Sitting of 25 May 2004

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

    Civil Service
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: What representations he has made to other Government Departments on securing the movement of public sector jobs to Scotland following the publication of the Lyons review. [174424]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have made clear to other Departments the advantages that Scotland offers as a location for public sector employers and have encouraged them to consider Scotland when they review their relocation plans.
    Mr. Donohoe: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. He will know that on 2 December I asked the same question—and got the same answer, as it happens. [HON. MEMBERS: "Consistency"] Indeed. On the basis of the time scale between then and now, I have done some analysis of the current situation and I have found that there are almost 11,000 civil service jobs in Edinburgh, and almost 9,000 in Glasgow. In north Ayrshire as a whole, there are under 900—indeed, there are 805. To make the Lyons report achievable, bearing in mind unemployment in north Ayrshire as compared with unemployment in the rest of Scotland, will he give me two things: first, will he make representations to the Treasury; and secondly, will he meet me—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should try to secure an Adjournment debate.
    Mr. Darling: I was just settling down to listen to my hon. Friend's speech, Mr. Speaker. I am grateful to him for his first point—I like to think that my answers are consistent. Since he East asked his question, the Chancellor has announced the findings of the Lyons review, and my hon. Friend is right that we need to ensure that jobs are decentralised throughout Scotland. Historically, Edinburgh and Glasgow have had a high level of civil service jobs, but there is no reason why jobs cannot go elsewhere. For example, when I was Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, one of the new pension
    1422
    centres was set up in Motherwell—I know that it is not in Ayrshire—with the creation of 300 jobs. That is the sort of thing that I would like to encourage.
    Mr. Calum MacDonald: My right hon. Friend was involved in the relocation of 70 jobs in the Department for Work and Pensions to Stornoway. Does he agree that that is a good example of the kind of relocation that is possible? Does he also agree that it illustrates that even the remoter rural areas can benefit from the job relocation process, and that they can provide an outstanding service to those Departments that relocate there?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right. Stornoway is an example of a place where an extremely efficient former social security office is now doing work for the whole United Kingdom. Some 15,000 employees of the Department for Work and Pensions are based in Scotland and many of them are doing work for the whole United Kingdom, which shows why Scotland's membership of the United Kingdom is so important—[Laughter.] Scottish National party Members laugh at that, but their whole reason for existence is to break up the United Kingdom. Were Scotland to separate from England, it would not just be the 15,000 people employed by the Department for Work and Pensions whose jobs would be at risk, but those of the 7,000 people working in the Ministry of Defence and of the 8,500 people working for the Inland Revenue.
    Tony Worthington: Over the next few years, the flagship project for Scotland, through Scottish Enterprise, must be the Clyde corridor project, of which Clydebank is an integral part. Great benefit could be brought to that area through the major stimulus that would come from a public sector employer investing there. I hope that the Secretary of State will sit down with the Chancellor and other important UK figures to ensure that that investment is made on a strategic basis, in which case there can be no other choice but Clydebank.
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the plans, which are already well advanced, to develop the waterfront right along the Clyde. Once they are fulfilled, they will not only transform people's impression of Glasgow but generate real jobs. I also agree with my hon. Friend about both the public and private sectors working together. That is the sort of thing that both the Government and the Scottish Executive want to encourage. That development has the potential to transform Glasgow and confirm its position as one of Britain's premier cities.

    Postal Services
    Miss Anne Begg: What discussions he has had with the Royal Mail about post office branch closures in Scotland. [174425]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The Scotland Office is in regular contact with Royal Mail and other key stakeholders involved in the delivery of postal services in Scotland. Such contacts are at both official and ministerial levels.
    Miss Begg: I wonder whether the Minister is aware that in Aberdeen 14 post offices have been earmarked for closure—a quarter of the total number in the city. Some serious questions need to be asked about the accuracy of the information that has been presented to justify those closures. Will my hon. Friend take this opportunity to encourage Post Office Ltd. to reconsider when it is presented with evidence that shows that in some cases those branches are viable and someone is willing to take over their running?
    Mrs. McGuire: I know that my hon. Friend has welcomed Government support for both rural and urban post offices. Obviously there is a particular issue in Aberdeen, of which I am aware. I congratulate my hon. Friend and other Aberdeen Members who have alerted Post Office Ltd. to some of the difficulties that may be experienced in their communities. That is one of the reasons why the consultation period is so important: it allows communities, along with Postcomm and Postwatch, to examine ways of allowing the spread of post offices to continue after the end of the reinvention programme.
    John Thurso: Is the Minister aware that as a result of automated credit transfer, 47 per cent. of Scots no longer claim benefit through the post office? Last year 89 post offices closed, 305 per cent. more than during the previous year. It has been estimated that when the rural fund runs out in 2006, as many as 1,000 post offices will be at risk. Given that Government policy caused this calamity, what will the Government do to prevent that from happening?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am astonished that the hon. Gentleman should seek to impose on individuals the way in which they collect their benefit. What we have offered people is a choice, and in fact 42 per cent. of new benefit claimants are asking for their benefit to be paid through the new card system of direct payment. Moreover, there has been a massive investment in rural as well as urban post offices. We must ensure that following the investment programme, post offices offer people the services that they want. I can tell the hon. Gentleman that closing his eyes to the difficulty will not solve the problem.
    Dr. Gavin Strang: I accept that there should be a choice, but will my hon. Friend acknowledge that automated credit transfer is a major factor in the post office closures? That means that a disproportionate number of urban closures are likely in areas of social deprivation, where a large proportion of people receive benefit. Will my hon. Friend have a word with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, and suggest that rather more money should be spent on modernising and refurbishing the remaining post offices and rather less should be spent on the lump-sum payments that are encouraging some postmasters to give up?
    Mrs. McGuire: I understand some of my right hon. Friend's comments. The Scottish Executive have also worked with the Post Office to ensure that money is invested in post offices in disadvantaged areas, as part of
    1424
    the social inclusion policy. With respect to my right hon. Friend, however, let me say that we must also deal with the reality, which is that many people are choosing to have their benefits paid through a direct system. At the end of April this year, nearly 3 million people had made that choice.
    We are having to deal with the reality. We need to ensure that both urban and rural post offices are brighter and better, and deliver the services that people in communities want.
    Mr. Michael Weir: Constituents of mine who have written to the Post Office about closures have received a letter saying, among other waffle,

    "We are reviewing our network as a whole, so that we can move away from ad hoc closures which result in large gaps within our network and in turn implement an organised restructuring programme."

    Can the Minister tell us what strategic organisation there is in a system that appears to consist of the Post Office going to postmasters and saying "We have a tub of public money with which to close post offices. Which of you wants to go?"?
    Mrs. McGuire: What the Post Office is doing, with the support of Government investment and backing from the Scottish Executive, is maintaining a network of post offices throughout our urban and rural communities. I am very disappointed that Members are not willing to face the reality. We saw wholesale post office closures across the network under the last Government; what we have sought to do—[Interruption.]
    Mr. Speaker: Order. When a question has been asked, Members should not shout back at the Minister. I may well not call the hon. Member for Angus (Mr. Weir) for some time if he continues to do that.
    Mrs. McGuire: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
    What we seek to do with that investment is ensure that we have good post offices in communities, and that they are well developed. Hon. Members should start looking at what is developing, rather than demonstrating shorttermism that smacks of political opportunism.

    Manufacturing
    Jim Sheridan: What steps he is taking to promote manufacturing in Scotland. [174427]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): The Scotland Office will continue to work with the Scottish Executive and a wide range of manufacturing interests on initiatives such as the Scottish manufacturing steering group.
    Jim Sheridan: I thank my right hon. Friend for that response. Does he agree with me, and with the Scottish trade union movement, that if Scottish manufacturing is to stay ahead of the field we need further investment in not only research and development but employee training? Will he use his good offices to ensure that the

    1425
    private sector companies that come to Scotland are encouraged to use all the excellent teaching facilities that we have in Scotland?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is quite right. There are many parts of Scotland now where unemployment has fallen so much that there are concerns about getting the right number of skilled people to go and work. Yesterday I was in Dumfries and Galloway, and the Conservative spokesman for Scotland, the hon. Member for Galloway and Upper Nithsdale (Mr. Duncan), might like to know that unemployment has fallen by 50 per cent. in his constituency since the general election—although he was saying the other day that the Government have not made a difference. My hon. Friend the Member for West Renfrewshire (Jim Sheridan) is quite right, and there are good examples in his constituency of private sector companies working in close collaboration with higher education institutions. We want to encourage that, because it is absolutely essential.
    Mr. Peter Duncan: How content is the Secretary of State with the fact that manufacturing and other businesses in Scotland pay business rates some 7 per cent. higher than businesses in England and Wales? Speaking hypothetically, and saying that he was to be the next Chancellor of the Exchequer, what more does he think could be done to help businesses to grow by reducing business burdens?
    Mr. Darling: The policy for rates rests with the Scottish Executive, who have put in place a number of measures to reduce the rates burden that Scottish businesses face. The hon. Gentleman is quite right to say that we need to look all the time at whether we can improve the situation and reduce burdens. The Government are committed to that, but one of the best things that we have done for Scottish business is to create a strong, stable economy with low interest rates. The result is low unemployment and lower debts, and we do not have the problems that the previous Conservative Government encountered.
    We also need to ensure that we create the right sort of environment in which businesses can thrive. It is interesting that more and more of the recent studies that have been published—although it is true that they do not all paint the same picture—contain a sense of optimism that Scottish business has good prospects under this Government and under the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Duncan: But the Secretary of State has missed one simple policy that could be delivered from right here at Westminster. Has he not heard the voices from across the manufacturing sector that point out the crippling effect that high fuel prices are having on competitiveness, and the resulting disincentive for operations in Scotland, where distances from the factory gate to the customer are often at their greatest? His right hon. Friend the Prime Minister entirely ducked that question last week. Will the Secretary of State now join the chorus of voices calling for the deferring of the fuel tax increase planned for September?
    Mr. Darling: No. As the Prime Minister said here last week, the primary reason why fuel prices are going up is
    1426
    that the economies in China and America are growing, and people are restocking. That is why prices have gone up. If the hon. Gentleman does not believe me, why does he not have a word with the shadow Chancellor, who said almost exactly the same thing only a few days earlier? While he is speaking to the shadow Chancellor, the hon. Gentleman might want to have a further word with him because, at the weekend, the shadow Chancellor was revealed to be calling for even more massive cuts in public expenditure. They would amount to nearly half the Scottish Executive budget, which would have a profound adverse effect on the Scottish economy.
    Mr. Duncan: One day, just for once, the Scotland Office will stand up for Scottish interests instead of letting us down. Two months ago, at this Question Time, the Secretary of State told me that he was

    "in the very happy position of always being in"—[Official Report, 16 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 141.]

    favour of "whatever the Government" want to do. When will he make a stand on behalf of the Scottish manufacturing industry? Is it not time for him to meet the current Chancellor, in Loch Fyne or elsewhere, to demand that he reverse the fuel tax increase planned for September? When will he put Scotland's interests first, instead of the Labour party's?
    Mr. Darling: The hon. Gentleman is not very good, is he? I suggest that he reflect on this simple fact: since 1997, unemployment in his constituency has fallen by 50 per cent. Why is that? It is because the economy has been growing year on year. That is why more people are in work. This Government, during the past few years, have introduced a range of measures that are helping Scottish business. As I have said to the hon. Gentleman, our biggest single achievement has been to create an economy, and the right environment, in which small businesses can grow. All that would be wrecked if the Tory party got back in, because of the policies that it is advocating—not just because it would slash public expenditure but because of the instability that would be created by the policies that the shadow Chancellor is promoting.
    Rachel Squire: Does my right hon. Friend agree that naval and maritime work at Rosyth dockyard, the Clyde yards and elsewhere in Scotland represents a core part of Scotland's manufacturing skills? Does he also agree that work on the current naval fleet and on the future aircraft carriers is vital in securing a future for Rosyth and elsewhere? Will he use his full persuasive powers to ensure that Rosyth and Scotland get a major share of naval work, and that the core base of manufacturing skills are kept in that area?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend is right: defence work is very important not just to the general public sector jobs in Scotland to which I referred, but to construction. She will know that the Ministry of Defence is currently examining the way in which the contracts to build the two new aircraft carriers will be dealt with. Those discussions continue, but my hon. Friend can rest

    1427
    assured that we are very aware of the importance of those contracts—and, indeed, of others—not just to Rosyth but to the Scottish economy generally.
    Mr. Alex Salmond: On the subject of manufacturing jobs on the Clyde, has the Secretary of State seen the allegations of Mr. Martin Sixsmith, supported by evidence from GEC, to the effect that the Govan yard was saved in 1999 as a result of a deal through which the Government suspended their competition policy in return for favourable publicity in an election campaign? Now that the future of Govan to some extent—and Scotstoun to a great extent—is once again uncertain, will the Secretary of State give details of exactly what he is doing to secure those vital jobs, without the incentive of an election campaign in Scotland to concentrate his mind? And will he specifically confirm or deny—
    Mr. Speaker: Order. That question is far too long.
    Mr. Darling: Listening to the hon. Gentleman, one would almost think that he is sorry that jobs on the Clyde were saved. He might want to reflect on the fact that, if he were returned to power, there would be no Royal Navy, no orders for ships and no jobs on the Clyde. That would be the price of the Scottish National party.

    BP
    Mr. Michael Connarty: What meetings he has attended to discuss the impact on Scotland of BP's decision to dispose of its olefins and derivatives business. [174428]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): Scotland Office officials have kept in close contact with BP regarding the impact of their decision. My right hon. Friend and I have not taken part in any meetings.
    Mr. Connarty: I am very grateful to the Scotland Office for the interest that it has shown in the management of BP. However, a strategy group meets every Friday in the plant, consisting of full-time officials and workers' representatives from the Transport and General Workers Union, the engineering workers' union and the GMB. As my hon. Friend knows, that plant has suffered more than 1,000 job losses in the past couple of years. The strategy group believes that the productivity gains that were made and the synergies that were gained by losing those jobs are about to be thrown away, should the chemicals plant be split off from the rest of the complex. Will the Secretary of State meet the trade union representatives to hear their business case for keeping the olefins plant as part of the entire complex, and run by BP workers for the benefit of the Scottish economy? Indeed, that could even be to the benefit of the new company that might be floated off in future.
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is a great advocate of the petrochemical industry not only in his own constituency but across the United Kingdom, and I welcome his comments. He will of course appreciate
    1428
    that ultimately, this is a commercial decision by the company, but either my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State or I would be delighted to meet him and a delegation of trade union leaders to hear their business case, which could be an alternative to the case made by BP.

    Scottish Parliament
    Pete Wishart: When he last met the First Minister to discuss extending the power of the Scottish Parliament. [174430]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I am in regular contact with the First Minister, but I have not discussed extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament with him.
    Pete Wishart: I thank the Secretary of State for that very illuminating answer. The First Minister has identified Scotland's population problems as perhaps the biggest issue facing Scotland in the short to medium term, yet we remain hampered by a UK immigration policy that actively discourages people from coming here—people whom we desperately require. The First Minister's response to the situation was the announcement of his student visa scheme, which he said was a Scottish solution to a Scottish problem, but far from being a trailblazing scheme, it is a regional pilot for a general UK-wide policy. When are the Secretary of State and the First Minister going to cut through this inept Edinburgh spin and get real with this issue, and does the Secretary of State really believe that Scotland's immigration issues are best served by the current UK immigration policy?
    Mr. Darling: What a load of nonsense. The First Minister has rightly identified the fact that the declining population in Scotland is a problem: it is a problem now, and it will be in the future. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] "Why?" they say—simply because if we have an ageing population and a declining population, the costs increase. It is incredible that Opposition Members do not understand fundamental points like that. As I said, the First Minister has correctly identified the problem and the fresh talent initiative that he announced is designed to encourage people of talent to come to Scotland and to stay in Scotland. That should be supported and encouraged, and we certainly do so.

  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND
  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL FOR SCOTLAND

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What devolution issues she has considered since 27 April. [174440]
    Annabelle Ewing: What devolution issues have been raised since 27 April. [174441]
    Mr. Alan Reid: What devolution issues have been raised with her since 27 April. [174442]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 27 April, there have been 37 devolution issues intimated to me. Twenty-four of those related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination under the Road Traffic Act 1988, regulatory fisheries offences and the use of sexual history evidence in trials. In the civil sphere, 13 devolution issues were intimated concerning sequestration, appeals to the parking appeals service and a planning decision, with the remainder relating to prison conditions.
    Miss McIntosh: I am most grateful for that reply. Has the Advocate-General been asked to give her opinion on devolved and reserved matters under the Energy Bill, particularly those matters to be decided jointly between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry? In those circumstances, who will have the last word, and will those decisions be justiciable?
    The Advocate-General: Obviously, I am not able to advise on what opinions I gave or what I advised. As to the general statutory structure, the hon. Lady is aware that both devolved and reserved matters are covered. Each decision will have to be determined on the basis of the particular circumstances, bearing in mind the specific statutory structures.
    Annabelle Ewing: As Scotland's senior Law Officer at Westminster, what representations does the Advocate-General plan to make to the UK Home Secretary further to the calls last week by the church and nation committee of the General Assembly of the Church of Scotland to close the family unit at Dungavel?
    The Advocate-General: As the hon. Lady recognises, what happens at Dungavel is a reserved matter and the policy issues are not for me to deal with, but for the responsible Ministers at the Home Office. Home Office Ministers are aware of the General Assembly's criticisms and will doubtless take them into account.
    Mr. Alan Reid: Because of the Financial Services Act 1986, post office staff are told that they must not advise pensioners whether or not to take up a Post Office card account. However, the Government's own customer conversion centres show no such restraint as they bully and badger pensioners into taking their custom away from the Post Office. Will the Advocate-General look into the script used by the customer conversion centres to check whether they are acting legally under the terms of that Act?
    The Advocate-General: I am more than happy to look into that specific issue. In general terms, however, the hon. Gentleman will be aware that it is not appropriate to give individual members of the public financial advice. That is not a matter for counter staff, but they can advise on how, procedurally, various accounts can be opened.
    Ann McKechin: My hon. and learned Friend will be aware that I raised concerns with her last month about the decision taken on the practice of slopping out in Scottish prisons. I understand that the particular case to which I referred is
    1430
    now the subject of an appeal. Can she confirm whether there are any other such cases pending in Scotland? Does she share my concern that, now that the practice has been abolished in prisons in England, all parties should work to eradicate this inhumane practice at the earliest opportunity in Scotland?
    The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend is correct in saying that those representing the Scottish Executive have appealed the Napier case. I can also confirm that a number of new cases have been intimated to me as devolution issues. So far, they are small in number and will be dealt with in the usual way. I have not intervened in any of the new cases to date. On the general issue, my hon. Friend rightly recognised that the practice was abolished in England and the Scottish Executive have indicated that they are working towards reform in Scotland.

