the prison system, as far the Immigration Service is concerned, he or she is forgotten about. The repatriation arrangements for the prisoner are left till the last moment in his or her sentence—a point picked up by the inspector—with the inevitable consequence, in many cases, that they are not in place by the time the prisoner is due for release. We must add to this the bureaucracy involved.
May I, in passing, ask the Minister why it is necessary to have three separate computer systems in the IND, each of which apparently has limited interpersonal skills in talking to the other two? But I am indebted to the Detention Advice Service for an example of the deportation arrangements in what is a fairly standard case. A deportation order is raised by the criminal casework team and is sent to the nearest immigration service. The IS arranges for a visit to serve the deportation order on the inmate, at the same time interviewing for travel documents. The travel documents go to the Immigration Service documentation unit which forwards them to the appropriate embassy. The travel documents are returned to the ISDU, which sends them to the Immigration Service dealing with the case and finally, after several weeks, a flight is booked for the inmate to return home. The result, in so many cases, is that because all these arrangements were instituted too
1126
late, the inmate remains in prison after he or she has served the sentence, which has the effect of giving the prisoner an extended sentence.
There is another matter to which the inspector drew attention in her 2003 report—the plight of female foreign national prisoners, who tend to be fairly small cogs in the drugs machine but who are very numerous. In the year under review, female foreign national prisoners suffered considerable disruption. Incidentally, the inspector commended the work of Hibiscus, the women foreign nationals support group, on behalf of this vulnerable group of women. She called for the organisation to be properly resourced and supported, and she also called for it to be used as a complement rather than a substitute for an effective Prison Service policy—a sentiment echoed, I am sure, by many another prisoner support organisations. I should be grateful if the Minister would tell the House whether the Prison Service has been able to give effect to the inspector's recommendations.
I should like to finish on a hopeful and constructive note, with an example of what can be done. At Wandsworth, through a process of constructive trial and error, the prison management has developed a practice model where there is a foreign nationals co-ordinator and a foreign nationals prisoner group which provides a platform for foreign national prisoners to raise matters of concern and to allow staff to provide information directly to them. There are liaison officers among the staff and there is a specialist worker who can offer immigration and related advice to foreign nationals and training to staff.
So it can be done. But there is a huge disparity between good and poor practices in prisons across the country. Surely one way of benchmarking a common norm of good practice is by way of a Prison Service order to consolidate good practice and make it applicable to all establishments. I understand that the Prison Service, which at one time supported the idea, has now decided that a PSO relating to foreign nationals will not now appear. This is a considerable disappointment to many of the bodies engaged in the support of foreign national prisoners, and I ask the Minister to tell the House why there has been this apparent change of heart on the part of the Prison Service. I urge him to reconsider the formulation of a PSO so that the techniques developed by places such as Wandsworth can be disseminated throughout the system.
I have not had time to address the equally important subject of detention centres, and I hope that this may be covered by other noble Lords. If I may return to the prisons, the issue, as I see it, is simple. These foreign nationals have committed offences under British law. They have served sentences for them. We owe it to them to address their special needs, particularly with respect to communication, and to return them to their countries of origin as speedily as possible after their sentence has been completed so that they can each of them have the best chance of making a fresh start.
7.39 p.m.
Baroness Stern: My Lords, I am very grateful to the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for initiating this

1127
important debate. I begin by declaring an interest as a board member of Penal Reform International and a board member of the French equivalent of Prisoners Abroad, which is called Francais Incarcérés au Loin.
I want to concentrate on those detained who are not imprisoned by the courts but are held in detention for other reasons—that is, those detained under immigration legislation. I begin by welcoming a number of developments in that area. I welcome the new inspection powers given to Her Majesty's Chief Inspector to inspect places where people are detained under immigration legislation. That is the result of the United Kingdom's ratification of the optional protocol to the Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. That ratification is also greatly to be welcomed. This will be a new responsibility for the chief inspector and we continue to expect high standards of inspection and fair reporting.
I also welcome very much the ending of the routine holding of immigration detainees in Prison Service accommodation from January 2002, and the Minister's assurance given at Report of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill on 18 May that very few children were held in detention centres—now called removal centres—for longer than two weeks and that facilities for play and education were now available.
I will now set out some facts in the hope that, if they are wrong or out of date, the Minister will correct me. Facts about this subject were more difficult to find than facts about the prison population and the operation of prisons. As I understand it, at the end of December 2003, 1,615 people were detained in centres under Immigration Act powers. In addition, some were detained in police cells and others in prisons. The latest figure that I have for prisons is 120, including, as one report says, 50 "troublemakers". It would be helpful if the Minister could give more up-to-date figures, clarify whether there were any so-called "troublemakers" in prison and give figures for those held in police cells.
My concern in this debate is the treatment of people in detention, especially because the number of places of detention is to increase considerably to more than 3,000, including an increase of 44 places at Dungavel and a new centre on the same grounds as the Harmondsworth removal centre, which will have 326 cells for high-security detainees. I understand that there are three removal prisons run by prison staff at Dover, Lindholme and Haslar. What is the exact relationship of these establishments and their staff to the Prison Service? I would also be grateful if the Minister could indicate the intended use of the 326 cells for high security detainees at Harmondsworth.
Within the past few weeks we have learnt, in enormously distressing and damaging circumstances, that wherever there is detention, there is the scope for abuse and ill treatment. Experience from across the world shows that to be the case. Chief Inspector
1128
Anne Owers spoke last year about her impressions of the first round of immigration centre inspections. She said in her report, which I quote at length for the record:
"what has also emerged is the consequence of not monitoring and inspecting. Immigration detention is not routinely supervised by the courts and until now has not been routinely inspected. What inspections reveal is that this lack of supervision can result in arbitrary or sloppy decision-making: detainees received without proper authorisation, cases not progressed efficiently—in one case to detainees literally lost in the system, three months into what was supposed to be an overnight stay in prison. We have used child protection and welfare principles to question the detention of children. And we have revealed conditions that fall short of safety or respect. When some of the deficiencies were pointed out to officials, there was some reluctance to accept that things did not happen simply because policies had been drawn up. The inspection gap between the virtual and actual had not up till then been mapped in immigration removal centres. It is now".
I note that the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, asked in the House on 24 March what progress was being made in addressing the specific criticisms in the chief inspector's report of April 2003 that the provision of interpreters and translated documents was very poor. In his reply, the Minister said that he could not provide a specific response, but that the Home Office was "addressing it". Perhaps he will be able to provide one tonight.
The questions of ill treatment have not disappeared. Many concerns have been raised about the events at Yarl's Wood removal centre. Eventually, at the end of April, the prison and probation ombudsman reported—not on the fire: that report is still to come—on the allegations of racism, abuse and violence. In the report, he noted that, indeed, staff at Yarl's Wood detention centre used racist and abusive language and used control and restraint more than at other detention centres. The report noted an incident in which a naked woman was restrained by male officers. The ombudsman, Stephen Shaw, concluded on page 27 of the report:
"On the face of it, it seems appalling that a naked female detainee should be physically restrained by male officers".
The Home Office accepted 19 recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman to discuss with Global Solutions Ltd, which runs Yarl's Wood. How is the implementation of these 19 recommendations progressing, especially since a report appeared in Sunday's Observer entitled, "Abuse is 'systematic' at asylum detention centres". The Observer reports that proceedings had been filed in the High Court in one case, on which I do not expect the Minister to comment. However, the report also asserts that, last week, scores of detainees at Harmondsworth went on hunger strike to draw attention to alleged abuses. A London firm of solicitors claims that it receives a new allegation of abuse every day.
The MP for Walthamstow, Neil Gerrard, is chairman of the All-Party Group on Refugees. He is reported to have said:
"What has struck me is the number of similar stories that have kept coming up. They can't all be false".
Things are happening that should not be happening. I would be grateful if the Minister could respond to the allegations in that report in the Observer.

1129
On 11 December, the Minister told the House—I refer to Hansard col. 874—about the important role carried out by the statutory independent monitoring boards that have been appointed to the centres and have free and open access. Have the recommendations made by the prison and probation ombudsman that the members of the independent monitoring board at Yarl's Wood should attend race relations training been implemented? Have the boards reported to the Home Secretary on their work? Have any matters of ill treatment been reported to the Home Secretary by the boards? Have the independent monitoring boards published their reports, as do the boards attached to prisons'?
7.49 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, most warmly on the presentation that he has given your Lordships and on his wonderful sense of timing, which he told us was coincidental. I wondered when I saw the PRT report whether the noble Viscount had had some tip-off in advance. In any case, he has done us a great service in drawing attention to that report on the forgotten prisoners—as they were called by the PRT—the 8,937 foreign nationals in the prisons of England and Wales, who form one in eight of the prison population. He also pointed out that the number has risen steeply over the past decade. It has also risen as a proportion of the prison population: it was 7.8 per cent in April 1996, 8.1 per cent in September 1999 and 12 per cent in January 2003. It is now, according to the PRT report, over 12 per cent, which is something like one in eight of the prison population.
As the noble Viscount also pointed out, the majority of the people in this group are drug offenders: 40 per cent of the men and the majority of the women. As he also said, they are generally people at the bottom end of the trade caught trying to smuggle, for which they receive long sentences in the futile expectation that it will act as a deterrent. For some years, I have been trying to convince Home Office Ministers that no public purpose is served by locking up these offenders for many years. Many of them are women whose children's lives are made even bleaker by the loss of a mother, transmitting the propensity to criminal behaviour down the generations. Obviously, the importation of drugs is a serious offence, but if the mules were given a suspended sentence and deported the public interest would benefit from a drop in the number of prisoners, without any harmful side-effects in terms of more drugs entering the country. The PRT quotes evidence published by the Home Office itself showing that long sentences have little or no deterrent effect. The problem is much better dealt with by visa regimes and improved detection overseas, measures that have proved effective in the case of Jamaica.
I welcome the early removal scheme, which allows foreign prisoners serving longer sentences to be deported up to four and a half months early and I am pleased to note that up to 400 places in the prisons are likely to be freed thereby. But why not go further and say that where a sentenced person is to be deported,
1130
and under the new rules will be fingerprinted so that he or she cannot re-enter the country in any case, all prison sentences of less than three months should be replaced by suspended sentences? The persons concerned are likely to spend a few days in custody anyway, as they await removal, but the shorter the time, the less will be the unnecessary burden on the taxpayer and the trauma suffered by the offender's family in his or her country of origin. Yet on the contrary, the Home Office is busy filling up the places that are shortly to be freed by the early removal scheme by creating new documentation offences in the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill and provoking a fresh influx of short-term prisoners into our prisons.
In November 1999, I sent the then Minister an analysis of foreign nationals in our prisons. I asked whether the Home Office could undertake a study to determine the reasons for the increase and to consider the possibility that the courts could make greater use of suspended sentences with a recommendation for deportation and whether the arrangements for repatriation of sentenced persons were working properly and expeditiously. No study was ever undertaken and, as far as I can see, the Repatriation of Prisoners Act, which was supposed to allow people to serve their sentences in their own national prisons, is cumbersome and ineffective. In the case of Jamaicans, who account for a quarter of the foreign nationals in our prisons, it may be that, being well aware of the appalling state of prisons in their own country, they do not ask to be repatriated. Maybe we could help the Jamaicans to improve the state of their prisons so that people would not be so reluctant to return there.
As for the criticisms made by the PRT of the Prison Service's failure to meet the needs of foreign prisoners, that too is not a new discovery. The chief inspector and her predecessor have been on about it for years—we have heard some quotations from her reports—as have the boards of visitors at the prisons where foreign citizens are detained. Ministers will remember the debate that we had on Wandsworth in February 2000 and the failures that had been highlighted there by both agencies. Wandsworth has enormously improved since then and its successful scheme for meeting the needs of foreign nationals, which has already been described by the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, has been adopted in some other prisons such as Lewes.
What is a matter of concern, however, is that each prison governor has too much autonomy and best practice is not automatically rolled out through the whole service. This may be particularly true of the increasing number of private prisons where the contractors are understandably reluctant to do things that are going to cost them money if they are not specifically required and paid for. The arbitrary variations between one prison and another may well be intensified by the regional management of NOMs unless there are rules to ensure that, for instance, foreign prisoners are treated the same throughout the whole system.

1131
Independent monitoring boards have been mentioned. They also vary widely, some covering diversity policy in some detail, others skating over the topic in a couple of sentences. On the whole, IMBs do not see the needs of foreign nationals as a separate issue. At Blundeston, for instance, where half of the inmates are foreign, they are not mentioned at all. The IMB at Downview, scheduled to become one of four specialist prisons catering for foreign women, criticises a lack of policy direction. But of the 146 IMBs, only 46 published their reports for 2002 on the web, so they are not providing an effective and transparent check on management.
The delegation of decision-making to local governors creates problems for foreign nationals, particularly in regard to their spiritual needs. I declare an interest as patron of the Buddhist Prison Chaplaincy. Staff are not good at reading the instructions they get from headquarters, so they frequently have to be reminded of their obligations. Some IMBs report on the chaplaincy; others, where there are large numbers of foreign prisoners, ignore it. I cite Lindholme Removal Centre and Coldingley as examples.
The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has commented on the removal centres. In 2003, the IMB reported on three of them: Campsfield House, Haslar and Harmondsworth. It said that Harmondsworth had greatly improved since the chief inspector had given it low marks, but yesterday, as the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, has already pointed out, the Observer reported that detainees there are on hunger strike against alleged abuses there and at other removal centres. I know personally of one alleged rape of a Harmondsworth detainee. The police were called in but the CPS found that there was insufficient evidence to prosecute the employee concerned, who claimed that there had been consensual sex. The employee was dismissed for unprofessional conduct but the victim was unable to pursue her complaint through the civil courts because she was deported.
I also heard yesterday from the fiancée of a man who has been detained at Harmondsworth since July 2003 and who suffered injuries which required medical attention when an attempt was made on 6 April forcibly to deport him. The IMB says that there were only five or six complaints a month at this centre, but there was also an average of 14 segregations, seven C&Rs and five incidents of self-harm. Neil Gerrard MP, chairman of the All-Party Refugees Group, says that he has heard allegations and so do solicitors and voluntary agencies concerned with removal centres. Does the Minister consider that there are ways of reinforcing the IMBs, improving the complaints system or involving the campaign groups which themselves are inundated with complaints?
In this connection, I was very glad to learn that our former colleague in another place, Sir Peter Lloyd, a distinguished former prisons Minister and chair of the inquiry into boards of visitors, has accepted the presidency of the National Council of IMBs and that on their agenda will be their future role and reporting obligations. It is extraordinary that in the 21st century it should still be within the discretion of these boards
1132
whether to publish their reports; that they are subject to censorship by the Secretary of State, as the Minister, Des Browne, confirmed in another place on 28 April 2004 (at col. 1101W of Hansard) and that there is neither a model for their activities nor a template for their reports.
I want to mention one other important group before I sit down—the foreign nationals detained under the Antiterrorism, Crime and Security Act. The Privy Counsellor review committee which reported last December recommended that Part 4 of the Act should be replaced by alternative legislation that would not apply only to foreigners and would enable us to rescind the derogation from the ECHR which Part 4 necessitated.
The Home Secretary rejected the arguments of the Newton committee saying that it was only by detaining the 14 individuals who were then in Belmarsh that Britain was being protected from Al'Qaeda even though half the suspects known to the intelligence services were in fact British nationals. However, since then, one detainee—M, a 38 year-old Libyan who has been in Belmarsh for 16 months—was released by the court, and another—a 35 year-old Algerian who had been detained for two years—was released by SIAC itself subject to conditions. The Home Secretary's response has been to threaten new legislation to prevent the courts from releasing terror suspects, even those against whom there was no evidence or those who had become mentally ill as a result of their high security confinement.
No doubt there is a serious terrorist threat, but surely the use of powers that are not consistent with the ECHR against Muslim foreigners, and their treatment in a manner which has caused several to develop psychiatric illness, is not only repugnant in itself, but is likely to damage relations between the state and the Muslim communities, creating far worse problems down the line.
I hope that Ministers will take the PRT's Agenda for Action very seriously, and that in particular they will act to ensure that the needs of foreign prisoners are dealt with systematically and that procedures are subject to audit. But the strategy covering the provision of information, support and contact with families should be the same at every prison, and the aim should be to ensure that a prisoner who moves around the system recognises the same high quality approach wherever he goes. Outside the walls, our aim should be to reduce the number of people who are sent to prison by the courts with recommendations for deportation, to be kept inside at the taxpayers' expense for a few months or years when, after that, we will never see them again.
8.2 p.m.
Lord Bassam of Brighton: My Lords, I thank the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, for raising this issue, which has important implications for both the Prison Service and the Immigration Service. I very much welcome the opportunity to explain the Government's position on foreign nationals held in prisons and immigration detention centres.

1133
The Prison Service's purpose is to keep in custody those committed by the courts, and its duty is to look after them with humanity and help them lead law-abiding and useful lives in custody and on release. The Prison Service aims to treat all prisoners as individuals and address all of the differing needs. The Prison Service aims to advise the Immigration Service of the first reception into prison of foreign national prisoners so that their cases can be considered where necessary. It is obviously for the Immigration Service to determine what action will be taken with that information.
This debate has been peppered with very many questions, which I accept are important questions. I do not think that I will be able this evening to be equal to the range of questions asked in particular by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, who is always very pressing, persistent and precise in what she seeks to know. I congratulate her on that. I suppose that the only comment I can usefully make is that it might have been useful if I had had prior knowledge of some of the more detailed points which require a more detailed response. If I cannot reply to them today from the Dispatch Box, I shall ensure that each and every one of them is followed up in correspondence which I will place in the Library and share with the other two noble Lords who took part in the discussion.
I congratulate the noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, on the range of issues that he raised. I shall endeavour to respond to those very important points. He was right to touch on how foreign national prisoners can be traumatised when they are received into the British prison system. I think he was right, too, to draw attention to the problems of race and racism potentially within the prison system as well. I congratulate him on his compassion and concern for those prisoners, particularly those who are very many thousands of miles away from their family and those to whom they are closest. He is absolutely right to raise the issue of access and communications.
The issue of telephone communication is obviously very important, as that is the most immediate and easiest way in which people can access their families. I think it only fair to say that there are difficulties here. Although the Prison Service has negotiated a contract that provides significantly cheaper calls abroad than were previously available, it cannot offer the same coverage and security as it would perhaps like to offer elsewhere. However, we try to ensure that facilities are opened up so that prisoners who are many thousands of miles away from their family can access their family at least through the telephone system. While some prisons offer free telephone facilities, not all prisons can do so. Although it varies from prison to prison, obviously it is most important to concentrate that where there are large numbers of foreign national prisoners. So we recognise the importance of the issue.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, raised the issue of good practice, which is an extremely important point. The noble Viscount, Lord Bridgeman, made a point about that as well. We must ensure that there is good practice across the prison estate to guarantee that those who are received into our custody and care, for whatever offence they commit, are well looked after
1134
and their needs are understood. Although it is only right to say that it would be wrong to provide preferential treatment in any way for foreign national prisoners, we clearly need to respond sensitively to their different needs, whether those are religious, dietary or whatever. Those are problems that feature within the prison system generally.
We try on assessment at the induction point, particularly for foreign national prisoners, to lake very careful account of their needs. We insist within the Prison Service that all prisoners must be treated decently, whatever their nationality. Prison staff are advised that they should be particularly alert to those from a different culture or religious background, and for whom English is not their first language.
We try to provide through the prison system general information about prison life and specific guidance on the regime of the prison in a variety of languages and formats. That is a very important question. Interpreters and translators may be brought in where it is appropriate and where costs allow. A member of staff, or perhaps staff from another prison with broader linguistic knowledge and talents, may be called upon from time to time to assist with any language barriers that may exist. However, we have to understand that making every language available and accessible is very complex and very difficult. We provide general information about prison life to foreign national prisoners in their own language.
Four prisoners' information books are published jointly by the Prison Service and the Prison Reform Trust, to whom we pay tribute for its work. They are available in English and in 22 other languages: Albanian, Arabic, Bengali, Chinese, Dutch, French, German, Greek, Gujerati, Hindi, Italian, Polish, Portuguese, Punjabi, Russian, Serbo-Croat, Spanish, Tamil, Turkish, Urdu, Vietnamese and Welsh. I appreciate that that does not give the complete range or complete coverage and is imperfect, but it is an expression of the Prison Service's commitment that it provides at least that range. We also insist within the Prison Service that every prisoner's religion must be identified and recorded when they first enter the prison estate so that their faith needs can be met.
Mention was made during the course of the discussion, particularly by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, of the impact, as it were, of the prison estate being used for Immigration Service detention purposes. I believe that the noble Baroness, Lady Stern, mentioned inspection and said how important that was. In the past, historically, prisons were not routinely inspected, in particular with regard to the Immigration Service. That is changing. We should be grateful to Anne Owers for the important work and the initiative that she has taken in that regard.
The Yarlswood inquiries are ongoing. It would be wrong and premature of me to comment in any detail on the content of the first report on Yarlswood, and on the second report that will be issued at a later stage. Clearly, there will be a lot to learn from that. Training needs will have to be assessed. Careful judgments will need to be made with regard to the way in which Yarlswood operates in the future and with regard to the needs of those who are detained there.

1135
I turn to some of the questions that were asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Stern. The noble Baroness asked for figures regarding those held in prison. They appear in quarterly statistics. I cannot provide figures on the position as from today. However, with regard to the numbers detained for immigration purposes, the IND quarterly asylum statistics published in March showed that at the end of December there were some 205 detainees held in prison. I know that there is some dispute about the numbers. The Prison Reform Trust claims that there is significant under reporting. I believe that the IND now takes the view that the Prison Reform Trust may well have a point. Some of those serving as prisoners are dual detainees: in other words, they are there not just because they have committed a criminal offence but are also detained for immigration or immigration-related offences. The relevant number may well be higher—between 400 or 500. A set of figures will be issued shortly. I do not have the figures for those held in police cells although I recognise that it is important that some statistical analysis of that is undertaken and that that information is made public.
The noble Baroness also referred to the Observer article published yesterday and the allegation that abuse of immigration detainees is systematic. I do not agree with that. It is not true that an investigation is ongoing into alleged systematic abuse in the removal estate. It is true that every allegation of assault on detainees by staff is fully investigated and also referred to the police. The details of the allegations of assault show that very few complaints have been laid as a product of those allegations. I believe that of 27 complaints made, 25 investigations were completed. The information I have suggests that none of those complaints was fully substantiated. I am happy to check on that and provide further and better particulars.
The noble Baroness also asked about the new centre at Colnbrook. I can tell noble Lords that this will provide 326 places for single males and will operate under the detention centre rules in the same way as other removal centres. The noble Baroness also made some reference to Dover, Haslar and the Lindholme removal centres. These are run by the Immigration Service or on its behalf by the Prison Service. They are operated under detention centre rules in the same way as other removal centres.
We accept that there were some teething problems, as one might expect, when the centres were redesignated. But the aim is that they should operate in the same way as other centres.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred to the reports of the Independent Monitoring Board (1MB). I believe he asked whether it was able to publish its reports as public documents. It is very much a matter for that body and whether it thinks it right to do so. I accept that it is an important issue and something which we should return to and give further consideration besides discussing the matter with the IMB.
As regards Stephen Shaw's first report on Yarlswood, I believe I made the point last week in response to an oral Question that we accept the recommendations of that report. I advise your Lordships that many of those recommendations have been picked up and implemented.
1136
We have had a useful preamble to what I consider is an important and perhaps a longer-term debate about the treatment of foreign national prisoners within the prison system as a whole.
Statistics were laid bare in the discussion. Roughly one in eight of the prison population are foreign national prisoners. A large percentage are Jamaicans, roughly between one-third and a quarter. Many of those in prison are there for drug offences. There is no doubt that the presence of foreign national prisoners within the prison population in general represents a considerable challenge. The increase in numbers over the past 10 years has been quite dramatic. We recognise the importance of responding to that challenge. In percentage terms it is something like a 140 per cent increase during that period.
There is a useful repatriation programme in train. Eighty-seven prisoners were repatriated from England and Wales in 2003. The foreign national prisoners come from about 165 countries and that of itself gives a clue to some of the difficulties that the Prison Service has to confront in dealing with different demands from different cultures.
We recognise that a dedicated detention centre facility is preferable for those who are in prison for immigration-related offences. That is much more preferable in the majority of cases, but there will always be a need, for reasons of security, control and perhaps geography, to detain some immigration detainees in prison. We hold to our commitment given in 2002 that while there may be that continued need, we really ought to end the routine use of prison accommodation to hold those who committed immigration offences.
But we have to be practical about it. Those individuals who have completed their sentence, but who are recommended for deportation will have their situation reviewed. If their circumstances are such that they can be released with restrictions, that will take place. In those cases where detention is authorised consideration will be given to the most appropriate places of detention, that is to say, removal centre or prison. That will be based on a risk assessment taking into account such factors as the nature of the individual's offence and their conduct while in prison.
I gained the impression during the course of the debate that there was a consensus for a national policy as regards foreign national prisoners. We have a policy which is emerging and developing. The Prison Service will be holding its first national conference on foreign national prisoners in July. There will be invited representatives from all prisons both public and private. At the conference the Prison Service will bring forward a strategy for dealing with the range of foreign national prisoner issues raised by prisons. I believe that the debate this evening could form a useful backdrop and inform some of the issues to be discussed at the conference.
This is a first and we will have to take account of reports made by HM Chief Inspector of Prisons and the non-governmental organisations. I am happy to report that the Prison Service and the Immigration Service have started to work much more closely in bringing the

1137
early removal scheme into effect—that was praised by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, earlier—and the sharing of information on prisoners and their needs. This will continue and there are plans to establish a joint Prison Service/Immigration Service liaison group that will include operational staff from both services.
This summer the Prison Service will also start publishing a bulletin in which good practice on foreign national prisoners will be disseminated and shared. I know that these are the preliminaries, at least with regard to where noble Lords who have participated in the debate are coming from, to developing a broader and deeper strategy. The presence of foreign national prisoners within the prison estate is challenging. It poses many questions for their treatment. We have to be fair across the board. It would be wrong for there to be what might be described as preferential treatment, but, at the same time, we need to recognise that foreign national prisoners have different needs and demands.
I am grateful to the noble Lords who have contributed to this debate. I see it as the beginning, rather than the end of the debate and it is absolutely right that we focus on the problems that foreign national prisoners confront in the Prison Service and that we try to deal with those as best we possibly can, within the resources that are available.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do now adjourn during pleasure until 8.30 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.22 to 8.30 p.m.]