  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Postal Services
    Mr. Alan Reid: What recent discussions he has held with Royal Mail regarding postal services in Scotland. [174434]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my answer of earlier today to my hon. Friend Member for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg).
    Mr. Reid: I believe in freedom of choice, and consider that pensioners should have a fair choice between taking up a Post Office card account or opting for a bank account. However, the script from the customer conversion centre of the Department for Work and Pensions is very biased. For example, the first thing that a pensioner who telephones the centre hears is, "I know that you have asked for a Post Office card account, but…" Staff at the centre then badger and bully pensioners into moving away from using the card account. Will the Minister look at the script and revise it to make its advice fair and unbiased?
    Mrs. McGuire: I am assured by colleagues in the Department for Work and Pensions that the advice is neutral and unbiased. However, given the hon. Gentleman's comments, I will have further discussions with those colleagues to see whether the script needs to be refined.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  Dr. Doug Naysmith: Question 16, Mr. Speaker.[Interruption.]
  Mr. Speaker: Order. Hon. Members should know better than to walk in front of an hon. Gentleman.

  CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Community Legal Service Partnerships
    Dr. Naysmith: If he will make a statement on the performance of community legal service partnerships. [175296]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): Community legal service partnerships have greatly improved the delivery of advice and guidance by co-ordinating the work of providers in response to locally identified need. The recently completed independent review of the community legal service enables us to build on that significant achievement by making recommendations for the future development of the partnership.
    Dr. Naysmith: I thank my hon. Friend for that interesting reply. My constituency is unusual in that it spans two local authority areas. The partnerships work well in one area, but have been disbanded in the other. The voluntary sector was keen in both areas. Senior officers and the private sector in one local authority are committed to the scheme, which makes it possible to identify resources, and that has been very useful. In the other area, however, there was a lack of involvement by senior officers, and private firms were only marginally involved. Can the Minister suggest ways to encourage local authorities and the private sector to get involved? Will he perhaps make some funds available to start the process when need is identified?
    Mr. Lammy: I know that my hon. Friend does excellent work with the advice sector in his community, but I remind him that we spend £900 million on civil legal aid in this country. Also, I refer him to the Matrix review, the first review of the CLSPs, which makes a number of recommendations. It welcomes the establishment of the CLSPs, but it also calls for the appointment of an executive director to give them greater coherence. Other recommendations are the adoption of a three-year strategy and a programme board. I am considering those recommendations, and will be happy to discuss the matter further with my hon. Friend.
    Mr. David Kidney: Does my hon. Friend the Minister accept that the first stage of the CLSPs has been a success, in that a full geographic coverage has been established, but that we must now make the second stage of the process a success? That is, we need to tie in more firmly all those partners that must co-operate. They include voluntary sector agencies, private legal service providers and, crucially, local government. What is being done to tie in local government and secure its commitment to the success of the CLSPs?
    Mr. Lammy: We now have 99 per cent. coverage across the country, which is a tremendous improvement on the situation of three years ago. At that time, people did not know where the resources were, it was not possible to refer people for advice, and there was no quality benchmarking process for the advice that people received. However, further progress remains to be made. We must ensure that there is greater coherence and definition, and that involves working more closely with local government.

    House of Lords Reform
    Mr. Andrew Turner: If he will make a statement on the Government's policy on the powers of the upper House. [175297]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government remain committed to reforming the second Chamber, but to proceed in the present climate of determined opposition in the Lords would crowd out the current legislative programme. Nevertheless, the Government will return to the issue in our manifesto, and I hope that we will gain a consensus on reforms that would maintain the supremacy of the House of Commons and ensure a proper revising role for the second Chamber.
    Mr. Turner: I thank the Minister for that reply. Just as the design of a car differs from that of an aeroplane, because they have different functions to perform, should not the design of the House of Lords depend on the functions that the Government have in mind for it to perform?
    Mr. Leslie: Most hon. Members would agree with the notion that the House of Commons should be supreme in the final decision-making process and, therefore, that the powers of the House of Lords should follow that overriding principle. The Lords has a revising function, but any change to increase the legitimacy of the second Chamber would need to maintain the balance that we already have.
    David Winnick: If, as my hon. Friend says, the House of Lords is a revising Chamber, why should it have any powers of delay? If it is to have such powers, they should be for a maximum of three months. The present delaying period is far too long and gives too much power to the unelected second Chamber.
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend clearly believes that the House of Commons should be supreme, as do I. It is important that the second Chamber can exercise revising functions, including asking the Commons to reconsider. However, that has to be a reasonable power, exercised in a reasonable manner.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: Was not the replacement of the hereditary principle with the hybrid hereditary and crony principle only ever meant to be a short-term answer? The total failure of the Government's policy of Lords reform has destroyed the legitimacy of any plans that they may now have to vary the powers of the other place.
    Mr. Leslie: I welcome the hon. Gentleman to his new role on the Front Bench and congratulate him on his appointment. He raises the issue of the hereditary peerage. The Government still believe that we should get rid of the hereditary peerage, but unfortunately we met considerable opposition in the second Chamber that could have jeopardised the whole legislative programme, especially if Conservative and Liberal Members ganged up and blocked all the other good measures that we want to introduce. We will rightly

    1433
    return to the issue and ensure that we introduce reform that squares the supremacy of the Commons with extra legitimacy for the second Chamber.
    David Taylor: Is not evidence mounting daily that the transitional arrangements are becoming too permanent? There is little incentive for Government to reform an upper House to make it more effective. Does my hon. Friend the Minister believe that there is sufficient political will to achieve that reform, and will he consider deleting the present powers of the House of Lords to veto secondary legislation and, at the same time, Incorporating a power for it to veto or substantially delay constitutional reform?
    Mr. Leslie: There is certainly the political will on the Labour Benches to reform the second Chamber. It is possible to find a solution and reach a consensus on the issue. We have encountered opposition from the Conservatives and Liberals in the other place. We hope that they will start to act in a more grown-up and mature manner so that we can find a consensus on the issue. I live in hope.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: The Minister has just heard another complaint about the House of Lords being unelected. Do the Government now accept that it would be folly to tinker with the powers of the other place unless and until it is prepared to face up to the need to make it more democratic and representative and to tackle the issue of its composition?
    Mr. Leslie: The hon. Gentleman has a point to the extent that composition should be dealt with at the same time as the roles of both Chambers. It is important to maintain Commons supremacy, but a change in the legitimacy of the second Chamber may have a de facto impact on its role and functions. We will need to bear that in mind when we reach the final stage of reform, as I am confident we will.
    Sir Patrick Cormack: Is not the best way of securing the supremacy of this House to ensure that the other House is never either wholly or partly elected?
    Mr. Leslie: That may be one option, but other people may feel that the second Chamber needs to be more connected with the public at large, although not as supreme and as much of a final decision maker as the House of Commons. The hon. Gentleman has his views and other hon. Members have theirs; I think that it is possible to find a solution to the issue.

    Supreme Court
    Mr. Andrew Robathan: If he will make a statement on the potential for political interference in the (a)funding of and (b)appointment to the proposed supreme court. [175298]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government's proposals are specifically designed to
    1434
    minimise any possibility of political interference in either the funding of the supreme court or appointments to the supreme court.
    Mr. Robathan: Has the Minister seen the comments made by Lord Hope of Craighead in his written evidence to the Lords Select Committee? He was particularly interested in funding and pointed out that the Law Lords' running costs are currently met by the parliamentary vote, over which the Treasury has no control, and that that insulates the Law Lords almost entirely from interference by the Executive. He said:

    "At present, the executive cannot lay a finger on the work that the law lords do. In an uncertain world, this is a vital guarantee of judicial independence where it matters most which our history has bequeathed to us, and I do not think that it should be given up."

    Those are the comments of a very senior former judge. Will the Minister comment on them?
    Mr. Leslie: I have seen those comments. Indeed, the Select Committee in the other place has been looking into many issues relating to how we might fund a supreme court in a way that preserves its independence. Yes, we want as much independence as we can possibly give, but we are talking about taxpayers' money and the House of Commons has to vote that money from our electorate, so at some level there must be a degree of accountability for the spending of taxpayers' money. That is not to say that we cannot find a way of having independence in the system, and I am sure that a solution can be found as the debate continues.
    Keith Vaz: Does the Minister not agree that, although there should be no political interference, there has to be political involvement in the whole process? That is the only way that we can achieve accountability to Parliament. Will he confirm that, in the ongoing discussions about the new supreme court, the higher judiciary are being kept informed of the Government's proposals? Far too often over the past few weeks, very senior judges have criticised the proposals, yet we know that there is an ongoing dialogue between the Lord Chancellor, other Ministers and the judiciary. Will the Minister confirm that they are all being kept fully informed and that they consent to the changes that are taking place?
    Mr. Leslie: My hon. Friend is right. We need to ensure that we have that dialogue and partnership with the judiciary in the reforms that go ahead. Of course, there will be differences of opinion, and different ideas and solutions will be suggested, but at the end of the day I hope that we can gain consensus and see the Constitutional Reform Bill approved by the other place and brought to this House as soon as possible.
    Mr. A. J. Beith: Does the Minister recognise that not only the funding but the staffing of the Appellate Committee of the House of Lords are entirely protected from the Executive, because the Committee is part of the House of Lords, and that it will be necessary to write into the Bill a much clearer arrangement to protect the funding from the Executive and to give the court designated officers who are not themselves part of the Executive?
    Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman is the Chairman of the Select Committee whose report we shall debate in more detail in Westminster Hall on Thursday—I am just advertising that for other hon. Members. We shall be looking into how we can improve independence of funding, although I have to point out that the Department for Constitutional Affairs, as a UK Department, is capable of providing that level of ministerial accountability for taxpayers' money. That is an important principle because, ultimately, Parliament has to account to our electors for a resource that is procured from them.

    Democratic Processes
    Mr Adrian Bailey: What steps the Government are taking to ensure wider participation in the democratic process. [175299]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Government have taken several significant steps to encourage wider participation in the democratic process: for example, introducing citizen education in schools; combining this year's local and European elections on the same day; making voter registration easier; and piloting all-postal voting.
    Mr. Bailey: I thank the Minister for his reply, and I applaud the measures that have been taken. Does he agree that improving participation in the democratic process is a matter not merely of making voting easier but of engaging people and enthusing them from an early age? What steps is the Department taking, with other Departments, to engage people in the political process, especially young people?
    Mr. Leslie: The work of the Department for Education and Skills, with our Department, has proved particularly successful—not least because citizenship education has been part of the national curriculum for the past two years, as a compulsory subject for 11 to 14-year-olds, which is intended to improve political literacy and social responsibility, and awareness of wider community issues and how decisions are made locally and nationally. That is a major step forward, which over time will produce greater awareness and participation among all our citizens.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Minister accept that, for the first time for a very long time, many of my constituents will be enfranchised to vote in the local elections on 10 June? Many of my constituents leave home before 8 o'clock and often do not get back until after 9 o'clock. Why on earth cannot polling stations in local elections always open at 7 am and close at 10 pm? If that is good enough for European elections and elections to the House, surely it is good enough for local elections. Would we not then have greater participation?
    Mr. Leslie: The right hon. Gentleman makes a very reasonable point. There is a strong case to standardise opening hours for polling stations—something that the
    1436
    Electoral Commission has recommended. We do not have a legislative vehicle at present for that, but I will certainly bear in mind the strong case that he makes.
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: I have not met many hon. Members who are in favour of compulsory voting, but has the Minister considered rewarding people who vote, perhaps by tweaking their tax code or by giving a modest increase in benefits if they are benefit recipients?
    Mr. Leslie: Perhaps the greatest reward that we can give to our electors is a Labour Government, providing quality services to a consistently high standard. I hope that that reward will continue long into the future.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: One of the merits of our traditional system was its simplicity—people would just put a cross on the ballot paper and the person with the most votes won. The trouble is that the system has become very complicated, which is probably turning people away. Let us just consider London on 10 June: people can vote for the London Mayor, under a supplementary vote system, where they express a first and second preference; they can vote for the London assembly, with an additional member system, by voting for a candidate in an additional, top-up party list and they can vote for the European Parliament with a closed party list. So they have five votes with three completely different systems—without the added complication of whether to vote in person or by post. Surely that growing complication, with a multiplicity of voting systems and methods, is causing a lot of disapproval and misunderstanding. Is it any wonder that people say, "Stuff the whole thing—we're not going to bother to participate at all."?
    Mr. Leslie: I was hoping that the hon. Gentleman would ask me about the d'Hondt mechanism for counting results, but he did not get round to that one. I recognise the likelihood that some areas will have several different ballot papers in June's elections, but I would caution his underestimating of the electorate's intelligence and their ability to cope with such things. Most people can manage to understand that they have a ballot paper, that they cast their vote and that they see the results when those ballots are counted. That is the nature of our democracy at present.
    Mrs. Ann Cryer: Does my right hon. Friend—sorry, hon. Friend; I have promoted him. [HON. MEMBERS: "In time."] Does he agree that we might achieve greater enthusiasm for the democratic process if the editors and owners of certain tabloids refrained from frequently commenting unfairly on hon. Members?
    Mr. Leslie: I have found that most newspapers tend to be very fair and reasonable with politicians, and I have great relations with many of them, but my hon. Friend has concerns about certain of the red-top tabloids. All I can say is that the House needs to keep a close eye on the truth in matters that relate to hon. Members.

    Lay Magistracy (East Anglia)
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: When he next expects to meet members of the lay magistracy in East Anglia to discuss the workings of the local justice system. [175300]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Although I have no current plans to meet representatives of the lay magistracy in East Anglia, I am, of course, ready to do so if that would prove useful.
    Mr. Bellingham: It may well prove useful. Is the Minister aware that most of the lay magistrates whom I have met feel very let down by the Government? They feel undervalued, unwanted and unappreciated and they are concerned about the number of court closures. What would he say to lay magistrates today to boost their morale and improve their standing? In addition, will he confirm that there will be no more small court closures?
    Mr. Leslie: On the latter point, there have been no court closures this year, in contrast to the closure of 21 magistrates courts in the last year of the Conservative Administration. I believe that the best way to secure high morale among magistrates is to reiterate how much we, on both sides of the House, value them. They are volunteers who provide a good, solid and continuous service in the administration of justice, and I, for one, am very grateful for the work that magistrates do.

  The Leader of the House was asked—
  LEADER OF THE HOUSE

    Standing Committees
    Dr. Alan Whitehead: To ask the Leader of the House if he will submit plans to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to simplify papers for standing committees. [175289]
    The Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Peter Hain): I am aware that some Members find the form and number of Standing Committee papers unhelpful. The Modernisation Committee is considering the accessibility of the House's publications in its current inquiry on Parliament's engagement with the public, which includes the form of the papers provided for members of Standing Committees.
    Dr. Whitehead: Does my right hon. Friend accept that, in many ways, the present arrangements for Committee papers resemble the form-guide sketch from the Marx brothers' "A Day at the Races", in that one needs four documents—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the list of amendments tabled and the Chairman's selection of amendments—to understand what is going on? Does he have any proposals on methods whereby all those documents could be combined, for perusal by both the public and Committee members?
    Mr. Hain: The Procedure Committee is also considering the matter. I understand my hon. Friend's point. The Modernisation Committee has held a number of evidence sessions with members of the public in which that point has been repeated, especially by visitors who are attending a Standing Committee for the first time. We need to address the issue, but pulling the various papers—the Bill, the explanatory notes, the amendment paper, the selection list, the background papers, Library notes, and so on—into one document would be difficult and perhaps costly. None the less, simplifying the process should be a common objective.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: May I suggest one way of improving papers for Standing Committees—a sort of modernisation, perhaps even a tidying-up exercise? [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] One or two of my hon. Friends say no, but should not the Opposition be allowed to publish explanatory notes with key amendments on the Committee amendment paper?
    Mr. Hain: That is taking modernisation very far indeed. Were the hon. Gentleman ever to find himself in government—which is unlikely, despite his being a nice fellow—he might take a rather different view.
    Mr. Peter Pike: Does my right hon. Friend agree that the evidence taken so far by the Modernisation Committee makes it clear that Standing Committees are the least understood part of our proceedings? It is evident to me as a member of the Chairmen's Panel that Members often do not understand how amendments are selected and how their amendments will be voted on if they choose to press them to a vote.
    Mr. Hain: Of course, selection of amendments is not a matter for the Leader of the House, but my hon. Friend underlines the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) that the procedure in Standing Committees is baffling to visitors. On the other hand, members of Standing Committees deal with highly complex aspects of Bills that will become law, and such matters have to be dealt with seriously and technically in order to conform to the legislative requirements. We have to get the balance right, but I am sure that it has to be struck in favour of greater clarity and openness and a more welcoming atmosphere for visitors to the House.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: Does the Leader of the House accept that the Modernisation Committee has evidence that not just Members and visitors but people with a direct interest in the legislation who may be affected by the outcome find the whole procedure unintelligible? Does he accept that we need to look seriously, for example, at the timing of advance notice of issues that are coming up in Standing Committee? We must, as the hon. Member for Burnley (Mr. Pike) said, look hard at the way in which Select Committees have improved their procedures and made themselves much more intelligible to everybody with an interest in those matters.
    Mr. Hain: Yes, indeed. Select Committees have done an admirable job in that respect. As for the serious issue of people knowing what is coming up, I assume that that is a vote for programming, which enables us to do that. For the interested groups to which, I assume, the hon. Gentleman was referring indirectly, and which may have a direct stake in legislation, knowing what day an issue will be discussed in Committee and at what time is a tremendous benefit of programming. The hon. Gentleman's wider argument, however, is generally very welcome.

  The honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

    Smoking
    Mr. Gordon Prentice: To ask the honourable Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if the House of Commons Commission will ban smoking in the Members' Tea Room. [175290]
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: The Catering Committee makes recommendations on smoking in Refreshment Department outlets, including the Tea Room. I am sure that it would be happy to receive views from hon. Members, particularly the hon. Gentleman. As a good employer, the Commission discourages House staff from smoking, but it is also keen to protect them from the effects of passive smoking.
    Mr. Prentice: That is a good reply. I do not consider myself a health fascist in any sense, but the time has come to protect our staff and Members themselves from passive smoking. In addition, there is not a single sprinkler in the building, so this world heritage site could easily go up in flames. I hope the Catering Committee will turn its attention to this serious matter.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Most members of staff and most Members are non-smokers, but not all of them, so we must bear that in mind. Many smoking restrictions have been put in place, where practicable, on a case-by-case basis, but the hon. Gentleman's question is timely, and it may well be time for the Commission to look at the question of smoking in the Palace precincts in a fresh light. I am happy to consult colleagues and report progress to the House.
    Julie Morgan: Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the study published by Imperial college last week that showed that every week passive smoking kills about one person working in the hospitality industry? That obviously affects our staff in the Tea Room as well as Members, so does he not agree that now is the time to act?
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Absolutely. We are conscious of that study presented at the Royal College of Physicians,
    1440
    and it is an important development. Passive smoking is emerging as a new health risk in the workplace more generally, so it is right that the House should recognise that and look at the issue again.

  The Leader of the House was asked—
  LEADER OF THE HOUSE

    Select Committees
    Mr. Elfyn Llwyd: To ask the Leader of the House, what proposals he has to ensure greater representation of minority parties on departmental Select Committees. [175291]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is aware of the concerns of minority parties about their representation on departmental Select Committees and on other Committees. Progress has been made in addressing their concerns in a number of ways: for example, by accommodating their interests in the nomination for recent Joint Committees for pre-legislative scrutiny, and for Standing Committees on Bills and on Delegated Legislation.
    Mr. Llwyd: I thank the Minister for his reply, but it did not address the question that I tabled on departmental Select Committees. At the moment, Labour is over-represented by three Members and the Liberal Democrats by two Members, but Plaid Cymru and the Scottish National party are under-represented by two Members, which is not right in any democratic set-up. What progress has been made on giving us a place on the Liaison Committee?
    Mr. Woolas: I thank the hon. Gentleman, and I accept that his concern is genuine. I could quibble over his arithmetic, but his general point is a valid one. I urge him to bear in mind the fact that Committees are established at the beginning of a Parliament, and the rules are set out in Standing Orders. I remind the House that the previous arrangement, whereby the minority parties were represented by the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, was changed at their instigation, and that that is now done by the Government Chief Whip, who is involved in discussions on the matter.
    Ms Meg Munn: To ask the Leader of the House if he will submit proposals to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to open the House to visitors on Saturdays. [175292]
    (Mr. Peter Hain): The Modernisation Committee has considered the accessibility of the House to visitors as part of its inquiry into connecting Parliament with the public. The question whether the House should be open to visitors on Saturdays is also a matter for the Administration Committee, in the first instance, and for the House of Commons Commission.
    Ms Munn: I thank my right hon. Friend for his answer. Although Sheffield is less than 200 miles from

    1441
    London, the travelling time ranges between three and five hours. Even when the House sits at 2.30 pm, many of my constituents find it difficult to arrive in time for a proper tour around the House. Constituents throughout the United Kingdom, many of whom live much further away than Sheffield, should have more opportunities to visit the House, with or without their MPs.
    Mr. Hain: I understand the force of my hon. Friend's argument, because my constituency is a similar distance from Parliament, and visitors travelling by coach have to set off at about 5 am. I am pleased by the way in which
    1442
    the new visitors' services manager has taken on that question—for example, we have agreed an earlier 9 am start for tours, and Member-guided tours starting at 8 am are being planned. He also ensures that, where possible, priority for tour slots later in the day is given to those travelling from constituencies furthest away from Westminster. Given the security implications, however, whether it would be cost-effective and sensible to open on Saturdays is an issue. Owing to the efforts of the Central Tours Office, numbers on Member-guided tours in the first three months of this year have increased by 9,500 over the equivalent period last year.

Regulation of Hormone Disrupting Chemicals
12.31 pm
Geraint Davies: I beg to move,

That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision about the regulation of hormone disrupting chemicals; and for connected purposes.

Every year, millions of tonnes of toxic chemicals, which do not break down, which build up in the bodies of people and animals and which disrupt hormone production, are released into the environment, increasing cancers and infertility and causing mental and physical problems in children and adults and contamination across the ecosystem. We may accept the growth in chemical production from 1 million tonnes in 1930 to 400 million tonnes in 2000—the chemicals are used in plastics, toys, computers, food packaging and manufactured products—but the continued use of dangerous or risky chemicals is unacceptable where safe substitutes exist.
The Bill calls for the phasing out of persistent chemicals that do not break down and for the substitution of safer alternatives. Such chemicals are bio-accumulative and build up in the body, and they are also endocrine disrupting and therefore cause hormone imbalance. The Bill precedes the REACH legislation on chemical regulation, which will be proposed in the European Union next year. In our year of EU presidency, I hope that the UK takes a leading role in sharpening up the protection of our environment and in adopting a precautionary approach based on the best scientific evidence in order to eliminate dangerous chemicals from manufacturing.
The scale of the problem is great—300 man-made chemicals are found in the human body. Babies are born with a toxic burden of chemicals inherited from their mother in the womb, and those chemicals affect hormone production in the ovaries, the testes and the thyroid gland, causing cancers and genital deformities and reducing the immune system. Such chemicals are present in polar bears in the Artic, in tree frogs in tropical rain forests and in seals off the coast of the United Kingdom. Unlike drugs, chemical manufacturers do not even have to show that such cocktails of toxic chemicals are safe before marketing them.
Hormone disrupting chemicals are endemic in toys, cabling, food packaging, feeding bottles, tins, cleaning products, food and water. I pay tribute to WWF and the Co-operative bank for bringing the issue up the political agenda, partly through their advertisements, which ask
1444
the simple question, "Why should chemicals usually found in the manufacture of carpets, curtains, sofas and cleaning products turn up in the bodies of polar bears?" The answer is, of course, that such chemicals go through the whole ecosystem and end up causing damage throughout the world.
In recent years, the incidence of testicular cancer has grown—in fact, it has doubled in the past 30 years—and breast cancer has increased by 50 per cent. Research now links hormone disrupting chemicals to some of those problems. Man-made chemicals have been linked to learning disabilities and hyperactivity. Polychlorinated biphenyls—PCBs—in mothers are transferred in pregnancy to babies, giving rise to lower birth weight, poorer reflexes, delayed movement, retarded mental development, and language, verbal and numeracy difficulties. They also give rise to learning and memory problems in adults.
Brominated flame retardants are found in human breast milk. In Britain, we have the sad record of our butter having a higher concentration of brominated flame retardants than any butter in the world. Yet those chemical products can be removed, as they are, in the manufacturing sector by the Swedish company IKEA.
We need to consider the additional cost that not having such a ban imposes on the health service in terms of treating allergies, cancers and skin disease. Professor David Pearce has estimated that that saving could be in the order of £50 billion over the next 17 years or so.
We need to establish which chemicals should be substituted, based on the level of evidence and proof, which will vary from chemical to chemical. In the first instance, we must take a unilateralist approach to listing the harmful chemicals and beginning to eliminate them. That is what has occurred in Denmark, Greece, Germany, France, Finland and Austria. Ultimately, we need to use European Union legislation to phase out completely all persistent and bio-accumulative hormone disrupting chemicals where safer alternatives exist. We owe it to ourselves, our children and our planet to respect the safety of our environment and of future generations.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Geraint Davies, Siobhan McDonagh, Laura Moffatt, Ms Dari Taylor, Mr. Alan Campbell, Andy Burnham, Julie Morgan, Mr. Alan Meale, Syd Rapson, Mrs. Betty Williams, Donald Anderson and Mr. Andrew Love.

Regulation of Hormone Disrupting Chemicals
  REGULATION OF HORMONE DISRUPTING CHEMICALS
  Geraint Davies accordingly presented a Bill to make provision about the regulation of hormone disrupting chemicals; and for connected purposes: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 16 July, and to be printed [Bill 114].
Orders of the Day
  Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
  As amended in the Standing Committee, considered. [Relevant documents: The Nineteenth Report from the Joint Committee on Human Rights of Session 2002–03 on the Draft Gender Recognition Bill, KC 1276–I and II, and the Fourth Report (HC 303) and Twelfth Report (HC 603) from the Committee of Session 2003–04, on its continuing scrutiny of bills.]
  Gender Recognition Bill [Lords]
    New Clause 1

      RELIGION
      If a court's determination of any question arising under this Act might affect the exercise by a religious organisation (itself or its members collectively) of the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, it must have particular regard to the importance of that right.

      In this section "court" includes a tribunal.'.—[Mr. Leigh.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      12.38 pm
      Mr. Edward Leigh: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 1, in page 9, line 37, at end insert—

      (ha) the disclosure is made between officials of a voluntary organisation which is also a religious organisation, in connection with its functions, and is necessary to,

      comply with the doctrines of the religion, or

      avoid offending the religious susceptibilities of a significant number of the religion's followers.'.

      Mr. Leigh: I rise to speak to these two proposals, which stand in my name. I am delighted to say that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), who is the Conservative Front-Bench spokesman, has put his name to them, as have five Labour Members, including the right hon. Member for Swansea, East (Donald Anderson) and the hon. Member for Bootle (Mr. Benton), several of my Conservative colleagues, a Liberal Democrat Member—the hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed)—and an Ulster Unionist Member, the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth).
      That breadth of support shows that they are genuinely cross-party amendments because this is not a party political issue, but a question of religious freedom. Religion is not the preserve of any one party and it is appropriate that concern for freedom of religion should be shared by politicians from all parties.
      The amendments tackle the two main issues that were raised in a legal opinion, dated 23 March, which James Dingemans QC prepared. Hon. Members may remember that he was counsel to the Hutton inquiry. First, he states that the Bill contains scope for "divisive and costly litigation" against churches. Churches are bodies of limited means and one can imagine that the prospect of any sort of litigation concerns them gravely.
      The Bill creates scope for transsexual people to take legal action against a church that refuses to recognise them in their acquired gender. Clause 9 declares that a
      1446
      man who persuades a gender recognition panel to grant him legal status as a woman becomes a woman "for all purposes". If a church refuses to recognise that, he may sue that church.
      Some ridiculous legal cases have already been brought against churches. We are not inventing a worry about something that does not exist. The most well-known case is probably that of a transsexual man called Bill Parry, who sued a Baptist church in south Wales because it would not let him attend the ladies' prayer meeting. In paragraph 30 of his opinion, Dingemans states:

      "It appears from the reports of the debates that the Government view is that such challenges should fail. Although…it seems to me that that should be the result—

      I emphasise the words "should be the result"—

      "the cases are likely to occupy considerable time and divert the resources of the Churches into litigation."

      The new clause seeks only to address the problem and to make matters crystal clear.
      Secondly, Dingemans says that the criminal offence against disclosure in clause 22 breaches freedom of religion. Clause 22 makes it an offence for an officer of a voluntary organisation to disclose the birth sex of a person who has a gender recognition certificate. A place of worship constitutes a voluntary organisation. In paragraph 21 of his opinion, Dingemans refers to the example of a Roman Catholic priest who would break the law if he disclosed to his bishop that a male candidate for ordination was a female-to-male transsexual. Such information would obviously be of interest to the bishop.
      Another example is that of a curate who discovers that a marriage candidate is a transsexual and knows that his vicar, who disagrees with transsexualism, is unaware of the matter and is about to perform the marriage. The curate would commit a criminal offence if he said anything to the vicar. A private conversation between the curate and the vicar or between the priest and his bishop could be a criminal offence under the Bill.
      We have held such debates previously and the Government said, "Don't worry—the curate just has to ask permission." However, the transsexual lobby called for the offence. They and the Government say that privacy is paramount and one understands some of the reasons for that. What if the transsexual refuses to give consent? The Government put the clergy at the mercy of the transsexual person who may sue. The Government's assurance works only if they can guarantee that 100 per cent. of transsexuals will give consent. Even if 99 per cent. do consent, what about the 1 per cent. who may not? What is the curate to do in those circumstances? He could place himself in contempt of the Bill.
      Dingemans says that, to protect religious rights, the Bill must

      "permit disclosures necessary to allow the religious organisations to regulate themselves in accordance with their religious beliefs."

      That is all that we seek to do. I am not trying to impose ideas on anybody outside the church groups. I simply want to allow the religious groups to regulate themselves. That is all that amendment No. 1 would achieve.
      Chris Grayling: Does my hon. Friend agree that perhaps the most inalienable human right is the right to act according to one's conscience and not to be called to act against it? However far one might wish to go to protect the rights of individuals who face difficult and challenging circumstances, doing that at the expense of the conscience of others is unacceptable.
      Mr. Leigh: That is all that we are trying to achieve. We are not attempting to impose any religious views on anybody else. Surely it is axiomatic in a free society that religious groups should be allowed to conduct their affairs in the way that they wish. People have fought and argued for that for generations. We may not agree with their views, and some people might hold those views in contempt or find them extreme, but those religious groups must have the right, in a free society, to conduct their own groups according to their own beliefs, albeit without imposing their views on anyone else.
      12.45 pm
      Mr. David Kidney: I am genuinely concerned about this issue. Does the hon. Gentleman acknowledge the disagreement in the 12th report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights with the learned QC's general opinion, along with the success of the hon. Gentleman's argument on the narrower point about an exemption for people wishing to pass on information to the clergy, who can then have the benefit of the conscience clause in refusing to perform a marriage ceremony? Would the hon. Gentleman regard it as a satisfactory outcome if the Government were to grant that lesser exemption?
      Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. I am glad that he has raised that point because I was about to come to the Joint Committee's report, which concludes that the only exemption necessary to protect religious rights is for Anglican clergy conducting marriages, and that it should be legal to tell them a person's birth sex so that they can exercise their right under the Bill to refuse to conduct the marriage. The hon. Gentleman has made a fair point and I hope that the Minister will also respond to the Joint Committee on Human Rights. I hope that he will tell us what he intends to do about this because it is very late in the day to be putting things into the Bill. The Joint Committee of the House of Commons and the House of Lords agrees with Dingemans in this respect.
      I want to be entirely fair with the House, however, so I must point out that—as the hon. Gentleman mentioned—the Joint Committee disagreed with Dingemans's reasoning on other points, although it does not give a detailed consideration of its arguments. I have consulted Dingemans on this report, and I am afraid that we get into rather complicated legal arguments here. The very fact that those complex arguments exist proves that this might be fertile ground for litigation. We have to accept that lawyers disagree on this—as they do on many things—and that it is therefore possible that a church could be taken to court. The church could win the case in the end, but it might have to spend some of its limited resources in doing so
      Mr. Michael Fallon: If learned lawyers disagree on which article of which convention should prevail, surely the best thing to do would be to get the statute right in the first place. Does not that make the case for my hon. Friend's new clause?
      Mr. Leigh: That is all that I am seeking to do. I will deal with Pepper v. Hart in a moment, and with the rights of Ministers, however distinguished, to make subsequent orders, but it is terribly important to get the Bill as clear as possible when we are legislating in these complex and difficult areas.
      Dingemans says that the view of the Joint Committee rests on the assumption that the transsexual's article 8 right to privacy "trumps" the article 9 right to freedom of religion. The report says that

      "in any balancing exercise against the practice of enforcing uniformity amongst the members of a religion, the Article 8 rights must prevail."

      Mr. Dingemans points out that this approach is wrong within the terms of the European convention on human rights, because article 17 forbids an individual or a state from using a convention right to destroy or overly limit other convention rights. Article 8 cannot therefore be said to trump article 9 in the way implied in the Joint Committee report. I know that that might confuse some hon. Members and I have been struggling with it myself this morning, but it shows some of the problems that we face and illustrates why it is important to clear them up.
      Mr. Tim Boswell: Does my hon. Friend agree that the context in which these conflicting rights are to be exercised is also important? That is referred to in the contrary legal opinion. It is one thing to exercise a right to privacy at home, as it were, but it is another thing to participate in a public act such as attendance at a place of worship.
      Mr. Leigh: Yes. The right to privacy, as Dingemans makes clear, is very strong. It is stronger the closer one is to one's own home environment. As one goes out into another environment—perhaps into a church group—so the article 8 right is eroded. But these are complex and quite new areas of law that are being developed all the time, as my hon. Friend well knows.
      I shall deal with the detail of the amendments in a moment, but first let me anticipate, as we have had some of these debates before elsewhere, some of the objections that hon. Members might have. Let us be clear that the amendment is not about religious bigotry. I do not believe that an amendment that dealt with religious bigotry in any sense would be supported by experienced Members such as the right hon. Member for Swansea, East or the hon. Member for Bootle.
      I often mention the Plymouth Brethren when I speak in the House about religious liberties. It is a fact, Mr. Speaker, that the Plymouth Brethren would not let you or me anywhere near one of their services—not unless we changed our religious beliefs. They certainly would not let us take communion, and they would not even let us near their Sunday school class. Most hon. Members, and perhaps all hon. Members, would be excluded from their group. That is their right. We may think their views are extreme, but they have that right in our free society. They are a religious community. We may not agree with their views, but we accept that they have the right to hold their views.