Children Bill [H.L.]
House again in Committee on Clause 8.
[Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 142:
Page 6, line 37, at end insert—

"( ) as to the length of time that information must be retained on a database"

The noble Earl said: In moving this amendment, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 154, 213 and 218. I want to speak first to Amendment No. 154, which attempts to address a widely held concern about the clause; namely, that it ducks altogether the key question of the threshold of concern which should determine whether a doctor, teacher or another professional has a duty to flag up that fact on a database.
Subsection (7) appears to say that it does not matter what kind of concerns about a child you may choose to log on to a database—it does not matter how trivial the concerns or how tenuous the information may be on which it is based—you will be in the clear as regards the common law duty of confidentiality that might otherwise prevent you from acting.
That provision sounds all kinds of warning bells. First, we surely do not want to create a culture of over-cautiousness which bypasses both commonsense and
1138
professional judgment. The whole point of the databases, if they are to do any good, is that they should assist and bolster professional judgment, not supplant it. Anyone thinking of registering a flag of concern still needs to exercise judgment: he still needs to ask himself, "Am I really convinced, first, that this concern is well-founded and, secondly, that it is serious enough to warrant an entry on the database?".
Secondly, we cannot countenance a situation in which a multitude of minor and inconsequential concerns are flagged on to a database, thereby masking the smaller number of real and serious flags of concern which will justifiably have been created. If that happens, the whole purpose of the system will have been negated. We will get over-intervention and a skewing of resources in the wrong direction. That is why in Amendment No. 154 I suggest a rewording of subsection (7).
My first instinct was to strike out the subsection completely, but I came to the conclusion that that would be wrong. As the Climbié report demonstrated, there are circumstances in which we would want doctors, teachers and others to feel absolutely unconstrained in flagging up an issue which genuinely worried them and which other professionals had a need to know about. But what are those circumstances? I firmly believe that Ministers and officials have to address the issue not by going into prescriptive and exhaustive detail, but rather trying to define the kind of threshold which should apply here. Should there be some kind of a test? If so, what should that test be? The risk to a child of significant harm might be one kind of test, but what about situations where no such risk exists but where there is a concern about a child's state of health which may have wider repercussions; for example, where the child has special needs? How will a database distinguish between these very different grades of concern?
Professional judgment is indispensable in these circumstances, but it is not reasonable to leave professionals without any sort of statutory framework for decision-making within which to exercise judgment. We can no more be prescriptive in what we tell professionals to do than we can proceed as the Bill proposes which is to adopt a completely laissez-faire attitude. There has to be a broad consistency in the way the system operates everywhere. There has to be a threshold to ensure that children are quite clear about when confidentiality would and would not be broken. If you do not have that clear delineation, you would give children no legal recourse if information were ever to be shared inappropriately. More importantly, though, you would risk children not disclosing things to professionals at all. The consequences of that could in some circumstances be extremely serious. I hope the Minister will see the force of this important point.
I should like finally to cover Amendment No. 142 which proposes that there should be an explicit time limit laid down in regulations for all information about children that is logged into a database. There can be no reason for retaining information on

1139
someone after he or she has passed their 18th birthday. If that is done, then we really will have identity cards by the back door.
Secondly, I am troubled by the thought that if a flag of concern about a child leads to court proceedings against a parent or carer, but then the concerns are disproved and that person is exonerated, should these flags of concern legally remain in place? I am aware of several cases in which a local authority, having tried and failed to secure a care order on a child and having had its application comprehensively dismissed by a court, continues to harry away at the family. In these situations, families never feel that they are off the hook and never cease feeling threatened. If a court rejects an allegation that a child is at risk of harm and refuses to split up a family, what right should a social services department have to keep its flag of concern in place as though nothing had happened? We need to think this issue through. I was pleased to note Amendment No. 144 in the name of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, though I am not sure this is precisely the kind of situation she had in mind. I beg to move.
Baroness Barker: I rise to speak to Amendments Nos. 144, 145, 153 and 156. My arguments very much follow on from those concerns expressed by the noble Earl. It is important to start by noting that in the background to our deliberations is the Bichard inquiry and all the concerns that have arisen about disclosure of information on individuals who work with children. I do not seek to dismiss in any way the concerns which have led to that inquiry, but to ignore the fact that it is happening during our deliberations is perhaps to look at half the story. Quite rightly, the noble Earl pointed to our Amendment No. 144 which seeks to impose restrictions about information held relating to individuals about whom there have been allegations of improper conduct made, but not proven.
The noble Earl will no doubt remember, as I do, the passing of the Care Standards Act, when we trod very similar ground. There, I believe that the threshold of concern at which people employed in social care agencies were put on to the registers operated by the social care agencies was a great deal lower than would be the case within the courts. There was a great deal of concern about that because we know that malicious or vexatious complaints against people who work with children are commonplace.
The reason for tabling this amendment is to probe the Government's intentions in relation to the transfer of information from, for example, police records or the Criminal Records Bureau. I return to the noble Baroness's earlier comments about the database being used more widely than simply for child protection. I am afraid that I shall have to continue to press her about exactly what that means.
No one involved in children's social care, education or health would willingly do anything that enabled people who should not work with children to do so. That said, there are cases where people find themselves the victims of allegations which are not proven. One would be very concerned if there was any interplay between those types
1140
of records and those proposed here. I think, in particular, of what I believe is known in the world of children's care as "List 99". Recently I heard from some people who have been on the receiving end of difficult allegations concerning children, none of which has ever been proven. They spoke of something called "List 98"—that is, the collection and retention of what is very much more circumstantial evidence. It seems to me that they, too, have a legitimate concern.
Amendment No. 145 is perhaps one of the most important in this group because it proposes the imposition of penalties for the misuse of information contained on the database. It seems to me that that is an absolute requirement within this legislation. We are, I believe by common agreement, going to gather together information which, in and of itself and in its pieces, may be factual but, taken together, has immense power as a body of reference. Were it to be misused or disclosed wrongly, I believe that potentially it would be a very grave weapon.
I do not wish to spend a great deal of time on my Amendment No. 153 solely because the noble Earl spoke at length to his Amendment No. 154 and, as is often the way, his amendment is far more elegant than mine. It seeks to test exactly the same point: what are the thresholds of concern?
Finally, Amendment No. 156 seeks, as does that of the noble Earl, to ensure that, when a child reaches the age of 18, the records are destroyed. I choose my words carefully: they should be destroyed and not held somewhere else.
The Earl of Northesk: I rise to make a few observations about various amendments in this group. In respect of Amendments Nos. 156 and 219, to which my name is attached, I reinforce the comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I add that, without an appropriate provision for the deletion of data—not only those held within any database but also, as in the noble Baroness's proposed new subsection (11). those held as back-up, whether on paper or other media—once they have reached their "sell-by date", there is a huge risk that any database established under Clause 8 would, over time, be subject to "function creep".
An underlying principle of Clause 8 must be the ambition of the Government to harness IT for the benefit of children. Accordingly, as a generality it would be wholly inappropriate and antipathetic to the terms of the data protection legislation for their data to be retained once they have reached adulthood. Indeed, it is my understanding that to an extent this is a matter that is causing voluble concern to both the human rights and constitution committees.
I am mindful of Amendment No. 79 moved earlier in Committee by the noble Lord, Lord Elton. Quite rightly he suggested that,
"The question of who, exactly, children are is therefore of some importance"—[Official Report, 20/5/04; col. 885.]
Undoubtedly, there will be circumstances where the retention of data beyond the age of 18 would be appropriate, for example in respect of those with learning difficulties. That is why the amendment expressly allows

1141
for exceptions to the deletion of data at the age of 18 at subsection (12). My noble friend Lord Howe, addresses that in Amendments Nos. 142 and 213 by requiring that it be attended to in regulations. That would, in all probability, suffice although my preference—here, I echo some of the earlier comments of the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley—would be that the overarching statement of principle be on the face of the Bill.
In respect of Amendment No. 144 I would merely refer the Committee to my comments on Amendment No. 143. On the hack of those it is enough for me here to say that I support the intentions of the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 145 highlights a serious and perennial problem. Too often IT legislation tends to be somewhat acquiescent about the risk of legitimate users of IT systems exceeding their thresholds of access. Where data about children are concerned that becomes an especially relevant issue if only because of the innate deviousness and technological savvy of those who prey on children. It is crucial that effective sanctions should be in place to prevent any misuse of data.
As to Amendments Nos. 153 and 217, the Minister went to great lengths, throughout our deliberations on the Bill, to emphasise the Government's wish that it be child centred. Its drafting and terms should be a true reflection, as appropriate, of what children perceive to be the best means of securing their welfare and protection. The concept of confidentiality is of huge importance to children. It often defines whether they will take their problems and difficulties to those who can assist or help them.
Accordingly, it strikes me as somewhat crass that Clause 8(7) expressly diminishes common law duties of confidentiality, the more so because the Minister prayed it in aid with such frequency during our earlier debates. Viewed objectively, let alone from the perspective of a child, this is likely to do more harm than good, and I will be intrigued to hear how the Minister justifies the inclusion of the provision.
All in all, this is an extremely useful group of amendments and I very much hope that the Minister will be able to respond to them sympathetically.
8.45 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Again, I am grateful to noble Lords for expressing their concerns so concisely and I shall attempt to address the amendments in this group in turn.
As the noble Earl indicated, Amendments Nos. 142 and 213 would provide for regulations about the length of time information might be retained on the database. I recognise the concerns that there should be provision to limit the time of removal of records relating to the provision of specialist services to a child and the recording of a concern.
I am sure that noble Lords recognise that this is not an easy issue. The question is of striking a balance between compliance with the Data Protection Act, which says that records should be kept for no longer than is necessary and ensuring that practitioners are aware of the full picture of the needs of children whom they are working with.
1142
We will want information to be retained for as long as it makes sense to do so. It may well be appropriate to be able for some time to see that a practitioner had in the past had some contact with, had been involved with, or had a concern about a child. In contrast—I hope this is some reassurance—if a practitioner had indicated a concern, and the noble Earl gave a good example, but subsequently it was decided that it was groundless, that should be removed straightaway from the record. I think that addresses that concern specifically. So we are working closely with the trailblazer pilots on the subject. In the light of its experience on the retention of information in the pilots currently under way, we are considering how that needs to be covered properly in guidance and directions.
Amendments Nos. 156 and 219 would provide for the destruction of records, including any archive or backup, when the child reaches the age of 18. Noble Lords will have seen the policy statement that commits the Government to making regulations on when a record is to be removed in its entirety from the database—after the child has become an adult or, sadly, after the child has died.
We are clear that the information databases in this clause are about children; they are not about holding or sharing information about adults. The databases will hold information on all children up to their 18th birthday. We are considering whether special arrangements—as noble Lords indicated—might be put in place to hold records past the 18th birthday for certain vulnerable groups of children, with consent. We need to ensure that appropriate arrangements are in place for the transition to adulthood, particularly for some children with profound disabilities, for example, or children with learning disabilities. The "with consent" is critical. We want to make sure that we have that in place and are looking to see how to achieve it. We propose that that would be covered in guidance for those managing the databases.
We are further considering whether—and if so for how long—information would be kept on a backup system. That would be done bearing in mind the fifth Data Protection Act principle that data processed for any purpose should not be kept for longer than is necessary. We will consider that alongside the related issue of how long information should be kept before the child reaches the age of 18—apart from the instance I have already indicated to the noble Earl about removal of data where a concern is found to be groundless—a matter which I hope I have made clear.
Regulations, subject to the affirmative resolution procedure, and, in the case of the Assembly, Assembly Standing Orders, will provide for circumstances where records should be removed. Proposals on that will take into account comments made by noble Lords today and at Second Reading to ensure that we pursue this appropriately. I look forward to any further discussions on that.
Amendment No. 144, tabled by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, would provide regulations specifically about information held that related to an unproven

1143
allegation of improper conduct. A false allegation of improper conduct in relation to a child is, as we all agree, a very serious issue. I want to assure the noble Baroness that the Government are fully aware of the distress caused to those individuals falsely accused of sexual offences or child abuse and the effect that it can have on lives and careers.
The noble Baroness referred to List 99 and the Bichard inquiry. The databases described under Clause 8 will only hold basic information about children, together with the fact that a practitioner may be providing a specialist service to a child or may have a concern. There will be no information about the nature of that concern and—I must stress this—no direct links to any further details about a case. There will be no information held identifying individual adults against whom allegations may have been made in respect of a child. So we are watching very carefully the results of Sir Michael Bichard's inquiry, which is very important as the noble Baroness indicated. We do not believe that the issue directly concerns this database, although I am happy to discuss the matter further if it would be of assistance.
I appreciate the concern underlying Amendment No. 145 about penalties for misusing the databases, again a matter raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker. I agree that great importance is to be attached to making sure we properly address these issues.
We think that it is through local accountability through the management of the agencies involved that any potential misuse should be patrolled and dealt with. We would not want to interfere with that. There are measures in criminal law which impose penalties for misuse of data or unauthorised access to computer records. For example, the Data Protection Act provides that a serious offence, with a penalty of a fine not exceeding the statutory maximum, will be committed where personal data is unlawfully obtained or disclosed without the consent of the data controller. And the Computer Misuse Act 1990 provides that unauthorised access, or attempted unauthorised access, to a program or data held on a computer may be punishable by imprisonment.
The amendment does, none the less, raise important issues about who should and should not have access to the database. The Government are clear that access to the database should be restricted to designated officials, as I indicated in our previous discussions. The databases will be set up in such a way so as to prevent trawling of children's records, and authorised practitioners need to have sufficient information.
However, as I indicated in my remarks to the amendment before we adjourned this evening, I can tell the noble Baroness that our commitment to bringing forward a package of amendments will include amendments to address noble Lords' concern that important issues relating to access to the database are to be dealt with in guidance or directions not subject to parliamentary scrutiny. We therefore propose to table a government amendment at Report to remove the power of the Secretary of State in subsection (9)(a) to determine
1144
the conditions of access in guidance or directions, and instead set them out in regulations to be approved by the affirmative procedure.
In determining access, the types of professionals and the types of organisations in which they work will be set out in regulations—again, subject to affirmative resolution by both Houses. But there clearly needs to be sensible interpretation at local level because of the differences in children's services across the country; and there need to be clear local arrangements. The regulations will therefore require an appropriate person to put in place a protocol with the heads of agencies involved, giving them responsibility through a nominated senior officer for deciding who in that agency should be given access, and at what level.
There will be no blanket access; only access to those named individuals who need access to do their job. As I said, they must meet minimum requirements, including Criminal Records Bureau clearance; having signed a relevant practitioner-level protocol; and undertaking training.
I turn to the common law duty of confidentiality, which is an important issue raised by Amendments Nos. 153 and 217, which would remove this subsection, and Amendments Nos. 154 and 218, which would provide regulations to specify the circumstances in which a person would act lawfully. As Members of the Committee will know, the common law relating to confidentiality is a sensitive and difficult area and we know that there is doubt about when practitioners can share information. The duty of confidentiality can be seen as an additional concern. As Members of the Committee have said, it is not absolute and disclosure of information with appropriate persons can be justified in some circumstances.
The hard judgment for practitioners includes that difficult balancing act of the duty of confidentiality towards someone—for example, the doctor towards their patients—against the wider public interest, and may not be the same as acting in the child's best interest. So, for example, although it may be in the child's best interest for a doctor to notify a social worker about the child's mother's depression, the doctor may consider that the grounds are not sufficiently overriding to overcome his duty towards the mother.
For that reason we have taken the power in subsection (7) to allow practitioners when exercising functions under the regulations to exercise those functions notwithstanding their duty of confidentiality. Clause 8(7) will enable regulations that would allow a professional—when, for example, placing a flag of concern—to breach his or her common law duty of confidentiality in that respect. It also attempts to give professionals confidence to participate in the database.
However, we recognise the concerns of the Committee and the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform about the matter and I therefore assure the Committee that, as part of the package of amendments that I shall table on Report, I will propose to delete the two references to "must" in subsection (7) so that the regulations made under that subsection cannot

1145
require practitioners to do anything. That will mean that where practitioners have a power under the regulations to disclose certain information, they may exercise that power notwithstanding the rule of common law which they might consider prohibits or restricts the disclosure of information. However, the subsection will not apply to duties under the regulations, only to powers.
I would like to ensure that Members of the Committee are aware that the common law duty in the context that we are discussing concerns only putting information on the database—that is, flagging concern—or if the practitioner is in contact with the child. The moment that the practitioner is in contact with another service by telephone or meeting, the common law duty is in play as it would normally be. In other words, it applies not to the whole contact about the child but only to their being able to place on the database the fact that they are in contact and that they have a concern.
I underline that because, when I was learning about it, it look me a little while to understand properly. This part of the Bill does not apply when the practitioner moves beyond putting something on the database. I hope that that clarification, together with what I said about the deletion of the references to "must", will reassure noble Lords about its concerns.
I hope that noble Lords will feel reassured by what I have said about our intentions for the operation of the database. I have listened carefully to the concerns raised and. as I said, I will reflect further on them before Report. I have also described further changes in the package that we propose to bring forward and hope that, on that basis, the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
9 p.m.
The Earl of Listowel: The Minister referred to mothers with young children suffering from post-natal depression. I apologise if the matter was raised in the previous debate on the issue, but it is a considerable cause of concern if such mothers are less likely to seek medical help because of concern that their child might be seen as being at risk and notified as such. The deletions she described are reassuring to some extent. Either now or later, could she give a further reassurance on this area?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It is important that we place the database in context. If, for example, a doctor had concerns about a mother with post-natal depression and felt that the mother was in need of additional support, it is possible that the doctor could talk to the health visitor in any case within the common law duty of confidentiality. We would not want them not to do anything. The simple question would be whether in the doctor's judgment that reflected a concern that should be placed on the record so that other professionals working with the family were aware and could find that information if that were appropriate. It is about helping the mother.
The Earl of Listowel: I can see that. I hope that the Minister will forgive me if I am being a little slow in
1146
taking up the issue, but when the Bill comes to be law the public will be aware of it—it is a controversial issue. For people who are worried about approaching a doctor, perhaps for the reason I gave, even if nothing much has changed, the perception may be that things have changed. That is the point on which I would appreciate reassurance later in the course of these discussions.
Earl Howe: I am once again grateful to the Minister for reassuring me on a number of concerns. I welcome her undertaking to remove the reference to "must" in subsection (7), although the force and effect of that removal are not quite clear to me. If regulations referring to subsection (4) require the disclosure of information, I am not sure to what extent a practitioner or professional would need to pray in aid or refer to the common law duty of confidentiality. It seems to me that if it is a legal requirement to disclose information the word "must" should remain in the subsection, but perhaps I have misunderstood the concession or alteration that the Minister has proposed and I may follow it up with her.
I welcomed the useful clarification she gave about how the common law duty of confidentiality bites outside the context of the regulations. That is not a point on which I had focused, but it is helpful. Nevertheless, it seems that the way in which subsection (7) will look after it has been amended will still give carte blanche exemption to doctors and others for anything that they choose to do citing the regulations as their legal basis. I am still uneasy about that.
It would be better if the Government felt able to bite the bullet and define rather more closely the circumstances in which practitioners could feel comfortable in disclosing information and be sure that in doing so they were following a set of guidelines that had gained common acceptance and been subject to debate. As it is, they have no handle to hold on to here. I am not sure that that is very fair on them.
I was grateful for the remarks of my noble friend Lord Northesk in relation to Amendment No. 156. I agree with him: that is a better amendment than my Amendment No. 142. Quite a lot of these are issues to which we will want to come back on Report when we have reflected carefully on what the Minister has told us today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 143 to 147 not moved]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Brougham and Vaux): I should advise the Committee that if Amendment No. 148 or 148A is agreed to, I cannot call Amendments Nos. 149 to 151.
Baroness Barker Baroness Barker moved Amendment No. 148:
Page 6, line 43, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—

"(b) information which gives reasonable cause to suspect that a child is suffering or is likely to suffer significant harm"

The noble Baroness said: I realise that at this late hour there is a risk of trying the patience of the Committee as we return to issues that have cropped up in various amendments throughout our discussions

1147
today. I am only slightly apologetic about that. I believe that we have discussed, and that we shall continue to discuss, some fundamentally important issues.
These amendments return again to the issue of what will cause a flag of concern to be registered on the database, which we have recognised is one of the key concerns. The purpose of Amendments Nos. 148 and 148A is to try to establish a commonly recognised and commonly agreed level of concern across agencies. Currently, there is no definition of any cause for concern in Clause 8(5)(b); nor is there any threshold that would apply in order to trigger one agency to notify or share its information with another.
Today, Members of the Committee have been striving for a way in which to convey meaning via a means that we know is necessarily limited. I have to say to the Minister that, currently, agencies tend not to co-operate simply because they have different perspectives on what constitutes a serious issue. They come to appreciate or not appreciate each other's sensibilities regarding children. It could be that in attempts to communicate electronically, very rapidly communications from one agency might suddenly become ignored. An agency might be known to put up flags of concern all the time. Therefore, other agencies might not pay much attention to them.
At Second Reading, I tried to convey that I believe that the power and the value of the database is determinable only to the extent to which it triggers action on the part of another agency. On talking to professionals about the existing system, they have two sources of frustration. It is not that they do not know who else is working with children: they do. They just do not know what the other agencies are doing or, worse still, they are repeatedly registering concerns about children, but there is no response or power on the part of such an agency to compel another agency to respond.
Within best practice as determined not only by the Data Protection Act 1998 but also by the Human Rights Act 1998—I refer in particular to Article 8(2) of the ECHR—the amendments seek to tie issues back to the Children Act and the provisions of Section 47. They set a framework, a common understanding, about what can be deemed to be cause for concern about a child being at risk of harm. One can construct any kind of system of communication that one likes, but if there is not a commonly agreed threshold about basic terms, that system will inevitably be flawed in action.
Our suggestion is that if the Government proceed with the very woolly phrase "any cause for concern" to trigger disclosure of information between agencies, it simply will not be understood and acted upon. Therefore, we have thought to tie this back to the more commonly understood terms of Sections 47 and 17 of the Children Act. At least if all agencies are talking the same language, then there is a possibility that they might continue to talk to each other.
At this late hour, I do not intend to talk at length to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151. They are, in their own way, attempts to try to achieve a workable definition of the harm or danger that a child may be in before any agency uses this database. I beg to move.
Lord Northbourne: At this late hour, I am very nervous about introducing a red herring, but it will be a very brief one. Why do we bother about having flags at all? Let us assume that child XYZ lives in area A and is registered in that area. Child XYZ then moves to area B and a professional in area B finds concerns. The professional in area B will simply want to know whether there is any history to this child; he will look on the computer and find that she comes from area A. He can then send a call to area A asking whether anyone there has any comments to make on child XYZ. There is no need for a flag to signal that someone has a concern because they will anyway want to go to all the people in area A to find out whether they have any concerns.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This group of amendments gives me the chance to explain, albeit briefly, more about how we are considering the issue of indicating concerns about a child. I hear what the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, says, although I do not know whether one can have a brief red herring. Part of the work of trailblazers is looking at flags of concern.
The noble Lord answered the question himself when he talked about someone in area B ringing up everyone in area A to see whether they had any concerns. There is an issue which came out very strongly in the case of Victoria Climbié and others. We are considering how one would know whether there was a concern, notwithstanding all the comments that the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, has quite rightly made about thresholds, and so on. But if you have seven or eight agencies in a child's life, which is quite possible, you might be in a position to make progress, as I hope to do this evening, by doing that.
Lord Northbourne: Surely the great advantage of email is that you can call them all at once.
9.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Oh, the joys of e-mail—I could talk about it for hours. One makes an assumption that every agency and organisation would be involved. The noble Lord is right if that were the case. The best method of communication is one of the considerations of trailblazers.
I am perhaps less fearful than others about the potential saying that there is a concern about a child and enabling that to trigger contact. Of course, I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, that that is not the only reason to trigger contact. The point about knowing which other professionals are involved is that it gives an opportunity for people to talk appropriately as professionals and support children and their families more effectively by doing so. There are many cases, as we know, of children being involved with

1149
many different agencies—nine, 10 or 11 perhaps—all working with the family but, dare I say, not necessarily working in a concerted way. That was certainly my experience when I was working in the health service. We can do more about that kind of working together.
We also mentioned that the purpose of the database is to help us move towards early intervention and prevention. That is one way in which practitioners can signal to others that they have a concern about a child. We do not wish to constrain that only to circumstances where there is a risk of significant harm to the child, because we are moving towards a preventive and much earlier intervention. We want to see whether we can address the needs of children long before crisis point is reached.
Amendment No. 148A would establish a lower threshold for recording a concern. It would use the definition of a child in need in the Children Act 1989. Although that would enable concerns to be recorded at an earlier stage than would Amendments Nos. 148 and 149, I am not persuaded that specifying this threshold would be the right way to be clear about the circumstances under which we require practitioners to record a concern. We are relying on professionals and we expect professionals to use professional judgment when recording concerns. I do not want professionals to feel restricted and not record a concern just because it does not strictly fit within Section 17. If this amendment were agreed, any matter relating to disabled children must be recorded, because all disabled children meet the Section 17 definition, which I know is not what the noble Baroness would want.
Having said all that, we are aware that we need to convey our intentions clearly. The decision about whether or not a concern exists and should be recorded remains ultimately one for professional judgment, but I agree with the noble Baroness that this is about us setting the context in which practitioners operate. That is why the different trailblazers are considering different approaches. We want to consider what they are doing along with comments made at Second Reading and by noble Lords today. I intend to do that before concluding whether there might be a need for any amendment at Report or clarification about how we will provide for recording of concerns through regulations.
Amendments Nos. 150 and 151 also relate to the scope for recording concerns. They would restrict the subject matter that practitioners may place on the database. The amendments refer to only three of the five areas of a child's wellbeing set out in Clause 6 (2), which means that we could not record a concern that relates to a child's education, nor whether a child is making a positive contribution to society—if a child is at risk of getting involved in crime, for example. We would not want to see a narrowing of the provision through that amendment.
I hope that in relation to Amendments Nos. 148 and 149 noble Lords will see that we are looking for a broader focus than only children at risk of significant harm. We aim to use the database to help with preventive and early intervention programmes. We
1150
want to do that responsibly. I have undertaken to think carefully and examine noble Lords' comments to see what further might be done. However, noble Lords should understand my reluctance to establish a threshold because of what I have said. I am keen to examine the way in which we can set out the parameters for the database.
I hope that, with regard to Amendments Nos. 150 and 151, the worth of retaining all five aspects of a child's wellbeing will be recognised. On the basis of what I said about considering this topic further before Report, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendments.
Baroness Barker: I thank the Minister for that considered answer. I am not yet convinced that we are in agreement about the underlying basis for whatever system of communication exists. This is a matter to which we may well return. However, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 148A to 156 not moved.]
The Earl of Northesk The Earl of Northesk moved Amendment No. 157:
Page 7, line 16, at end insert —
"(11) If each House of Parliament passes a resolution that regulations passed under this section shall have effect with a specified amendment, the regulations shall have effect as amended, with effect from—

(a) such time, after the passing of the resolutions, as may be specified in them, or

(b) if no time is specified in the resolutions, the beginning of the day after that on which the resolutions are passed (or, if they are passed on different days the beginning of the day after that on which the second resolution is passed)."