      1449
      In moving the amendments, my concern is to protect religious freedom. The Bill touches on highly controversial ethical matters, about which there is considerable disagreement in society at large. Within religious communities the views—the disagreements—are even stronger. It is true that many very good Christians have no strong views about the matter. It is equally true that many other equally valid Christians do have strong views about whether a man can become a woman. That is not to say that they want to be nasty to transsexuals. They believe, although the House may not agree, that it is their duty to reform them. They want them to repent, just as they want me to repent. But if a transsexual walks through the door of a church, they would welcome them as they welcome all people. That is what they are there for: to welcome people and, they believe, to share the gospel with them. Very few churches in the country would turn away a transsexual from visiting the church.
      What if the women in the church have a prayer group in which they may discuss intimate female issues? Why should they be carted off to the High Court for refusing to allow someone to attend that female prayer group whom they have known as a man for the past 30 years? Why should that happen to those ladies? Some disagree with the views of such ladies on the issue. They think those churches are wrong. That may be a perfectly valid point of view. Some—I will deal now with this point, which I think is a very unfair point—compare their views with racism.
      I believe that comparing the views of those church groups with racism is wrong—indeed, scandalous. The law says, rightly, that one cannot refuse a person attendance at a prayer meeting for being black. That law was never opposed by any churches. I have never heard of any church group in the United Kingdom that would want to keep a black person out of any meeting whatever. Christianity is a cross-racial religion. There are more black practising members of Christianity than there are white members, and many churches in the UK are living examples of racial harmony.
      The reason racism is wrong, and has always been wrong, is that one cannot choose one's race. There is no element of moral choice in the matter, so one's race says nothing about one's character. However, choosing to embark on an operation to change one's sex may or may not be right, but it may be in some people's view a controversial decision. It is certainly a moral issue. Because it is, in the view of some, a controversial and a moral issue, it is surely right that members of religious groups should be entitled to their views.
      Lynne Jones: Until the hon. Gentleman began his latest point, I thought he moved his amendment very sympathetically and I agreed to a considerable extent with what he said. I hope that the Government take on board the issue of religious conscience. However, when the hon. Gentleman speaks about a women's group discussing intimate physical matters, I wonder what that has to do with religion. When he talks about people exercising choice, the point about transsexual men and women is that they do not feel that they have a choice. They feel that their correct gender is the gender to which they want to be reassigned.
      Mr. Leigh: I accept that that is the view of transsexuals and that there is a debate about these
      1450
      matters. However, there are some people in Christian communities or in some churches who hold the views that I was presenting. They may or may not be right, but that is not the issue that the House must address today. The hon. Lady may hold the views of those people in contempt, if she wishes. I am not asking her to make any judgment of them. I fully accept that many transsexuals believe they are trapped in the wrong body and that for them it is not a moral or controversial case—it is simply righting some kind of physical wrong.
      We can discuss all these issues later on Third Reading. I am dealing with the narrow point of how particular people should conduct their own affairs and their own meetings. Contrary to what the hon. Lady believes, many people in this country believe that there is a moral choice involved. Should we as the House of Commons impose our views? I accept that the Bill is supported by those on all the Front Benches and will become law in wider society. The only question we are considering in this narrow set of amendments is whether we should impose the general law on the particular circumstances of religious groups conducting their own private meetings. That is all we are talking about.
      Mr. John Bercow: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to know that I am rather perturbed by the general thrust of his remarks. If the House, on what is undoubtedly a controversial issue, reaches a judgment on what it thinks is the appropriate human rights treatment of transsexuals, surely it is both wrong in itself, and a dangerous signal to send in relation to other potential legislation, that people, whatever their private views, should somehow be allowed to opt out of the legal and human rights judgment that the House has made.
      Mr. Leigh: The answer is that people are not opting out. The Bill will become law. A man will be allowed to become a woman and his birth certificate will be changed. In all respects in society—getting a job and going about his or her daily business—if she was a man who is now a woman, she will be a woman. Is my hon. Friend really saying that when we are dealing with people who have particularly strong moral or religious views we should override those views not in society as a whole, but in their own private meetings and in their own church?
      Mr. Bercow indicated assent.
      Mr. Leigh: If my hon. Friend really believes that, it is a deeply illiberal point of view.
      Rev. Martin Smyth: Liberal or not, the harsh reality of life is that when the state has sought to interfere in the internal affairs of church bodies, there has been constant persecution. If the hon. Gentleman's new clause is not pressed through, it will lead to tension that the country should not have to face. Since 1647, the state has had no rule in the internal affairs of the Church of Scotland.
      Mr. Leigh: We would all agree that the last thing we want to do is return to the controversies in the House in

      1451
      the 16th and 17th centuries. We want to keep out of all that. We want nothing to do with what people do in their own churches.
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Leigh: I give way to my liberal Friend.
      Mr. Bercow: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way. Over the past five years I, in common with many other Members, have been accused of many things. I do not think I have been accused of illiberalism until now, but there is always a first time. May I put it to my hon. Friend that what he is arguing, in reasonable and measured terms, is that people should have a right, because of their convictions, to exclude from their private gathering a person or people of whose status they disapprove? That would provide a dictionary definition of intolerance, and intolerance should be inimical to anyone with a religious commitment.
      1 pm
      Mr. Leigh: I have already said that I cannot think of any—or many—churches that would exclude a transsexual from their services. Being a Christian is about welcoming everybody, even people of whose past, morals or anything else one might thoroughly disapprove. But there may be a case that may not be entirely unreasonable. I have already mentioned the real case of the ladies in the Baptist church in south Wales—incidentally, the judge finally came down on their side, and they won the case. Were they being entirely unreasonable in saying, "We are a group of ladies, sitting in a private meeting, and discussing intimate female matters. We know that this chap has been man for the last 30 or 40 years, and we would prefer him not to attend our meeting"? It is ridiculous that they should be carted off to the High Court simply for saying that. They were not excluding this man from anything else. My hon. Friend's argument is too wide. Let us return to the narrow point that this House should not, under any circumstances, impose its views on private religious meetings.
      The new clause borrows without modification the wording of section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, on which I hope all Members can now agree. Section 13 was introduced by this Government in response to religious liberties concerns about the effects of the Act. The wording draws attention to the scope for a clash between religious and other rights. Religious rights are often overlooked, so it reminds the court—that is all the amendment does; it is very narrowly drawn—to pay particular attention to those rights when resolving any dispute affecting a religious group. If some religious group were in certain circumstances acting completely unreasonably, I presume that it would fall as foul of my amendment as of the Bill as drafted. The wording could not be more modest: it simply places in the Bill an acknowledgement that applying this new law in a religious context could affect religious liberties. It seeks to ensure that rights are not ignored, which will help to deter vexatious litigation against churches under the Bill. It will give churches that are sued an extra legal argument that they can use.
      1452
      I know that the Minister will say that there is no need for the amendment Funnily enough, he will not use many of the arguments used by my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow). He will say that his lawyers have advised him that churches would win any cases brought against them under the Bill that try to change their doctrinal beliefs on transsexualism. He will say that the Bill does not add to anti-discrimination law, and that a transsexual will be no more likely to succeed in suing a church after the Bill's enactment than before it. I will happily give way now to the Minister if what I am saying is completely different from what he intends to say, but I assume that that will probably be his argument, and that he will not use the wider philosophical arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham deploys with such skill. He will say that our concerns are sensible, but we should not worry because the Bill does not add to anti-discrimination law.
      I say, I think my hon. Friends say, and I know Mr. Dingemans says, that this Bill changes the legal landscape. It says that a man can become a woman in law. How can the Minister be so sure that that fundamental change will not have an effect on the courts? In 1648, the Earl of Pembroke, when a Member of the other place, said that a Parliament can do anything but make a man a woman and a woman a man. Parliament is doing precisely that today. That is why this is an important legal landmark. If Parliament is making that decision, with which the amendment does not argue, it is wrong for the Minister to say that that important legal landmark will not change the legal landscape and open up the possibility of litigation.
      Lynne Jones: The hon. Gentleman is wrong when he says that Parliament is making a man a woman and vice versa. Parliament cannot do that—neither would it be right for it to do so. In this Bill, Parliament is rightly recognising the personal and human rights of people who, through no fault of their own, find themselves trapped in the wrong gender, and wish to have their correct gender recognised.
      Mr. Leigh: That is entirely right. Parliament cannot do that, and from the hon. Lady's point of view, what it is doing is recognising a medical fact. But it is still an important decision. and to argue that it does not change the legal landscape and that it does not open up the possibility of litigation—especially given the opinions of different lawyers to which I have referred—is to be unduly optimistic. I say that to the Minister in advance of what will no doubt be a convincing speech.
      James Dingemans QC says that the Bill will lead to costly and divisive litigation against churches. He agrees that the churches should win in the end, but points out that that will divert their resources into litigation. Furthermore, he says that leaving things that way breaches religious rights. Even if they win, churches may be unable to reclaim their costs against a claimant who is legally aided. Where are they expected to get £100,000 for a Court of Appeal case? It cannot be right to leave the Bill in this state.
      Let me deal with Pepper v. Hart. In the other place, Ministers offered Pepper v. Hart statements to clarify that the Bill was not intended to restrict church rights. Pepper v. Hart was a legal ruling that ministerial

      1453
      statements could be used when there were drafting ambiguities in the law, and when the drafting of legislation left something to be desired. It was a retrospective solution to drafting inadequacies. Surely we cannot and must not come to the stage at which Ministers refer to Pepper v. Hart in advance of a Bill becoming an Act, saying, "Don't worry, the Bill does not need to be entirely clear. I am now giving a Pepper v. Hart statement. Lawyers in future can refer back to my remarks, so what I am saying should give reassurance to churches." Should we not try to make the legislation watertight before we reach that stage?
      Mr. Fallon: Surely the point about Pepper v. Hart is that, whereas it may influence the courts and the decision that they make in any litigation, it will not prevent that litigation. The fact that the Pepper v. Hart precedent has been set, and that these ministerial statements have been made, will not prevent the churches from incurring the expense.
      Mr. Leigh: Precisely. Pepper v Hart is an aid to litigation: it does not prevent it.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this place can never stop litigation, but that it prescribes certain circumstances in which judges may stop litigation? We have regulations related to vexatious litigants, we have costs orders, and the Legal Services Commission has the power, under the sufficient benefit test, not to fund a particular case. In many circumstances, across the legislation that the House passes, judges and courts have the power to stop vexatious litigants or cases that have no merit.
      Mr. Leigh: Why, then, did Mr. Bill Parry succeed in suing that church in south Wales, forcing it to incur costs by going to the local county court? Although the judge found in its favour, he said that it would have to pay half the costs—several hundred pounds. That may be nothing to a company, but to a small Baptist church in south Wales, it is quite a lot of money. Of course, the Minister is right, but given the views that we have had from various lawyers, it is not entirely clear to me that judges would in all circumstances stop such litigation. Whether such litigation is vexatious is a value judgment, and the view could be taken that it was not vexatious.
      Mr. Lammy: I would simply say that this is a matter for the independence of the judges, and that the case that the hon. Gentleman mentions was conducted in the absence of the Bill, which has not received Royal Assent. Clearly, if a claimant were legally aided, one would expect the Legal Services Commission to make a judgment on the merits of future cases if a series of cases had been unsuccessful.
      Mr. Leigh: That may or may not be true in the context of legal aid. We cannot say with any certainty that the commission would always reach that view, and the plaintiff might not be legally aided.
      I do not see why such a moderate new clause, which simply quotes existing human rights legislation, cannot be incorporated in the Bill, to save the churches all this trouble. It would make things so much easier.
      Chris Grayling: Probably relatively few church groups would feel able to go as far as the litigation
      1454
      process. Unless reassurance along the lines proposed by my hon. Friend is written into the Bill, it will constitute a huge risk. How many would take the chance? The financial downside of losing would be enormous.
      Mr. Leigh: That is probably realistic. Most would have to cave in, although some would want to fight because they rightly or wrongly believe that this is an important issue for them.
      Amendment No. 1 simply adds a further instance in which disclosure of a person's birth sex will not be a criminal offence. There are already exceptions for pension companies, and for other purposes. Currently, under clause 22, if one bishop tells another that a priest who has moved to his diocese changed sex, he will have committed a criminal offence. The amendment remedies that obvious anomaly.
      In earlier discussions, some have rightly pointed out that the clergy are used to being discreet, and have claimed that such an exception is not necessary. But even the most discreet priest will have occasion to disclose personal matters about worshippers to his fellow clergy. That may be necessary to avoid problems in the church.
      Let us use the Labour Whips Office as an example. The Whips are used to this distinction. We would all deplore it if the Whips gossiped about our private lives—of course they never do that—but what if a Labour Member is about to be promoted to a ministerial post, and one of the Whips is aware of some enormous crisis that is about to break in his personal life? Of perhaps that never happens either. It would surely be irresponsible of the Whip not to give some indication of that to those who are deciding whether to appoint him. The same might apply to the appointment of a new volunteer or member of staff in a church. If the church has strong beliefs about what it means to be male or female, it would cause enormous offence to appoint a new leader of women's ministries, only for it to emerge later that she used to be a he, and is the father of three children.
      Others compare privacy over a sex change with privacy over abortion. Could a minister disclose the fact that a woman in the church had previously had an abortion? The answer is, under present law, yes—and in certain circumstances, some members of the clergy might consider it appropriate where someone might be asked to provide pregnancy crisis counselling, and that would not currently constitute a criminal offence. Why should talking about an abortion be legal and talking about a sex change be illegal? Do we really want this to be a criminal offence?
      It is interesting to compare the Bill's treatment of religion with its treatment of sport. Sport is big business, of course. It is an industry with a huge amount of money and a huge amount of influence, political and otherwise. In popular culture, it is much more important than religion. When sporting bodies wanted an exemption from the Bill, they got their way. The Government originally said that they had nothing to worry about, using arguments similar to some that we may hear today; but when those bodies continued to press for an exemption, the Government gave way. The financial rewards for winning meant that the issue had to be addressed. What concerned the sports industry was that

      1455
      some man somewhere might consider dramatic surgery to enable him to become a winner in female events. The Government have allowed sports groups to discriminate against transsexuals when it is necessary to protect competitive sport.
      We simply want churches to have an equal right to decide their affairs when they sincerely believe that it is necessary to protect their religious doctrine. There is a lot of concern about this in religious communities. Today's Report stage is our last opportunity to amend the Bill. I hope that the Government will look on the amendments sympathetically, and that they will allow their supporters a free vote so that we can reach a considered decision.
      1.15 pm
      Mr. David Drew: It will not take me long to make my point.
      I was with the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for about half his speech, but the second half made it a bit more difficult for me to agree with him. If a group feels uneasy about being joined by someone on the basis of gender, I see that not as a religious issue but as an issue of people's feeling that their own inclination could be affected.
      I thought that the hon. Gentleman was entirely right about conscientious objection. Some of my church leaders have approached me expressing their unease. If we are to produce statute, it would be helpful if we got it right at the outset rather than assuming that it will be improved in due course by custom and practice and further legal challenges.
      As always, we have been provided with helpful notes. The hon. Gentleman was magnanimous enough to say that—bar the point that I am about to raise—the Joint Committee on Human Rights did not support his legal opinion, although it did support his view on protecting the clergy's rights in terms of conscientious objection in the event of advance disclosure of an issue that could arise in a particular church. The Joint Committee said that, in relation to marriage, that should not be an offence, but it could be covered by secondary legislation. Is that the Government's opinion? I understand that they are likely to clarify their general approach today, but I should like to know specifically why such a provision should be introduced in secondary legislation.
      I would not pretend to have any legal knowledge—I am anything but a lawyer—but I feel that secondary legislation is by nature a weaker form of protection than primary legislation. If it is argued that this question can be covered suitably by secondary legislation, I shall want to know why. I shall also want to know when the secondary legislation will be introduced in what the hon. Gentleman described as the likely event that the Bill is passed today and goes on to become law. It is not unusual for secondary legislation to be somewhat delayed, which would give someone an opportunity to test the provision in the courts.
      There are a few questions that need to be answered very quickly to put the minds of some of us at rest. We should like the problem over conscientious objection to be overcome, in the context of more general human
      1456
      rights issues to do with the wider community; but that must be done in this Bill and at this time, because otherwise we could leave too much to risk.
      Richard Younger-Ross: When I started to listen to the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh), and looked at the wording of the new clause, I had some sympathy with what he was trying to achieve. Such questions were raised on several occasions during our deliberations in Committee, and the Minister made it very clear that this issue was not a problem. He put the case that nothing was required and that what was feared could not happen.
      I think that all of us on the Committee, like the hon. Member for Stroud (Mr. Drew), received representations from members of our Churches and faith communities who had concerns, having seen the QC's interpretation of the legislation, and fears about how the Bill might be interpreted. I hope that the Minister will take account of those fears and concerns, recognise that they are genuine and perhaps consider whether there is any way in which some of the clauses could be tweaked slightly to allay them.
      I hope that the Minister will explain why he will reject the new clause. I hope that he will reject it because it is a rather heavy-handed way of trying to deal with a perceived problem. It sets out to change primacy in legislation. There would be a great risk if we accepted an amendment to the Bill that said that religious freedom and the faith of a Church had primacy over everything else in the Bill—which is effectively what the new clause would do. I am not saying that that would necessarily affect other legislation, but my fear would be where we would stop. Would we then say that there should be similar clauses in other legislation?
      Chris Grayling: Is the hon. Gentleman saying, then, that Parliament should not be minded to take religious views and principles into account? He appears to be saying that Parliament should not see itself as constrained by those issues.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I refer the hon. Gentleman to my opening comments, in which I said that the Minister should take account of those concerns in the legislation and how it is drawn up. However, in my view, we cannot make an amendment that would give primacy to a Church or set of beliefs over all other aspects of legislation. The new clause would set a precedent of giving the Church—or faiths—primacy over legislation, and human rights legislation in particular. Human rights legislation is designed to protect us all in matters other than just those covered by the Bill. If we accepted this new clause, it would be argued that such amendments should be made to other legislation, in other fields.
      Dr. John Pugh: Does my hon. Friend accept that human rights legislation covers precisely those rights of freedom of thought, conscience and religion?
      Richard Younger-Ross: This new clause would put the freedoms, thoughts and rights of that faith over human rights legislation.
      Dr. Pugh: I can see no mention in the new clause of any specific faith. It simply mentions general rights, which as I understand it are general human rights.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I wonder whether we are getting on to how many angels can dance on the head of a pin. The purpose of the new clause is to change the legislation to give primacy to those Churches over the Bill's clauses. If that were not the ease, there would be no purpose in the hon. Member for Gainsborough moving the amendment.
      Mr. Bercow: May I help the hon. Gentleman?
      Richard Younger-Ross: I should be grateful.
      Mr. Bercow: May I put it to the hon. Gentleman that the charge against the new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is slightly less exacting and severe than that which the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) has levelled, but that it is nevertheless significant? The charge against new clause 1 is not that it would render the rest of the Bill null and void, but that it would deny to transsexuals the principle of equality of treatment that underlies the Bill, and which is its raison d'être. It is mightily difficult to envisage precisely what paragraph (b) of amendment 1 would mean in practice.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I take the point. I am not trying to make the charge against the hon. Member for Gainsborough that he is trying to undermine all human rights legislation. I would not say that, but to deny transgendered people those rights under this Bill undermines the very reason for the Bill itself, in the context of a particular group and society. There are exclusions in the Bill, which we have debated and accepted. The question is how far we go in accepting exclusions.
      Chris Grayling: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Richard Younger-Ross: I want to make some progress, but I shall give way one more time.
      Chris Grayling: I am grateful. Will the hon. Gentleman encapsulate for the House at what point he believes that the legislature should or should not override the conscience of individuals in order to secure the human rights of others?
      Richard Younger-Ross: How long will we be staying here tonight? There are some general points in the Bill that I hope will clarify that, although I accept the point. It is very difficult to know where to draw the line, but we have done that in other cases.
      Mr. Bercow: Will the hon. Gentleman give way just once more?
      Richard Younger-Ross: I am too generous.
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman's generosity of spirit invariably gets the better of him, and today is no exception. It was very good of him even to start to answer the tortuous essay question that my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling) posed. I put it to the hon. Member for Teignbridge that the gravamen of the issue is this: respect for some people's rights should not extend so far as to allow them
      1458
      to practise their rights if that violates those of others. Granting the respect for rights that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has in mind would do damage to the rights of others. That is the unacceptability of the proposition.
      Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman puts the matter extremely clearly and concisely, in his own impeccable way. I was going to put it differently, but he has encapsulated the point beautifully.
      I want to continue in my way on the consequences of the new clause. The hon. Member for Gainsborough referred to Christians not excluding others. I wish that that were the case. It might be that in this country, the Christian Churches do not exclude others—because, in effect, of the legislation that we have brought in over the years to stop such discrimination. Not so long ago that was not the case, and we would not have to go very far to find other countries where some Christian Churches have excluded others for all sorts of reasons. There have been exclusions on mental health grounds, on grounds of colour and on grounds of gender. That has all happened in our lifetimes, and happens in other parts of the world today.
      Andrew Selous: Will the hon. Gentleman give way very briefly?
      Richard Younger-Ross: Go on.
      Andrew Selous: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman; he was generous in Committee and he is being generous again now. Is not the nub of his argument that, as far as religious organisations are concerned—let us not forget that they are what the clause is talking about—he is trying to say that secular, humanist, human rights-based law should have precedence over a concern for freedom of religion?
      Richard Younger-Ross: I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that that law does have precedence. Laws that we have passed already affect how churches can act. That does not affect religious thought or what people think, but it does affect their actions. There are a number of examples of that. However, we are diverging into other areas. Let me come to the nub of my point, and then the hon. Gentleman might catch Mr. Deputy Speaker's eye and be able to put his arguments. Perhaps he himself will be generous in allowing interventions on those points.
      1.30 pm
      The essence of my argument is that the hon. Member for Gainsborough was wrong: there is discrimination within Christian Churches, and I make that point as a practising Roman Catholic. All is not always rosy in the religious garden. Much has been made of how my own faith treated unmarried mothers in Ireland, denying them basic human rights. Today, all of us—including even the Roman Catholic Church—would accept that that was an appalling way to behave. This legislation deals with other discrimination issues, and I hope that in passing it—as we doubtless will—we will protect people who have been discriminated against for centuries.

      1459
      That brings me to my second argument with the hon. Member for Gainsborough. He used the word "choice"—as if one wanders downstairs in the morning, looks in the mirror and suddenly thinks, "I want to be a woman today." That is not how it happens. There was an excellent recent television series about intersexual people: those whose gender is determined by doctors at birth for hormonal or chromosomal reasons and who are thereby denied a choice at an early stage in their life, and who then decide that the doctors got it wrong, and that the gender that they wish to be is not the same as that to which they were assigned at birth.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris)—he sends his apologies for not being here—is a doctor, and perish the thought that I should do a disservice to doctors by saying that they make mistakes, but the fact is that they do.[Interruption.] Apparently, my hon. Friend is here but has just left the Chamber; he was late arriving because his train was delayed. A number of mistakes were certainly made so far as intersexual children were concerned, as the television series to which I referred demonstrated perfectly well.
      One can go further. Who knows how the brain works? We still do not fully understand how it works. Who understands what triggers a person's brain—often at the very young age of three, four or five—to decide that they are in a body of the wrong gender.[Interruption.] I welcome my hon. Friend the Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon back to the Chamber. We do not know at what stage such things happen. We do not know precisely what causes a person to decide that they are of the wrong gender, and that they wish to adopt the gender that they consider has always been theirs. Such people have the mind of a woman but happen to have the body of a man, or vice versa. Who is to determine what happened to them, and whether the cause was hormonal or chromosomal?
      Andrew Selous: In the interest of informing the House, it would be remiss of the hon. Gentleman not to point out that some transsexual people—I understand that that is the correct term to use if we are not to cause offence—move from one sex to the other and back again. So it is not always the case that their sexuality is predetermined from birth.
      Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes a fair point—
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. This is not a general debate on these issues; we have a specific new clause before us, and the hon. Gentleman should address his remarks to it.
      Richard Younger-Ross: We shall doubtless return to the issue mentioned by the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) at a later date, Mr. Deputy Speaker, but before I finish I should like to make two points. If the new clause is accepted, every member of a faith community will be able to know that a person is transgendered, yet it would be an offence for anyone outside that community to know that information. That is an impossible situation and it is not
      1460
      practical. In my view, it would be totally wrong to pass legislation that allows small sections of a community to be informed of a matter about which those outside it cannot be informed.
      Reference has been made to the Bill's sports exemptions. Under the terms of that new clause, a transgendered person who wanted to take up a sport that relates specifically to their new gender would be unable to do so in certain circumstances. The new clause makes such provision because such a person would perhaps be consciously choosing to take up that sport in the knowledge that they enjoy the physical advantages of their formal birth gender. One of the Bill's purposes is to prevent others from knowing such things, and to enable such people to go through their lives without everyone knowing their history and pointing at them. To enable everyone in a church community to know that a person is transgendered is to deny that person access to that community. That is a profoundly un-Christian and ungodly thing to do.
      Mr. Alan Hurst: I shall not detain the House for long as I simply want to discuss a fairly narrow issue that was raised by a curate in my division, the Rev. Malcolm Peters of St. Michael's church, Braintree. First, I understand that a concession has been made in the Bill, in that clergy of the Church of England and of the Church in Wales will no longer be obliged to perform a marriage it the applicants for marriage fit the necessary requirements. Secondly, if the curate came to know in his official capacity that he was dealing with a transsexual person and he declined to marry them, it would of course be open to the applicant to move on and to apply to the rector or vicar. As matters stand, the curate is prohibited from notifying his vicar or rector of the position.
      The new clause and amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) seek to cure that problem and, indeed, to go wider. The difficulty is that they go too far. Under the terms of amendment No. 1, it would be necessary to

      "comply with the doctrines of the religion",

      but in certain Churches there are divided views as to the doctrine on this matter. The Church of England in particular would have a problem, given that a number of its bishops were in the forefront of promoting the Bill in the other place. The definition of "doctrines of the religion" would be very difficult to define.
      Amendment No. 1 also refers to "religious susceptibilities". I am not certain what a religious susceptibility is, and again, no definition is provided. However, the greatest problem is caused by the amendment's reference to the religious susceptibilities

      "of a significant number of the religion's followers."

      Are followers communicants, members of the Church in question or those who attend a certain number of Sundays a year? The term "follower" needs to be defined before we can consider what constitutes "a significant number". Is a significant number half, three quarters or two thirds? The amendment is defective because it seeks to spread itself too widely.
      The approach should be that of the fiduciary relationship. Does an official trusting relationship exist between, for example, the curate and his vicar, or between the vicar and his archdeacon and bishop? If it

      1461
      is possible to define the parameters of a trusting relationship between Church officials, an appropriate provision should be drawn up, so that such information can be passed on. If such a provision went much further and the church warden and the head of the Sunday school were notified, there would be no end to the process, and such information would become the tittle-tattle of communities, particularly small ones. That would completely undermine the whole purpose of the Bill, which is to allow those who move from one sex to another to do so with dignity and privacy.
      I would support the new clause and amendment of the hon. Member for Gainsborough if they were more narrowly defined. I fully accept that we should deal with definitions now if we possibly call, and I shall be interested to hear the Minister's comments at the end of the debate. As has been said, the power already exists for the making of subsequent orders, in order to define further categories to which disclosure can be made. However, we should think hard and carefully about what those categories should be, so that we preserve both the spirit of the Church concerned, and the privacy and dignity of the person with whom it is dealing.
      Chris Grayling: I want to say a few words in support of new clause 1. Given all the concerns about this section of the Bill—probably voiced to most hon. Members by local Church or religious groups—the approach that my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) has taken in the new clause is eminently sensible. It sends a clear signal of intent from this place to the courts to enable them to form the right judgments in the event of these matters coming before them. One hopes that such cases will be few and far between.
      I read closely and with interest the work of Dingemans, which should be a totemic reference point for the House. It is a piece of work carried out by one of our leading QCs. It offers legal advice of which we should be mindful and it will undoubtedly have an influence if these matters are brought before the courts. One section of Dingemans' work—paragraph 17—jumped off the page at me. It states:

      "Religious rights have a 'primordial place' in a democratic society and the 'pluralism indissociable' from a democratic society depends upon religious rights It is not the function of the Courts (or the legislature) to judge the acceptability of the religious views (even if the Judge or the members of Parliament are members of the same religion) if the religious views have attained a sufficient level of cogency. Indeed, as the views become less accepted by modern society as a whole, the greater becomes the burden on the Courts and legislature to protect them."

      That is a safe set of words, of which we should be mindful in considering these matters.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough is right about the risks that exist when a leading QC takes a view with which the Government may disagree. Those who have considered the Bill may disagree with it, but it is there, on paper, and it comes from a leading legal authority. My hon. Friend is right that it may give rise to debate after the Bill has been passed and it may form one part of the subsequent arguments in the courts. It is surely beholden on the House to ensure that we do all that we can to get it right and to send the right signals about our intent to those who will examine the provisions in the courts. We must not end up leaving it
      1462
      to the courts to interpret our motives in the House. If we do, individual Church and religious groups may incur huge expenses in going through the process.
      Mr. Bercow: Unlike my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), I rarely become agitated, but I am bound to say to my hon. Friend the Member for Epsom and Ewell (Chris Grayling), who read out learned counsel's views as though it were a conclusive commentary affecting the result of the debate, that he should take great care not to conflate and confuse legal judgments with political judgments, the latter being our responsibility. There is a difference between people of a religious faith holding views and being allowed to take actions reflecting those views, which damage other people's rights. That is the gravamen of the argument here.
      Chris Grayling: But we should all be mindful of the points that Mr. Dingemans makes. Both we and the courts have a duty to be mindful of the consciences, views, beliefs and rights of people in our society. It is important to protect the rights of all involved in the process—an important point sincerely put earlier—but that argument works both ways. Although we are duty bound to look after the rights of a small set of individuals in our society who face real problems—there is much in the Bill to be welcomed—we also have a duty to ensure that in protecting the rights of those individuals we do not trespass on the inalienable rights of others. It is a difficult balance to strike. I put my dissertation question to the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) and he is right to say that it is a difficult line to find, and it is not always easy for us to do so.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way again. He used the word "inalienable". Does he believe that it is the inalienable right of one person to kick another person out of a meeting because the person doing the kicking out disapproves of the change of gender of the other person? That seems a very curious definition of an inalienable right and I do not believe that the founding fathers would have fought for it.
      Chris Grayling: Fundamentally, every individual in our society must have the right to hold sincere religious views. I do not believe that any individual should have the right to force someone else to abandon views that they hold sincerely according to their conscience. As I said, it is a difficult line to find, but it is dangerous to trespass across it.
      1.45 pm
      Mr. Lammy: May I put on record the fact that it is certainly not the Government's intention for religious people to abandon their views? The opinion of James Dingemans was a good one, which I read with close interest, but the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that other eminent QCs, the Clerk to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the eminent Lord Chancellor and many other lawyers are involved. The key question is not the balance—in the sense of the amount—of legal opinion, but the judgment call that has to be made. It is a balance not simply between having religious freedom or not having it, but between the important right to religious

      1463
      freedom, which is enshrined in our Human Rights Act 1998, and the fundamental and important right to privacy. That is the key point and it is the path that the Government must follow as we examine these important issues.
      Chris Grayling: I would agree with most of what the Minister said: we are dealing with a difficult and sensitive area, and it is right to be mindful of the rights of all involved on the different sides of the debate. It would be wrong for the House to be unduly prescriptive either one way or the other in respect of the amendments to the Bill. What makes new clause 1 attractive to me is that it is not designed to prescribe exactly what the courts should decide. It simply sends a message from this place to the courts stating that we are concerned that the religious rights of individuals in our society might come under significant pressure as a result of the Bill's enactment. We want the courts to be mindful of that and to err on the side of the protection of religious freedoms if and when—one hopes that it is only if: ideally, it is not at all—these matters come before the courts. It is surely right for the House to send out the message that a small group of people in our society who have not been properly looked after by the law in the past should be looked after more effectively in the future. Nevertheless, in providing a solution to their problems, it is crucial to ensure that we do not force others to go against their own consciences and their own religious views.
      Mr. Lammy: I discern a dichotomy in what the hon. Gentleman has said. He says that it is important that the Bill does not place religious communities under significant pressure. He acknowledges that the community of people concerned—perhaps one of the smallest minorities on behalf of whom the House has sought to assist by passing equality measures—is only about 5,000 in number. All hon. Members have transgendered people in their communities. This group of 5,000 people are vulnerable, and they have experienced significant prejudice. In my experience, their gender dysphoria makes them meek and timid about their appearance, and other things. The notion that they might take on our Churches in some significant way does not match everyday experience. I suggest to the hon. Gentleman that it is important that he keeps a sense of perspective in his remarks.
      Chris Grayling: The Minister is right that we are talking about a small group of people, but we live in a litigious society. I am sure that every hon. Member would wish that these matters will never come before the courts but, if that happens, the House must give a signal to the courts. These are difficult issues and it is hard to separate the two sides in the debate. However, as we extend rights to one group of people, it is right for us to ask the courts to be mindful of the risks that that might present to the moral and religious views of other groups.
      Andrew Selous: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Baptist church in south Wales was advised that it would have lost its case if the provisions of the Bill, as
      1464
      drafted—that is, unamended by new clause 1—had applied. My hon. Friend is describing the reality of what Churches will face from a very small litigious minority.
      Chris Grayling: I think that my hon. Friend's contribution speaks for itself. He is right. We aim to provide an additional degree of protection: we do not want to be prescriptive, but we want to reassure those Church groups who may have to confront these matters. New clause 1 has been drafted carefully, and offers a sensible balance between the different dimensions of the question at issue. It would strengthen the Bill and send a message of reassurance to religious groups, but it would not change fundamentally what the Government are trying to achieve.
      I commend the new clause to the House. I hope that the Minister can be persuaded to change his mind and accept it, as it would make the Bill better, fairer and more just.
      Lynne Jones: I understand that, in the light of the Dingemans opinion and of the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, the Government may put forward proposals to give practical clout to the clause in the Bill that deals with conscientious objection, in respect of marriage and, I hope, ordination. I welcome that.
      The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) made some valid points in the first part of his speech, and there is no doubt tension between the provisions in articles 8 and 9 of the convention on human rights. However, he also talked about the rights of women's discussion groups, and I do not see how that can have anything to do with religious freedom. It is on a par with discussions about who should use the ladies' toilet: it is irrelevant, and involves a complete misunderstanding of transsexualism.
      I have circulated some briefing notes to hon. Members about transsexualism, and I emphasise that it is not a matter of choice. Transsexuals are people who feel compelled to have hormonal treatment or surgery so that their physical characteristics can be brought into congruence with the way that they feel about their gender identity.
      There are other tensions between articles 8 and 9 of the convention. The Bill proposes that married transsexual people must dissolve their marriages if they want to exercise their human rights under article 8. There is a great bond between people whose marriages have subsisted through the upheavals and difficulties that arise when one spouse decides to change into what they see as their correct gender. The strength of that bond may in part be due to strong religious beliefs about the sacredness of the vows taken at marriage.
      The Bill requires people to choose between how they exercise their rights under articles 8 and 9. I am very sad at that. We will discuss that in detail later, but it shows how difficult these matters are. Religious freedom has no overwhelming priority over the right to privacy and other freedoms provided for in human rights legislation. We must strike a balance between rights, and the Bill does that, by and large. Some elements could be tweaked: there are some changes that I should like to be made, and I shall appeal to the Government to amend the Bill accordingly.
      Andrew Selous: I shall be brief, as most of the arguments have been well aired already. I wholeheartedly support new clause 1, to which I am a signatory. The idea that religious groups should be allowed to regulate their affairs should not cause the House any difficulty.
      At the start of the Bill's progress through the House, I received a letter from a transsexual person in my constituency. The letter told me of the writer's hopes for the Bill and detailed some of the difficulties encountered in the writer's life. I am pleased to say that the Bill goes a long way towards addressing some of those difficulties.
      However, hundreds of churchgoing people around the country, and ministers and pastors too, have written to me to express concern about the Bill's possible effects—on their communities, the finances of their Churches, and the pastoral oversight that their Churches exercise. I am not sure that the Government realise the extent of that anxiety. The Government want to provide genuine remedies to the real concerns of transsexual people, and they can do that without causing the offence and upset that will be caused if this Bill is enacted.
      The Minister said that most transsexual people are mild mannered and that they do not want to cause offence. He is absolutely right: I was delighted to meet, for the first time, some transsexual people at the end of some sittings of the Standing Committee considering the Bill. I concur with the Minister's assessment, but any society has a small minority of people who are litigious, sometimes aggressively so. The case involving the Baptist Church in south Wales has been mentioned, and I repeat that the Church was told that it would have lost the case if the Bill, unamended by new clause 1, had been the prevailing legislation.
      Churches are not rich organisations. The money that they have should be spent on promoting the gospels and on the other work that they do. It should not be used to fight lawsuits.
      The nub of the issue is that it would not be right for the House to impose a secular, humanist provision based on human rights on religious organisations in respect of the conduct of their affairs. The Bill contains plenty of protections for transsexual people, and justifiably so, but the new clause is very mild and states merely that the courts should "have regard" to the sensibilities of religious organisations. I hope that the Government will accept the new clause.
      2 pm
      Richard Younger-Ross: Can the hon. Gentleman provide the philosophical argument that would explain why it would be right for a Church to allow someone into the church to practise their faith and to use the ladies' toilets, which is an example he has cited, but not to sit down with other women—because the person would legally be a woman—to debate religious matters.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman picks a specific example and it is not for us to speculate what would happen in an individual church—[Interruption.] No, I will address that point. It is, rightly, an established custom in many different Churches to have male prayer groups and female prayer groups. They are sensitive flowers, which grow up over a period of time and in
      1466
      which confidences are shared. People do not share intimate details of their life unless they have confidence that what they share will be respected, and there are some issues that men prefer to discuss with other men and women prefer to discuss with other women.
      Mr. Lammy: Oh, please!
      Andrew Selous: The Minister seems to have an objection to that. It may not be the custom in the Churches of which he has knowledge, but it is the custom in Churches up and down the country. All I am saying is that we need a degree of sensitivity to the situation, which is not too much to ask.
      Glenda Jackson: Is the hon. Gentleman arguing that if a religious belief carries with it an acceptance of a practice—such as female circumcision, polygamy or stoning to death a woman taken in adultery—it should be outside civil law and this House should allow it to be part of the structure of this country or should not voice any criticism of other countries where such practices take place?
      Andrew Selous: Of course it would be ridiculous to say that we could not have views about the strange practices of various faiths in different parts of the world. The hon. Gentleman—[Laughter.] I am sorry; I mean the hon. Lady. She is talking about religious views, but the new clause does not address the issue of theology, so that point is not germane to the argument.
      I hope that the Government will come to realise the extent of the concern about this matter among good people, who do not seek to cause trouble. They just wish to ensure that they can run their Churches in a way that accords with their beliefs.
      Mr. Colin Breed: We have had a good debate on the new clause. I was pleased to add my name to the new clause because it has provided the opportunity for a wide-ranging debate. I have great sympathy for people diagnosed with gender dysphoria. In fact, I have also been contacted by a constituent who has suffered considerably and will be assisted by many of the provisions in the Bill.
      The new clause focuses narrowly on the issue of religious liberty. In the past hour, we have seen that a fine balance must be struck between protecting the rights of certain individuals and maintaining the religious liberties that have been enjoyed by many churches over a long time. The issue concerns many hon. Members with widely varying perspectives. Of those who added their names in support of the new clause, some supported the Bill on Second Reading, some voted against it and many abstained. That shows that one can support the Bill and the new clause, because it does not go against any of the central principles. Instead, the new clause would add to the Bill's list of qualifications.
      The majority of transsexual people who will take advantage of the Bill's provisions will just get on with the rest of their life. Many of them will find that going to church will pose no particular problem. The issue centres on those few who may take advantage of some of the provisions to pursue a litigious or vexatious case against a particular church, minister or official. I hope,