The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 157, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 158, 200 and 221. Our debates thus far on Clause 8—indeed on the whole issue of information sharing—have demonstrated that there is considerable disquiet on all sides of the Committee about the skeletal nature of the provision on the face of the Bill. Needless to say—my noble friend Lord Howe has already alluded to it—this chimes with the anxieties and concerns expressed by the Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform Committee at paragraph 23 of its 12th report. The Minister has thus far been generous in her recognition of these concerns. To be fair, it is much to her credit that her responses to our Second Reading debate, her letter of 29 April and her replies to earlier amendments have gone some way towards allaying them. For my part, I particularly welcome the fact that active consideration is being given to government amendments at Report to attend to many of the anxieties that have been expressed thus far.
Against that background, it could be said that, up to a point, the motivation for Amendment No. 157 has been undermined. Of course, we are all intensely aware of the cleft stick in which our procedures in respect of secondary legislation place us. Both convention and the near impossibility of amending regulations impose upon us an all-or-nothing approach. It was with that in mind, together with an assumption that the content

1151
of the relevant regulations will be both complex and deeply contentious, that I felt that it would be useful to afford Parliament the opportunity, somewhat in defiance of current practice, to amend the regulations if necessary. That is what the amendment seeks to do.
I repeat that, in my judgment, we have already made good progress in drawing some of the sting out of the original drafting of Clause 8, not least because of the talent and good offices of the Minister. No doubt there will be an opportunity at Report to take the matter even further forward. Despite that, there remains a legitimate argument for suggesting that this amendment, or something like it, remains necessary. The concept of information sharing is so critical in the context of child welfare and protection that it is absolutely essential that it be got right, not only on the face of the Bill but also in the detail of the relevant regulations where the devil lies. That being so, I very much hope that the Minister is in a receptive frame of mind; I know she is.
Amendment No. 158 approaches the problem from a different angle. It seeks to "sunset" the regulation-making powers contained in Clause 8 by imposing a time limit of two years for their implementation. The underlying purpose here is to focus the minds of the department. As I have already said, drafting of the regulations will be, in my judgment, hugely complex, not only technologically but also in terms of reads across to the Human Rights Act and the Data Protection Act. If the experience of, for example, drafting of the Voluntary Code of Practice for Retention of Communications Data is anything to go by, it could drag on interminably. I trust that the Minister would agree that that would be undesirable.
In passing, I make the point that, with hindsight, it might have been more sensible to borrow the form of drafting of Clause 39 to achieve this objective. Be that as it may, I merely note that the Government themselves have seen the wisdom of "sunsetting" Clauses 37 and 38 in respect of registration schemes for private fostering. Databases and information sharing may be of a different order from that issue but nonetheless the Government are admitting, in terms, that "sunsetting" does have a role to play.
Amendments Nos. 220 and 221 are intended to achieve the same effect as Amendments Nos. 157 and 158 but apply to the grant to the Welsh Assembly of powers to make regulations in respect of databases and information sharing contained in Clause 23. I look forward to the Minister's reply. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am very grateful to the noble Earl for his kind comments. I fear that I am only going to disappoint him. However, I hope to do so only for good reasons and that he will nevertheless feel reassured by what I say.
It is interesting that Amendments Nos. 157 and 220 are very similar to provisions in the Civil Contingencies Bill, which I think was probably the model. The noble Earl will not be surprised to hear me say that I think the
1152
circumstances surrounding that Bill are very different and that that very different approach does not apply to this Bill. So I do not see them as at all comparable.
Like the noble Earl I understand how important it is, as he said, to get the regulations right and to ensure that the House debates them properly and effectively. My experience as a Minister is that the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses provides that opportunity. I can recommend it as a way of ensuring that noble Lords have an opportunity to go through the matters in great detail. Either House may decide that it disagrees with the regulations and determine not to pass them. In that case we would present a revised set of regulations to Parliament. On the basis that we have an established procedure that has served us well, the noble Earl may not be surprised if I resist his amendment while understanding the motivation behind it.
Amendments Nos. 151 and 221 deal with the sunset clause. I am very grateful for the noble Earl's desire to ensure that officials get on with it; I wholeheartedly support that. However, I should say that they are working incredibly hard, as are the trailblazers and the authorities who are helping us develop what we want. Nevertheless, I can envisage circumstances where we might find ourselves slipping off that timetable, although that is not the intention. For example, I would not dream of pre-empting the decisions of my right honourable friend the Secretary of State on the spending review or on what resources will be available at a given time to roll this out. Noble Lords will be very well aware that we have to take that issue into consideration.
As a consequence of the way in which the amendment is framed, if Parliament or either House determined that it is not happy with these amendments we would have to bring forward new proposals using the affirmative procedure. That could take time. So although we intend to fit well within the time scale that the noble Earl has indicated, I can envisage circumstances in which, particularly with the national roll out, we might want to do this in a more measured way, not least to allow local authorities the chance to be ready, to learn from the trailblazers, to ensure that the resources are available and to allow time for Parliament to decide that it wishes to think again about some aspects of the regulations.
So I hope that the noble Earl will understand that, on that basis and not because we intend to drag our feet, I would be compelled to resist the temptation of his amendment.
Lord Norton of Louth: Just on Amendment No. 158, which I very much support in principle since I think sunset provisions should be the norm rather than the exception, the Minister has made a case perhaps for extending the period embodied in the amendment, saying that that is too short a period of time, but not made a compelling case for the order-making power to remain in essence in perpetuity. There is an important

1153
discipline if a time limit is imposed. So is there not a case for thinking of a sunset clause even if it is not in terms of the time stipulated in my noble friend's amendment?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: It would not be for me to propose such an amendment. Based on my experience as a Minister, which I accept is not long, I have not seen much evidence of sunset clauses. However, I have seen them used in very specific circumstances. Because of the points I have indicated, one would wish to consider very carefully whether these were the appropriate circumstances. We do not want to drag our feet. However, as noble Lords have indicated, it is incredibly important to get this right, and there is a sort of national basis to it. As noble Lords will know, the point at which one brings forward regulations must be when all our discussions and deliberations have got us to the point where we believe there is at least a degree of support for the regulations.
So I think it is for noble Lords to determine whether they wish to bring back another amendment and for me to consult those more worthy than I, and who understand these matters much better than I, on whether we would wish to consider that.
9.30 p.m.
The Earl of Northesk: I am, of course, extremely grateful to the Minister for her response. She is absolutely correct that the model for the amendment was the Civil Contingencies Bill.
I found her explanation in respect of resistance on the basis of cost somewhat spurious. One of the things that intrigues me about our debates on Clause 8 thus far is that the question has not yet been asked of the Minister how much the database scheme will cost. I shall reserve that question until we discuss whether Clause 8 should stand part of the Bill.
I am grateful for the observation of my noble friend Lord Norton of Louth. My experience thus far of the Merits of Statutory Instruments Committee on which I serve is that affirmative instruments do not have an unqualified right of correctness. A great deal of the drafting of affirmative instruments is incorrect, but incorrect on the margins. Ultimately it is important that the detail of the regulations is made correct.
I understand what the noble Baroness is saying, which is that we can sort out this matter through consultation, and that therefore by a process of elimination almost the regulations will be made correct. None the less, I remain concerned about this issue. I am not entirely certain whether it is best solved by seeking powers of amendment or powers of sunsetting. However, I suspect that, one way or another, after I have read carefully what the noble Baroness had to say, I may well return to the issue on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 158 to 158A not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 8 shall stand part of the Bill?
Earl Howe: I think that it is probably helpful before we leave Clause 8 to look at the whole clause in the round because of the very important policy issues that it raises.
No one, I think, would wish to argue with the conclusion reached by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, that better information sharing between professionals is vital if we are to improve the systems that we have for safeguarding and protecting children. I for one accept that point completely. However, in accepting that proposition, it is, I think, still open to us to ask whether the proposals for a series of databases, as set out in Clause 8, are the best way of delivering such an improvement. The onus has to be on the Government to show that these proposals are workable and better than any alternative. So far, I have to say, I remain to be convinced completely.
The noble Lord, Lord Laming, will be able to correct me if what I am about to say is wrong when he reads Hansard, but the main reason why Victoria Climbié was not saved from suffering a terrible death was not primarily the fact that information was not shared between doctors, the local authority and the NSPCC; it was that none of those persons or bodies once in possession of information that should have aroused suspicion actually took the initiative to do anything which would have saved her. Had any single one of those bodies with whom Victoria came into contact taken appropriate action, she might still be alive today.
Of course, a system of information sharing might have encouraged everyone collectively to take action, but are we to say that a database would have been the best and most effective way of bringing that about? Some might say that better training in knowing when to pick up the telephone to the police would have achieved the same objective.
We have here what is potentially a very large-scale system of data recording by the state on its citizens. The system is to be set up in the name of improving the welfare of all children. The names and key personal details of all 11 million children in England are to be recorded for access by professionals from a wide variety of disciplines. The vast majority of children so recorded will not be at risk of suffering significant harm or anything approaching it.
The human rights aspect of that point is a question in itself which perhaps the Minister would be kind enough to comment on. But even if we set the human rights issue aside, how can we not regard this mammoth information gathering and information sharing exercise as anything other than grossly intrusive on the privacy of families?
The ends are worthy, but do they really justify the means. I have grave doubts on that score. The word "disproportionate" comes to mind. I do not know what these databases are going to cost to set up and run, but we do have to talk about it. I am not averse to spending money when that is necessary, but there is always a choice about how to spend it. Some might say that the

1155
money would be far better spent recruiting social workers, teachers and doctors and training them in child protection. Over and above any need for databases we want trained professionals with judgment and common sense. We do not want professionals who regard the recording of a concern on a database as a substitute for sound judgment or for taking action. But if we are not careful that is what we will get. It is worth at least asking the question whether setting up these databases may just be missing the point.
Lord Northbourne: I support what the noble Earl is saying. I believe that there is a case to answer. It may be that the cost of these proposals is miniscule compared to the cost of employing an adequate number of quality social workers and training them properly. I ask the noble Baroness, either now or later, to let us have the figures so that we can be convinced that that is the case. If the cost is anything like parity we would be much better served by having a full complement of social workers of the quality we need and well trained.
The Earl of Northesk: The Minister is only too well aware of my antipathy towards the clause. Indeed, I regret to say that, despite her best intentions, a number of her comments today have increased my fears about the proposal rather than diminished them.
My objections are that I have consistently argued that as regards the recent cases of Victoria Climbié, the Soham murders and Toni-Ann Byfield, it was not the absence of information as to the vulnerability of those poor children which contributed to their tragedies, but rather the failure of the various agencies with responsibility for their care and welfare to communicate properly and effectively between and among themselves. That is something to which the noble Baroness, Lady Andrews, earlier referred as a failure in practice.
Fundamentally, therefore, the data and information required to offer protection for children at risk is already recorded. What is missing is an appropriate culture of inter and intra-agency information sharing. Accordingly, the Government's apparent leap of faith in imagining that centralising all this information in a database and flagging it will magically solve the problem, is misplaced. It will not.
Indeed, it may well be counter productive. First, there is a huge risk that by holding all the data centrally it will make it that much easier for predators, particularly paedophiles, to gain access to it. As the Committee will be only too well aware, one of the perverse effects of the development of the Internet is that those who prey on children have recognised its usefulness to their vile practices. On the back of that they have developed considerable technological expertise to take advantage of the medium. Accordingly, any centralised database, even if it is based simply on flaggings of concern, will be vulnerable to their attention.
Secondly, even if it were possible to secure the system from external intrusion, which is at best highly questionable, the enemy within, for want of a better term, will still constitute a huge threat. If the underlying
1156
purpose of the centralised database is to facilitate information sharing, one of its necessary features would be the huge number of authorised users granted access. As ARCH—Action on Rights for Children—has put it:
"The greater the number of agencies involved, the greater the risk of corrupt use or disclosure of children's data".
Indeed, as I revealed earlier, that is evident from the protocols of the RYOGENS pilots. It is well known in computer circles that the biggest risk to a database system is from internal hackers—all legitimate users—who exceed their authority. In that context, it is worth noting that, for example, the Inland Revenue investigated 1,369 cases of computer misuse between 1997 and 2003, with 1,174 of those resulting in disciplinary action. I am unconvinced that this is a good advertisement for the prospects of a children's database.
Thirdly, there is a real danger that the sheer volume of data thrown up by a centralised system will distract practitioners from the most urgent cases. Echoing a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, earlier, it is generally acknowledged that many of the agencies involved are already overstretched. That being the case, it is entirely feasible that those working in the field would be tempted to flag every minor concern, rather than risk any accusation of negligence. As I suggested at Second Reading, it could give rise to a "tick box mentality", whereby the process of data recording acts as a substitute for proper and effective human intervention. I doubt that that sort of development would work in the interests of children.
I suspect that part of' the problem is that the Government are attempting to cohere two related, but quite distinct, functions. There is something to be said for a database system that seeks to use anonymised data to guide and inform the development of child welfare policy. But that is quite distinct from using sensitive personal data as a mechanism for identifying individual children at risk. In effect, by melding those two disparate functions, the Government are inviting the possibility of entrenching the worst of all worlds—an unresponsive system that implodes under its own weight.
I have considerable concerns regarding the costs involved in the principle—to which my noble friend Lord Howe has referred. Industry insiders have suggested that the establishment of a database system could require as much money as the NHS IT programme—some £2.3 billion, which has risen recently, by some curious alchemy, to £4 billion, if press reports are correct. I would be grateful if the Minister could give the Committee the Government's best estimate of the costs involved. In addition will it he funded from central or local government? Evidently, local authority budgets are under a great deal of pressure at the moment. So, if the database is to be locally funded, how are councils going to be able to afford it? Bearing in mind that we could be talking about £4 billion, have the Government conducted a cost benefit analysis? Is it not at least possible—and again, I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne—that the sum of money could be more productively used on the front line, especially given how overstretched practitioners in the field are?

1157
In the same vein, has the Office of Government Commerce initiated a gateway review of the proposal? As I understand it, this is required to assess the aims and cost benefits of the proposed system with the intention of circumventing yet another IT disaster.
Was the Information Commissioner consulted about the policy in advance of its development? If so, what was his response? If he was not consulted, why not? What will be the effect on public availability of recorded data as a result of the coming into force of the Freedom of Information Act provisions early next year? What will happen to the existing databases and record systems? Will the envisaged centralised system substitute for them or will they be maintained as an unnecessary duplication?
The Committee is aware that I have already identified the RYOGENS pilots as the probable template for what the Government wish of a database. That being so, how legal are those pilots? What precisely are the business rules and risk scoring logic that drive them? What protocols exist within the pilots for full Data Protection Act compliance? In an age of spam and viruses, is it not foolish to rely on e-mail notifications to senior management of immediate causes for concern?
9.45 p.m.
The system may use 128 hit secure sockets layer—I apologise for technology, but never mind—but why have not client-side digital certificates been built in? What consideration has been given to an access requirement of at least two digital signatures from senior professionals as a means of enhancing system security?
I have a host of other concerns, some of which I have alluded to in the context of earlier amendments. I have also presented the Minister with a raft of questions for which, in truth, I apologise. I would have preferred to have been able to give her advance notice of them in order to make it easier to collate proper responses. It therefore goes without saying that, should it be more convenient, written responses to my queries will suffice.
Be that as it may, I will weigh her responses with interest, although I do not envy her the task. On the evidence of our debates so far on Clause 8, my scepticism about both its viability and desirability remains undimmed.
Baroness Barker: Believe it or not, there are a few questions yet to ask! How much is the system going to cost to build? How much is it going to cost to run? Who is going to build it? Are they going to be people responsible for the many other central government contracted IT projects? If so, why? And why are we constructing a database which will consist of data held elsewhere in order to enable people who ought already to be talking to each other and co-operating to do so? In many cases, it is their legal duty to do so. Why, when a child moves from one local authority or PCT area to another cannot a simple mechanism be established for them to advise one other person in the area that the child has moved, the same as inter-country ones?
1158
At this stage, I will not comment on children who enter this country from abroad. However, taking into account that many of them will not enter the system because they will not have gone through all the channels about which the Minister has spoken all afternoon, is it worth it?
The Earl of Listowel: Is the Minister aware of such a programme being used in another country? If so, can she tell us a little about it or write to me on it? France, for instance, is so technologically minded that it introduced such a system.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: First, the answer to the question, "Is it worth it?", posed by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, is yes, I believe it is. The provision comes out of the inquiry conducted by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, into the tragic death of Victoria Climbié and the support he has given to my department, my honourable friend the Minister for Children and my right honourable friend the Secretary of State in thinking further about what ought to be done.
I am sure that the noble Lord, Lord Laming, will be back with us on Report and I look forward to him being able to speak for himself. But Members of the Committee should be under no doubt that this comes from his report and from a recognition that it is important to provide the tools to practitioners to enable them to support children more effectively.
Members of the Committee will have their own views and they have been clearly expressed. I am grateful to them as regards all the issues and technicalities they have raised, but I believe that it is important to understand the issue of principle. This is about supporting our professionals. They need that support in helping our children and their families.
This is not about a substitute for cultural change or all the other things that noble Lords have indicated to be so important. It is not an either/or; it is a both/and. It is about making sure that we provide the kind of training, support, recruitment, retention and all the other issues that noble Lords have quite rightly indicated not only in our deliberations on this Bill but on many other occasions to be absolutely critical to supporting families. It is important not to lose sight of these other issues but to see this as part and parcel of what we want to do to support them. I look forward to noble Lords talking to senior practitioners. It is interesting that the trailblazers already say that establishing the trailblazer database has been really useful in helping professionals from different backgrounds to reach a common understanding about how to address the needs of children. This is certainly what they indicated to me when I met some of them.
I am extremely grateful to the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, for not asking me to answer all those technical questions. I understood most of them but not all of them. I will say that these are critically important questions. I can answer a couple of them. The OGC will do a gateway review which will provide us with the necessary checks and assurances to proceed, taking full account of the risks involved, which is important. The

1159
RYOGENS project is not the template for this. It is quite different and no conclusions can be drawn at all from it about any future use of our database.
I can tell the noble Earl, Lord Listowel, that I do not know of any other countries but it is a point that I shall pick up. I am sure we have checked, I just do not have the answer to hand. We have commissioned independent technical advice to look at the cost benefit analysis and to give us costs based on which route we intend to go down. The noble Earl will not be surprised to hear me say that but as the Trailblazer project is developed, it is important that we establish how we would go about that. The noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked about dealing with issues like a child moving and whether it is appropriate to indicate this fact to just one other person. I see nothing wrong with that in principle. But all these issues mean that we need to get the right kind of competent technical advice and to look at the cost. These costs will determine, in part, whether we go ahead with this and if so, how far and how quickly. I cannot pre-empt my right honourable friend the Secretary of State's spending review decision.
The Earl of Northesk: That is one of my major objections. The Minister is saying that Parliament is being asked to consider a piece of legislation that actually is unformed. The Government are making it up on the hoof. This is why I am so concerned about tabling a "sunset" amendment for these regulations. It is the height of folly for Parliament to sanction a Government to reserve powers for a rainy day. What the Minister is saying is that at the moment the whole thing is ill-formed. There is something wishy-washy we want to do but we do not know quite what shape it is or what it will end up being. I am sorry. Bluntly, this is not the way to legislate. Either the Government ought to come forward with fully-formed ideas or they should wait until they are ready to present fully-formed ideas to Parliament.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: All I can say to the noble Earl is that I disagree with his interpretation of what we are doing. This is not about being wishy-washy. This is about setting out that which is appropriate for the face of the Bill and bringing forward affirmative resolution regulations to your Lordships' House and another place in order to fill in the detail based on a combination of what noble Lords have indicated are critical issues. We also will take account of discussions with organisations that have a great interest in this issue and most importantly what the trailblazer local authorities tell us in order to ensure that we frame this correctly. That is the way government should behave. It is the way to legislate. It is the way to ensure that the system we put in place deals with all of the checks and balances that noble Lords wish us to have and also, if it is appropriate, provides the right kind of system. I have to put this database in context. It is not a substitute for all of the issues that noble Lords have rightly said are critical to ensuring that we provide for children, both in a preventive way and in a child protection way. It is not about substituting for all those.
1160
I could go on but I shall not do so because it is important that we have the opportunity to discuss this matter both between now and Report stage and again on Report. I hope that during our debates I have been able to reassure noble Lords that we have listened to what they have said today—I am grateful for all the contributions, which have been extremely helpful and constructive—and that we shall bring forward a package of amendments that take on board the delegated powers concerns as well. I look forward to that. I propose to write to noble Lords with more detailed information about the Trailblazer projects.
I know that the noble Earl, Lord Northesk, has a raft of important technical questions. I shall be delighted to respond to them properly if he can provide me with a list. I believe he said that he had many more questions which he could not raise this evening. I shall be very happy to take those on board and shall try to give him as much reassurance as possible. I know that he speaks with great authority and expertise on these matters.
My ambition is that noble Lords will be reassured on the issues raised and that they will recognise the Government's good intent in taking back these issues and reflecting on them further. We shall fill in some of the details where noble Lords feel that that is important. I also hope that they will be assured of our principle behind this measure—that is, the tool that I described at the beginning of our discussions which will enable practitioners to do their jobs more effectively and prevent them spending time and energy which is better spent in supporting families, in Finding out who is involved.
I recognise all that has been said in that respect. We shall try to ensure that when a child presents himself to a practitioner, who may feel a little concerned or worried, the relevant people can be contacted as quickly as possible. I believe that this system might have helped Victoria Climbié. It might have saved her life. For that reason, I believe that the clause should stand part of the Bill.
Earl Howe: Among the debates that we have had on this clause, this one has unfortunately left rather a lot of points unresolved. I regret having to say that because I know that the noble Baroness has been keen to reassure Members of the Committee on their concerns.
We are dealing here with one main question, which was echoed throughout the contributions—that is, the value for money of this giant scheme. As the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, asked: is it worth it? I am still not clear about that. While the Minister obviously has faith in the Government's policy, as one would expect, I am not at all clear that the cost-benefit analysis referred to by my noble friend Lord Northesk has been conducted with the kind of rigour which he, and I believe Members of this Committee, would expect.
The noble Baroness stated that the concept of databases emerged from the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I wonder whether she would like to correct that. My understanding is that, while the noble Lord, Lord Laming, advocated more rigorous information-sharing, I do not recall that he advocated the setting up of

1161
databases. I could be wrong about that, but I think that the proposals for databases that were said to emerge from the noble Lord, Lord Laming, perhaps emerged in a somewhat looser sense than the Minister indicated. I am not sure that they were flagged up, to coin a phrase, by the noble Lord, Lord Laming.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Earl is absolutely correct. My opening remarks were garbled; I tend to talk too quickly on occasion. I was trying to indicate, as the noble Earl said, that the proposals emerged from information and also from consequential discussions with the noble Lord, Lord Laming. I would not say that he was the author of the proposal for databases, but that has been part of our discussions with him in trying to implement effectively what should be done. I have a note here which says that Recommendation 17 is to explore actively a children's database on all children. Therefore, the idea has arisen from a combination of conversations with the noble Lord, but I hesitate to put words in his mouth when he is not here.
The Earl of Northesk: To clarify that point further, the noble Baroness is quite correct in the interpretation that the Box has given her. Amendment No. 17 refers specifically to a database. However, as I said in respect of Amendment No. 50, a raft of recommendations arise out of the report of the noble Lord, Lord Laming, which refer to the issue of sharing information. That is a different matter from setting up a database. The focus here—to an extent the Minister referred to this—should be on the issue of sharing of information, not on the establishment of a database.
10 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I do not agree with the noble Earl. When one looks at how to share information one has then to look at the mechanisms for doing that. The database is part of that mechanistic approach at that level. I do not think we are at odds on that.
I take on board what has been said about the value for money aspects. I shall reflect on that and see what further information I can provide on this important issue. This is a very important debate and I am grateful for it.
The Earl of Northesk: On that very precise point, the Minister has frequently admitted throughout our proceedings on Clauses 7 and 8 that the data are already there. I singly fail to understand the justification for creating yet another database to complement the databases that already exist.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hesitate to keep jumping up and down because I am not sure that I make things any clearer for the noble Earl. Lots of information already exists, as I have indicated. I referred to children being on different databases, and the like. The issue that often arises is that those databases are silent and information about who else is working with a child or involved with a child is not
1162
available. I am trying to reassure noble Lords that lots of information is kept about children in a positive way and it is not an issue that, in the main, people worry about, with good reason.
I understand where the concerns come from. I am trying to indicate that because the information is held in different places it is not always possible to understand who is involved with a child. I gave the example of an educational welfare officer, who would not know from a school database whether children are simply not in school at all. However, they might know if there was information about children living in the area who were in contact with primary care, for example.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Clause 9 [Establishment of LSCBs]:
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 159:
Page 7, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) The chairman of each Local Safeguarding Children Board shall be the chief executive of a children's services authority."
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 159 I shall speak also to Amendment Nos. 160, 161, 165A, 222 and 223.
Amendment No. 159 brings us to the key issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Laming, on Second Reading of the accountability of local safeguarding children boards, which are to be the statutory replacements for area child protection committees. Their function is to co-ordinate the arrangements that are in place locally to safeguard children and to ensure that those arrangements are effective. To do that the boards will take an overview, propose improvements, commission specific services, and consider matters such as staff training.
They will also work hand in glove with all the local partners on children's wellbeing, a relationship that is in the fullest sense mutually dependent. The boards and the local partners must feed off each other if the system is to work. They therefore cannot have lines of accountability that look in two directions at once. A local safeguarding children board needs to be tied 100 per cent to the policies, thinking and working of the children's services authority to which it relates.
The Green Paper, Every Child Matters: Next Steps, suggested that it should be up to each board to decide who should be its chairman and that that person could be either the director of children's services or someone independent. I believe that approach is fundamentally wrong. There is only one person who should chair a local safeguarding children board. That is the person who takes ultimate responsibility for everything that goes on in a children's services authority—its chief executive. To allow someone independent to chair the board makes no sense at all. To have the director of children's services has more logic to it, but it is still not right. The proper role of the director of children's services is to report to the board and to inform it; not, I suggest, to take charge of it.
The Bill deliberately steers clear of being prescriptive on who should chair boards. On one level I applaud that. But, in doing so, it is laying a bear trap. We really have to

1163
be clear about whether giving local authorities and their partners the freedom to fall into this bear trap is something important to us, or whether at the outset we should save them from it. After all, we want the system to work. There are times when Parliament needs to say, "This is how we envisage it working".
After all, when we look at the clause we are allowing the Secretary of State to specify in regulations who should represent the local authority and each of its partners on the board. I have no objection to that because again what you ought not to have—and I hope the regulations will proscribe—are a whole lot of junior, untrained, badly briefed individuals turning up purportedly to represented their respective organisations. We need senior responsible people around the board table. So I hope the Minister will take time to consider the amendment.
Finally, I turn to the other amendments in the group. I shall leave the noble Baroness, Lady Walmsley, to speak to Amendment No. 160. Amendment No. 161 refers back to our debates last week in relation to Clause 7. I do not propose to repeat what I said then, apart from reiterating that I believe all the bodies and persons listed in the amendment have a crucial role in the safeguarding of children, and there is no logical reason why any of them should not be a full board partner.
On Amendment No. 165A it seems to me there is a difference between those bodies and individuals who might find themselves being partners under Clause 6, with overarching strategic responsibilities of co-operation; and, on the other hand, those bodies and individuals who are given very specific safeguarding duties and responsibilities under Clause 7.
Potentially the distinction between the two could be harmful and confusing. It might also increase the risk of poor attention to safeguarding by some agencies. My Amendment No. 165A tries to bring all the agencies, bodies and partners involved in children's services into a clear and mutually dependent relationship, so as to ensure that safeguarding activity is part and parcel of strategic and operational services and not separate from it. I would just say that this amendment is supported by the Local Government Association, the NSPCC and the NHS Confederation. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My name is associated with Amendments Nos. 161 and 165A, to which the noble Earl has already spoken. I have nothing to add, except that I await the Minister's response with interest.
I shall speak to Amendments Nos. 160 and 162. Like the noble Earl's amendment, their purpose is to add agencies and persons with duties which affect, or could affect, the well-being of children to the list of members of local safeguarding children boards.
As the Minister has already discovered, where some persons or organisations are specified for particular roles or duties in the clauses of the Bill, the absence of others is of legitimate concern to groups or individuals with an interest in the matter. The noble Baroness has expressed her dislike of "lists", but the structure of the
1164
Bill encourages people to add more names to them. Thus Amendment No. 160 suggests that the Crown Prosecution Service and those concerned with the administration of justice—that is, at a local level—should be added to the board.
On the one hand, through the decisions as to whether or not to prosecute the CPS does sometimes have a vital role in child protection. On the other hand, recent research has shown that courts do not always treat cases against parents for non-attendance at school with the seriousness they deserve and are rather reluctant to meet LEA staff for discussion or joint training.
Both the CPS and the local magistrates or Crown Court staff might benefit from a better understanding of the collaborative approach that the Bill requires of all those whose activities impinge on the safety and well-being of young people.
Amendment No. 162 proposes to insert,
"the youth offending team providing services within the local area",
which we feel is a little more precise than the phraseology in the noble Earl's Amendment No. 159. I look forward to the Minister's response.
The Earl of Listowel: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 161. I will endeavour to be brief, but I am concerned about the performance of the National Asylum Support Service with regard to families with children. On 1 May families were given short notice that they had to move from their homes and they were no longer eligible for housing benefit or any benefit. They were somehow expected by 2 May to have found employment and a house.
Think of the normal problems that any of us face when we try to move and find new accommodation. Those people have to find a new job and a new home at the same time. That decision was subject to judicial review. The judge was scathing in his assessment of how the process was introduced and the Government have had to put back their deadline so that there is proper time to assess those people.
One recognises the extremely difficult job that the National Asylum Support Service is trying to do and the difficulties with the issue, but one has to have serious concerns about whether that institution has the interests of the children in question at the front of its mind, especially when one considers that we are shortly to introduce Clause 8 of the Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill, which will give powers to remove housing benefit and all benefits from families.
There are all sorts of downsides to that. One risks losing touch with those families altogether. There will probably be many appeals to the judicial process at great cost. There is the danger of other problems and burdens on our social system. I strongly support the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I rise to speak to Amendment No. 163, the purpose of which is to ensure that services dealing with refugee children of families are partners