      1467
      therefore, that we can strike a balance between protection of the individuals and protection of the rights of church members, who might be widely affected by a case against their church.
      We often qualify rights and we are right to do so, because unqualified rights can be taken to extremes by some people. We are getting used to a certain amount of extremism in society. Some people utilise reasonable legislation that is meant to be used reasonably, to pursue extreme court cases that entail huge costs for those who have to defend them. That is why I support the new clause. It would not do the transsexuals' cause much good if vexatious cases were to be brought against various churches, because they would receive huge publicity and could undermine many of the good aspects of the Bill. It is regrettable that some people might take their rights to extreme lengths, not only under this Bill but under other legislation, because that undermines what might be called political correctness. That is unfortunate, but it is happening more and more frequently. People get their own back, as they see it, by pursuing matters to court, even if they do not necessarily have a great chance of success. However, they can significantly undermine—even bankrupt—ndividuals or organisations. I hope that the Minister can allay my fears on that point.
      Yesterday, I met a group of ministers and they raised one specific fear that I wish to put to the Minister. It concerned the public disclosure aspect of baptismal records. They explained that baptismal records are public records and they wondered whether their disclosure would lead to any difficulties under the Bill.
      Dr. Pugh: I agree with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), who said earlier that this is an issue of the balance of rights—the rights of transsexuals and the rights of some churches that think they will be affected by the Bill. He is right to say that legislators frequently have to decide between rights with a view to the overall common good, and sometimes hard choices need to be made. However, in this instance a reasonable compromise may be available. We need to make a tough choice because both sides cannot have their own way.
      I have been impressed by this debate—the sensitivity of the speakers, their passion and the way in which they have treated a profoundly moving and puzzling phenomenon. I am convinced that it is no part of the objectives of the Bill to discriminate against religion, to cause any religious furore, to trample on conscience or to make religious bodies feel that they will be treated worse than sporting bodies.
      A compromise is possible, but I do not know whether new clause 1 will achieve it. I hope that it will. However, it would not—on this point I disagree with the hon. Gentleman—give an inalienable right to any religious body. It simply states that the Government should be mindful of freedom of conscience and religious belief. It asks only for mindfulness, not an inalienable right.
      Mr. David Heath: I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend says, but I have a problem with the word "particular". It is difficult
      1468
      for the courts to interpret correctly. To elevate one right above another in statute in that way is unhelpful to the interpretation of the intention of the legislation.
      Dr. Pugh: I shall not take it on myself to comment on the perfection or otherwise of the wording of the new clause—
      Mr. Leigh: It is simply taken from the Human Rights Act.
      Dr. Pugh: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention, but I do not want to comment on how far-reaching the proposal may be or how troublesome it might be at a later date; nor can I comment on a QC's advice. However, the Minister needs to give us powerful, clear and unequivocal reassurance. That is important, first, to people of genuine and benign religious conviction and, secondly, to the people the legislation seeks to help.
      John McDonnell: I, too, have received reservations from local religious leaders about the disclosure of information aspects of the Bill. This is one of those Bills where never so many MPs met with never so many religious leaders; I hope that it has done us some good.
      There are clearly anxieties about litigious individuals, especially as regards the disclosure of information—the particular point that has been raised with me. However, my understanding of the suggested amendments is that they could provoke more litigation than the existing provisions.
      Can the Minister clarify my understanding of the provisions? Under subsection (5) of clause 22 the Government have provided for the Secretary of State to make specific orders to define what will or will not be an offence in relation to disclosure of information. They have also given assurances that they will look at the Dingemans advice and consider how it might be interpreted in the development of such orders, to avoid the risk of litigation that would bear heavily on individual religious institutions while preserving the balance of interest for the people the Bill would benefit. Subsection (5) thus gives us the opportunity to take a common-sense approach that would protect all interests, and would also enable us to introduce further orders to eradicate any problems that might arise in future. We should then be giving as much security as possible to all sides in the debate.
      Mr. Boswell: This has been an excellent debate. The House is grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for introducing it so comprehensively and for sparking off some other excellent contributions. I found very little to quibble about in my hon. Friend's own contribution. I merely point out that although I speak from the Front Bench I neither require nor encourage my colleagues to follow me in this matter. All votes from these Benches today will be free votes.
      Mr. Douglas Hogg: All votes are free votes.
      Mr. Boswell: Indeed, but the votes today are particularly free and we should welcome and celebrate the diversity that they may yet produce.
      Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and I am sure that we are all particularly grateful to my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) for pointing out that all votes are free votes, but does my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) think that that was the view expressed by our right hon. and learned Friend when for a brief period he was a Government Whip?
      Mr. Boswell: Some things in this place are perhaps best left unsaid, especially among consenting friends, if I may put it like that.
      I speak as a supporter of the Bill but also as someone who signed the new clause with enthusiasm and amendment No. 1 with a degree of tentativeness, and who has listened to the representations made to me. The Bill deals with some difficult issues, many of which we dealt with equably in Committee. Almost all the letters I received about the Bill were from faith interests, the majority from Christian interests. They reflected the opinions of a variety of churchmanship, from Catholic to Free Church. We should remember, too, that other faith communities, including Muslim communities, are exercised about the Bill to some degree or another.
      I am a Christian, as I made clear in Committee, so I may be said to have an interest. In general, I support the Bill but I have reservations about these aspects. It has been right to debate them and we look forward to the Minister's response. Equally, however, I have reservations about the situation that might arise if we were to enact the new clause.
      As a general rule, I do not like partial legislation; as several hon. Members on both sides of the House have pointed out, there should be no special deal for the Churches. They should not have carte blanche against the provisions of the law, as the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) said, to do exactly as they like when that is unacceptable to the House. We must defend that principle. Equally, however, we must respect their sensitivities and their broad underlying decencies wherever we possibly can.
      2.15 pm
      I do not seek to patronise the many people who wrote to me personally—the number ran into three figures—because we know how things can be encouraged. People read about something and want to write to someone to express their concern. However, it is possible that not all my correspondents fully understood all the implications of the Bill and the safeguards that it already contains. Indeed, I am not absolutely sure that any of us do—it is a complex matter, with legal cruces to which I shall turn in a moment. It is also possible that some people, even those in faith communities, may be motivated by personal dislike of or distaste for transgendered people. I do not condone that and I do not follow them in it, but it is possible that some people may be using some of the practical difficulties as a shield behind which they can advance such views. I certainly do not want to encourage that. Nevertheless there is a body of interest
      1470
      and concern among decent and responsible opinion, mainly in the Christian Churches, that should be properly addressed.
      The Minister will be able to make this point better and more clearly than I, but there are already several serious safeguards in the Bill and they should be embodied in good practice. We should, for example, try to embody them in Christian practice. A minister has the right to ask, and the respondent the right to decline to answer, the question: "Are you or are you not a transgendered person?" That is a reasonable and proper question-for example, in regard to marriage—especially if the rules of the Church preclude particular offices or practices to a person in that situation.
      An individual, whether or not they are a minister of religion, has the right to pass on information, provided that it is done with the consent of the person concerned. That is obviously the best situation in practice. Nevertheless, despite those safeguards, the faith communities have concerns and have written eloquently to us about them.
      First, faith communities have concern about practices that they would regard as normal and reasonable. Secondly, they are concerned about the discharge of their pastoral duties—for example, between one member of the clergy and another. Thirdly, and more widely, they are concerned about the threat of litigation that, even if they were to win it, might incur considerable hassle and cost to a relatively small community, unused to early recourse to legislation.
      The Minister will rightly say that nobody can be precluded from taking up their rights under the law as a matter of principle—nor should they be; as he has already reminded the House, if that were contrary to public purposes there are already safeguards. However, to my regret, we are moving towards a society that is highly litigation-driven, where people will seek either to assert and secure their rights or to make a point about their putative rights at the expense of a third party.
      Chris Grayling: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise to my hon. Friend for interrupting him, but the Officers of the House might like to be aware that there is a pronounced smell of burning on the Opposition side of the House.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am well aware that there is a smell of burning on both sides of the House, and it is being investigated at the moment.
      Mr. Boswell: I was doing my very best not to make an inflammatory speech and I am sorry that I have so conspicuously failed to do so, but let us heroically return to the point in the hope that the fires will not be in store for us all.
      There has rightly been a great deal of discussion about the legal opinion of James Dingemans, QC in this matter. There then equally has been put against that opinion—as a layperson, I am enjoying this rather vicarious clash of the champions—the view of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which says in its 12th progress report that it does not agree with it. Of course, as the Minister will be aware, the Joint Committee concedes that, in the spirit of the legislation, there

      1471
      should be a conscience clause for clergy, who would not be required under the Bill to marry transgendered persons, to be told that those persons are trangendered. That is an entirely reasonable provision, and perhaps the Minister will tell us how he intends to proceed on that.
      Frankly, such a safeguard does not deal with a number of other conscience clause issues that might arise—for example, if a priest is transferring from one diocese to another, the pastoral duties of a bishop to advise the neighbouring bishop of the priest's status as a transsexual person, and in certain faiths where it is not acceptable for such people to proceed to ordination, the fact that they are so. Those are very difficult issues, but they undoubtedly come within the overall gamut of the Dingemans opinion.
      Mr. Drew: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for battling on despite all before us. Those who have taken up this issue with me have particularly wanted to protect their own clergy. Although I support the case behind new clause 1 in outline, what worries me is that no distinction is drawn in it between the additional protection that clergy may need because of the vulnerable position that they may be put in, and the religious freedom that we as Christians would all wish to exercise but which we, through our conscience, would have to take a risk in exercising. Does he accept that there is a problem?
      Mr. Boswell: I certainly accept that there is a problem, although with respect—I mean that—the right approach to the solution may not have been found, because some faith communities do not organise themselves separately into clergy and lay people, and a difficulty is obviously created if that is so. As the hon. Member for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, that may be something to do with the relationship of trust when someone is in a position of trust or management. That may need to be thought about. I am well conscious of the fact that if the new clause does not prevail in a few moments, the Minister may want to go away and think very much about what may be done under the order-making powers to try to safeguard people's positions. I am pleased to see that he is at least nodding concern, if not assent, about that point.
      There is, however, a real worry, and my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough has been entirely right to bring this to the House's attention and there are more general applications for these concerns. Even with good will on the part of the Churches and the faith communities and with good will, as I am sure there will be, among the great majority of transgendered people themselves, who will not seek to make political or demonstrative points, the danger is that this will end up in a kind of legal Tom Tiddler's ground. I am a little surprised that no one has quoted the last paragraph of the Dingemans opinion, which bears quotation in full because it expresses very well the concerns in this matter. He says:

      "The Bill contains provisions which would criminalise disclosures made for religious purposes which are likely to infringe the religious rights of individuals. Further the Bill, in its current form, gives scope for litigation against individual Churches
      1472
      seeking to act in accordance with their religious beliefs. Such litigation is likely to be divisive, costly and of benefit only to the lawyers."

      That is my sensitivity on this matter.
      I said, however, that I believe that some of those issues perhaps have a wider application than the Bill itself. I will say very briefly—I am conscious of the fact that I am speaking to a motion on Report, rather than raising a general issue—that my own experience and concerns arise as a co-sponsor of the Promotion of Volunteering Bill. Again, there is the problem. A large number of hon. Members on both sides of the House want to achieve common support for the voluntary sector, but we are conscious of the fact that, in a litigation-driven culture, people are moving towards recourse to law, suing on risks that may or may not have been inherent in the situation, with all the problems that brings for small, relatively unsophisticated bodies in fighting off that kind of litigation.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough referred in his most telling remark—he took the words from my lips, so I than have to repeat them on his behalf—to the legal debate about whether one convention right should trump another. That is exactly the point. With respect, he and I cannot resolve that issue—it is not our job to do so—but the fact that there is such a debate creates the conditions for litigation, which is of benefit only to lawyers.
      I happen to believe that, as we clear the path through blatant issues of discrimination and the abuse or denial of human rights that have characterised our society over the years—we need not make huge political points about them or claim to have been politically virtuous in dealing with them—and as we gradually put our society in the right way in respect of the treatment of women, minorities or whatever, we begin to find that we have done the easy part. We have dealt with things about which discrimination should never have been allowed to occur in the first place. However, we then come across clashes where one right overlays and diminishes another right, and we then have real problems on our hands.
      We need to remember that all this came from the European Court of Human Rights judgment that the United Kingdom had infringed articles 8 and 12 of the European convention on human rights, but article 9 deals with practising religion. There is no provision in the European convention or the Human Rights Act 1998 for one measure to trump another. They must all be held in balance. It will be more difficult for the House to hold those things in balance than in the past, but our job today is to try to get them as best in balance as we can. That is a real-world issue.
      Mr. Heath: I am most grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way because I want to correct what I said earlier. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) is absolutely correct to say that such things are expressed in precisely those words in section 13 of the Human Rights Act 1998, which would have effect irrespective of whether the new clause were included in the Bill; it would still qualify the attitude of the courts in interpreting the workings of the Bill.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that clarification. I, too, had noticed that happy

      1473
      coincidence. The Minister, if he is smart, will say, "But we don't need to do it because it is there already." That is an argument, but he needs to be encouraged to take seriously the kinds of concern that have been expressed.
      I conclude—we have had enough debate on the issue, although we look forward to the Minister's response—by saying that new clause 1 enshrines the convention rights and is a proper declaratory statement of the rights in relation to religion. On amendment No. 1, I have somewhat greater qualifications because of the difficulty with partiality, but I would tell the Minister that we have collectively identified concerns and the elements of a possible problem. We need to take that seriously and, if possible, legislate now. We certainly also need to keep our minds open to making changes by order that would make those fears prove unfulfilled in practice.
      2.30 pm
      Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to the House. We have had an excellent debate on this important issue. Clearly, important issues for religious organisations arise from the Bill and the right to freedom of religion is certainly extremely important. It is, rightly, enshrined in our law by virtue of section 13 of the Hunan Rights Act 1998, whose effects have just been described. The wording of the new clause is in large part borrowed from that section, but the existence of section 13 means that new clause 1 is unnecessary. We have already enhanced protection for the right of freedom of religion in our law.
      We have not sought to rely solely on section 13. Throughout the preparation and the parliamentary passage of the Bill, we have engaged with the views of religious organisations and those who, as a matter of religious doctrine, do not accept that a person can change their gender or sex. As we might expect, disagreement remains on that principle, and we have heard that expressed today. However, in the course of several meetings with, among others, the Bishop of Winchester, officials of the Church of England, the Evangelical Alliance and the Christian Institute, we have begun to work through the practical issues that need to be resolved. Following these discussions, in the House of Lords we widened the conscience clause in relation to marriage. That change was widely welcomed. It is important to put on record our respect for religious freedoms and communities and our ability to produce a conscience clause that protects clergy.
      Andrew Selous: I know that representatives of the Evangelical Alliance were grateful for the opportunity to meet the Minister's officials last week. I have learned from my discussions with them that they have serious concerns and want new clause 1 or a very similar provision to appear in the Bill.
      Mr. Lammy: I have just explained the close relationship between the Bill and section 13 of the Human Rights Act, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman will be more pleased to hear later passages of my speech.
      We must protect the rights of transsexual people and we believe that it is essential that the Bill should provide protection for their privacy. The benefits of recognition in the acquired gender would be greatly compromised were there to be open access to the fact that a person is
      1474
      recognised in the acquired gender. The Government have to weave a path between the two rights: the right of religious freedom and the right of privacy. In that respect, amendment No. 1 is unsuitable: as my hon. Friends the Members for Stroud (Mr. Drew) and for Braintree (Mr. Hurst) said, it is extraordinarily broad and, given its use of words such as susceptibilities and doctrines, would not provide the exemption that religious organisations want.
      We accept that religious organisations have some important concerns, but they relate to specific issues. We have heard about the disclosure that might need to take place during the course of considering a person for appointment as a religious minister, whether ordination or appointment to a congregation. Those responsible might want to know whether the person concerned has been recognised in the acquired gender. It has been suggested that similar issues arise when a transsexual person wishes to be considered for membership of a faith community. The hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) mentioned the rules and practices of some religious communities that would want to exclude people who have acquired gender—although I say for the record that that is not my Christian tradition within the Anglican communion.
      A further issue is disclosure to a religious minister who is about to conduct a marriage ceremony. My hon. Friend the Member for Braintree described a case in which someone else—for example, the curate—knows that one of the parties is recognised in the acquired gender; in that case, the curate might feel obliged to tell the minister, yet clause 22 might prohibit disclosure of that important information.
      There may be several solutions to such problems and it is right that we approach them in a common-sense fashion, asking what a curate or a faith community faced with such a problem would do in the circumstances,
      Andrew Selous: The Minister uses emotive words such as exclude. The clergy and pastors with whom I have spoken are concerned simply to ensure appropriate and sensitive pastoral care. Exclusion is no part of their agenda.
      Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for putting that on the record.
      Chris Grayling: The Minister has set out a number of scenarios in which a problem could arise. Does he accept that the benefit of new clause 1 is that it addresses the unexpected, as well as the expected? Undoubtedly, situations will arise that Parliament has not anticipated and of which the Minister did not think when preparing his speech. Does he accept that a signpost in the Bill stating that Parliament wants the courts to be mindful of religious rights is therefore desirable?
      Mr. Lammy: Let me make some progress and explain how we would deal with such situations.
      We have always said that the primary solution must be to seek the consent of the transsexual person to disclosure. We are discussing sensitive personal information and it is reasonable that, for the most part, the consent of the individual should be required before

      1475
      disclosure can occur. As I said in Committee, my experience and, I am sure, that of most hon. Members suggests that if a member of the clergy or a member of a faith community were to receive such information, they would quietly and calmly seek the consent of the transgendered person to their passing on that information, should they wish to do so.
      In another place we extended the conscience clause so that a religious minister is allowed to refuse to marry a person if the minister has a reasonable belief that the person is recognised in the acquired gender. We understand that baptismal certificates are often requested in cases involving marriage, membership or appointment. Unless a person was baptised after the age of 18, the baptismal certificate would be in the original gender and thus provide the information needed. The hon. Member for South-East Cornwall (Mr. Breed) asked whether disclosure of baptismal certificates would cause problems. I refer him to clause 22(4)(c), which allows an exemption for cases in which someone could not have known that the person was transgendered.
      Mr. Boswell: Will the Minister advise the House, now or later in his speech, or perhaps in writing, whether an offence will have been committed by somebody who discloses historical information —for example, in a baptismal or academic certificate—in good faith, with no knowledge of any intervening change of gender? Secondly, if the release of the information is an oblique or indirect way of securing or passing information about a change of gender, but the disclosure arises simply from the release of historical material that is not an official document, will the person be guilty of an offence under clause 22?
      Mr. Lammy: The wording of clause 22(4)(c) is clear. It states:

      "the person … does not know or believe that a full gender recognition certificate has been issued".