1165
to the children's services authority for the purposes of local safeguarding children boards and to ensure that such services are involved in the co-ordination and effectiveness of the safeguarding and promotion of welfare set out in Clause 10 and thus provide greater protection for refugee children.
We moved a similar amendment to add the same list of organisations to the arrangements to safeguard and promote welfare in Clause 7 in our discussions last Thursday, so I shall say little, but it is of concern that the critical services responsible for the welfare and support of refugee children and their families are not included on the boards. It means that that must be contrary to the Government's intentions as set out in Every Child Matters.
Refugee children are children first and foremost and should be afforded the same rights and protection as any other children in the UK. It therefore seems to us imperative that those three agencies responsible for providing support and accommodation for refugee children are included in the arrangements for the board. The importance of ensuring that children's welfare is safeguarded at ports of entry and beyond is a significant consideration. It has been highlighted most recently in relation to the growing problem of trafficking.
We are aware that the Immigration Service is not a child protection agency, but it has a key role in relation to the safeguarding of children, including the contribution to join inter-agency profiling of victims and potential victims and many other functions. It would therefore seem imperative that the service is included in the new local safeguarding children boards.
10.15 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to Members of the Committee for this group of amendments, not least because they are not on Clause 8. As noble Lords have indicated, they deal with essential issues. I shall try to speak briefly because most of what I have to say is rather positive.
However, my comments are not quite so positive in respect of Amendment No. 159. I recognise the importance indicated by the noble Earl about the role of the chief executive. We considered very carefully whether we should specify who should chair the local safeguarding children board and whether the chief executive should be required to chair the board.
However, we concluded that chairing the board required knowledge at a level of detail that perhaps was not consistent with the work of the chief executive who, necessarily, needs to have a strategic overview. As noble Lords will know, in Every Child Matters we proposed that the board should be chaired by the director of children's services.
Since then we have received strong recommendations from both local government groups and voluntary organisations that under some circumstances, and in some areas, it might be appropriate for the local safeguarding children boards to be independently chaired because of good experiences. It has been noted
1166
that some of the area child protection committees have found it helpful to have a board member other than the DSS chairing them. That has helped them to make it clear that safeguarding is not purely a local authority function in some areas.
I accept that chairing is not the same as being accountable for the work. We are absolutely clear that whoever chairs the board, the accountability rests with the director of children's services, through him or her to the chief executive, and thence to the council. There will be no blurring of the "clear line of accountability" recommended by the noble Lord, Lord Laming. We have decided that it would not be appropriate to prescribe the arrangements, but that it should be left to local discretion. On that basis, I hope that the noble Earl will feel reassured.
As regards Amendment No. 410, the reciprocal duty—
A noble Lord: Which amendment number?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I beg noble Lords' pardon. There are different numbers, which I have mixed up. I apologise for that. The noble Earl raised the issue of senior people, which is the critical factor. I could not agree more with the noble Earl that it is critical to have senior people. I shall ensure that it is spelt out in guidance that that should be the case, for all the reasons that the noble Earl indicated, which I feel no need to repeat.
I hope that I shall get the numbers right this time. I have some sympathy with Amendment No. 160 which seeks to add the Crown Prosecution Service and others with responsibility for administering justice. However, I do not believe that it is necessary. We have identified the core members as those organisations which have responsibilities to provide services to children and who would generally be considered to have a key role in safeguarding them.
While the Crown Prosecution Service has a role in bringing offenders to justice, including those who have offended against children, the safeguarding of children cannot be seen as absolutely central to its role. Perhaps full involvement could compromise its independence. But we accept that the Crown Prosecution Service may often have something to offer to the work of the boards. We will therefore set out in guidance that the CPS should be considered as another agency which might, at local discretion, be invited to attend by the relevant local authority.
In terms of those whose responsibility it is to administer justice, I do not believe that it is necessary or, indeed, appropriate. It is essential that those exercising judicial functions are, and are seen to be, wholly independent from those responsible for administrative functions, in particular as the latter will be applicants to the courts for the range of orders that relate to the protection of children.
I do not believe that requiring "any" court official, regardless of whether his or her role in the administration of justice involves him in cases relating to children, to attend the local safeguarding children

1167
board would be either appropriate or, dare I say, practicable, in terms of the numbers of judges and magistrates that that would involve. Instead, local areas already operate a variety of arrangements, such as family court business committees, to ensure that the users of the family courts are able to reflect their views. It would be unwise to seek to supplant those arrangements, which are about to be modernised through the establishment and commencement of a new advisory non-departmental public body, the Family Justice Council, on which a director of social services, a paediatrician and other relevant non-judicial members are to serve. I hope that that will reassure the noble Baroness.
The Immigration Service (IS) and the National Asylum Support Service (NASS) are covered by Amendments Nos. 163 and, in part, 161. Both NASS and the Immigration Service recognise the importance of local safeguarding children boards and will be fully involved in the boards where appropriate. But we do not think that it is necessarily appropriate for either the Immigration Service or the NASS to be required to be represented. Immigration issues tend to be geographically focused. We think it would be better for these organisations to be invited to join the local safeguarding boards as non-core members in areas where such issues are very important and relevant—obvious examples are Hillingdon and Kent—rather than being required to sit on the boards.
Both the Immigration Service and NASS have well established liaison arrangements with other agencies that could link into the new boards. I hope that on that basis, noble Lords will feel that the amendment is unnecessary.
As I have said in other debates, it has always been our intention that youth offending teams are covered, as mentioned in Amendment No. 161 and, in part, Amendment No. 162. They should play a full part in local safeguarding children boards. Since youth offending teams are partnerships established by local authorities, and since those partners are already covered by Clause 9(3), we originally took the view that it was not necessary for them to be regarded as separate items. However, members of the Committee have again raised good points, and we recognise that they have a statutory role in relation to youth offenders and might therefore be seen as having a separate interest from the local authority. We therefore accept that there is a case for listing them separately; we will look again at the clause and return to the issue on Report.
I cannot accept the amendment as drafted because we must be clear that we have provided for those authorities, for example, where there is more than one youth offending team. I hope that the noble Baroness will understand.
Finally, Amendment No. 161 would add the operator of a database established under Clause 8 for an area of England. In seeking to include the operator, the amendment is inappropriate as it pre-judges the outcome of a decision on whether a database should be
1168
established at local, regional or national level. Clause 8(1) provides the Secretary of State with flexibility to make the best decision.
The operator of a database, should the Secretary of State decide that they should be established in children's services authority areas, will be covered by virtue of the fact that local authorities are covered. Therefore, the amendment is unnecessary.
I hope it is felt that what I have said, at some speed, is helpful, and that the noble Earl will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
The Earl of Listowel: Just to be quite clear, did the noble Baroness say that she would expect that the National Asylum Support Service would join the local safeguarding children board in any area in which it was caring for children? Did I understand her correctly?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I said that they will be fully involved in the boards where it is appropriate.
Earl Howe: I am extremely grateful, as I am sure all other members of the Committee are, for that very helpful reply, not least in relation to the Crown Prosecution Service, youth offending teams, NASS and the fact that the guidance would reflect some of the concerns I raised about the grade of representatives around the table of a local safeguarding children board.
I am still worried by the thought of having an independent chair of the board. It is not without its advantages for obvious reasons, but I think that there are dangers as well. The point I was seeking to make was that we cannot have local safeguarding children boards making policies and reaching decisions that may be totally at odds with those of the children's services authority. They cannot be semi-detached entities—the whole system has to work as one. I know that the noble Baroness recognised that, and I noted her points about the feedback she is getting from around the country. One has to take account of that. We may return to these issues on Report. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 160 to 164 not moved.]
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 165:
Page 8, line 3, after "persons" insert "(including in particular presentatives of disabled persons)"
The noble Earl said: I hope that I can dispose of this group of amendments fairly quickly. Some relate to an issue that we have debated a number of times—the focus on the special needs of the disabled. Children with disabilities face higher barriers to their well-being than the majority of children who do not carry such a handicap. I know that the noble Baroness is fully aware of these issues. Amendment No. 170 addresses

1169
an issue that is of concern to many local authorities and voluntary agencies—the need to look at the work of local safeguarding children boards in a national context.
Many of the issues that the boards will find themselves dealing with are cross-boundary in nature. One needs only to look at London, where there are 32 authorities working within a short distance of each other. It follows that different boards will need to work together. To do that in an effective manner, they will clearly need to adhere to a similar set of operating standards and procedures.
One particular example of how such nationally-agreed procedures might prove effective has been given to me by the NSPCC, which believes that there should be uniform standards for the review of all child deaths so that the public health lessons from such reviews can he drawn out and so that there are agreed protocols for investigating child deaths in a fair and effective way. The lessons learnt from such investigations could then be disseminated nationally. I have a great deal of sympathy for that idea. The NSPCC has developed the proposal by suggesting that the system might be developed in conjunction with the new systems being established for the coroner service.
There is quite a different aspect to this issue that relates to our emerging knowledge of rare childhood conditions which can, if insufficient care is taken, be mistaken for the signs of deliberate abuse. As I was saying earlier, the procedures in these circumstances need to be standardised. There is a whole range of hard-to-diagnose conditions in children that manifest themselves in behavioural abnormalities. I listed some earlier. An untrained eye sees a dysfunctional child. It is all too easy, in those circumstances, for the spotlight of suspicion to fall on parents, and to do so unjustly. These are children with special needs.
This is difficult and specialist territory, but it must be got right. However, all too often I hear of cases where it is not being got right. Indeed, families with special needs children are not receiving the attention from local authorities that they should. Unless there are national standards to ensure that boards are not only aware of these issues but tackle them as they should be tackled, we will not make progress. My amendment therefore proposes that the Secretary of State should be given the responsibility for drawing up a set of uniform standards by which the boards will be expected to operate and against which their performance can be judged.
Finally, I hope that Amendment No. 171 in this group is self-explanatory. It picks up two particular concerns that I know are widely shared in relation to local safeguarding children boards and how they will operate. Regulations will set out the procedures that the board will be required to follow. There is a worry that, because not all board partners will have co-terminous boundaries, the expectations placed on some bodies may be unduly onerous. Strategic health authorities, PCTs and NHS trusts are almost never going to be co-terminous with a children's services authority, yet all are required to be board partners; so
1170
that we will get the representative of a particular trust or PCT having to participate in one, two or sometimes more board proceedings. If we are not careful, this will lead to very substantial commitments of time and energy on the part of certain NHS personnel.
If we take the example of the South London and Maudsley NHS Trust, the children and young people who receive mental health services there come from all over the country. How many local safeguarding children boards will the trust have to attend? The amendment also argues the case for uniform standards. If a single trust is expected to participate in several local safeguarding children boards, it would be bewildering if each board operated to different policies and procedures and pursued different activities. There needs to be more clarity around these issues, as regards the expectations to be placed on NHS staff to attend meetings.
The other aspect of the amendment relates to information sharing. By what rules will the boards be bound? Information about individual children and families should be shared only on a need-to-know basis. It is not acceptable, in my judgment, for such data to pass freely around the table from agency to agency without regard for normal confidentiality principles. I hope that the Minister can reassure me on that point. I beg to move.
10.30 p.m.
Lord Rix: I shall be brief; I can hear sighs of relief all round. I support Amendments Nos. 165, 169, 226 and 229. Many disability organisations, including Mencap, of which I am the president, believe that local safeguarding children hoards hold the key to whether disabled child abuse is taken seriously and tackled effectively. While looking forward to hearing further details about the general functions and procedures of these boards, I was hoping that, at this stage, the Minister might be able to provide an assurance that there will be a representative with specialist knowledge of disabled children's issues on every children board and that the subsequent guidance will reflect this; in other words, that there will be a disabled children's champion, as it were.
In addition, as with the Children's Commissioner, can the Minister provide assurances that all board members will have undergone disability equality training? Without such commitments, I, and I am sure many other noble Lords—well a few other noble Lords—who are in the Chamber would be deeply concerned about the boards' likely effectiveness in tackling disabled child abuse.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to noble Lords for raising these issues. Amendments Nos. 165 and 226 would prescribe persons who must be represented on the boards. Noble Lords will know that I have an aversion to lists: I have raised it many times. I fear that we may be going back into the realm of lists any moment now. The amendment would have little effect as the existing power already allows us to do this but we do not intend to use it to prescribe the representation of disabled people on these boards. We think that it is right for the decision about who should be co-opted to be left to local safeguarding children boards, in consultation with their

1171
partners, so that they can meet the specific needs of their area. It would be possible for boards to co-opt representatives of disabled people if they felt that that was appropriate. There may be other ways in which they wish to seek the views of disabled people. Local boards can already do this, if they so wish. We think that that is a better approach than prescribing it. I hear what the noble Lord says about making sure that members are appropriately trained and I will reflect on that and come back to him.
On Amendments Nos. 169 and 229, as I have already said, we are opposed to singling out one group of children for particular attention because it immediately begs the question of why we are not naming other groups of children. This is about all children. That is very important. If time permitted, I could talk at greater length about the work that we are undertaking but I fear that that would not be right at this hour. But I do not wish to give the impression that we do not consider these issues to be very important.
We will be making sure that guidance that we issue to local safeguarding boards indicates that disabled children are a very vulnerable group and that they should have clear policies in place to safeguard all such groups. The policies should build on specialist advice, including the training strategies to ensure that child protection workers have the necessary skills in working with disabled children. The guidance will also set out that local safeguarding boards should seek the views of those affected by their services, including, where appropriate, disabled children. We believe that that is the way to approach this issue.
Amendment No. 170 deals with the issue of having regard to national standards. The Secretary of State and the Assembly already have the power to issue regulations on the functions and procedures of local safeguarding boards and their objective is set out on the face of the Bill. The regulation and guidance on local safeguarding children boards will in practice set out standards for boards that will be used by inspectorates, both individually and jointly, in assessing performance. The guidance can also be used internally by the boards when assessing their own performance. I hope that the noble Earl will be reassured by that and will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
In line with the principle to regulate as lightly as possible and to avoid prescription where it is unnecessary, we do not want to set up procedures, even to the extent of Amendments Nos. 171 and 231. We are not yet convinced that we need to set up such procedures. It is important that we consult stakeholders and take note of emerging practice within the safeguarding boards before we decide what procedures might be needed. We and the Assembly propose to issue guidance on information sharing under the provisions of Clauses 6 and 20 which will support practitioners in enabling them to share information effectively and appropriately, as the noble Earl has indicated.
1172
I am not sure that that gives the noble Earl as much as he would like. I therefore undertake to write to him further on those issues. I think that that will provide further clarification. On that basis, I hope that he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
Earl Howe: I am grateful once again for a very helpful reply and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 165A not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 166, I have to tell the Committee that if it is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 167.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 166:
Page 8, line 17, leave out subsection (8).
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 166 I shall speak also to Amendment No. 227. This is a straightforward probing amendment designed to point up a feature of this clause that has generated considerable bemusement if not some alarm, and that is the suggestion that two or even more children's services authorities may discharge their duties under the clause by establishing a local safeguarding children board for their combined area.
On the face of it this seems an extraordinary proposal. These are supposed to be local safeguarding children boards. How can you possibly expect a board to provide effective and locally relevant safeguarding services over an extensive geographic area? There would almost certainly be complex challenges relating to the overlapping boundaries of various partners. We come back to accountability. How could you have an arrangement that was properly accountable if several local authorities were involved? I do not see how anyone could assess the effectiveness of these combined arrangements in any meaningful way.
Perhaps the Minister could say a little about what is envisaged here. I said that the amendment was a probing one, which it is, as I am certainly prepared to be convinced. However, I have to say that there are some real concerns that lie at the root of it. What sort of scale of operation do the Government consider to be manageable and practical? There is no indication of that. The Minister may well talk about economies of scale or use words to that effect, but I actually think that there is the potential for a dilution of emphasis on safeguarding if responsibilities are spread across too wide a geographical area. That would clearly not be desirable and would send out confusing messages both to professionals and members of the public.
I hope that the Minister can provide some reassurance on this issue. I beg to move.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: Our Amendment No. 167 is grouped with Amendment No. 166. I am not going to add to what the noble Earl has just said because he has made my case for me; it is just a different way of approaching the same thing. I would like to ask the

1173
Minister whether this is looking forward to a time when, for example, the Isle of Wight, Southampton and Hampshire might once again be joined together in happy harmony as they have been in the past, or whether in fact it has some totally different objective such as working toward regional government.
Baroness Andrews: Noble Lords have very grand impressions of this clause. I shall try to put minds at rest. The noble Earl talked about fears of dilution and accountability. Subsection (8) of Clauses 9 and 24 allows two or more local authorities to form a single local safeguarding children board. The provision is simply providing flexibility, particularly for the smaller children's services authorities such as the Isles of Scilly. If we were to remove this subsection we would remove an important aspect of flexibility.
Cornwall and the Isles of Scilly, for example, have shared an area child protection committee for some time, and it would, in our view, be unnecessarily bureaucratic to force them apart. We also know that other local authorities have made similar arrangements in the past, including Rutland, Leicestershire and Leicester. Where such arrangements work well, we do not wish to disrupt them. Therefore, we are looking at what works locally. It is simply enabling.
Amendment No. 167 also seeks to temper that flexibility by requiring the Secretary of State to authorise its use; we refer to him again, my Lords. Where local authorities are already sharing an ACPC—for example, in London—they do so because that is what works locally. We do not want the Secretary of State to be involved in this and I am sure that he does not want to be involved in it either. It would be unnecessarily bureaucratic. We want to keep these arrangements available.
On accountability, the subsection does not allow children's services authorities to delegate their duty to another authority. Where a joint LSCB is established, each participating children's services authority will retain its functions in relation to that board and will participate fully. Should it turn out that one of the authorities that has made the partnership is attempting to reduce its participation, I believe we can safely rely on the local authority partner or partners to ensure that that does not happen, or that the arrangement is brought to an end. Therefore, there is a powerful element of self-regulation.
Should a joint safeguarding board be failing in some way it might be necessary to use the intervention powers in the Bill. In that case they would be used to intervene in each local authority as both would be considered to be failing to exercise their functions effectively. I hope that noble Lords are reassured about the practicality and the flexibility of the measure and about the arrangements for accountability.
Earl Howe: I am considerably enlightened. I am grateful to the Minister for that comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 167 not moved.]
Clause 9 agreed to.
Clause 10 [Functions and procedure of LSCBs]:
[Amendment No. 168 not moved.]
Baroness Walmsley Baroness Walmsley moved Amendment No. 168A:
Page 8, line 32, leave out from "prescribe" to end of line 33 and insert "(which shall in particular include functions of review or investigation of all child deaths in the area of the authority, funded by the Secretary of State)"
The noble Baroness said: This amendment would mean that the powers of local safeguarding children boards would be strengthened so that they could properly investigate and review all child deaths in their local area and collate and disseminate the local learning about child deaths nationally by using an agreed multi-agency investigation protocol.
This system should be developed in close conjunction with the new systems being established for the coroner service that the noble Earl, Lord Howe, mentioned earlier in relation to the group of amendments that began with Amendment No. 165, although I do not believe that he had an amendment in that group to achieve that objective.
Unless specific funding is provided, it is likely to be very difficult to create the thorough review and investigation systems that are required. This amendment would ensure that LSCBs have a duty to investigate all child deaths in their local area and that central government have a duty to provide the necessary funding to do so. Guidance should then be produced to establish how the information is collated and the learning disseminated.
The amendment was suggested to us by the NSPCC that has long campaigned for all child deaths to be properly reviewed and the lessons learnt and disseminated. I hope that it will meet with some sympathy from the Government. I beg to move.
Earl Howe: In this group of amendments there are several that hark back to debates we had earlier under Clause 6. I shall not repeat the points that were made at that time. These amendments suggest that everyone participating around the table in a local safeguarding children board really should contribute in some way or other to the funding of' the board whether that is in money terms or in kind. It is the latter aspect that some of these amendments seek to flesh out because clearly where you have voluntary agencies who are brought into the fold, so to speak, very often they will not have hard cash to contribute but they will have a great deal of expertise, time and person power. The Minister might consider allowing the Bill to reflect that aspect. It is a contribution or a commitment in as real a sense as any that will be supplied by the larger players on the children board. It is an important aspect of the commitment that each player has to contribute.
10.45 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: This is an important group of amendments. I want to explain how we are strengthening the provisions for investigating a child's death. They take us very much to the heart of the Bill and its intention.

1175
The LSCBs will have a wider remit than the ACPCs. They are intended to be more pro-active and to co-ordinate and monitor. Crucially, they will also be regularly assessed by the relevant inspectorates which will monitor and evaluate the effectiveness of the contribution they are making to the welfare of children.
Under Clause 10(2) the Bill may in particular include functions of review or investigation to attach to the LSCBs. The noble Baroness wishes to add to that by committing the Secretary of State to giving the board functions of review or investigation and committing the Secretary of State to funding these reviews. As the noble Baroness knows, ACPCs are already required to carry out serious case reviews into the deaths and serious injury of children where abuse or neglect are known or suspected to have been a factor, in accordance with Chapter 8 of our guidance Working Together to Safeguard Children.
We know how important these serious case reviews are and they will continue to occur. We intend to make this a function of the LSCBs under the regulations made in the Bill. The innovative aspect addresses many of the concerns of the noble Baroness. Local screening teams will add to the specific function of review. We envisage that they will investigate all unexpected child deaths and report to the LSCB. They may recommend to it that a serious case review is carried out. Essentially, their purpose is to have a better understanding of the causes of unexpected child death. We have to be sensible and careful about this because they will be dealing with grieving parents whom they will also want to support.
I am sure that the noble Baroness will agree when I say that we do not believe that all unexpected child deaths will require a serious case review. I cannot say very much more about the role of the screening teams because it is very much a question of work in progress and under development and consultation.
The challenge we have to face is to make sure that we are not duplicating efforts in this area because there are many different types of review and investigation—by coroners, by the Prison Service, by the ombudsman, and so on. It is going to be extremely important to coordinate properly, which is why we have to take the time to get it right. We may need to pilot the proposals to ensure that they meet the desired objectives and that they are sufficiently flexible. We want to make the appointment of local screening teams a function of the LSCBs via the regulations made under the Bill.
As regards funding, we believe it is inappropriate for the Secretary of State directly to fund reviews. First, it means ring fencing resources for local government. We are moving away from that. The policy can be delivered without ring fencing. We strongly believe that it should be for the LSCBs and their constituent agencies to decide how much of the money they receive from central government should be spent on reviews or investigations of child death. The ACPCs already pay for serious case reviews out of their existing budgets. So it is not a new cost.
1176
It is too early to say how much the screening teams will cost. Under the new burdens procedure the Government have agreed that where a department places a new burden on local and national agencies funded by government, it provides the funding to cover the cost. I hope that Members of the Committee will be reassured about that.
As regards the amendment moved by the noble Earl, the essential change is that partners are required rather than permitted to make payments towards expenditure. We understand the concern. Under Clause 9 we wish to see a duty to co-operate and to have regard to protecting the welfare of the child. We believe that the duties which are expressed and which will be delivered through guidance will bind partner agencies into the LSCB very effectively.
I have rather a lot of detail as to how we believe that would work. I would like to write to Members of the Committee about how it will be implemented and how we will aim to achieve national, cultural change. As regards Amendment No. 173A I recall accepting a similar amendment on Clause 6. I hope that I am not making this up. We want that commitment extended to cover this clause. Given the time of night and the degree of detail, which is descriptive and does not change policy or assumptions, I should like to write to the noble Earl about it. I hope that with those assurances the noble Baroness will be prepared to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Walmsley: I thank the Minister for her reply; what she said sounded like a strengthening of the review of unexpected child deaths. We look forward to seeing the whole system in operation. Of course, that depends on adequate funding for the local safeguarding children boards and I trust that that will be sufficient. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 169 to 171 not moved.]
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clause 11 [Funding of LSCBs]:
[Amendments Nos. 172 to 174 not moved.]
Clause 11 agreed to.
Clause 12 [LSCBs: supplementary]:
On Question, Whether Clause 12 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Walmsley: I object to Clause 12, which gives the Secretary of State power by regulations to,
"make provision as to the functions of children's services authorities in England relating to Local Safeguarding Children Boards".
I do so for a simple reason—that I believe that it is otiose. Clause 10(3) allows the Secretary of State by regulation to,
"make provision as to the procedures to be followed",
by LSCBs. Therefore, Clause 12 is a duplicate of that power. If it is not, will the Minister explain?
Earl Howe: I agree with the noble Baroness. It may well be that the clause contains necessary provisions, but, at the very least, it appears to be untidy. Clause 6(7) refers to guidance to children's services authorities and their partners. Clause 7(4) refers to more guidance to the parties listed in Clause 7(1); then Clause 10(3) refers to regulations relating to the procedures to be followed by LSCBs; and, finally, Clause 12 speaks of yet more regulations and guidance relating to children's services authorities. I cannot help feeling that somehow those provisions could be condensed into a neater package.
Baroness Andrews: I understand noble Lords' concerns. The purpose of Clause 12 is to enable the Secretary of State to make regulations about the functions of children's services authorities in relation to LSCBs and to issue guidance. I understand the concern expressed by the noble Baroness that the Secretary of State is already able to issue guidance to local authorities under Section 7 of the Local Authority Social Services Act 1970. However, the point of this clause is that it will allow statutory guidance to be issued to other agencies as well, in addition to allowing regulations to be made about the functions of local authorities in relation to LSCBs.
Each LSCB is a body made up of representatives of partner agencies and does not have a legal personality of its own—it cannot employ its own staff. Therefore, we need to be able to give children's services authorities the ability to do that on behalf of the LSCB. The general duty imposed on the children's services authority to establish LSCBs would involve doing what was necessary to enable the LSCB to perform its functions. So to some extent those matters can he covered in guidance. However, there are limits to the use of guidance, which is why we have included Clause 12(1) in the Bill.
The sort of matters that we envisage including in the regulations are administrative support, other support services and appointing a screening team, which I mentioned earlier. Clause 12(1) ensures that we can make those regulations and that they have the necessary support. It is thus essential that it stands as part of the Bill.
Clause 12(2) provides that, in exercising their functions, board partners, including the children's services authorities, must have regard to any guidance issued by the Secretary of State. So the guidance supports the LSCBs in enabling them to fulfil their functions. The guidance issued under Clause 12(2) will be largely based on Working Together to Safeguard Children, the 1999 statutory guidance, and it will enable agencies to work together more effectively. I hope that that addresses some of the fears expressed by noble Lords. It will build on and replace the information in Working Together, so it is very much a consolidation. Guidance on children's services could be issued under Section 7 of the 1970 Act, but we have no powers to issue statutory guidance to any other forward partner. The clause is therefore important in ensuring that we have that capacity and I hope that I have satisfied the noble Baroness.
Baroness Walmsley: I am.
Clause 12 agreed to.
Clause 13 [Director of children's services]:
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 174A:
Page 9, line 17, leave out "the appointed day must" and insert "a time agreed by the children's services authority"
The noble Baroness said: With Clause 13, we arrive at the appointment of the director of children's services. Our Amendments Nos. 174A and 175 would alter Clause 13(1) to read:
"A children's services authority in England may, and with effect from a time agreed by the children's services authority must, appoint a fit officer for the purposes or,
the various functions of the children's services authority. Amendment No. 176 repeats the need to pay attention to guidance on appointing a fit person for the purposes of the clause. Amendment No. 175D requires a local authority, after the appointment of a director of children's services, to secure the provision of adequate staff for the exercise of his functions. The amendments reflect a lack of confidence on the part of some people about what will happen on the merger of two services which have had a long and distinguished but totally separate existence.
The Minister may say that that unease is not justified and to some extent I would agree with her. I have a great deal of confidence in the ability of local government to do difficult things well. In the local authority that I know best, there is a clear recognition of the need to blend the professional attitudes, ethos and aptitudes of two erstwhile separate services acting in response to different legislation in a new joint approach to taking the Bill forward. But can the Minister assure people beyond these walls that the Government do not intend professionals or professionalism to be downgraded by the Bill, but on the contrary confidently expect both of them to be used to their utmost? I beg to move.
Earl Howe: Amendment No. 177 is in the group. As with the similar provision in Clause 9(8), I have some difficulty with the idea that a single individual might be thought capable of acting as director of children's services for two or even several authorities at the same time. The job is onerous enough—in fact, some people have said to me that it is too much responsibility to place on the shoulders of one person.
I am prepared to be convinced that that is not necessarily so, provided that the director has sufficient support staff, but we have to be realistic. The function is extremely sizeable. I should therefore be pleased if the Minister could comment on why the provision is included and in what circumstances the Government see it being brought into play.
Baroness Andrews: The amendments relate to the appointment of the director of children's services, which sends a key signal to enable a cultural change. But the changes have to be fully owned by the local authorities. The appointment of the director of children's services is vital to what we need to achieve. We need to get the balance right and I believe that Clause 13 strikes the right