      Mr. Gerald Howarth rose—
      Mr. Lammy: We have only dealt with new clause 1 and I should like to make progress. It is important that we deal with as many groups of amendments as possible this afternoon.
      As Members will see, clause 22 provides the Secretary of State with the power to prescribe further exemptions to the prohibition on disclosure in secondary legislation. Our intention is to use that power to provide for detailed exemptions wherever necessary. It is already clear that problems arise only in very specific circumstances. As I have said, we must respect both the rights of transsexual people and the right to freedom of religion and weave a path between them. By using secondary legislation and engaging in dialogue with religious organisations, we are seeking to deal with that problem.
      Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: Can the Minister assure us that that secondary legislation will be amendable?
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman is well aware of the practices and procedures of the House. He was not here
      1476
      earlier, when another relevant issue was raised. We do not intend that time should be a gap between the coming into force of secondary legislation and the operation of the scheme for legal recognition.
      Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. To help the House, can you clarify that the procedure just referred to the Minister means that secondary legislation is not amendable when it comes back to the House for consideration?
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am anxious not to be drawn into the technicalities, and that is a point of debate for the Minister to answer.
      Mr. Lammy: Many hon. Members have referred to the Joint Committee on Human Rights, whose members did not accept the James Dingemans opinion across the board. They were, however, concerned about the conscientious objection provision, but went on to say:

      "such provision could also be made by the Secretary of State by order, in exercise of the power in clause 22(5)".

      Mr. Drew: My hon. Friend will recall that I asked him to commit himself to writing to hon. Members about the introduction of secondary legislation so that we have a clear timetable. We need to know that secondary legislation will be introduced as soon as he has communicated with the Churches so that we have provisions in law at the earliest opportunity.
      Mr. Lammy: As I told the hon. Member for West Derbyshire (Mr. McLoughlin), there will be no gap between secondary legislation and the gender recognition scheme, but it is right that we are sensitive to the wishes of religious communities and continue to talk with them to establish specific exemptions. Simply seeking to impose section 13 of the Human Rights Act on the Bill will not create the targeted approach that we are seeking. We continue to work with religious organisations, but I cannot recommend that the House accept the new clause.
      2.45 pm
      Mr. Leigh: It is my duty to conclude our excellent debate. First, the matters in amendment No. 1 are very sensitive indeed and concern conversations between clergymen about candidates for marriage and ordination. There is probably a broad consensus across the House that those conversations have to be protected and the Minister has given various undertakings on secondary legislation which, as was made clear in an intervention, may not be as satisfactory as including a provision in the Bill. None the less, I accept what he said in good faith and shall not press the amendment further.
      I wish, however, to press new clause 1 to a vote. We have entered a moral maze and are dealing with difficult issues. People have spoken with great conviction, passion and sensitivity on both sides of the argument. There are broadly two cases against my new clause. One is absolutist—not made by the Minister, incidentally—and asserts that it is wrong for Church communities to remain outwith the general will of the House. They cannot insulate themselves, however strong their opinions.

      1477
      Another view, expressed by the Minister, was that my new clause was not necessary because it simply replicates the words of section 13 of the Human Rights Act, so we can rely on that provision. However, to counter his argument, there is controversy among lawyers about whether we can rely on it. We have heard Dingemans's opinion, which is not, I accept, supported by the Joint Committee on Human Rights, so there is a dispute. That underlines my point that there is fertile ground for litigation.
      In conclusion, I am not asking anybody in the House to accept what the Church communities say or agree with their views. In a free society, however, such communities should regulate their awn affairs and have the right to conduct them according to their deeply held religious beliefs. The House should not impose its views on them, so we need the protection of new clause 1, which I shall press to a vote.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 104, Noes 276.

      Division No. 187]

      [2:47 pm

      AYES

      Ainsworth, Peter(E Surrey)

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Amess, David

      Jack, rh Michael

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Keetch, Paul

      Atkinson, Peter(Hexham)

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Beith, rh A. J.

      Knight, rh Greg(E Yorkshire)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Boswell, Tim

      Lamb, Norman

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Lansley Andrew

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Leigh, Edward

      Brazier, Julian

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Breed, Colin

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Mclntosh, Miss Anne

      Burns, Simon

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Burstow, Paul

      Maclean, rh David

      Burt, Alistair

      McLouffilin, Patrick

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Mawhinney, rh Sir Brian

      Chapman, Sir Sydney(Chipping Barnet)

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Collins, Tim

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Conway, Derek

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Ottaway, Richard

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Paterson, Owen

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Pugh, Dr. John

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Randall, John

      Redwood, rh John

      Djanogly, Jonathan

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Doughty, Sue

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Duncan, Alan(Rutland)

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Ruffley, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Russell Bob(Colchester)

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      Sanders, Adrian

      Shepherd, Richard

      Flight, Howard

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

      Forth, rh Eric

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Greenway, John

      Spink, Bob(Castle Point)

      Grieve, Dominic

      Stanley, rh Sir John

      Hancock, Mike

      Steen, Anthony

      Heald, Oliver

      Swayne, Desmond

      Heath, David

      Syms, Robert

      Heathcoat-Amory, rh David

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Hendry, Charles

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hermon, Lady

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Hoban, Mark(Fareham)

      Thurso, John

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Tredinnick, David

      Horam, John(Orpington)

      Trimble, rh David

      1478

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Viggers, Peter

      Willis, Phil

      Walter, Robert

      Wilshire, David

      Waterson, Nigel

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Weir, Michael

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wilkinson, John

      Andrew Selous and

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Chris Grayling

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cotter, Brian

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Cousins, Jim

      Ainger, Nick

      Cranston, Ross

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Allan, Richard

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Allen, Graham

      Cummings, John

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Cunningham, rh Dr. Jack

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      (Copeland)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Austin, John

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Baird, Vera

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Baker, Norman

      Dalyell, Tam

      Barnes, Harry

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Barrett, John

      Davidson, Ian

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Dawson, Hilton

      Beard, Nigel

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Denham, rh John

      Bennett, Andrew

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Bercow, John

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Berry, Roger

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Best, Harold

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Betts, Clive

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Blackman, Liz

      Edwards, Huw

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Efford, Clive

      Borrow, David

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Etherington, Bill

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Farrelly, Paul

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Browne, Desmond

      Follett, Barbara

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Burden, Richard

      Burgon, Colin

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Burnham, Andy

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Cairns, David

      Gerrard, Neil

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Goggins, Paul

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Caplin, Ivor

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Casale, Roger

      Grogan, John

      Caton, Martin

      Hain, rh Peter

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Challen, Colin

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Chidgey, David

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Clapham, Michael

      Hanson, David

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Clelland, David

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Coaker, Vernon

      Healey, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      Cohen, Harry

      Hendrick, Mark

      Coleman, lain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Colman, Tony

      Heyes, David

      Connarty, Michael

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cooper, Yvette

      Holmes, Paul

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      1479

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      O'Hara, Edward

      Hughes, Beverley(Stretford & Urmston)

      Diner, Bill

      Öpik, Lembit

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Organ, Diana

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Owen, Albert

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Page, Richard

      Illsley, Eric

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Perham, Linda

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Pickthall, Colin

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jenkins, Brian

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pound, Stephen

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Purchase, Ken

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Purnell, James

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Kemp, Fraser

      Rammell, Bill

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Kidney, David

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Rendel, David

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Rooney, Terry

      Lammy, David

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Ruane, Chris

      Lepper, David

      Ruddock, Joan

      Leslie, Christopher

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Ryan, Joan(Enfield N)

      Liddell, rh Mrs Helen

      Salter, Martin

      Linton, Martin

      Savidcle, Malcolm

      Love, Andrew

      Sawford, Phil

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Sheerman, Barry

      McCabe, Stephen

      Singh, Marsha

      McCafferty, Chris

      Skinner, Dennis

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      MacDonald, Calum

      McDonnell, John

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      McFall, John

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      McKechin, Ann

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Southworth, Helen

      McNulty, Tony

      Squire, Rachel

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Steinberg, Gerry

      McWalter, Tony

      Stevenson, George

      McWilliam, John

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Mahmood, Khalid

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Mallaber, Judy

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Stoate, Dr. Howard

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Milburn, rh Alan

      Stringer, Graham

      Miliband, David

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Miller, Andrew

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Moffatt, Laura

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Mole, Chris

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Moran, Margaret

      Thomas, Gareth(Harrow W)

      Morgan, Julie

      Timms, Stephen

      Morley, Elliot

      Tipping, Paddy

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      1480

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Trickett, Jon

      Wills, Michael

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Winnick, David

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Woolas, Phil

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Worthington, Tony

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ward, Claire

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Wyatt, Derek

      Watts, David

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      White, Brian

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Gillian Merron and

      Williams, rh Alan(Swansea W)

      Mr. John Heppell

      Question accordingly negatived.

    New Clause 2

      APPLICATION FOLLOWING ISSUE OF AN INTERIM GENDER RECOGNITION CERTIFICATE
      (1) The petitioner or respondent for annulment or dissolution of a marriage under section 12(g) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 may apply to the court to order that—

      (a) all rights and benefits of any private pension scheme, or

      (b) all property rights, or

      (c)both

      should continue to subsist following the annulment or dissolution of marriage provided that the petitioner and respondent can satisfy the court that both parties to the existing marriage intend to live together as partners.
      (2) In this section—

      (a) a "private pension scheme" means—

      (i) an occupational pension scheme,

      (ii) a personal pension scheme, or

      (iii) a stakeholder pension scheme,

      of which either the petitioner or respondent was a member before the application for annulment or dissolution of the marriage.

      (b) "property rights" means the right in any property, whether real or personal, owned jointly by the parties.

      (c) "court" means the court hearing the petition for divorce.

      (3) For the purposes of this Act, a couple "live together as partners" if subsection (4, or (5) applies.
      (4) This subsection applies if—

      (a) none of the provisions of sections 1, 11 or 12(a) to 12(f) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 apply;

      (b) the couple live together;

      (c) the couple retain their responsibilities in relation to any existing dependants; and

      (d) the couple maintain existing financial support for one another.

      (5) This subsection app lies if the couple have—

      (a) registered as a civil partnership, or

      (b) given notice of a proposed civil partnership to a registration authority,

      under the Civil Partnerships Act 2004.
      (6) Any order made by the court under subsection (1) shall be void if the circumstances set out in subsection (3) cease to apply.
      (7) An appeal against any order made by the court under subsection (1) shall be heard by the court.
      (8) An appeal under subsection (7) must show that the circumstances set out in subsection (3) cease to apply.
      (9) Any person may show cause why an order made by the court under subsection (1) should not be made by reason of material facts not having been brought before the court; and in such a case the court may—

      (a) notwithstanding anything in subsections (6) or (7) above, make the order;

      (b) rescind the order;

      (c) require further inquiry; or

      (d) otherwise deal with the case as it thinks fit. —[Hugh Bayley.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      3 pm
      Hugh Bayley: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 2, in page 16, line 14, schedule 2, at end insert—

      `"() An annulment or dissolution of marriage under section I2(g) shall be subject to the provisions of section [Application following issue of an interim gender recognition certificate] of the Gender Recognition Act 2004.".'.

      Hugh Bayley: Hon. Members who attended Second Reading or served on the Standing Committee will know that I have been trying to protect the pension rights of transsexuals and of their wives and husbands.
      When a married person is diagnosed with gender dysphoria and commences gender reassignment treatment, an enormous emotional strain is placed on the marriage, and in most cases the marriage comes to an end. In a few cases, however, the married couple wish to stay together. I have two constituents who are in that position. They have been married for many years and have grown-up children. The wife, as so many women did in the past, stayed at home to bring up the children and has no pension provision in her own right. In that sense, she is dependent on her husband, and will be so in retirement if she survives for longer than him.
      In Committee, it was established that the decision by one partner in a marriage to live in the opposite gender, or the decision to go forward with gender reassignment treatment or to apply for an interim gender recognition certificate, would not affect in any way the state pension rights or the private pension entitlement of either party to the marriage. However, the situation changes when a married person applies for a full gender recognition certificate, because the Bill requires a married couple to divorce in order to get legal recognition in a new gender for a party to the marriage. Divorce law does not cope well with that, because it assumes that a couple who go to court seeking to divorce will separate. In all other circumstances, of course, divorce or the annulment of a marriage does lead to separation or follows separation, and the divorce court has the job of dividing and apportioning property and responsibilities between the two parties. In a case such as that of my constituents, where the couple are required to divorce so that one of them may obtain a full gender recognition certificate but they do not intend to separate, provision needs to be made for property, including pension rights, to be shared.
      Amendment No. 2 would add a new provision to schedule 2 by amending the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 to give the divorce court further powers to deal
      1482
      with the new reason for divorce that is introduced by the Bill—divorce on the grounds that a party to a marriage is applying for a full gender recognition certificate. New clause 2 sets out what those new powers would be: in short, that those seeking annulment or dissolution of a marriage under section 12(g) of the 1973 Act—
      Mr. Hogg: I support the hon. Gentleman's argument, which has a great deal of force. Does he agree that trust law would assist him, in that where those who have been party to a marriage both contributed to the family assets, there will already be a resulting trust in favour of one or both parties? His amendment would give statutory expression to such trusts, and is to be supported on that basis alone.
      Hugh Bayley: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. As I understand it, the property rights of the couple can be retained in such a way as to give them shared rights, although that rarely happens in a divorce. Because of that, it may not be necessary for me to press my amendment to a vote. I will be grateful if the right hon. and learned Gentleman wishes to intervene later in my speech if he feels that I have missed a point in the argument. In relation to property rights other than pensions, I understand that in the special and unusual circumstances that we are considering, a divorce court would be able to retain property—for instance, a shared family home—in joint names if the couple continued to live together in that home following the divorce.
      The new clause would allow those seeking a divorce on the grounds that one of the couple was seeking a full gender recognition certificate to apply for the pension rights and the property rights in the marriage to continue after annulment or dissolution, provided that the couple continued to live together. The new clause gives two alternative definitions of living together: one where the couple do not establish a civil partnership; the other where they establish a civil partnership under the Civil Partnership Bill, which is before the House.
      The new clause would also protect the right of both parties to the marriage and of others with an interest, such as a pension provider, to go to court at a later date to vary the terms of the settlement if the circumstances changed—for instance, if the couple ceased to live together.
      I tabled my amendments as a safeguard to enable the House to debate the issue further on Report and to allow the Minister, if she is so minded, to make a statement about how the Government believe that private pension providers should act in circumstances such as those that I am describing.
      Mr. Hogg: I have a great deal of sympathy with the hon. Gentleman's suggestion, and I think that he is right in principle, but I am troubled by one point. When the certificate of gender recognition has been granted and the party has married again, what is the position of the pension provider in relation to the second marriage partner?
      Hugh Bayley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. In those circumstances, most pension providers would try to vary the terms of the

      1483
      divorce settlement and the continuance of the pension rights of the spouse from the first marriage, because they could not offer the same rights to two spouses. I have therefore drafted the new clause in a way that would allow an interested party such as a pension provider to go back to court if circumstances changed and one party or the other decided that they would no longer live with their former wife or husband but marry some other person. In those circumstances, insurance companies or pension providers could go to the courts and argue that they should be released from the obligation to the former spouse in order to fulfil their obligation to a new spouse. It would be open to the court to determine the appropriate action in those circumstances.
      Earlier, I said that I tabled the amendments as a safeguard to allow further debate; I hope that it will not be necessary to press them to a vote. I should like to explain the reason for that. After the debates in Committee, I contacted the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of British Insurers to seek their advice about practical ways in which to safeguard the pension rights of spouses of transsexuals in circumstances similar to those of my constituents. I asked my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary to hold a round-table conference at the Department to devise a way forward. She agreed and we held the meeting on 29 March.
      At the meeting, we concluded that, in the context of state pension provision, the Bill would leave couples such as my constituents no worse off. Indeed, in some circumstances, they could be better off. We also concluded that it would not be necessary to amend the Bill in relation to private pension provision so long as we could be sure that providers would grant the same survivors' rights to unmarried dependants who lived with their former husband or wife as that person enjoyed when they were the husband or wife.
      We agreed that the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of British Insurers and the Department for Work and Pensions should draft a guidance note for the industry—pension providers—and for married transsexuals and their spouses to spell out what would be regarded as good practice in providing pension benefits to the former spouses of transsexuals who had obtained a full gender recognition certificate.
      The guidance note has been through several iterations and I want to put on record my thanks to Robin Ellison of the National Association of Pension Funds, Nicholas Hillman from the Association of British Insurers, John Lawson from Standard Life and Simon Boniwell, the official at the Department for Work and Pensions, for their work in preparing the draft guidance note. I believe that the draft covers all the necessary issues, although the subject is complicated and the wording needs to be made clearer for a lay audience. I know that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary agrees, and I believe that the conversion of a technical document into plain English is in hand.
      I want to ask my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary two questions. First, I emphasise that she has been generous with her time in allowing me to work with her officials and those in the private sector to prepare the advice. However, other hon. Members have similar
      1484
      concerns and I hope that she will allow a working copy of the draft to be shown to any other Members who have a special interest so that they could comment on it.
      Secondly, when do the Government intend to make the draft public? It would be helpful for that to happen as soon as possible so that married couples in the circumstances that we are considering can obtain advice about the best action for them to take to protect the security of both partners in old age.
      3.15 pm
      I should also like briefly to put on record my thanks to Mark Buckley of PricewaterhouseCoopers, which is the adviser to my constituents' pension scheme. The scheme asked Mr. Buckley to respond on its behalf to several questions that I raised on behalf of my constituents. He confirmed that the scheme's trustees agreed that there was no objection to paying the spouse's pension to the scheme member's former wife following the couple's divorce provided that the former wife was financially dependent on her former husband at the time of her former husband's death and that her former husband had hot remarried. In other words, it was agreed that the divorce would make no difference to the entitlement of the transsexual's wife to a pension should she outlive her husband or former husband.
      The scheme inserted the proviso that the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) mentioned a moment ago. If circumstances changed and the former husband remarried, the right to a survivor's pension for the former wife would not necessarily follow.
      Mr. Mark Oaten: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that his discussions with the pensions sector related not only to private pensions but to public sector schemes?
      Hugh Bayley: Yes. I understand that the guidance would apply to public sector second pensions. The National Association of Pension Funds represents public sector pension providers such as local government pension schemes as well as private sector occupational pension schemes run by big companies.
      The response of PricewaterhouseCoopers to the questions that I asked on behalf of my constituents is a model response for other pension providers. I have given a copy of the letter to the Department for Work and Pensions and asked the officials who are drafting the guidance note to ascertain whether they can replicate the language and the clarity of the statement that PricewaterhouseCoopers made about the pension rights of the wife.
      Mr. Hogg: The hon. Gentleman has been generous in giving way. I am slightly troubled that we would vary deeds of trust and rely on voluntary practice. Would not it be better to have a statutory intervention so that the trustees knew their statutory duties? If we adopt the approach that the hon Gentleman explains, we rely on the good faith of the trustees and their willingness to act in accordance with the guidance.
      Hugh Bayley: The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes an important point. I shared that view when I