1179
balance between central direction and local flexibility. It is important to maintain that flexibility for reasons I shall explain.
Amendment No. 174A would let local authorities alone decide when to impose the duty to appoint a director. While we want to give as much flexibility as possible, we must build in some safeguards.
The Government have already reflected such an approach in the provisions on the appointments of directors of children's services and in the proposals for commencing the requirements for appointments to be made. So when the clause is brought into effect, children's services authorities will have the power to appoint a director of children's services and once they have made that appointment they will also be under an obligation to appoint a director of adult social services.
11 p.m.
However, the point of the flexibility we have built in is not only in terms of timing. Significantly, they will not need to retain the statutory posts of chief education officer and director of social services, which they have to do at present. Authorities will be under a duty to appoint a DCS and a DASS once the Secretary of State has made an order under Clause 13(10) appointing the day in which it becomes a duty. We do not envisage that the appointed day order will be made immediately after commencement of the clause. The Secretary of State will be monitoring local authorities' progress but we are clear—which is why we cannot agree with the amendment—that there will come a stage when this must become a duty for all authorities. I am pleased to be able to say that local authorities are making very good progress and more than half are now giving active consideration to making a DCS appointment. We understand that some authorities will wish to make other organisational change first. This is why both we and the Local Government Association are keen to build in flexibility. However, we must have the power to set a deadline in order to ensure that we have a director of children's services in all authorities within a sensible timescale. We think a sensible timescale is 2006 for most authorities and 2008 for all authorities.
I turn to Amendment No. 175. Yes, of course, fit and suitable. We are absolutely determined that this should not be a downgrading of professionalism. The amendment reflects the wording used in relation to the appointment of a chief education officer, but the wording used in relation to the appointment of a director of social services under Section 6 of the Local Authority Social Services Act, simply refers to the appointment of "an officer". It is that form of words which we have taken. But it in no way implies that unfit people will be appointed or that professionalism will be downgraded. I believe we can trust local authorities to make appropriate DCS appointments and we are determined to ensure that they do.
I turn to Amendment No. 175D which deals with adequate staff. I completely understand and share the noble Lord's desire to ensure that this is provided. But
1180
again we are following the Local Government Act provisions. Under Section 112(1) of the 1972 Act local authorities are under a duty to appoint,
"such officers as they think necessary".
I believe that with that provision we are in a position to say that we have every expectation that there will be adequate staff.
Let me turn to Amendment No. 176. Again, I completely share the noble Lord's wish that a fit person should be appointed. I have given my assurances on that. This amendment aims to ensure that the scope of the guidance is wide enough to include guidance on the qualities of those to be appointed as DCS. This is already the case. Subsection (7) allows guidance to be issued on any aspect of Clause 13 including appointing a fit person to the post. I refer the noble Baroness to our policy statement on Clause 13 which has been placed in the Library of the House.
I turn now to Amendment No. 177. The flexibility about a joint appointment is there as a matter of flexibility and necessity. We thought it was important to incorporate flexibility. We do not expect there to be wide use of the power. There is the safeguard in that any authority using this provision would need to be satisfied that the same person could efficiently discharge such responsibilities. We are confident that local authorities will use the power appropriately and after due consideration. And it will be appropriate where they jointly deliver services. This is a replication of Section 6(2) of the Local Authorities Social Services Act 1970 which already allows authorities jointly to appoint a single director of social services.
I come finally to Amendment No. 178. I have already explained the provenance of this clause and the reasons why it is included. To address the specific intention of Amendment No. 178, that authorities could only appoint a joint DCS with the permission of the Secretary of State, I should explain that since Section 6(4) of the 1970 Local Authority Social Services Act was repealed they have been able to make appointments to the post of director of social services without the prior approval of the Secretary of State.
I have gone through that at a considerable rate. However, the amendments raise important issues, and I hope that the assurances that I have given are sufficient to enable the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment with confidence.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the noble Baroness for her extremely full answer, which I believe people will find very reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 175 not moved.]
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood Baroness Thomas of Walliswood moved Amendment No. 175A:
Page 9, line 22, at end insert "; and

( ) such functions in addition to those specified in subsection (2) that the authority wishes to delegate to the director of children's services"

The noble Baroness said: I am becoming a little confused as time whizzes on. The series of amendments in this group concern the functions of the director of children's services and the functions that he will oversee. Amendment No. 175A would insert at the end of' Clause 13(1)(b) the words,
"such functions in addition to those specified in subsection (2) that the authority wishes to delegate to the director of children's services'.
Amendment No. 175B would similarly extend those functions to,
"any functions and duties exercisable under section 38 of the Crime and Disorder Act…within the meaning of Part III of the Act, in so far as those functions relate to 'youth justice services'".
The issue of youth justice services has been raised in a number of different contexts, and this is simply one more.
Amendment No. 175C would leave out paragraph (e) of Clause 13(3) because it seems to duplicate a number of other paragraphs, and we are not sure why it is there at all. I see the Minister nodding—that may not be the case, but at least she understands what I am saying, which is a step in the right direction.
Finally, Amendment No. 175E would add the need for the director of children's services appointed by a children's services authority to produce a plan setting out how he will exercise his existing responsibilities for children with special needs. This amendment was brought to us with a reference to a single group of children. Could we add a requirement that the director should continue to exercise responsibilities already given to social services in respect of a certain group of children? We thought that, rather than add all kinds of different groups of children, we would probe the Government's intentions to ensure that, in the words of the amendment, the director would produce a plan or, at any rate, would continue to exercise all the responsibilities relating to children's special needs which already exist in legislation. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: The noble Baroness has been very understanding of the pressures of time, and I shall try to meet her points with a degree of detail.
I believe that the provisions in Clause 13 allow for a great deal of flexibility in relation to the functions of the DCS, which is what she was concerned about. At the same time, we have set out some key functions that we believe are core and must be included within the remit. There will, of course, be other functions which noble Lords may feel should be the responsibility of the DCS, but I believe that, other than the functions already set out, we must allow local authorities the freedom to determine those for themselves.
Amendment No. 175A seeks to ensure that local authorities have the flexibility to add to the remit of the director's functions not included in the list. Indeed, that flexibility already exists under Clause 13 as it stands. Clause 13(5) states that the director of children's services,
"may also have responsibilities relating to such functions…in addition to those specified in subsection (1)".
1182
That flexibility is even extended under subsection (6) to enable individual authorities, if they so wish, to add functions to the remit that have been specifically excluded from the statutory core. So, I think we have met that in two quite different ways.
Amendment No. 175B seeks to add functions and duties that relate to youth justice services tinder Section 38 of the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. That is a very important set of functions and duties. I share the noble Lord's desire to ensure that the youth justice system attracts local priority and that all partners act together. Youth offending teams will be key partners in the local co-operation arrangements. While the clause as it stands does not expressly include these functions and duties in the statutory core, neither does it exclude them.
Because the clause affords a very wide degree of flexibility, individual authorities are free to acid to these functions so they could, if they so wished, include the powers and duties relating to youth justice services. We chose not to prescribe those functions on the statutory core because they go much further than children's services. They extend into local authority services and adult services. There is, indeed, a mixture of functions and different levels of functionality. So, our intention of not bringing these together was just to enable local authorities to decide for themselves how they wanted to organise it. The chief executive will continue to have a very clear role in that. I hope the noble Baroness will accept that.
Amendment No. 175C seeks to remove the Secretary of State's power to make regulations to exclude some LEA functions as well as those we have put on the face of the Bill in subsections (3)(a) to (d). Subsection (3) excludes four sets of LEA functions. For example, subsection (3)(e) will allow the Secretary of State to remove from the statutory remit any other functions which in the light of experience it appears could be left outside the core remit. We need that provision quite simply so that we have flexibility to respond, where appropriate, to representations from local authorities when certain responsibilities have been caught up with adverse consequences as a result of the power of the clause. For example, we have excluded from the DCS core responsibilities local authorities' functions for student awards but there may be other functions which have been caught up and could be better linked with student awards. So, we need to have that flexibility to respond in the future to correct any accident or unintended consequences.
I should make clear that certain functions are excluded from the core remit under subsection (3), including those which might be excluded via regulations. But even those functions could be allocated to the director of children's services if they so choose, under subsections (5) and (6).
Amendment No. 175E attempts to add a duty on the director of children's services to produce a plan for children with special needs. We all agree, not least my noble friend, how very important these functions are. However, we believe that it is unnecessary to add a duty to produce a specific plan to the existing duties in relation

1183
to the recent developments that local authorities are already making in planning for children with special needs.
We are trying to remove the burden of onerous planning requirements from local authorities. The amendment goes in the opposite direction. I am not sure that it would be very welcome, in practice, by local authorities. We believe also that the requirement of children with special needs are currently addressed within the educational development plan. We want to remove the majority of existing statutory and planning requirements and to introduce a single education plan. We are already consulting on removing requirements for 13 of the plans, including the educational development plan (EDP), to be rationalised. In fact, we ran a pilot.
Given what is In process and bearing in mind that the single education plan, which will cover a period of three years, must be reviewed annually and will give us the scope to respond and develop if things are not given the priority we want to see, we hope that that will help to meet some of the fears of the noble Baroness, particularly in relation to special educational needs.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I thank the Minister for that reply, which I think will reassure people that the maximum flexibility is being retained and that local authorities, in constructing their new services, will not be artificially constrained one way or the other. That was very helpful.
I am also grateful to the Minister for explaining the rather peculiar situation of Clause 13(3)(e). Amendment No. 175C would deal with that, but I think the situation has now become much clearer. I also thank her for her reassuring comments regarding my Amendment No. 175E. With that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 175B to 178 not moved.]
Clause 13 agreed to.
Schedule 2 agreed to.
Clause 14 [Lead member for children's services]:
11.15 p.m.
Earl Howe Earl Howe moved Amendment No. 179:
Page 10, line 36, after first "their" insert "elected"
The noble Earl said: In moving Amendment No. 179, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 198. The simple purpose of the amendments is to make it absolutely clear that the lead member for children's services should be an elected member. That is implicit in the clause and in the Explanatory Notes. The point is significant in another sense because it bears upon the question of accountability. If a children's trust is working across a variety of agencies, including a PCT or a strategic health authority, who exactly bears ultimate operational responsibility for that trust's activities?
If children's services authorities are the governing body, how will clinical governance over health staff and professional development among health staff be addressed? There is a lot of confusion about children's trusts and how professional lines of accountability will be preserved while ensuring that the general concept of the trust is realised. The issues of reporting lines cannot be ducked. A number of people have asked me to table the amendment as a means of eliciting a response from the Minister. I hope that she has a response.
I should just add that the amendment itself is not in any way a probe; it is a substantive amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness Andrews: I can give the noble Earl a substantial answer. Indeed, it does. "Member" means an elected member. There are precedents in law. For example, Section 79(1) of the Local Government Act 1972 describes qualifications for election and holding office as a member of a local authority.
The noble Earl is right to raise concerns relating to children's trusts because they are new organisations and it is important to know how those lines of accountability will work. There is no doubt. I hope that with those assurances he will be able to withdraw the amendment.
Earl Howe: I am very glad to do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 14 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 179A not moved.]
Clause 15 [Joint area reviews]:
[Amendments Nos. 180 and 180A not moved.]
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 181:
Page 11, line 40, at end insert—

"( ) requiring inspectors to consult—

(i) the Children's Commissioner;

(ii) children;

(iii) parents or others who have parental responsibility for a child or children in the relevant area;"

The noble Lord said: The provisions in Clauses 15 to 17 are largely bureaucratic. My Amendment No. 181 aims simply to insist that the clients, that is to say the children and their responsible parents, are consulted in any inspection, and, if relevant, that the Children's Commissioner should, if he wishes to, have the opportunity to make representations as part of the inspection process. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I make it quite clear to the noble Lord, Lord Northbourne, that outcomes for children and consulting with children, parents and others with parental responsibility is central to our plans for the inspection of children's services. A joint area review will focus on the children in the area and will be undertaken within the framework for inspection of children's services

1185
provided by Clause 16. Clause 16(3) will ensure that all relevant inspections focus on the wellbeing of children and relevant young persons.
We would expect the framework to reflect the template for inspections set out in the Prime Minister's office of public service reform document published in July 2003, which includes the provision that inspections should take a user perspective and have a clear focus on the experience of those for whom the service is provided. One of the functions of the Children's Commissioner will be to promote the views and interests of children. We do not believe that the commissioner would generally be able to provide the local insight that would assist inspectors of joint area reviews, but we anticipate that the commissioner would have close links with the review process and the chief inspector of schools as a source of information for his reviews of issues affecting children.
I assure the Committee that inspectors, when contributing to joint area reviews, will, as they will during other inspection activity under the framework, consult children, parents and others with parental responsibility. Indeed, it will be necessary for them to do so to meet the principle of the framework and, as I said, the Children's Commissioner will be working at a strategic, national level. I hope that, on that basis, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that helpful and encouraging reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 15 agreed to.
Clause 16 [Framework]:
[Amendment No. 182 not moved.]
Clause 16 agreed to.
Clause 17 agreed to.
Clause 18 [Sections 15 to 17: interpretation]:
Lord Northbourne Lord Northbourne moved Amendment No. 183:
Page 13, line 6, at end insert—
"( ) Notwithstanding subsection (2) above, 'children's services' does not include services provided in a child's home by parents or other persons who have parental responsibility for that child."
The noble Lord said: I regret to say that I find Clause 17 completely incomprehensible and have tabled this amendment simply to ensure that inspectors would not feel it necessary to inspect children in their own homes. I recognise that that may be wholly unnecessary, but I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: Any service provided by anyone with parental responsibility for a child that is provided in the child's home, where the child's home is a private residence, will not be inspected and the framework and joint area reviews will not alter that. Children's services as determined in the regulations under Clause 18(2)(b) can only be services that are inspected. I hope that I have given the noble Lord the reassurance that he seeks and that he is able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Northbourne: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 18 agreed to.
Clause 19 agreed to.
[Amendment No. 184 not moved.]
Baroness Andrews: I beg to move that the House do now resume.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
House resumed.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the

  Fire and Rescue Services Bill
  (Fourth Day)
  The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
  [The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton) in the Chair.]
  Clause 31 [Negotiation bodies]:
  Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 109:
  Page 14, line 31, leave out paragraph (c).
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 109, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 111 and 112, which deal with the same subject.
  The aim of the first two amendments is to leave out the provision for an independent chairman. Amendment No. 112 indicates what we think should apply instead. The Bill proposes that there should be new negotiating bodies and there is a stipulation that there should be an independent chairman. Who is to appoint this individual? Clause 31(3) states who he or she should not be; presumably the Secretary of State will appoint the individual concerned. If that is so, it is difficult to see how he or she could be accepted as impartial and genuinely independent by the parties represented on the NJC. There is bound to be the suspicion that if this individual does not do what the Secretary of State wants, the appointment will come to an end.
  It is quite usual for the chairman of such a body to be chosen by the parties represented on it, sometimes for a limited period, and sometimes there is a system of rotation. These bodies have to work by consensus or they cannot work at all, so the role of the chairman and his or her acceptability to all concerned is obviously very important.
  Amendment No. 112 sets out an alternative to what is proposed in the Bill. We are suggesting that the chairman should be chosen jointly by the parties represented on the appropriate negotiating body, and, where they cannot agree the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service should be invited to propose the name. We also suggest that the responsibilities and powers of the chairman should be agreed between the parties.
  I hope that the Government may be persuaded to think again about this. Even if our proposal in Amendment No. 112 is not acceptable, it is surely very important that the arrangements for negotiating jointly should not only he entirely independent of government but should be seen to be so, and should be so regarded
  GC 402
  by the participants. A so-called "independent" chair who owes his or her position entirely to the Secretary of State will not, in my view, give that impression. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Elton): I have to tell the Committee that if this amendment is agreed to I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 110 by reason of pre-emption.
  Baroness Hanham: I shall speak later to my Amendment No. 110. We are clearly in an area where there is some agreement about the worry over who will be an independent chairman. We do not, in principle, support the noble Baroness's Amendment No. 112. We have worries about the negotiating group getting bogged down from the outset on who will chair the body.
  I hope that I shall be able to move Amendment No. 110 later. At the moment, I merely indicate that I am not happy with the impact of Amendment No. 112.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendments Nos. 109, 111 and 112 would alter the provisions that provide for an independent chairman of the negotiating body. The Bain review was very clear in its support for an independent, active chair working towards agreement between the parties. Bain stated that there should be an independent chair and secretariat and that they should be actively involved rather than judicial; the chair should be independent but engaged and should play a mediating role to promote agreement as well as conduct negotiations.
  If we are to establish the negotiating bodies outlined in Clause 31, it is essential that the chair is completely independent of government as well as of the fire and rescue service employees and employee representatives. We have also made it clear that we believe the chair must be someone of real ability and stature. The amendments would prevent the Secretary of State from appointing the chair and defining the chair's role. They would place greater importance on an agreement on who should be the chair rather than determining who could fulfil the role most effectively. Furthermore, the amendment relies on ACAS being willing to propose a chair and the parties being willing to accept its proposal. We cannot assume either that ACAS would agree to becoming involved—I am not sure that the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, described how that might happen—or that the parties would necessarily accept ACAS's advice.
  For those reasons, we feel unhappy with the amendments. We want genuine independence and a leadership role for the chair, so that they can work to secure agreement on matters that come before the body. I hope that the noble Baroness, having heard what I had to say, will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank the Minister for some of what he said. He said that the chair must he independent of government, which is very important. That was what we were aiming for. Also, the person concerned has to be acceptable to the parties; he implied that as well, by saying that an ACAS nominee

  GC 403
  might not be. There is clearly an area of agreement on the need for genuine independence from government and acceptability by the parties.
  I shall not press the amendment today, obviously; it was intended that it should be probing and that there be discussion about the role of the independent chairman. What the Minister said answered a number of our queries, but I wonder whether, before Report, we could have a little more information about how the independent person would be appointed. Who would be responsible for the appointment? Would there be consultation with anyone? If consultation was not with ACAS, with whom would it be? From where would the person with the necessary stature emerge? In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 110:
  Page 14, line 31, at end insert "appointed in accordance with advice to the Secretary of State from the Commissioner for Public Appointments"
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment moves us on to another side of the coin picked up by the noble Baroness, Lady Turner. There are great concerns about the bald statement that there be an independent chairman. Although I am not totally committed to her idea—the involvement of ACAS would be quite a worry—that does not prevent me suggesting that there must be someone or something else involved in the selection of an independent chairman acceptable to both parties.
  The chairman has to be someone genuinely independent, particularly as there is a great need to restore the trust and credibility in the negotiating machinery that went awry during the most recent dispute. It must be someone who stands above all the fray and is wholly above suspicion of bias, political or otherwise.
  The amendment was moved in another place, and the Minister of State gave a form of assurance that any appointment would be in accordance with the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's usual term of practice, in complying with the code of practice set up by the Commissioner for Public Appointments. I looked that up today to see what it includes. Ultimately, the appointment is a ministerial appointment but, aside from that, it is an appointment on merit, made by a panel with an independent assessor under equal opportunities policy and with a high level of probity.
  All that seems to add up to providing someone of the stature required. However, I do not think that simply referring to an independent chairman in the Bill will do all that, so our amendment suggests that the appointment be done,
  "in accordance with advice to the Secretary of State from the Commissioner for Public Appointments".
  Having looked at the code, I am not sure that "advice" is strong enough. Depending on the Minister's reply, we may have to look at the matter later to see how we could strengthen "advice". In a way, what is required is that the Minister must appoint whomever the panel
  GC 404
  recommends, unless there is a thoroughly good reason why the Minister or Secretary of State has some concern about it. Having said that, I still think that having the code of practice for the Commissioner for Public Appointments is the correct way to go. It should be in the Bill so that there is no misunderstanding. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I support the noble Baroness, and in doing so I declare an interest as a member of the Committee on Standards in Public Life. Perhaps I could press the Minister a little farther on this. He may want to come back to us on Report or in between, but he will know that there has been a certain amount of controversy about ministerial appointments and how much Ministers interfere in the lists. We have had a reassurance that this will be completely independent, and therefore we should have a reassurance that there will be no interference with the list that is recommended. It may not be that the Minister can answer that today. I think that he should answer it in future.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I start by saying that I have some experience of the intent behind this amendment, because I am a panel member for the Department for Culture, Media and Sport on interviewing for people who wish to join public bodies. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, expressed great concern about how the ODPM will handle this appointment. I hope that I can totally reassure her.
  The Government believe that the chairman should be someone of the highest competence and appropriate stature to ensure the negotiating body's effective operation. It would not be appropriate to spell out in the Bill the process through which an independent chairman would be appointed. This is a detailed matter more appropriate for regulations. However—this is the key statement—in making public appointments, it is ODPM's policy to follow the principles set out by the Commissioner for Public Appointments, Dame Rennie Fritchie. If an appointment were to be made in this instance, we would comply with those principles. The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, helpfully read out those seven principles, and I can confirm that they are the principles that will be followed by the ODPM in making this appointment.
  Without a specific brief, but going on my considerable experience of this process, I expect that the Minister would not interfere in the selection process. It is extremely unusual for the recommendation made by the chair of one of these panels to be overturned by a Minister. In fact, I have not heard of a single example of that. I hope that with that categorical reassurance, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. Sadly, I fear that we are not totally in normal circumstances here. Unfortunately, there is a history attached to all this negotiation. It may be that we need to be a bit more sensitive.
  I hear what the Minister says about regulations. That is precisely what subsection (2) says: regulations will set out what is to be done. If it is left to regulations, and it is not in the Bill that this has to be done in accordance with the code of practice, there would still be a feeling that we had not got this right. I would like

  GC 405
  to think a bit further about what the Minister has said, and I do not promise not to come back to this. For today, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 111 not moved.]
  3.45 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 111A:
  Page 14, line 34, at end insert "the Assembly First Secretary or an Assembly Secretary, as defined in section 53 of the Government of Wales Act 1998 (c. 38) (Assembly first secretary and assembly secretaries)"
  The noble Baroness said: This is a little amendment, which would prevent a Member of the Welsh Assembly being appointed as the independent chairman of a negotiating body for the conditions of service of employees of fire and rescue authorities. It could be argued that the amendment is unnecessary, because Section 43(1) of the Government of Wales Act 1998 appears to cover it. However, that interpretation applies only when the Assembly is exercising for itself a function. Thus, the Assembly could not appoint a Minister of the Crown as chairman of the negotiating body for Wales, but the Secretary of State could appoint an Assembly Secretary as chairman of the negotiating body for England.
  That would not seem to meet the test of independence. Moreover, it does not seem certain that Section 43 of the 1998 Act converts the phrase "Minister of the Crown" in Clause 31(3) so that it is read as Assembly Secretary. The only certainty is that it has to be read as "Assembly". While Assembly Secretaries are part of the Assembly, it is doubtful whether they are the same thing as the Assembly. The safest approach is to provide explicitly that Ministers of the Crown and Assembly Secretaries are treated in the same way, so that they are not open for appointment as chairman of the independent body. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hamwee: The noble Baroness's amendment has prompted me to reread Clause 31(3). Can it really be the case that—and only that, which is the implication—the,
  "chairman is independent for the purposes of subsection (2) if he is not"—
  one of the following? Surely, the clause should read:
  "A chairman is not independent if he is"—
  one of the following. I leave the Minister and his advisers with that thought.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Yes, brilliant. It could be expressed in the affirmative, if one wished, but we have done it the other way round. It is probably traditional drafting—I can go no further than that.
  I can give the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, the assurance that Nick Raynsford gave in the other place. Were we obliged to regulate on this issue, we would regulate to ensure that the chairman was genuinely independent and not a Minister of the Crown or the First Secretary in the Welsh Assembly. We would not see those positions as being sufficiently independent to
  GC 406
  fulfil the role of chairman. Apart from that, I doubt whether those people would deem themselves to have the time, but that is a rather secondary issue.
  There are probably other categories of persons who would be unsuitable to take on the role of independent chair, but we do not feel that we can list them all in the Bill. We have come up with some fairly wide categories as it is. I do not believe that we need to say much more than that on the subject, but I can give a categorical assurance on that point. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for having raised the issue so that I can do that.
  One further point that might be worth making is that, rare though the need for it may be, the clause makes the categorical point that the chairman should be independent. For other similar bodies, that language is not used. We have done it for a specific purpose—to stress the importance of the chairman being independent in these matters. I am also advised that we shall have another look at the drafting of the clause, although I believe that we are content with it. We shall certainly have another look.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for his reply. I am reassured, now that it is in Hansard, that there would be no question that a Minister of the Crown or an Assembly Secretary could be appointed as an independent chairman. On that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 112 and 113 not moved.]
  Clause 31 agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 114:
  After Clause 31, insert the following new clause—
  "RETAINED FIREFIGHTERS
  (1) The Secretary of State shall by order, within six months of the coming into effect of any Part of this Act, establish a body to be known as the Advisory Panel on the Recruitment and Retention of Retained Firefighters.
  (2) The body shall be made up of such persons as the Secretary of State shall appoint to include—

  (a) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of fire and rescue authorities or organisations representing fire and rescue authorities;

  (b) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of retained firefighters or organisations representing retained firefighters;

  (c) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of private sector employers or organisations representing private sector employers;

  (d) at least two persons appearing to the Secretary of State to be representatives of public sector employers or organisations representing public sector employers.

  (3) The body shall meet as the Secretary of State shall direct to advise the Secretary of State and fire and rescue authorities on all matters relating to the recruitment and retention of retained duty firefighters."
  The noble Baroness said: The amendment would insert a new clause. It would be the first time, I think, that retained firefighters had been mentioned. It would formally recognise the importance of retained firefighters and of the problems of recruiting and retaining them by establishing an advisory panel for the Secretary of State.
  The point of tabling Amendment No. 114 was to formalise the advisory panel as an ongoing body that would advise the Secretary of State on matters relating to retained firefighters and to formalise the membership of the panel so that it included representatives not only of the fire and rescue authorities and the retained firefighters but of employers from the public and private sectors. That is crucial to allowing the retained force to function effectively. We must underline that: it is by the employer's will that a retained firefighter can do the job. I can appreciate that it may sometimes be difficult for them to be released to do the job, but, as with so much else in the public service, it is fundamentally important that they do.
  According to figures produced by the Chartered Institute of Public Finance and Accountancy, the retained firefighting force throughout the country is about 3,000 firefighters or 20 per cent short of its intended strength. Obviously, it is increasingly difficult to find the kind of people who traditionally have worked as retained firefighters or to establish a situation in which employers will release them to do the job. It is therefore imperative that we act. Retained firefighters are arguably the most cost-effective part of the fire service, and failing to recruit and retain enough of them will not only undermine the modernisation programme but will slow down the harvesting of any financial savings.
  The authorities with the largest number of retained firefighters are, almost invariably, those with the least scope for modernisation savings and the smallest slice of the traditional funding that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has made available. It is worth saying something here that we have said in the past: we owe the retained firefighters a huge debt of gratitude not only for their refusal to strike during the recent industrial action but for the work that they do. I know that the Government support that view.
  On 15 December, in another place, the Parliamentary Under-Secretary announced that there would be a review of issues relating to retained firefighting and the need to recruit more retained firefighters. I understand that a workshop was arranged for the end of April. It was to have involved the review team, other representatives of the fire and rescue service, organisations that rely on volunteers to provide a service, government departments and employers' organisations from the public and private sectors. With the amendment, we are attempting to do what was done in the other place and press the Minister on how far advanced those discussions are. What indication can he give us of the conclusions or likely conclusions?
  I also want an assurance from the Minister of the Government's continued commitment to the retained firefighting service. That commitment would be underscored by the inclusion of the new clause. I beg to move.
  Baroness Maddock: I have a great deal of sympathy with the sentiments behind the new clause proposed by the noble Baroness. However, we must be careful not to be divisive.
  GC 408
  As the noble Baroness said, the White Paper identified problems in many areas with recruiting retained firefighters. It identified some of the reasons: the level of pay; lack of pension; lack of development opportunities; and the lack of recognition sometimes of the contribution that retained firefighters make. In Northumbria—Berwick-upon-Tweed, in particular—all our firefighters are retained. We know locally just what a good job they do, and we are grateful to local employers. There are also many self-employed people in the area who take part.
  The matter was discussed in another place. The Minister gave various reassurances about the importance of the role of retained firefighters and about the way in which they should be treated. As reported at col. 302 of Commons Hansard, he said that retained firefighters should be treated in a way that ensured parity with full-time firefighters. We have had commitments from the Government on that. I hope that as part of that they will embark on the sort of operation that the noble Baroness talked about in connection with this clause. The Government have also given a commitment on another important area: the inclusion of retained firefighters in the negotiating process.
  We strongly support the role of retained firefighters. It is extremely important that the issues that have affected them are righted. It is also important that retained firefighters and full-time firefighters are not separated out and that they are treated in exactly the same way. Although I have sympathy with the reasons behind the amendment, I do not think that it will achieve our objective of good working between both types of firemen.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: I join the noble Baronesses, Lady Hanham and Lady Maddock, in expressing a great debt of gratitude to retained firefighters. We wholeheartedly agree with that sentiment. We appreciate the concerns on the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service, which have prompted this interesting new clause.
  However, the noble Baroness is mistaken in suggesting that a statutory body would be an effective method of tackling the issues. The Committee will recall that the Central Fire Brigades Advisory Council also acted as a statutory consultee for the majority of the Secretary of State's regulation-making powers under the 1947 Act. That body has already been criticised for its increasing inability to provide any strategic direction on the future of the fire and rescue service. For example, the independent review of the fire service led by Sir George Bain concluded in paragraph 3.52 that,
  "The CFBAC and its related advisory boards form a group akin to a national policy forum for the Fire Service. But the council and its advisory boards do not have clearly defined roles; are too big to advise or make decisions effectively; and tend to be bureaucratic. slow and consensus driven".
  Bain recommended a new advisory and consultative structure that would widen engagement with stakeholders and ensure a focus on strategic advice rather than executive functions. I am pleased to tell the Committee that we have already put that new, more

  GC 409
  flexible structure in place. The practitioners' forum and the business and community safety forum are up and running and ensure that both the providers and users of the service can inform the process of modernisation.
  The Committee will be aware that in the White Paper and the draft national framework the Government have recognised the vital contribution of the retained section of the service and have acknowledged the need to find solutions to long-recognised problems of recruitment and retention, as highlighted by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham. That is why Ministers announced on 15 December last that there would be a review of issues affecting the retained section of the service. Under the more flexible arrangements afforded by the new consultative structure, a team has now been formed to take forward this review.
  The review team's key remit is the examination of factors that contribute to the recruitment and retention challenges faced by the retained section of the fire and rescue service. They will include issues of equality and diversity; public awareness; engagement with the business community; deployment; community participation; and role, reward and conditions of service as they relate to recruitment and retention issues.
  The retained review team met for the first time on 21 January. I have before me a list of the organisations represented at the workshop, ranging from central government, fire and rescue organisations, to the business and voluntary sector. I am happy to pass the list to all those who have spoken in this debate. The membership of the review team has been drawn from across the fire and rescue service community, including representatives of local government, the Chief and Assistant Chief Officers Association, the Retained Firefighters Union, the Fire Brigades Union, ODPM and the Scottish Executive Justice Department.
  While the focus of this review will be the fire and rescue services of England and Wales, the Scottish Executive Justice Department's participation has been invited, and we have just heard that it has accepted that invitation. We feel that the issues which the retained review team will be investigating are relevant to the Scottish Fire Service. ODPM is also liaising with the Northern Ireland fire service about the work of the review team.
  Only the key service stakeholder groups will be directly involved in the review team. However, other organisations, including public and private employers' organisations, are involved in helping to identify a range of options for tackling the recruitment and retention challenges. A recent workshop brought a wide variety of such organisations together to develop practical solutions to the challenges.
  The retained review team will submit its report, with recommendations, along with an implementation and communication strategy and programme for delivery, to the practitioners' forum in July. The practitioners' forum comprises the key professional stakeholders in the fire and rescue service. The forum, as the experts on these issues, will be advising us on how we should proceed. Given the scope of the remit of the retained review team, the broad cross-section of the organisations involved, the undertaking to
  GC 410
  report back not only with recommendations but also with a programme for delivery, along with the role of the practitioners' forum in providing support and advice, the amendment moved by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, is unnecessary.
  I am sorry to have responded at such length, but it reflects the importance we attach to retained firefighters. I hope that, with the explanation I have given, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  4 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that detailed response which was extremely helpful and, for the most part, encouraging. My amendment sought to flush out what is happening with regard to the working party, and the Minister has given us a fair amount of detail about it.
  However, perhaps I may press the Minister a little further. If the retained review team is to report to the other organisation about which we have not had so much detail—the practitioners' forum that is to meet in July—is it intended that that will be the end of the role of the retained review team or will it develop into the kind of advisory body that we have talked about?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Whether the review team remains in existence depends largely on what is set out in the report. There may well be a recommendation for the team to remain operative. If that recommendation is right, I am sure that the ODPM will take it very seriously.
  There is no conflict here. We value the work of the retained firefighters, and we want all the issues that have been in the background to be resolved. However, I shall not be able to give the noble Baroness a specific answer until July, when we shall see the recommendations of the working party.
  Baroness Hanham: I am grateful to the Minister for so swift a response. I shall review what the Minister has said before deciding whether to return to this issue at a later stage, but broadly we have been given the assurances we were looking for. For today, I shall withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
  [Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
  Clause 32 [Guidance]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 116:
  Page 15, line 24, leave out subsection (2).
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 32 is concerned with the guidance that the Secretary of State may issue in respect of negotiating bodies. We believe that the intent of Clause 32 goes far beyond the issuing of simple guidance, giving the Secretary of State once again significant interventionist powers. It appears that the Government are trying to have the best of both worlds by not actually involving themselves in the negotiations, as Bain suggested, but retaining the ability to jump in at the first opportunity if they do not like what is happening.
  I read with interest the remarks of the Minister of State in another place in response to these amendments. I have to say that, like so much of what the Minister of State had to say, I was left more than slightly unsatisfied with his reply. I hope, therefore, that the Minister can give us some reassurance today.
  Amendment No. 116 would remove subsection (2) of the clause. It states:
  "Negotiating bodies must have regard to any guidance issued under this [clause]".
  By removing this subsection, the guidance would become just that—guidance; that is, an indication of what the Secretary of State feels is appropriate. No one disagrees with his entitlement to issue such guidance. However, it would be a steer, rather than something to which regard must be paid when the negotiation process is under way.
  Amendment No. 118, which is grouped with Amendment No. 116, would introduce a more objective test of whether a negotiating body is such a body under the terms of the Bill. At the moment, the definition of a negotiating body in subsection (3)(b) places great weight on whether the arrangements under which that body is constituted,
  "appear to the Secretary of State to be appropriate arrangements for the negotiation of the conditions of service of employees".
  The amendment would reduce that to a requirement that the body is constituted for the purpose of negotiation of the conditions of employment of those employees. In other words, it would be a recognition of the de facto situation. If a body is de facto a body representing employees in the negotiating process, it should be recognised as a negotiating body under those provisions. I beg to move.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: If Amendment No. 116 is agreed to, I shall not be able to call Amendment No. 117 by reason of pre-emption.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendments would have two effects. The first would be to remove completely the requirement for negotiating bodies to have regard to the guidance issued by the Secretary of State, and the second to remove the power of the Secretary of State to determine which negotiating bodies are appropriate for him to issue guidance to. I am almost tempted to comment that this is a wrecking amendment because its effect would be to leave the negotiating bodies in a morass of uncertainty. Even the noble Baroness commented that the Government have a legitimate interest—my words—in the outcome of negotiations, and recent history has demonstrated the importance of that interest. So we shall have to reject any attempt to undermine that particular link.
  The power to issue guidance would allow the Government to set out what they think a negotiating body should take into account in its negotiations. A negotiating body would not have to follow to the letter every aspect of the guidance, and a careful reading of Clause 32 shows that it does not require the body to do so. However, it is important that the body considers the guidance carefully and takes it into account in its
  GC 412
  deliberations. There also needs to be clarity on who decides which bodies must have regard to government guidance. There is little point in issuing guidance if we are not clear about the bodies to whom the guidance is addressed.
  It is important to understand why the negotiating body should have regard to government guidance. We have a legitimate interest in the outcome of negotiations. We also have a duty to ensure public safety and to ensure that public funds are used appropriately. We hold the public interest, as government. Negotiating bodies need to take account of the Government's position in their negotiations, and the Bain report emphasised that there needs to be a clear link between Ministers and policy makers and the negotiation structures. The negotiating process itself has in the past suffered from a distinct lack of that clarity.
  I thought that Members of the Committee opposite supported our general approach in that regard, so I am a little surprised that they wish to undermine the impact and import of what we are trying to put in place. The guidance will fulfil the Government's commitment to set the framework for negotiations. That was a point on which, again, I believed that there was a degree of consensus.
  It is not about the Government simply telling the negotiating body what to do. The guidance should, however, be one of the factors that any sensible negotiating body would need to consider during its negotiations. The guidance would allow the Government to set out what they believe the body needs to take into account. It will not be a matter of the guidance telling the body what conclusions it might reach.
  I hope that, now that I have made the Government's position plain, and having emphasised the importance of the link between the governing machinery of our country, the way in which negotiations should be conducted and our desire to give a lead in this field, the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that reply. I hear what he says, but there may be a bit of a lacuna here between knowing what happened in the past and knowing what we want to happen in future. At some stages in the passage of the previous Bill, the Government's intervention was not helpful, whereas it might be on other occasions. I should like to reflect further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 117:
  Page 15, line 24, leave out "must have regard to" and insert "may take into account"
  The noble Baroness said: I had some sympathy with the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, when she said that this clause involved giving the Secretary of State significant interventionist powers. I agree with that—it does. On the other hand, it seems to me that some consideration must be given to the views of the Secretary of State. What we are suggesting is a slightly different wording.
  The present wording in the Bill seems to imply that the guidance must always be acted on, and I am not at all sure that that is reasonable. A negotiating body should not be under instruction to do what the Government say that it must do. My noble friend the Minister will know that throughout the discussion of this Bill and the preceding one, my noble friends and I have been very anxious to maintain the right to free collective bargaining. The present wording, if it remains unamended, tends to frustrate that objective.
  We suggest that, instead of saying that negotiating bodies,
  "must have regard to any guidance",
  we should replace those words with "may take into account". That is more reasonable and much more in line with what we believe the Government themselves are seeking, since we have been repeatedly told in discussion of this Bill and the preceding one that employee and union rights would be fully respected and that the whole principle of free collective bargaining would be honoured and respected. If we amend the wording as we have suggested, that objective is much more likely to be achieved. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I dealt with the issues that the noble Baroness raised while moving the amendment when we considered earlier amendments. I accept that this is a different approach, but my view remains the same. The amendment would water down the clarity of the Bill and would weaken and enfeeble the approach that we are seeking to adopt.
  The guidance will enable the Secretary of State to set out what he believes that the negotiating body should take into account in its negotiations. I would argue that, in the past, the lack of clarity about the situation vis-à-vis negotiating bodies has probably not helped. People need to understand where they are. That said, as I said earlier, we would not expect the negotiating body slavishly to follow every aspect of the guidance, and the clause does not require it to do that. However, it is important that the body has regard to the guidance.
  I do not have much more to add, except to say that we do not necessarily want to restrict the issues that will be covered in the guidance. Certainly, however, important issues should be covered, such as affordability and modernisation of the service. The wording that the noble Baroness has suggested involves issues to which some elements within the negotiating bodies would like less emphasis to be given. We believe those issues to be very important if we are to have the sort of fire and rescue service that the public expect and that public protection demands. I hope that, in that light, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  4.15 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that explanation, although I am rather disappointed that he cannot accept our wording, because I still think that it is more in line with some of the previous assurances that we were given about trade union rights, the rights of free collective bargaining, and so on.
  GC 414
  However, I am not going to press the amendment at this stage. We shall have to consider the issue again on Report because, as the clause stands, it involves negotiating bodies having to do what the Secretary of State says that they must do—even though the Minister has said that it does not mean that negotiating bodies have to follow slavishly whatever the Secretary of State says. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 118 not moved.]
  Clause 32 agreed to.
  Clause 33 [Pensions etc]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 118A:
  Page 16. line 13, at end insert—
  "(ea) provide for the making of payments to the Secretary of State out of a fund to which contributions have been made under the scheme;"
  The noble Lord said: The amendment rectifies a potential gap in the powers to establish arrangements for the funding of fire and rescue service pensions. The White Paper, Our Fire and Rescue Service, said that we would introduce,
  "alternative arrangements for local authority funding of Service pensions, in consultation with the fire and rescue authorities".
  In 2001, a joint Treasury/Home Office/DTLR team reviewed the current finance arrangements for funding police and firefighter pensions. The recommendations of the review have already been accepted by Home Office Ministers. The underlying principle of a scheme along the lines recommended is that the Government would pay the pensions bills and that employers and employees would pay their contributions to the Government to meet future liabilities.
  In practical terms, authorities would pay pensions from a separate pension account to which employers and employees both contribute. Normally, a payment would be made by the Government to the fire and rescue authorities to balance the account at the end of the year. Provision for those payments could he made under Clause 33(2)(e). However, it is possible that an authority's pensions account will be in surplus at the end of the year—in other words, that the contribution that it and its employees make to future liabilities will exceed its existing pensions payments. Therefore, to ensure that the system works in a fair and consistent way, and to protect the national taxpayer and other authorities, we need to ensure that a balancing payment could be made to central government. The new Clause 33(2)(ea) would permit provision to be made for this. I therefore respectfully request noble Lords to accept this amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hanham: I had not caught up with the fact that there were to be new arrangements for the fire service and the police. They were never fully funded pensions; they were funded from income. They have been a great burden on local authorities and on police and fire authorities. I apologise for not having realised that that was the situation; it is my fault and nobody else's.

  GC 415
  The situation now is that everything will be funded by general taxation rather than by council tax or local taxation. Payments will be made by the firefighters into a fund that will be their part of the contribution. With the amendment, an overpayment into that fund can be passed to the Secretary of State as part of the pension arrangements. I am just trying to reassure myself that that is what is being said and that the funding is now in the Government's hands rather than in the hands of local authorities or fire authorities. I am happy to have a written reply on that, if the Minister wishes.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: There are two questions, and I would like to put the answers on record because, if I do not, they might come up again on Report.
  The first question is on whether the amendment will mean that people's pension funds are at risk of pilfering by the Government. I know that that is a rather emotive word. With such a finance arrangement, there would be no pension fund, simply a separate pensions account into which employers and employees contributed. At the end of the year, the account would be made to equal zero. In most cases—I stress that—that will mean a payment to the account by central government, as it is more likely that employee and employer contributions will not be sufficient to meet the pensions awarded in a particular year. In some years and for some authorities—we expect such occasions to be very rare—the pensions account may be in surplus. It would be right and proper to protect the national taxpayer by returning the funds to central government for use elsewhere.
  In answer to the specific question, I must say that it is not the case that the fund will be funded from central taxation. It will be a mix of council tax and government grants, as at present. I realise that that is an outline reply. If the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, would like a more detailed reply, I would be happy to let her have it before Report.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: Does what we have just been told mean that the taxpayer, so to speak, will stand behind the pension promises made to the employees involved?
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Yes. I can confirm that that is the case.
  Baroness Hanham: I would be happy to be directed to wherever the decisions have been made on the new pension scheme. If anyone could take the time to write out for me the detail of how it will work, I would be enormously grateful.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 119:
  Page 16, line 14, leave out paragraph (f).
  The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment. It merely seeks to remove the power that paragraph (f) would give, empowering the Secretary of
  GC 416
  State to intervene in the list of the scheme of pensions. The paragraph is suspiciously vague, as it allows the Secretary of State to substitute,
  "for any purpose of the scheme".
  Perhaps the Minister would enlighten us as to what circumstances he envisages encouraging the Secretary of State to make use of the powers under paragraph (f). I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The noble Baroness has read too much into the paragraph. It is more benign than she imagines. The amendment would have some unfortunate consequences. Clause 33(2)(f) enables any pension scheme made under the clause to make provision for persons who have been employed by a fire and rescue authority and transfer to central service to remain members of the pension scheme with the same benefits. That is what the clause does. It replicates Section 26(2)(d) of the Fire Services Act 1947, which over the years has enabled the Firemen's Pensions Scheme Order 1992 to make provision relating to the pension arrangements for persons employed on central service—for example, as a member of Her Majesty's Fire Service Inspectorate, or at the Fire Service College.
  If any members of the firefighters' pension scheme could not remain members of the scheme while in the employment of the Secretary of State, it would make being part of the central service somewhat less attractive, and it might well deprive central government—important bodies such as the inspectorate or the Fire Service College—of good-quality candidates for their posts. That is what the clause does, and that is its origin. I hope that that helps the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment. I assure her that there really is no sinister import.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that explanation. One has some justification for seeing the matter as much wider than the Minister detailed, as one could substitute the Secretary of State "for any purpose" on the scheme. The Minister's reply left it as being a rather limited intervention, which does not seem to be borne out by the clause. I hear what the Minister has to say. I will think about this further. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 119ZA:
  Page 16, line 31, leave out paragraph (k).
  The noble Baroness said: This amendment removes paragraph (k), which provides that a scheme can exclude or modify rights to compensation or damages. It is a probing amendment. Perhaps the Committee could be told a little more about how compensation would be taken into account. Does this paragraph mean that all compensation or damages might be excluded? I understand that there might be arguments, but I do not think that they would completely answer the case, as firefighters contributing to the scheme will be contributing to compensation. I am unclear about how the pension

  GC 417
  scheme may inter-relate with provisions for compensation or damages. I would be interested to hear how this is expected to operate. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I respect that this is a probing amendment, trying to understand better how the scheme works. As I understand it, it would remove a provision that protects public funds from paying separate benefits to a person for the same injury. Paragraph (k) replicates provision in the Fire Services Act 1947, and one would probably say that it has been accepted as fair and reasonable in the past. It would be helpful if I explained in some detail the purpose of the provision by reference to current practice under the firefighters' pension scheme 1992.
  4.30 p.m.
  I can assure Members of the Committee that pensions are protected. It is accepted that a member of any pension scheme who has paid contributions is entitled to any pension that may come into payment. Pensions are deferred pay. There are very limited circumstances in which a pension may be reduced in connection with a conviction for a criminal offence when, for example, the pensioner has committed the offence in connection with his service as a firefighter.
  However, Clause 33 provides not only for pensions but also for the payment of other benefits, either as part of the pension scheme or in separate schemes. Those benefits are usually related to death or injuries that occur in the course of duty. At present, the firefighters' pension scheme provides for the payment of death and injury benefits, which allow a fire and rescue authority to pay compensation for injuries received in the execution of duty—what is called a qualifying injury. The person is entitled to that, and the fire and rescue authority must be satisfied only that the injury occurred as a result of duty: no element of fault on the part of the authority or its employees must be proved. The injury award is calculated on the basis of loss of earnings capacity.
  However, if the person injured is also entitled to some other benefit, such as incapacity benefit from the Department for Work and Pensions, the fire and rescue authority may reduce the injury benefit payable under the pension scheme by an equivalent amount. That ensures that the state is protected against double payment.
  At present, a firefighter is also entitled under his/her conditions of service to compensation payments for death and serious injury as a result of an accident on duty. That compensation is no-fault and negligence does not have to be proved. We intend as part of our modernisation of the pension and death and injury arrangements to bring the pension and conditions of service compensation payments together in a separate death and injury scheme, which will be made under Clause 33 powers. The conditions of service provisions provide for any compensation to be abated by any damages or compensation which the employee or his dependants may receive. Thus if a person successfully pursues a civil claim against a fire and rescue authority or a property owner, or receives criminal injuries
  GC 418
  compensation in relation to the same incident, benefits will be reduced accordingly. Any death and injury scheme that we bring forward will be subject to consultation under subsection (5).
  I hope that Members of the Committee will recognise that paragraph (k) is designed, not to enable members of any pension or other scheme to be disadvantaged, but to ensure that there is an appropriate, fair and balanced provision that protects a fire and rescue authority. I hope that, having heard my explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: That is helpful. One of my concerns was that an injured firefighter might not be able to make a claim because the scheme covers the situation, when he or she would have been paying for the benefit under the scheme. My concern was that such firefighters would have been excluded from claiming outside the scheme or would have to pay in part for their own compensation.
  The Minister's remarks on consultation were helpful. Did I understand him to say that, in bringing together the different elements of the scheme, this would not be operated until the new arrangements were put in place?
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: That is the case.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. That gives people who understand the situation better than I do the opportunity to talk about it before the provision comes into effect. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 119A:
  Page 16, line 35, at end insert—
  "( ) The Secretary of State shall provide a separate flexible pension scheme for firefighters employed on the retained duty system within six months of the enactment of this Bill."
  The noble Baroness said: We have tabled Amendment No. 119A more or less in the same terms as one put forward by the honourable Member for Teignbridge in another place, to again try to press the Government on their intentions for pensions provision for the fire service, in particular retained firefighters.
  The amendment would compel the Secretary of State to provide a pension scheme for retained firefighters within six months of enactment of the Bill. Retained firefighters should have access to a pension scheme in the same way as other employees of a fire and rescue authority. Retained firefighters have been excluded from the current arrangements, although they benefit from the ill health and injury provisions if they are injured while carrying out their duties.
  When the Minister talked about the review team I think he said that pensions would be included in that review. If he said so, I would be grateful if he could confirm it once more. If he did not, can he tell us whether the Government are committed to making

  GC 419
  proper pension arrangements for retained firefighters? If he could expand on the issue, I would be grateful. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: We are agreed that retained firefighters should have access to a pension scheme in the same way as other employees of a fire and rescue authority. They have been excluded from the current arrangements, although they benefit from the ill health and injury provisions if injured in the course of firefighting duties.
  We believe that retained firefighters should be regarded as part-time employees and should receive the same benefits as those part-time firefighters who work regular hours. That means that we should seek to ensure that they are members of the same pension scheme as other firefighters, whether full or part-time. We indicated that in the note on the regulation-making powers in Clauses 33 and 35 and which we provided for the information of the Committee. In it we said that,
  "we expect that the new scheme will be suitable for regular and retained firefighters alike".
  We will publish for consultation our proposals for new pension arrangements for firefighters later this year. Those proposals will cover the arrangements available for the retained firefighters.
  For the sake of clarity, and going back to the previous amendment, I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, that it is important to stress that Clause 33(2)(a) to (1) sets out the options for how the new scheme would work. Obviously there will be a period of consultation before the way ahead is mapped out. Given that reassurance, which I hope is fairly watertight, I respectfully ask the noble Baroness to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hanham: I am grateful for that clarification, which is about as clear as it could be. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Clause 34 [Information in connection with pensions etc]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 119B:
  Page 17, line 24, at beginning insert "with the consent of the individual concerned"
  The noble Baroness said: In Clause 34(1), a fire and rescue authority is enabled to provide information in connection with questions set out in subsection (2), which are ones about an individual. That is in the "prescribed circumstances" set out in subsection (1). We do not know what those circumstances may be. It is a matter of principle that disclosure of personal information should normally require consent, which is the thrust of my amendment.
  Subsection (2) deals with questions relating to the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000. Having looked at the relevant section, I cannot say that I am hugely the wiser. I rather expected not to be, given the legislation concerned. There may be something particular about the financial services regulations
  GC 420
  involved; nevertheless, I would be grateful if we could hear from the Minister how the provisions are to operate and whether information about an individual might be given without consent as the clause stands. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I understand where the noble Baroness is coming from on the amendment. As a general rule, it has to be right that consent must be given. However, the amendment is unnecessary. The clause is designed to deal with the problem of mis-selling of pension provision. If a firefighter were persuaded to opt out of the firefighters' pension scheme and subsequently realised that he had been misled by the potential benefits of the alternative purchased scheme, he would be entitled to seek redress.
  Action would be initiated by the firefighter, and Clause 34 enables the fire and rescue authority employing him to provide the necessary information for the compensation to be calculated. Once the calculation has been completed, the firefighter's position in the firefighters' pension scheme is restored to what it would have been had he not opted out.
  The amendment is not required to achieve what it seeks because the claim can proceed only by consent. I hope that the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: The claim for mis-selling will obviously proceed only if the firefighter decides to proceed with it. Is that not the same as someone in any employment, where the sanction for not saying to the employer, "Yes, you can hand over information", is that the matter will not get very far? I am not immediately persuaded that this example is any different. As the Minister accepts, there are points of principle here. However, I am clearly not going to pursue the matter today. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Clause 35 agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clause 36 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: The provisions here are very curious. I am speaking on Clause 36 stand part to flush out from the Government what lies behind them. The clause deals with the prohibition of employment of police officers as firefighters or support staff by fire and rescue authorities. That piece of legislation was repealed once before by the 1958 amendment to the 1947 Act, giving fire authorities the opportunity to appoint police officers to those roles.
  We see very little justification why that rather draconian clause should stand part of the Bill. The White Paper sets out a vision for the fire service that is flexible, effective and diverse. It recognises that retained firefighters currently comprise 30 per cent of the total workforce and are in control of 60 per cent of the appliances at any one time. The clause would again hit the retained service. As we have already discussed, there are severe problems associated with the recruitment and

  GC 421
  retention of retained firefighters. Surely we should do everything that we can to maintain that aspect of the service.
  There appears to be some variance with Clause 36, which would automatically exclude one group of skilled professionals from employment as retained firefighters. Using Nottinghamshire as an example, there are currently four serving police officers employed by the fire authority in a retained capacity. Plainly they cannot do so while they are acting as police officers, but they are presumably given leave to act in a retained capacity. If the Bill is passed as the Government intend, these people would have to be dismissed, with a resulting drop in the availability of cover and the denial of a valuable service to the public. It would of course affect other authorities which currently employ police officers.
  4.45 p.m.
  The clause will have a direct and immediate impact on emergency and service provision. As I understand it, there have been no examples of any conflict of interest caused by this professional relationship. I hope that the Minister will be able to persuade the Committee of the value of the clause. If he cannot persuade us, perhaps he will rethink the Government's determination that this clause should stand part of the Bill.
  Baroness Hamwee: In the Commons, the Minister said that a member of a police force was someone attested as a constable. The discussion then was about special constables. Can the Minister say whether community support officers are members of police forces for the purpose of this clause? Life has moved on, perhaps, since the Government first began to draft the Bill.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: It is worth noting that Clause 36 simply re-enacts Section 32 of the Fire Services Act 1947 in providing that no member of a police force may be employed as a firefighter. We have checked on the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, about the repeals of 1958 and it is not our advice that the provision was repealed then; that is not our understanding of the situation at all. I appreciate that the noble Baroness is referring to the case in Nottingham, of which we are aware. However, we believe that she has been misadvised.
  We think that there could be a conflict of roles at an incident if an off-duty police constable were employed as a retained or part-time firefighter; there might be confusion over which employer had the primary claim on the officer's services. It should be remembered that an off-duty police constable is expected to assume police duties in the event of witnessing the commission of a crime or a threat to public order. This means that if a member of a police force were able to become a retained or part-time firefighter there would always be the possibility of a conflict between his duties as a police officer, on the one hand, and his duties as a firefighter, on the other.
  GC 422
  In the other place it was suggested that the provision would exclude the possibility of a fire authority from entering into a contract arrangement with the local police force to discharge some, or perhaps all, of its road traffic authority duties. I want to make it clear that that is not our intention. The prohibition is on employment as a member of the fire and rescue service. The provision is not intended to prohibit a police constable taking secondary employment.
  I take the point about the shortage of retained firefighters but, given the small numbers affected by this provision in, say, Nottinghamshire, we do not feel it is a major issue in the terms suggested by the noble Baroness.
  I reiterate that there could be confusion at times of emergency over which employer had primacy and an ultimate claim on an officer's services. It is worth remembering that retained firefighters can be called out at no notice and that there could therefore be an impact on their ability to perform their next shift of police duty; the one could overlap with the other. The responsibility to provide for medical retirement and ill-health pensions may not be clarified or clearly understood, and the police service may have to cope with the consequence of long-term absence from duty if an officer were injured while employed as a firefighter. There are difficulties. The boundaries between the two jobs require that clarity. That is one of the reasons that the provision was included.
  In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, community support officers are not attested in the same way as police constables and so the prohibition does not apply to them. I am grateful to her for raising that useful point.
  Baroness Hanham: I thank the Minister for that short reply. It is our understanding that that aspect of the legislation was repealed by the 1958 amendments, but we need to check that before returning to it. I think that we will return to the matter at a later stage because, although I understand what the Minister says about potential conflicts of interest, we all operate in many walks of life and must understand which hat we are wearing at any given moment. We are talking about only the retained section of the fire service. If police officers were acting as retained firefighters it would have to be abundantly clear that that is what they were doing and by whom they were employed. If there were a conflict of interests, I have no doubt that the police force would not permit them to go. On the other hand, there may be times when off-duty police officers taking part in the retained force would be enormously valuable.
  Such a conflict of interests might not be as sharp between other employees, but it is not far removed from other areas where there are difficulties with pensions and insurance provision.
  The matter needs to remain open to discussion. I hear what the Minister says. We are likely to return to the matter.
  Clause 36 agreed to.
  Clause 37 [Duty to secure water supply etc]:
  Baroness Hanham Baroness Hanham moved Amendment No. 120:
  Page 18, line 37, leave out "(but must pay reasonable compensation for the water)"
  The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 120, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 122, 123 and 124. Their purpose is to remove the burden of cost from fire authorities to water suppliers for the maintenance and decommissioning of fire hydrants where others have caused damage through vandalism or improper use.
  Although water providers are required to install hydrants at the request of fire authorities, the cost of installation, maintenance and decommissioning falls on the fire authority. We are concerned that the cost of maintenance and decommissioning places a large financial burden purely on the fire service despite other users causing damage, either through vandalism or improper use, and the call to decommission fire hydrants coming from the Government in the form of Defra.
  Operational crews have traditionally spent a significant amount of time on fire hydrant inspections. In rural areas, that has meant real costs where retained crews are paid to carry out that work. In full-time areas, the costs are notional, but the real effect is the reduction in time left to carry out other tasks such as fire prevention work.
  Let me illustrate the point. Dorset is a medium-sized brigade with a fire hydrant stock of around 13,000 hydrants. It decided at the start of the last financial year to employ hydrant technicians. The total cost of such a provision, together with administrative costs and the budget for repair and maintenance, is around £125,000 a year. If that figure were then used pro-rata across the 49 brigades in England and Wales, we would be looking at a total cost of around £10 million a year.
  The savings could also be redistributed to pay for preventive measures to support the greater fire safety role of the fire service proposed in the bill. It would also allow crews who used to inspect fire hydrants to devote more time to community fire safety work.
  Such a move would provide transparency of the complete costs of water to rate payers. Ofwat could monitor costs on maintaining fire hydrants to ensure consistency and that communities were not overcharged.
  Amendment No. 120 would remove the burden on a fire authority to pay for the water used in an emergency. That seems a strange situation, and it raises the undignified spectre of the lead fire officer on an appliance carrying his credit card around in case he is called to a fire.
  Amendment No. 121 is a drafting amendment, designed to tighten up the language in the clause by making it clear who is entering into an agreement. Amendments Nos. 122, 123 and 124 are the key amendments that address the issue that I have spoken to and would remove from the fire authority the
  GC 424
  burden of funding the installation, inspection, maintenance and decommissioning of fire hydrants. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Baroness for explaining the thinking behind her amendment and for the Dorset example. As I understand it, the amendment would remove from Clauses 37 and 38 the requirement on a fire and rescue authority to pay for the supply of water for firefighting purposes, except where the provision of free access, as defined by Section 147 of the Water Industry Act 1991, would apply.
  The provisions replicate the statutory position under Section 14 of the Fire Services Act 1947. Removing them would not enable fire and rescue authorities to have free access to water. The purpose of the provision is to require an authority to pay where necessary. Free water from water undertakers is already provided by Section 147 of the Water Industry Act 1991, to which Clauses 37 and 38 refer.
  It is interesting that the noble Baroness should have raised the matter. I recall the legislation being passed in 1991, on her party's watch. There was concern then that the fire and rescue authorities would end up paying for water, where they previously had not. That idea was properly dispelled at the time by the government, who ensured that there was free water.
  Section 147 provides that no charge may be made by any water undertaker in respect of water taken for the purpose of extinguishing fires or for any other emergency purpose; for the testing of apparatus or equipment used for extinguishing fires or for training for firefighting; or for making water available for such purposes. Clause 37(2), however, requires a fire and rescue authority to pay for water obtained from a person other than a water undertaker with whom an authority may enter into an agreement under Clause 40. The exclusions set out in Section 147 of the Water Industry Act 1991 still apply.
  Amendment No. 120 would have the unfortunate consequence of making it unclear whether any agreement that a fire and rescue authority may enter into under Clause 40—namely, to secure the supply of water under the control of a person other than a water undertaker—could provide for the payment of compensation. The present statutory arrangements work well, and we see no need to change them.
  Amendment No. 124 would remove the requirement that expenses incurred by water undertakers in marking the location of a fire hydrant with a notice or distinguishing mark should be paid for by a fire and rescue authority. Water undertakers are obliged by Section 57 of the Water Industry Act 1991 to fix fire hydrants at convenient places at the request of fire and rescue authorities, and, under subsection (5), an authority is required to pay the expenses incurred by an undertaker in installing and maintaining the fire hydrants. It would, therefore, be inconsistent for the water undertaker to carry the cost of marking the location of such hydrants. The noble Baroness explained the mathematics. Although any saving for fire and rescue authorities might be welcome, the

  GC 425
  balance of responsibilities has been properly struck. I doubt that the water industry would gratefully receive extra burdens on their business.
  I shall be interested to hear what the noble Baroness says in response. I hope that, having heard what I said, she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Hanham: I should like to consider the Minister's response. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 120A
  Page 18, line 37, at end insert—
  "( ) A fire and rescue authority must take all reasonable measures to ensure that it is provided with equipment suitable to make use of supplies of water available in the circumstances in which it may operate."
  The noble Baroness said: The Minister may wonder where this has come from; it is based entirely on my own experience. The amendment is not very elegant, but it would ensure that an authority must,
  "take reasonable measures to ensure that it is provided with equipment suitable to make use of supplies of water available".
  Some years ago I was in Scotland for New Year's Eve. We had planned to go out to dinner at a hotel on the edge of a loch. As we were driving towards the hotel we saw a glow in the sky. As we got closer, the glow was that of an hotel going up in flames. However, we had booked at the hotel next door, so we did have our dinner, if somewhat later than planned. However, what was unnerving was the fact that the fire appliance was fitted with a hose to enable it to take water from the loch, but it was not long enough and could not reach the water.
  Obviously I am talking about a remote location and about an incident that would not occur very often. However, it made one wonder how that situation had come about. I look forward to any comments the Minister may wish to make. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As we have heard, this amendment is concerned that fire and rescue authorities, having secured an adequate supply of water, also secure the equipment needed to use it for fighting fires or for their other duties.
  Clauses 7 and 8, which deal with firefighting and road traffic accidents, already state that an authority must secure the provision of the equipment necessary efficiently to meet all normal requirements. A hose that can reach from a loch to the nearest building would be a normal requirement. Any order under Clause 9 may also require an authority to secure the provision of the appropriate equipment.
  I can therefore reassure the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, that the provision of equipment to utilise a water supply is already covered by other clauses in the Bill, and hence the amendment is unnecessary. However, perhaps I may cite an example that is not a million miles away from the experience of the noble Baroness. Let us take the case of a fire and rescue
  GC 426
  authority covering a remote area with extensive moorland or forest. It may require the use of helicopters or other specialist equipment to transport water. Would that authority have the power to acquire such equipment?
  It is the responsibility of the fire and rescue authority to make an assessment of the equipment required to meet all normal requirements for extinguishing fires in its area and protecting life and property in the event of fires breaking out. If the authority believes that it may need specialist equipment, it must make arrangements for it to be available either on a permanent basis or as the need arises.
  I hope that, with my explanation, the noble Baroness will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: I had hoped that I was going to be told that this was covered elsewhere in the Bill. The term "power" has just been used, but we are talking here about more than a power, we are referring to a duty. That is the language used in Part 2. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 121 and 122 not moved.]
  Clause 37 agreed to.
  Clause 38 [Supply of water by water undertakers]:
  [Amendment No. 123 not moved.]
  Clause 38 agreed to.
  Clauses 39 and 40 agreed to.
  Clause 41 [Fire hydrants]:
  [Amendment No. 124 not moved.]
  Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 125:
  Page 20, line 12, after "authority" insert "authorised by an agreement made under section 38"
  The noble Lord said: This amendment would amend subsection (6) dealing with the circumstances in which a hydrant is permitted to be used other than for the purposes of firefighting. Hydrants are used primarily for firefighting, but they can be used for other purposes such as in construction works or by local authorities.
  Water undertakers are commercial businesses. If they enter into arrangements with people who want to use their water supplies, they should make a commercial charge for allowing them to do so. There is no problem with that. However, subsection (6) limits the offence to anyone taking water from a fire hydrant other than,
  "(a) for the purposes of fire-fighting or for any other purposes of a fire and rescue authority, or
  (b) for any purpose authorised by the water undertaker or other person to whom the hydrant belongs".
  Therefore the Bill seems to create a gap. Fire and rescue authorities can take water without agreement or consent for firefighting purposes, as has always been the case, while others can take water for any purpose that has been agreed with the statutory undertaker or the owner of the fire hydrant. However, the subsection

  GC 427
  creates a situation in which a fire and rescue authority can take water by right for any purpose, such as filling someone's swimming pool, so there is an anomaly.
  At present, a fire and rescue authority would be able to take water without paying for it. That could give the authority a commercial advantage over other suppliers. This amendment would remedy that by limiting the right of a fire and rescue authority to take a supply of water for purposes other than firefighting to circumstances in which it had entered into an agreement with the water undertaker under Clause 38. I welcome the Minister's thoughts on this issue. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: This amendment to Clause 41(6), which itself criminalises the use of a fire hydrant other than for firefighting or other authority purposes, would have the effect of requiring any agreement between a fire and rescue authority and a water undertaker under Clause 38 to specify the purposes other than firefighting for which a hydrant may be used.
  The authority would have no authority under Clause 38 to secure water for other purposes and no agreement could go further. If an authority wished to use water from a hydrant for purposes other than firefighting, it would require the consent of the water undertaker and would have to pay for the water in the same way as any other licensed user of a hydrant.
  I understand that some honourable Members in another place were concerned about the anomaly of firefighters using hydrants to fill ornamental lakes or swimming pools. Such activities are not part of the statutory functions of a fire and rescue authority and I do not imagine that it is usual for firefighters to spend time on such activities. If they did, however, it could be done only with the authority of the water undertaker or other person to whom the hydrant might belong, and a charge could be made for the water.
  We do not think that there is an anomaly here. I am grateful to the noble Lord for pursuing the point, but we believe that any mischief that might arise is adequately covered.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for those comments, although I do not think that they totally clarify the situation. If the Minister recognises that there is an anomaly, then it is clear that we do not want one to be there. Firefighters have been known to do things without necessarily securing a triple authorisation. Circumstances could arise where water might be used for the wrong purposes.
  I shall look at the response given by the Minister and we shall consider whether we want to return to this further along the road. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 41 agreed to
  Clause 42 agreed to.
  Clause 43 [Powers of fire-fighters etc in an emergency etc]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 126:
  Page 21. line 2, at end insert—
  "( ) if he reasonably believes a fire to be about to break out, for the purpose of preventing the fire or protecting life or property:"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 43 deals with the powers of firefighters in an emergency. Amendment No. 126 is intended to provide an essential extension to the powers proposed in the Bill. It would enable firefighters to deal with a situation in which a fire was about to break out.
  Powers are provided in the Bill for a firefighter to,
  "do anything he reasonably believes to be necessary—
  (a) if he reasonably believes a fire to have broken out, for the purpose of extinguishing the fire or protecting life or property".
  There are similar provisions in relation to road traffic accidents and other emergencies. Subsection (1)(d) refers to acting,
  "for the purpose of preventing or limiting damage to property resulting from action taken as mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) or (c)".
  However, what is not provided for in the case that I have mind is breaking into premises to prevent the outbreak of a fire. In the other place, the Minister for Local and Regional Government expressed a sympathetic disposition towards the principle behind Amendment No. 126 when it was tabled there. He said:
  "we are prepared to be convinced by stronger evidence and I would welcome any further operational examples of how the existing powers may be insufficient to enable firefighters to deal with a threat of fire. If such evidence is provided and proves to be robust, I would be more than happy to explore the issue further with a view to amending the Bill to accommodate the wish behind [the amendment)".—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee G, 2/3/04: col. 355.]
  I accept that the example in which a firefighter becomes aware that a gas leak has occurred on some premises and that there is also a source of a naked flame, and that he or she needs to break in to do something about it, is not a particularly compelling illustration of the work that firefighters carry out in the 21st century. But, in order to try to persuade the Government on this, I have been in touch with representatives of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association, who have told me that they would like to see the amendment adopted.
  They say that it is often vital to enter neighbouring premises to those in which a fire has occurred in order to ensure that the fire is not spreading. A fire may spread via a common roof void, chimneybreast or other opening in a party wall. These "holes" are more common in old buildings and often pipe work going through a wall is a source of the hole, particularly if it is not fire-stopped properly. The pipes may also transmit the heat and ignite combustible material on the other side.
  In the example that I have been given courtesy of the chief fire officer of my own Essex Fire Authority, he recalls attending a fire on Canvey Island at an industrial unit, where the burning building had a metal roof. The roof became so hot that it ignited roof insulation material

  GC 429
  in a neighbouring unit, which fell burning onto combustible goods, starting another fire. He needed entry to every unit in the block urgently hut, as it was a Sunday, there were no key holders present. Fire authorities would need power of entry in such cases, and it would be absurd if in similar situations firefighters had to wait outside until they first saw the fire before breaking into the premises and dealing with the situation. That would not be in anyone's interests.
  The Essex Fire Authority chief fire officer has also indicated to me that people passing a property and who hear a smoke or fire alarm sounding often call the fire service. The firefighters attend and no one answers the door—they may be out or they have been overcome by smoke and are unconscious—but. because the firefighters cannot see the smoke or the fire, should they wait until they can?
  The power sought by Amendment No. 126 is essential; if it does not exist, firefighters must have it. We must avoid putting firefighters in a situation in which they have to stand by and watch something disastrous happen or act outside the law. But that is what could happen under the Bill as currently drafted. Fire authorities have told us that they need this power and that its absence is a gap in the panoply of powers that Clause 43 confers on them.
  Representatives of fire authorities have told me that Clause 43 is a good codification of their powers but that they need to be able to take preventive action as well. The amendment is needed to provide a robust means of preventing a legal challenge to the actions of the fire service in circumstances that would logically require a legitimate and proactive intervention to prevent harm to life or damage to property. This falls in well with the whole thrust of the Bill—prevention and acting before fires occur as opposed to regarding the fire service simply as an organisation that extinguishes fires and deals with the after-effects of a disaster.
  I recognise that those who drafted the legislation were perhaps a little concerned that this might be too wide a power and could be used injudiciously. Clearly one expects the fire services to use such a power judiciously.
  Amendment No. 127 deals with a slightly different point in relation to subsection (1)(c). That subsection gives powers to firefighters in case of an emergency of another kind in respect of which functions have been conferred on the fire and rescue authority. It is called a "Section 9 emergency", in respect of which the Secretary of State has conferred functions on the authority. The powers given under subsection (1)(c) are,
  "for the purpose of discharging any function conferred on the fire and rescue authority in relation to the emergency".
  So unless the conferring of a function specifically includes the function of protecting life and property, that power could not be exercised under the provisions of that subsection to protect life and property.
  The Minister may envisage that every function that he confers under Clause 9 will include the specific function of protecting life and property. The amendment would make that a general provision, so that whatever the function established under Clause 9, be it a function of preventing, of rescuing people from flooding, or cleaning up the aftereffects of nuclear or chemical contamination, there would always be an overarching reference to the function of protecting life and property. It would authorise a member of a fire and rescue authority in the way envisaged in the clause and return the focus to the principal purpose that a fire and rescue authority and its employees must have in mind—protecting life and property. I hope that the Minister accepts that the amendment focuses on that prime responsibility.
  Finally, Amendment No. 128 is a probing amendment designed to elicit from the Government whether power conferred on fire authorities in subsection (1)(c) would allow them to deal effectively and proactively with a flooding emergency. For example, would they be able to break into flooded premises to prevent the flooding of a neighbouring premises? I beg to move.
  5.15 p.m.
  Baroness Hamwee: When this issue was debated in Committee in the Commons, the Minister said that there may be circumstances in which it was thought that there was a risk of fire but it would be more effective for other emergency services to effect an entry. He went on to say that the police had such powers in certain cases. Had he not gone on to that second sentence, this reader at least might have felt a little more reassured. Could we be told in what cases the police do not have the relevant powers?
  Will the Minister confirm, too, that action can he taken in respect of another property, and that the fire does not have to be in the property in question? That is how I read the Bill. The employee,
  "may do anything he reasonably believes to be necessary",
  if he believes a fire to have broken out,
  "for the purpose of … protecting life or property".
  Surely, that must extend to other situations. For example, someone living in a neighbouring property might know of someone who is disabled, who would have difficulty getting out and is endangered by a fire next door. Will the Minister confirm that the Bill is as I read it?
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I listened with great attention to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, who is clearly quoting from the extensive briefing that I received from the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association. It is a very impressive briefing; clearly, these people know what they are talking about and clearly they are anxious to protect their members from any legal challenge when they are attempting to act to prevent fires breaking out. I would therefore like to hear from the Minister that the matter has been given serious consideration, because it is very important.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: My colleague in another place was right to express some sympathy for this

  GC 431
  amendment. Obviously, one wants to err on the side of caution in these instances. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield, for bringing us his Essex example. There has been some reflection on this matter since the Committee stage in another place, but we do not feel that the amendment as it is, is required. I felt reasonably reassured by studying the words in Clause 43 and, in part, by listening to what the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, had to say about it.
  I understand the concern that firefighters should have the powers necessary to deal with emergencies, but, as a bottom line, we believe that Clause 43 gives them sufficient powers to deal with pretty much any eventuality that can be thought of—whether it be a fire, a road traffic accident or another emergency—or when there is a reasonable belief that such an event has occurred. The words "reasonable belief" are important in the clause.
  We are aware, because the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association has made us aware, of some concerns that the association has about the need to have a power to enter premises by force, if necessary—
  Lord Hanningfield: The association has its own legal advice, of course. It is not only the chief fire officers who are coming up with this; legal advice that has been given to them expresses doubts about the matter. That is why I hoped that the Government might be able to strengthen the wording, or do something at least in that regard. One does not want any doubt at all, as I believe all Members of the Committee agree. If the association's legal advisers have expressed doubt, there must be something to worry about.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Sure, that is a fair point. However, we do not have any doubt. I thought that the example that the noble Lord gave of a situation in Canvey was not persuasive, because I cannot see in those circumstances why the fire officers felt that they did not have sufficient powers to act. Clearly, they had reasonable belief and there was a threat to property and life. I cannot really see that they did not have a power to make a direct intervention, in those circumstances.
  We are not unsympathetic, but what the amendment proposes would be a substantial extension of powers of entry for firefighters, and we remain to be convinced that the power is needed. We believe that the clause covers the eventualities such as described by the noble Lord. Although the briefing is interesting, we do not believe that a robust case has been made or has been sufficiently persuasive. However, it is always right to reflect some more on such matters.
  Amendment No. 127 would add the words,
  "and for the purpose of protecting life and property",
  to Clause 43(1)(c), which deals with the powers of firefighters to deal with emergencies, other than fires or road traffic accidents. Amendment No. 128 would add a new subsection to deal with the danger of flooded premises threatening other properties.
  GC 432
  The powers in Clause 43(1) are limited to those necessary for fire and rescue authorities to be able to discharge their duties under Clauses 7, 8 and 9, and we do not believe that it would not be appropriate to go further. Thus paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1) follow the wording of the duties imposed by Clauses 7 and 8. Subsection (1)(c) limits the emergency powers to the function imposed by Clause 9. The nature of the duty imposed will determine whether it is appropriate to empower firefighters to do anything that they reasonably believe to be necessary to protect life and property. Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 would not appear to be necessary or appropriate for the type of emergency envisaged by the provisions, and paragraph (c) should provide sufficient powers. We are not aware of any difficulties in the past with the way in which the earlier legislation worked.
  I can take an example of a situation in which a firefighter would have sufficient powers to break into a house or flat—if the householder had been locked out and was concerned that a pan of cooking oil was heating on a cooker. That is a reasonable example, because it is a fairly common cause of domestic fire. In those circumstances, yes, the householder, or any person acting on the householder's behalf, would be able to authorise the firefighter to enter the premises. We genuinely feel that we have more than adequate powers to cover any case of that sort.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, raised the question of police powers. Our understanding is that the police have broad powers to protect life and limb under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984, but perhaps we should check to confirm that that is the case. Having some familiarity with the matter, that is at least my understanding of it.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for raising this important issue. However, we think that we have adequate powers, and that chief officers will be able to act in the circumstances that the noble Lord has described.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his response. I will reflect on what he has said and consult the chief fire officers' organisations, because they expressed doubts about the matter.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Perhaps, in doing so, the noble Lord could ask them to bring forward examples of where they have been unable to take action and have simply had to stand there. If that had happened, we would be much more persuaded. But we are not aware of any circumstances having arisen that fall into that category.
  Lord Hanningfield: Chief fire officers fear that the Bill's provisions in this regard might be weaker than the current powers. That is one of the big issues that must be considered. In the light of this debate, we will discuss the matter with those concerned. I am sure that the Minister will talk to his advisers about it. I hope that the Government reflect on the issue, and I am sure that we will return to it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 128A:
  Page 21, line 17, at end insert—
  "( ) An employee may be authorised for the purposes of subsection (1) by means of a general authorisation relating to any or all of the circumstances the subject of subsection (1) and may be contained in the employee's terms of employment."
  The noble Baroness said: This is a probing amendment. Clause 43(1) refers to an employee authorised in writing. I am sure that that cannot be on a case-by-case basis; it simply would not work that way. My amendment, which would provide for general authorisation that could be contained in a contract of employment or in the terms of employment, is designed to obtain that assurance. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: Amendment No. 128A seeks clarification of the form that authorisation would take under subsection (1). We have deliberately not been specific about the form of any authorisation. What any employee may be permitted to do at an emergency incident will depend on their role, the competences that they have gained through training and experience, and any specialist skills they may have developed.
  With certain functions that authorisation may be contained in a fire and rescue authority's standard terms and conditions of appointment or in a letter of appointment. However, as a person may acquire additional competences through training and experience which may be specifically designed to qualify them to take on new tasks at an incident, it would be necessary for the authority to issue additional written authorisation.
  I hope that Members of the Committee will accept our need to be as flexible as possible about the form of any authorisation. I hope that the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, having heard that, will withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: With appropriate flexibility I beg leave to do so.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 21, line 22, at end insert—
  "(5) The designated officer in charge at the scene of the fire, road traffic accident or emergency is required to take command and to direct and control the deployment of fire and rescue service personnel and resources including—

  (a) the positioning of fire and rescue service vehicles and equipment,

  (b) the allocation of operational and tactical tasks and responsibilities, and

  (c) the establishment of command functions under his control."

  The noble Lord said: The amendment would adapt the powers currently bestowed by Section 30(3) of the 1947 Act. It is important in the light of Clauses 8 and 9, which make the role of firefighters—when dealing with road traffic accidents and emergencies respectively—statutory responsibilities.
  5.30 p.m.
  Section 30(3) of the 1947 Act establishes that the senior officer present at the scene of a fire is required to take,
  "sole charge and control of all operations for the extinction of the fire, including the fixing of the positions of fire engines and apparatus, the attaching of hose to any water pipes or the use of any water supply, and the selection of the parts of the premises, object or place where the fire is, or of adjoining premises, objects or places, against which the water is to be directed".
  We are deeply concerned that in the rush to give the Secretary of State as many powers as possible, the Bill has neglected the operational imperatives as they pertain on the ground. No provision bestows any specific powers or responsibilities on the most senior officer present or the designated officer in charge of an incident. No account has been taken of the inherent command responsibilities of the officer in charge of an incident in relation to Clauses 8 and 9.
  The need to recognise the "incident officer" in charge of fire and rescue resources is essential for effective command and control at the scene of operations. The officer at the scene will be expected to command the operational and tactical response of the fire and rescue service to complete the functions specified under Clauses 7 and 8.
  The authority of the incident officer in charge would also need to be established in relation to an assigned function that could include the ability to direct the activities of other agencies engaged in the completion of that function under Clause 9. In response to incidents concerning regional and national resilience, where operations will probably be large and complex, having an officer in charge will be essential to better facilitate inter-agency co-ordination.
  We will listen to the Minister's response with interest, but whether or not this lacuna is the result of an oversight in the drafting process, one does not need to spend too long imagining some of the very serious problems that may be encountered if the issue is not adequately addressed. Put simply, there must be no room for ambiguity at the scene of an incident. Clarity of role in relation to all aspects of command, control and inter-agency co-ordination may literally mean the difference between life and death.
  This is a very serious issue. I hope that the Minister will see that we are trying to be constructive. It is not a party political point but a serious issue on which all sides should be able to agree. The Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers Association brought the matter to our attention, so I can assure the Minister that it is endorsed from an operational perspective. I hope that the Government will give the amendment the proper consideration it deserves. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 129 would re-enact Section 30(3) of the Fire Services Act 1947. The difference is that responsibility for an incident would rest with a designated officer rather than a senior officer. The amendment would also add road traffic accidents and other emergencies alongside fire as incidents to which the provision applies.

  GC 435
  I take on board the noble Lord's point that the amendment is moved in a spirit of consensus and a desire to be helpful, but we do not see it as necessary. Clauses 7 and 8, and orders made under Clause 9, place a duty on fire and rescue authorities to make provision to discharge their responsibilities with regard to fires, road traffic accidents and other emergencies. It is implicit that, in meeting that obligation, a fire and rescue authority must have in place appropriate command and control arrangements.
  It is vital that fire and rescue authorities have in place effective command and control arrangements to ensure that often life-threatening incidents are managed appropriately and can react to circumstances on the ground. That objective is already achieved through protocols that fire and rescue authorities are required to have in place to discharge their core operational duties.
  I recognise the spirit in which the amendment has been tabled, but it appears to serve no purpose other than to add an "avoidance of doubt" measure, which is generally regarded as unhelpful. In fact, the amendment arguably creates doubt. It is not clear precisely who the "designated officer" is or might be, and whether that person is a member of a fire and rescue authority, another emergency service or even the Armed Forces. This could, as it is drafted, result in some confusion and overlap. I am sure that the noble Lord will not forget our earlier debate, when we made it clear that from the Government's perspective we feel that the fire and rescue authority employees already have effective—some might say far-reaching—powers to respond to circumstances on the ground and in so doing ensure effective discharge of their duties.
  The amendment might add a layer of confusion. It is much better that there are effective protocols in place to deal with a wide range of emergency situations. We do not think that a specific designation, though moved in a spirit of trying to ensure that there is clarity, necessarily achieves that clarity. I suggest to the noble Lord that although some chief fire officers think that it might be necessary, there is some debate and discussion among chief fire officers, and they are not all agreed or signed up to that approach. I hope that the noble Lord will reflect further on what I have said and will withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for his reply. Everyone would agree that there must be some clarity about who is in charge when there is an incident. Where some horrific accident, or a big fire, has occurred, someone must be in charge of directing operations. That is what everyone wants clarity about. I have heard what the Minister said today. We need to reflect on it, and read it again for the future. Everyone would agree that no one wants any doubt about that. Someone must be in charge on the ground at these incidents. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  On Question, Whether Clause 43 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hamwee: I wonder if I could ask a question. I apologise for not having given notice of it, but it has only just occurred to me. It is in connection with the level of penalty that can be imposed if someone is found to have obstructed action taken to deal with fires. A maximum of level 3 on the standard scale, which I think is £1,000, does not seem to be that significant an amount. The maximum penalty for false alarm is level 4, which is £2,500 or imprisonment. There is quite a disparity between the two. It is probably not fair to ask for an explanation at this point, although work is going on rather fast behind the Minister. I would be interested at some point to have an answer.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I have taken advice, and it is fair to say that it is a standard amount. The noble Baroness is right in her assessment that it is £1,000. I wanted to know whether there had been any representations about whether it was an appropriate level. We have received no representations. The point raised by the noble Baroness is interesting, and no doubt we will think on about it.
  Clause 43 agreed to.
  Clause 44 [Obtaining information and investigating fires]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 129A:
  Page 21, line 29, at end insert "or did not progress more than it did or cause more significant damage"
  The noble Baroness said: Clause 44 allows an authorised officer to enter premises, among other matters, to investigate what caused a fire or why it progressed as it did—quite right too. Does that cover not progressing any more—I suppose that it would—or causing more significant damage? One wants to be sure that the effects of preventative or limiting measures can be assessed. This suggests—although I am reading it more as a novel than as a technical piece of work—that the authority is limited to when a fire does progress and cause significant damage. We are all interested in seeing that fires do not. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would make explicit what is already implicit in Clause 44(1)(b). When officers investigate a fire we expect them to look closely at reasons for the lack of its progression. The advice that I have been given is that that is routinely done by officers and that nothing in the clause prevents them doing so. For that reason, the amendment is not necessary or required. However, it was a useful point to raise.
  Baroness Hamwee: I am grateful. If the matter is implicit, that is fine. As long as specific statutory authorisation to the extent needed is covered by paragraph (b), I am happy. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 130:
  Page 21, line 35, leave out from "admission" to "dwelling" in line 37 and insert "by virtue of his powers under subsection ( I) to any premises occupied as a"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 44 deals with powers of entry other than in cases of emergency. Subsection (1) sets out the scope of those powers—the obtaining of necessary information for the discharge of the functions of a fire and rescue authority or the work of investigating a fire. Subsection (3) then sets out a limitation on those powers of entry in respect of dwellings. It is in that area that the amendments bite.
  Amendment No. 130 seeks to remove the reference to admission "as of right", which seems very broad and sweeping. The claim "as of right" suggests something superior to any mere body of legislation, yet it seems that any powers exercised would not be "as of right" but by virtue of powers granted under subsection (1). The amendment would replace the sweeping expression with,
  "by virtue of … subsection (1)".
  That is a much more reasoned approach.
  Amendment No. 130 would furthermore remove the reference to "a private dwelling", substituting simply "a dwelling". Subsections (3) and (4) refer to a "private dwelling" and subsections (7) and (8) to a "dwelling". That appears inconsistent. It is simple logic that a dwelling is a dwelling; it is a place where someone lives; who owns it is immaterial. I would be grateful if the Minister could shed some light on the inconsistency throughout the clause.
  Amendment No. 131 is a consequential amendment that attempts to deal with the same issue of power of entry in relation to subsection (4).
  Amendment No. 132 would restrict the right of entry by warrant to a dwelling in a non-emergency situation to during a "reasonable" time. It is sensible to have the power to get a warrant to obtain entry to a dwelling by force if necessary, but there is no obvious reason why such entry should not be limited so that it may occur only at a reasonable time. Surely we do not want to create a regime under which entry can be effected by force in the middle of the night unless there are compelling reasons and in emergencies. Why would it not be appropriate to add such a restriction? I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The purpose of Clause 44 is formally to authorise activities that the fire service undertakes now for the public good. Those could otherwise amount to trespass. The clause provides a number of safeguards to ensure that a proper balance is drawn between the rights of occupiers of dwellings and the public interest in ensuring that the causes of fires are investigated quickly and effectively.
  Subsection (3) provides that an officer may not, in exercising his powers of entry under subsection (1),
  "demand admission as of right to premises occupied as a private dwelling",
  without first giving 24 hours' written notice to the occupier. The words "as of right" refer to the officer's powers under subsection (1), and Amendment No. 130 is to that extent unnecessary.
  GC 438
  The term "private" is used in the clause in relation to dwellings to differentiate between private living accommodation, which a person should be able to occupy without undue interference, and common areas to which others might have access but which form part of premises that might be considered dwellings. Removal of "private" is therefore undesirable.
  5.45 p.m.
  Amendment No. 131 would have absolutely no effect on the clause. It would simply add words that achieve the same outcome as the original wording of the clause. Clause 46(4) places a limit on the powers of entry listed in subsection (1) and already refers back to that part of the clause.
  On Amendment No. 132, subsections (7) and (8) provide that a justice of the peace may authorise entry to dwellings without first giving 24 hours' notice in writing, or where forcible entry is needed. Although those subsections allow the justice to authorise entry at any time —and by force, if necessary—the purpose of the subsections is to provide a method of disapplying the restrictions on entry under subsections (3) and (4). They do not affect the basic position provided for in subsection (1) that the officer may enter only at a reasonable time. What is reasonable will vary according to the circumstances and will be for the justice to determine. The amendment is therefore unnecessary.
  I hope that, having heard that, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I hear what the Minister says. I did not quite follow his remarks on private dwellings but no doubt I will do so after reading Hansard. We may return to the matter at a later stage. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 131 and 132 not moved.]
  Clause 44 agreed to.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 133:
  After Clause 44, insert the following new clause—
  "EXCEPTIONAL POWER OF ENTRY TO PRESERVE EVIDENCE
  (1) An authorised officer may enter premises in which I fire has occurred which are (or were before the fire) occupied as ) private dwelling (by force, if necessary) notwithstanding the provisions of section 44(3) and (4) if it is necessary to do so for the purposes of section 44(1)(b), and—

  (a) the entry to be effected takes place within 24 hours of the departure of fire and rescue authority employees from the premises immediately following the extinction of the fire;

  (b) an authorised officer reasonably believes that there is a serious risk of evidence being destroyed if entry is not effected with less than 24 hours notice; and

  (c) the occupier (or the person who was the occupier immediately before the fire) is unable to give consent to entry as a result of medical incapacity arising from the fire.

  GC 439
  (2) At the time of an entry authorised by this section, notice shall be given in the manner prescribed in section 44 to the occupier (or the person who was the occupier immediately before the fire) notifying him of the entry and stating the reasons for it."
  The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 133 would empower an employee of a fire and rescue authority to enter premises where a fire has occurred for the purpose of investigation within a set timeframe. For the purposes of a full and detailed investigation of a fire, it is crucial that the investigating officer can access the property in question as soon as practical after the fire has occurred. Vital evidence could be lost if a delay were to impede the investigation.
  The amendment would allow the investigating officer to enter the premises within 24 hours of a fire without undue hindrance and without first having recourse to seeking written permission. The amendment therefore establishes the principle that an officer may enter the premises only if a fire has occurred that needs investigation, rather than his simply being able to gain access to any private property on suspicion or after having given 24 hours' written notice.
  As discussed earlier, we are strongly reluctant to see included in the Bill the power to enter any property at any time without a clear basis and grounds for doing so. However, where a fire has occurred that merits an investigation, the property in question is more than likely to be unoccupied and unfit for human inhabitation. Therefore such a concern would not arise under this amendment.
  The purpose of the amendment is to remove much of what we perceive as unnecessary bureaucracy in the existing clause before entry to premises can be achieved. However, were the Minister to give some kind of assurance that the power that the amendment seeks was already suitably catered for in the clause, we would consider withdrawing the amendment. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: Amendment No. 133 would disapply safeguards provided for by Clause 44. As I explained earlier, Clause 44 is intended to deal with situations where the person responsible for the premises is not available to give permission for a fire investigation to take place or is unwilling to do so.
  The clause recognises the individual's right to privacy and balances that against the public interest considerations to which fire safety investigation makes an important contribution. The use of a warrant procedure introduces the safeguard of third-party consideration by a justice of the peace. The proposed new clause would remove that safeguard in cases where the person responsible for the premises had been medically incapacitated as a result of the fire. Such a person would enjoy a lesser level of protection of their rights than they would have if they had not been injured.
  Although we recognise that there will be cases where it is necessary to protect evidence or where speed of investigation is imperative, the protection of rights is equally important. A warrant can be obtained quickly; indeed, it could be sought even before firefighting
  GC 440
  operations had ceased and the fire and rescue service have ceased to have control of the property. In our view, the provision proposed is unnecessary. We think the removal of the protection is highly undesirable. For those reasons, I urge the noble Lord to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that response. We obviously want to protect the rights of the individual. We are trying to establish the right for an investigating officer to act very quickly rather than to have to wait for warrants and so on, particularly if people have been injured. If people are in hospital, we want the investigating fire officer to have the right to come to conclusions as quickly as possible. We do not want to take away any rights from individuals; in fact, we are trying to protect them. We will have to examine this important area again. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 45 [Supplementary powers]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 134:
  Page 22, line 38, after "records" insert "which he reasonably believes to be relevant to the investigation"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 45 gives significant powers of intervention and investigation to employees of a fire and rescue authority on premises that they have entered. The intention of Amendments Nos. 134 and 135 is to introduce a degree of restraint and clarity to the clause and to ensure that the powers can be exercised only when they are directly relevant to an investigation or the matter in hand. It may be argued that the authorised person must act reasonably in any event because these powers are for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire. However, nowhere in the clause is that intention made clear. That is why the amendments are needed.
  Amendment No. 134 would limit the powers over documents to those that the employee reasonably believes to be relevant to his investigation. At present there is no restriction and the authorised officer can inspect and copy any documents and records on the premises or remove them from the premises. I cannot see any qualifying provision anywhere that the documents and records must be relevant, or reasonably believed to be relevant, to the investigation or other matter under way.
  Amendment No. 135 relates to the powers of inspection and testing and, again, seeks to limit these powers to matters reasonably considered necessary to the investigation. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendments seek to clarify when the powers provided under Clause 45 might be used. In our view, Amendment No. 134 is unnecessary because the powers are exercisable only for investigating the cause of a fire or fire spread pursuant to the power of entry for that purpose provided by Clause 44(1).
  The authorised person must act reasonably in any event. Reasonableness is implicit in Clause 44(1), and consequently in Clause 45, as fire authorities are public

  GC 441
  bodies subject to judicial review. Taking away records not relevant to an investigation is likely to be unreasonable.
  Amendment No. 135 seeks to make explicit that which is already implicit. It is unnecessary because the limitation proposed is already contained in Clause 44(1)(b) and the powers under Clause 44(2) are exercisable only for the purpose of investigating the cause of a fire or the reason it progressed as it did.
  I am grateful to the noble Lord for having raised the issue, but we think that his desire for further detailed clarity is not necessary. The eventualities that the noble Lord seems to foresee are covered already in the legislation.
  Lord Hanningfield: I thank the Minister for that answer. There are some areas that I may need to look at again, particularly in regard to the taking of documents and so on which are not relevant. I have heard what the Minister said and I will consider further his suggestions. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
  Clause 45 agreed to.
  Clauses 46 to 52 agreed to.
  Schedule 1 [Minor and consequential amendments]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 135A:
  Page 36, line 20, after "authority" insert "or a Scottish fire authority"
  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 135A and 135B would amend Schedule 1 to make minor consequential amendments to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 and to the Severn Bridges Act 1992. Unfortunately, they were not picked up at an earlier stage in the drafting. I apologise to the Committee. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 135B:
  Page 45, line 4, at end insert—
  "Severn Bridges Act 1992 (c. 3)
  78A In section 8 of the Severn Bridges Act 1992 (vehicles subject to tolls), in subsection (5)(a) for "fire authority under the Fire Services Acts 1947 to 1959" substitute "fire and rescue authority"."
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 135C:
  Page 47, line 21, at end insert—
  "92A In section 99 of the Local Government Act 2000 (c. 22) (allowances and pensions for certain local authority members), after subsection (2) insert—
  "(2A) A fire and rescue authority constituted by a scheme under section 2 of the Fire and Rescue Services Act 2004 or a scheme to which section 4 of that Act applies shall be treated as a local authority for the purposes of subsection (1).""
  The noble Lord said: This amendment would allow the allowances of members of fire and rescue authorities to be pensionable in England and Wales. The Welsh Assembly has identified that Section 99 of the Local Government Act 2000 does not permit such pensions. Welsh fire authorities have repeatedly called for consistency of treatment with pensions in respect of allowances received by county councillors and for the allowances of fire authority members to be pensionable.
  I believe that the OPDM is aware of the issue and is,
  "exploring what the appropriate legislative vehicle for taking it forward may be".
  The answer appears to be simple: this Fire and Rescue Services Bill is the ideal vehicle to make the modest amendment to the 2000 Act that is required. Perhaps the Minister could indicate whether he accepts the principle that the allowances should be pensionable and that this Bill is an appropriate vehicle to enable this in legislation. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: I am grateful to the noble Lord for moving this amendment, which will enable us to reflect on what is quite an important issue for local authority members. I am rather envious, now that I am no longer a local authority member, of the fact that allowances are pensionable. That certainly was not the case in my time.
  For allowances paid by fire authorities to be pensionable, an additional similar amendment to Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 would be required. Section 18 contains the powers under which the regulations governing members' allowances are made. Those regulations permit certain local authorities to include in their scheme of allowances provisions for determining which members are entitled to pensions and which allowances are pensionable.
  As the noble Lord has made clear, the category of such authorities in Section 18 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989 does not at present include fire authorities. Only by including fire authorities in this category would those authorities be able to pay allowances to their members that were pensionable.
  We are not convinced that a change is necessary or desirable at present. I can confirm that the Government will be reviewing members' allowances more generally later in the year and if, following that review, a change were considered appropriate, we would consider making the necessary legislative changes at that juncture. So it is not right simply to import a provision via this legislation. We need to look at the matter across the board and take all the issues into consideration. At that point we would make a judgment, one which no doubt would be actively informed by the LGA and the fire authorities by their representations.
  With those words, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Baroness Hamwee: We have not been told why it is not appropriate to deal with this here. I accept that the Government may want more time, but that is a pity.

  GC 443
  We have the perfect vehicle in this legislation. My noble friend and I very rarely suggest making regulations, but if the Government are not able to make up their mind now, would not the sensible course be to put an enabling power into this legislation so that when they do make up their mind, the provision is ready-to-use rather than waiting for another local government Bill? Although they do come along fairly frequently, we might find ourselves waiting for the bus, which can also happen sometimes.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The simple and short explanation is that there is the complex issue of double accounting. It is likely that if you are a fire authority you will be a member of a local authority. There is an inter-relationship and we need to address more thought towards this issue.
  Lord Hanningfield: I accept that there is an issue of double accounting. However, there is still a problem, particularly for our friends in Wales who raised the matter with me. The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a very valid point when she said that we could insert an enabling provision allowing it to be dealt with later. However, I understand the reasons behind the Minister's answer and I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Schedule 1, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 53 agreed to.
  Schedule 2 agreed to.
  Clause 54 [Pre-commencement consultation]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 26, line 6, after "force" insert "but after this Act has received Royal Assent"
  The noble Lord said: Clause 54 legitimises the consultation that takes place before the relevant provisions of the Bill come into force. The purpose of Amendment No. 136 is clear: it seeks to prevent the situation whereby consultation and discussion that took place last year or the year before can be used in support of a claim that adequate consultation has taken place in respect of some matter dealt with by the Bill.
  We reluctantly concede the principle of pre-commencement consultation in the interests of speeding up matters, but it must take place after the Bill has received Royal Assent. The context in which it takes place will be relevant to the responses received and the consultees must be able to see that context. That means that the Act of Parliament must be completed even if the relevant sections have not commenced. I hope the Minister will confirm that no consultation prior to Royal Assent will be treated as pre-commencement consultation for the purposes of the clause. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The amendment would mean that the Bill would not recognise any consultation on the provisions in the Bill carried out
  GC 444
  before Royal Assent. In our view, it is vital that consultation before Royal Assent on the provisions in the Bill in respect of matters such as charging, core duties under Clause 9 and the national framework is recognised. In effect, the amendment would mean that we would have to start all consultations on these important issues and provisions from scratch after the Bill receives Royal Assent. Depending on when that is, it could have significant negative effects on a fire and rescue authority's business and operational planning.
  In the case of charging, it could also mean that there would be quite a time lag between the 1947 Act being repealed and the enforcement of the new charging orders given effect to by the Bill. That would mean there would be a period of time when fire and rescue authorities could not charge for anything.
  I do not think the amendment is terribly helpful. It could have some unintended adverse effects on lire authorities. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Hanningfield: I think that such an amendment should be part of every piece of legislation. I view this issue very much from the local government side. Increasingly, the Government are working on the assumption that the powers they want in the legislation will be there right from the beginning, without going through the democratic processes of both Houses of Parliament. One saw it earlier with the planning Bill. The amendment seeks to ensure that a government— any government—do not assume that they will be able to pass legislation without going through the proper processes.
  Enactment of parts of the Bill could be delayed while the consultation takes place. I accept that consultation is going on in regard to charging and so on, but I think that that is a mistake. It would be right to carry out a proper consultation once the legislation is law. The Government would then be acting with the force of new legislative powers.
  I understand what is going on. This is an area that we need to explore further as time goes on, not only in regard to this Bill but also other Bills. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 54 agreed to.
  Clauses 55 to 57 agreed to.
  Clause 58 [Orders and regulations]:
  Baroness Hamwee Baroness Hamwee moved Amendment No. 137:
  Page 26, line 28, leave out "or regulations" and insert regulations or prescriptions"
  The noble Baroness said: I am sure that I should know the answer to this question. The subsection provides for references to subordinate legislation being,
  "to an order or regulations".
  In one or two places we are told that matters may be prescribed. Does that mean that they are by order and therefore within Clause 58(1)? "Prescriptions" was as good a noun as I could find. I beg to move.
  Lord Bassam of Brighton: The understanding that I have is that the term "prescribed" is used only in Clause 34, which deals with the provision of information in connection with pensions. Clause 34(6) defines "prescribed" as "prescribed by regulations". I hope that that helps the noble Baroness.
  Baroness Hamwee: I have not done a word check, but I take the Minister's word for it. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 58 agreed to.
  Clause 59 agreed to.
  Clause 60 [Wales]:
  Lord Hanningfield Lord Hanningfield moved Amendment No. 137A:
  Page 27, line 13, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—

  "(a) Parts 1 to 3;

  (aa) section 31 and 32;

  (ab) Parts 5 and 6;"

  The noble Lord said: The amendment would ensure that the Welsh Assembly did not have the powers in Part 4 of the Bill that relate to pensions. It is clear that, despite pensions being a reserved matter, the Bill does not in fact respect this boundary in giving the devolved government in Wales significant powers in this area.
  My honourable friend the Member for Runnymede and Weybridge raised this very same issue in another place. but did not receive a satisfactory reply. It is highly inappropriate that the Welsh Assembly should have the powers in respect of pensions in Clauses 33 to 35 when the Scottish Executive are not given such powers, even though the clauses extend to Scotland. The issue raises serious constitutional questions, and I would have hoped that the Government could have tabled their own amendment. I await the Minister's reply with some interest. I beg to move.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: As the government spokesman for both Wales and Scotland in the House of Lords, it is a great pleasure to resist this amendment.
  The principal objective of the amendment is to reserve to Westminster an issue that we are seeking, in line with the recommendations of the Bain report and our commitment in the fire and rescue service White Paper, to devolve to Wales. As Members of the Committee will be aware, the fire service has long operated under separate Scottish arrangements. That separate approach has worked well, and we have every confidence that the more limited devolution to Wales provided by the Bill will work equally well.
  The approach that the Bill takes to pensions reflects the differences in the Scottish and Welsh devolution settlements. It extends pension provisions to Scotland because under the Scotland Act 1998 they are a reserved matter requiring a transfer of functions order. Devolution to Wales, by contrast, will be effected by the passage of this Bill itself. The routes are different, but the destination is the same. However, devolution is not independence. Pay, pensions and conditions of
  GC 446
  service are currently dealt with on a UK-wide basis, and there is no reason to expect that that will change. The difference is that the common approach will in future be based on voluntary co-operation between the devolved administrations and the Westminster Parliament.
  The amendment would prevent that. It asserts that there are no circumstances in which different provisions for pensions could ever be made in Wales. The Government believe that if it were the wish of the elected Assembly to make its own separate arrangements, and if the Assembly were willing to meet any consequent funding requirements, that would be a decision for the Assembly. That, simply, is what devolution means. I hope that I have managed to allay the fears and concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Hanningfield.
  I was going to leave out the last paragraph of my brief, which points out that the Conservative Party opposed the decision to create a Scottish Parliament and a Welsh Assembly, and this amendment is consistent with that opposition. That is a bit below the belt, I think.
  Lord Hanningfield: We accept that the Scottish Parliament and the National Assembly for Wales have been created, so now we just want to make them work. One is not disputing that they are now there. We tabled this amendment because we wanted some clarity about the Welsh situation. We have already discussed some Welsh issues and some of the border issues about how the new legislation might work. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 60 [Wales]:
  On Question, Whether Clause 60 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Baroness Hamwee: I apologise for raising this matter at a late stage, or at any rate for not tabling an amendment. I was contacted—but too late to table an amendment for this stage—by the fire authority for north Wales, on behalf of itself and the two other fire authorities in Wales, which raised the issue of the appointment of members of combined fire authorities. Although it was too late to table an amendment, I thought that it might be worth airing the issue briefly at this stage.
  As drafted, the Bill would allow the National Assembly for Wales to appoint some members of combined fire authorities. I understand that the Welsh fire authorities believe that all members of fire and rescue authorities in Wales should continue to be appointed by county and county borough councils. They do not believe that the power for the Assembly to appoint fire authority members is consistent with its local government scheme under Section 113 of the Government of Wales Act.
  I am also informed that creating a new power of this nature would potentially diminish local government accountability and autonomy and would be in conflict with the Assembly's duty to have a scheme that sets out how it proposes in the exercise of its functions to sustain and promote local government in Wales. No

  GC 447
  explicit reference to Wales was made in the White Paper, but in paragraph 4.18 there is a reference to allowing the Secretary of State to nominate some of the members. However, this was not understood to mean the Assembly in the case of Wales.
  I did not realise that we were going to have the benefit of the expertise of the noble Lord, Lord Evans, this afternoon. Is he aware of any representations having been made, either by fire authorities or by the Welsh Assembly, on whether the Government have addressed the issue of the powers of the Assembly? I apologise for raising the point without notice. At least it gives the Minister forewarning for next time, if it cannot be dealt with now.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting: The purpose of Clause 60 is to ensure that the powers exercisable by the Secretary of State in relation to English fire and rescue authorities are exercisable by the National Assembly for Wales in relation to their Welsh fire and rescue authorities. The fact that we are devolving the power does not necessarily mean that the Assembly will use it. If the Welsh identify the need, they can do the same, but it is up to them to take that course of action. I hope that that explanation will mean that we will not be returning to the matter on Report.
  Baroness Hamwee: I need to read back to Clause 3(3)(a), which relates to the scheme for combined fire and rescue authorities. It allows provision to be made for the appointment of members by the Secretary of State or by the National Assembly for Wales. I will talk to the fire authorities about this point. I am grateful to the Minister for his presence as well as his comments.
  Clause 60 agreed to.
  Clause 61 [Extent]:
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 138:
  Page 27, line 32, leave out from "to" to end of line 34 and insert—

  "(i) sections 46 and 61 of the Reserve and Auxiliary Forces (Protection of Civil Interests) Act 1951 (c. 65),

  (ii) paragraph 8(b) of Schedule 4 to the Gaming Act 1968 (c. 65),

  (iii) Schedule 2 to the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971 (c. 56), and

  (iv) the Superannuation Act 1972 (c. 11 ). section 52(1) and Schedule 1:"

  The noble Lord said: Amendments Nos. 138 and 139 are government amendments. They would amend Clause 61 so that all the provisions in Schedules 1 and 2 that amend or repeal pension legislation extend to Scotland. Unfortunately, that was not picked up at an earlier stage of drafting. I apologise for that and beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 27. line 38, at end insert—
  "( )the Pensions (Increase) Act 1971,"
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 61, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 62 agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  Committee adjourned at sixteen minutes past six o'clock.

  Chechnya
  Chechnya
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  EU: Decision-making Procedures
  UN Convention against Torture
  UN Convention against Torture
  EU: Free Trade Agreement with Andean Community
  EU: Free Trade Agreement with Andean Community
  EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit
  EU-Latin America and Caribbean Summit
  Iran: Human Rights
  Iran: Human Rights
  Libya: Human Rights
  Libya: Human Rights
  Nuclear Submarines
  Nuclear Submarines
  Fire Services: ODPM Responsibility
  Fire Services: ODPM Responsibility
  GCSE and A-level Grades
  GCSE and A-level Grades
  Schools: Information for Parents
  Schools: Information for Parents
  New Deal 50-plus
  New Deal 50-plus
  Red Squirrels
  Red Squirrels
  Rabies
  Rabies

  Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 and Legal Aid
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State has made the following Written Ministerial Statement in the other place today.

  The Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs has issued a direction which brings cases related to the running of a business, and brought under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002, into the scope of legal aid. The standard criteria for receiving legal aid, as set out by the Access to Justice Act 1999, will still have to be met. The full text of the direction has been placed in the Library of the House.
  WS 50