      1485
      first considered the problem. Perhaps it is because of my short experience as a Minister in the Department for Work and Pensions—or Social Security, as it was then—that I realise that it is important to the public for pensions legislation to be as simple and unencumbered as possible.
      The number of people likely to find themselves in similar circumstances to my constituents—a married couple who, when one of them seeks recognition in a new gender, wish to remain together and live together as though they were married in terms of financial dependency on each other—will be very small. There might perhaps be 30, 40 or 50 such people. I took the view that to add another block of legislation to what already stretches to hundreds of pages on pension provision in order to deal with such a rare occurrence would be unnecessary, provided that there was clear guidance to trustees as to what was expected of them in such circumstances.
      In a sense, the question that I put to PricewaterhouseCoopers—or rather, to my constituents' scheme provider, which asked PricewaterhouseCoopers to respond—convinced me that the industry would respond appropriately and decently in such circumstances. That response came fairly quickly, given that the advisers had to consider a situation that they had not encountered before and to examine the legislation. I was impressed by how diligently they did so, and I therefore took the view that it would not be necessary to add yet another page to a complicated area of legislation. The right hon. and learned Gentleman makes a good point, but my judgment is that the House has a terrible tendency to over-legislate, and this is one occasion on which leaving the matter to the good sense and judgment of pension fund trustees would be a fair and reasonable thing to do.
      Glenda Jackson: I would be grateful if my hon. Friend clarified something that I clearly have not understood, even though he is presenting his argument with great cogency. I understand that the wile of a divorced couple who had been financially dependent on her former husband at the time of his death would retain her pension rights. The issue has now been raised of a possible marriage, however. What would happen to the woman in those circumstances? Would she lose all her rights to a pension that would presumably have been funded, in the main, by her former husband?
      Hugh Bayley: My hon. Friend raises an extremely important point. In such circumstances, the dependent partner in the marriage, who could, of course, be a woman or a man, would have the ability to go back to the divorce court to ask for the divorce settlement to be varied so that their property would no longer be shared—because they were no longer living together—and so that some alternative arrangement could be put in place. The most likely arrangement would be a division of the assets, which could well include pension splitting. Alternatively, it could result in what is known in the trade as offsetting, whereby the wife might get the family home, for example, and the husband—or former husband, in this case—might get the pension. The court would deal with their assets anew, recognising that their circumstances had changed and that the divorce had
      1486
      become a separation as well as a technical arrangement to allow one party to get the gender recognition certificate that they sought.
      Glenda Jackson: I am grateful for that explanation, but would the court be bound to take into consideration the income of the new partner when dividing up the old partnership's assets?
      Hugh Bayley: I am not a divorce specialist—still less a divorce lawyer—and I am afraid that I cannot answer my hon. Friend's question. My understanding, from a legislator's point of view, is that the court would be able to come to whatever decision it saw fit. One would imagine that a wife—if I can use the shorthand—who, having agreed to live together with her former husband in a dependent relationship, found that that was no longer possible, would make representations to the court, or ask her lawyer to do so, with a view to getting a half share of the financial assets of the marriage. I would expect the court to agree to that in most circumstances. There could be circumstances when such an arrangement might be varied because one partner or the other had responsibility for dependants, for example, but I imagine that the court would treat the rights of the wife in the same way as they would in any other divorce hearing, in otherwise similar circumstances.
      Lynne Jones: In subsection (4)(d) of my hon. Friend's new clause, the criterion is that

      "the couple maintain existing financial support for one another."

      As I read that, it would apply to either spouse, or former spouse. If each had their own pension and one died before the other, the surviving partner would be entitled to the appropriate share of the pension. I am a bit concerned, however, that my hon. Friend has been referring to "dependants", which might describe people who did not have a pension in their own right. Will he clarify that that is not what he means by "dependants"?
      Hugh Bayley: Yes, I can give that clarification. The lack of clarity might have arisen because I have been talking about both the general situation for couples who divorce in order for one of the partners to get a full gender recognition certificate, as well as the individual circumstances of my constituents. The advice from PricewaterhouseCoopers related to my constituents' individual circumstances, but the draft guidance note that officials at the Department for Work and Pensions have produced—together with the National Association of Pension Funds and the Association of British Insurers—covers the general situation in a way that I hope my hon. Friend would approve of. I know that she has followed this area of public policy for much longer and much more closely than I have, so I hope that she will have the opportunity to look at the draft, and if she feels that it does not do what ought to be done in advising the Department and the industry, I am sure that she will give us her comments.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Hugh Bayley: I am trying to finish my speech, but I shall give way to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock).
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Like the hon. Gentleman, I have constituents in the scenario

      1487
      that he first described, where one partner is solely dependent on the pension that has been accumulated by the other partner. Where both partners have pension rights solely to themselves, they stay together and one or other of them dies, and one of them has gone through the gender change and the certification process, does the guidance that the hon. Gentleman has worked through with the Minister's office state that those pension rights stay with that person when the partner dies, even though they have pension rights of their own?
      Hugh Bayley: It is impossible to give individual advice to hon. Members in the Chamber; each pension scheme is different. In the case of the hon. Gentleman's constituents, one would have to establish whether the pension scheme provided a spouse's right to a pension following the scheme member's death, and one would then have to clarify with the pension provider whether it would continue the spouse's right following the dissolution of the marriage. That can be done only on a case-by-case, scheme-by-scheme basis.
      The guidance note seeks to tell people such as the hon. Gentleman's constituents the issues on which they should seek clarification and how they should go about it. The guidance note also gives a strong steer to the industry that it should not use circumstances such as these as an excuse for denying people security in old age as a result of pension rights that they had established, simply and solely because the partner who was the source of that security in old age changes their gender or seeks legal recognition of a changed gender.
      Several hon. Members rose—
      Hugh Bayley: I must make progress. I am sure that hon. Members who wish to intervene will be able to make their own speeches. I thank my hon. Friend the Minister for her helpful response to my proposal that a guidance note be prepared. I shall listen carefully to her statement about the role that that guidance note will play.
      3.30 pm
      Mr. Frank Field: My hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) has been so comprehensive and so excellent in his delivery that I can be mercifully brief.
      On Second Reading, I intervened on the very point that we are discussing. Although the Bill seeks to meet an injustice that a number of our constituents feel, I was anxious that we should not create another injustice for another group of people in place of the original injustice. I spoke in theory; my hon. Friend spoke from practice. That shows the value of single-Member seats, where the buck stops with each of us for our individual constituencies, and as a result we cannot pass on our responsibilities or pretend that someone else is attending to them
      My hon. Friend the Member for City of York said he hoped that our hon. Friend the Minister would read into the record the spirit in which he hoped the guidance would operate, and say whether and at what point the guidance would be made public to hon. Members and,
      1488
      perhaps equally important, to our constituents. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister for one clarification. My hon. Friend the Member for City of York rightly said that we are dealing, fortunately, with a small number of people who feel the grievance, but if one person feels the grievance, it is 100 per cent. It is not mitigated by the fact that there may be only 39 or 49 other people in a similar position. That is why it is important for my hon. Friend the Minister to deal with the issue.
      Suppose that the private providers do not all come up to the standard that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York hopes and believes they will, given their track record so far. We only need a couple of providers to fail to live up to that expectation for some of our constituents to feel that, while meeting what is a legitimate grievance for some of our constituents, we have created an equally horrible grievance for them.
      Mr. Boswell: Those who participated in or subsequently read the reports of the Standing Committee will know that it was characterised by large measures of cross-party agreement on a number of important issues. This is one of them. I pay tribute to the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) for bringing to the matter his personal expertise from his constituency case. As has been said, a small number of people are affected, but that is no reason to perpetuate an injustice if it can be dealt with.
      I look forward to the Minister's response, as she, too, has been sensitive in this area. The only question at issue is what the best response is arid whether it will leave some people feeling that they have not received the justice to which they feel entitled. I take the point made by the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). If we deal with most of the problem but leave one or two people dissatisfied, that aggravates things for them.
      From the exchange between the hon. Member for City of York and my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), I think there is a convincing case for dealing with the matter by guidance note. That will cover most cases, including, I hope, those where the provider is a member of the National Association of Pension Funds.
      My only reservation rose—I do not want to go on at great length, as I know this is a difficult and complex subject rose—relates to the question of public sector schemes. It is absolutely true, as the hon. Gentleman has said, that a large number of those are and should be members of the NAPF in relation to their private sector or second pension provision, which is fine. Typically, of course, entitlements can be transferred between public and private sector easily in that regard. When considering statutory pension schemes, the difficulty is that they are often prescribed in statute, and are very complex. I hope that the Minister can at least reflect, and perhaps comment this afternoon or subsequently, on cases in which trustees of public sector schemes may find that their discretion is fetter ed in ways in which some of the private schemes would not be, and are unable to produce the deal that would otherwise be available to persons in the private sector. That is not an easy matter rose—I believe that there are about 600 public sector schemes rose—but I hope that it will be considered.
      The broad outline is uncontentious. The hon. Gentleman has worked hard with the Minister, and I have been anxious not to clutter things and get in the

      1489
      way, but he has had the courtesy to keep us in touch. He needs to share that, and it would be sensible for the Minister to put the guidance note in the Library for all to see. We are on the verge of resolving this issue, without a Division and in conformity with the decent spirit that the Committee showed previously.
      Lynne Jones: I, too, thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley) for his work on the issue of pensions justice for transsexual people and their spouses, prompted by the injustice that they will be forced to dissolve their marriage if the transgendered person is to be able to realise their human rights in that status.
      I am not entirely convinced by the argument that a statutory requirement, as in new clause 2, would impose significant complexity on the pensions industry. The Government's record on simplification of pensions policy is not entirely good in that regard. Having said that, I also want to thank the Minister for the co-operation that she and her Department have given my hon. Friend. I hope that the guidance note will provide sufficient incentive to all pension providers to ensure that people in the unique position of being forced to dissolve their marriage are protected and retain their pension rights. Because of the small numbers involved, this is not particularly financially demanding of pension schemes, although it is possible that some might be in very small pension schemes and the trustees might be pleased to save themselves what they might consider a considerable burden of paying out a pension in the event of the decease of a spouse in a former marriage involving a transgendered person.
      As the hon. Member for Daven try (Mr. Boswell) has said, the guidance note proposal goes a considerable way towards alleviating some of the anxiety, but I am not entirely convinced that it would not have been better either for the proposals laid down in new clause 2 to be accepted or for the Government to consider whether it is necessary to require couples to dissolve their marriage before a transperson can have a gender recognition certificate.
      Mr. Hogg: I have three questions, but before I come to those, I want to congratulate the hon. Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley), who has been addressing a serious problem, for which the House is grateful.
      First, the hon. Gentleman is relying on guidance—practice directions. When trustees come to construe a trust, however, they have legal obligations. I am far from certain that guidance, or practice direction, would relieve them of their obligations under the trust if the trust were fairly clear in its interpretation. I suspect that statutory intervention might be required.
      My second point relates to public sector pension schemes. I may be wrong, but my understanding is that many of those schemes are statutory in origin, relying on statutory instruments. In that case, the duties of a trustee are constrained by the language of the statutory instrument in question, and statutory intervention rather than guidance would be needed to alter the obligations of a trustee in respect of a public-sector trust.
      My third point is rather different. I have been looking again at schedule 4, and asking myself what would be the effect on a marriage of the acquisition of a new
      1490
      gender. I note that the original marriage is voidable, not void: unless the parties go to court to have it annulled, the original marriage remains valid. I assume that, as a consequence, if a party whose spouse has acquired a different gender does not want the marriage annulled—it being voidable rather than void—the original marriage will remain subsisting, and the parties' rights will be defined with reference to the original pension scheme. I realise that that is a technical point, and I am sorry if I have not made it clear to the Minister. She is stirring in her seat, and I shall be happy to give way to her if I have not.
      The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle): We have had a short, sharp but erudite debate, for which we should thank my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). As I listened to him answering questions from all corners, it was as if he was still a social security Minister, and I felt that I might be redundant. His ability to answer so many questions—I shall return to some of those that remain—shows how deeply he has thought about an issue which, although it arose from a constituency case, is replicated around the country, albeit in only a small number of instances. The speed and depth of his responses demonstrate that he has examined the matter closely, and his amendments tabled in Committee and on Report make it clear that he is not a bad parliamentary draftsman either. We have seen worse, sometimes from parliamentary counsel—although I shall probably suffer as a result of that comment.
      The amendments are similar to those tabled by my hon. Friend in Committee. They are narrower, in that they relate simply to a married couple who must divorce for one member to obtain a gender recognition certificate, but intend to stay together. They are, however, broader in that they refer to all property rights rather than just private pension rights.
      Mr. Hogg: I realise that I am coming to the argument rather late and may have misunderstood the position—in which case I apologise—but my understanding of schedule 4, which I think governs the effect of an acquired gender on a subsisting marriage, is that it is voidable, not void. In other words, no party is driven to take a divorce by reason of the acquisition of the gender; it is merely that the party is entitled to go for an annulment.
      3.45 pm
      Maria Eagle: Although the right hon. and learned Gentleman's definition of voidable, as opposed to void, is certainly right, the person who is acquiring the new gender cannot get the interim certificate that enables him or her to get legal recognition until there is a divorce. It is in that sense that my hon. Friend the Member for City of York and others have said here and in Committee that the law requires a divorce. I hope that that clarifies the way in which the legislation will work. It does not turn on whether the marriage is voidable or void; one will not get the interim certificate without having a divorce.
      Lynne Jones: May I just clarify one point? I think that my hon. Friend means that one cannot get a full

      1491
      recognition certificate without a divorce. The interim certificate is granted before the divorce, purely in recognition that that person has transgendered. My understanding is that that interim certificate gives either party to the marriage the right to annul that marriage.
      Maria Eagle: I thought that that was what I said; if I did not, my hon. Friend has done me a favour by clarifying the point. I hope that that satisfies the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) on that specific point. I shall return to some of his other points.
      I am trying to emphasise the fact—as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of York—that the new clause and amendment are about the very small group of people, even within the transgendered community, who are married and wish to stay together once there is final recognition in the acquired gender. That will be a small number of people—we have heard such figures as 40 or 50 bandied around. However, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear, that does not take away the fact that the issue is still pretty important to that small number of people, whom we are in effect requiring to divorce if one party to their marriage wishes to have their legal right to be recognised in their acquired gender. I recognise that the issue is important, as did my hon. Friend the Member for City of York.
      The Government's position on these issues has not changed. It is a fundamental principle of the Bill that once a legal change in gender is secured, the person must be treated for all purposes as being of the acquired gender. It cannot be right in a Bill that intends to give legal recognition to a person's change in gender then to start treating that person in the old gender for some purposes and in the new gender for others. That is what leads to some of the issues that have been raised here about financial disadvantage that might arise because someone simply acquires a human right, which the Bill exists to enable them to do. That is the nub of all the problems and issues that are before us. However, the Government still believe that it would be wrong to start to make exceptions to the Bill's general principle that once the acquired gender has been legally acquired, that person is to be treated in all circumstances and cases as being in the acquired gender, not the old one.
      My hon. Friend the Member for City of York referred to the useful meetings that we had. Although they were held under the auspices of the Department, I pay tribute to him for playing a dynamic part in ensuring that they happened. There was a meeting of the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of British Insurers and others with my hon. Friend on 29 March. Short though our debate on this issue was, we discussed such a myriad of different potential circumstances—different pension schemes, different ages at which this might become an issue, different amounts of pension already accrued and so on—that it seemed fairly evident to me from that debate that it would be difficult to try to legislate to deal with the problem in every single way in which it might show its face.
      1492
      We believe that making exceptions to general principles would not he helpful in this instance, and could have unintended consequences. The representative of the National Association of Pension Funds certainly made it clear that he did not believe that the trustees of pension schemes should be asked to fetter their discretion in the way that the amendments propose. Different pension schemes have different rules, are of differing sizes and have differing levels of discretion. Some already provide survivor benefits for unmarried partners as of right, or at the trustees' discretion.
      We continue to believe that the best way of dealing with the situation is for individuals to ask their pension scheme trustees for advice about the provision that the scheme makes for unmarried partners and the conditions that apply, and to consider their options in the light of that information. They can then decide whether and when to ask for gender recognition, in view of all the financial circumstances that apply to them at that time.
      Glenda Jackson: Is help not already available for the industry, and would it not be possible for the small number of people who will be affected in this way—those who intend to live together post-transgender for the rest of their lives—simply to be incorporated through the legislation? Indeed, such legislation has benefited same-sex couples in this regard.
      Maria Eagle: That would not be at all as easy as it sounds. Such people may well have every intention of continuing to live together after a divorce and a gender reassignment, but nobody can predict what will actually happen. At a time when we are trying to simplify private pension provision rules, and in dealing with what is a very small number of people, it would be difficult and complicated to produce rules and requirements for schemes without intruding on the rights and duties of schemes and trustees.
      We certainly want to proceed by way of guidance and to see whether that will work. Such guidance has proved useful in the case that motivated my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. He met with a very positive response when pursuing the pension rights of his constituents, and we hope that the same will be true of the small number of people affected by the provision. That it is certainly our preferred solution.
      Andrew Selous: Will the guidance and advice apply to all public sector pension schemes?
      Maria Eagle: I am about to deal with the various points that have been made arid I shall try to answer such questions before I sit down. To be fair, my hon. Friend the Member for City of York has already correctly answered most of the questions that were raised, which is why I feel slightly redundant. Having said that, Members are tempting me to speak for far longer than I probably should. To the extent that the NAPF covers public sector as well as private sector schemes, its guidance notes apply in equal measure to both.
      My hon. Friend the Member for City of York asked when the guidance would be made available to the public. We intend that the application packs and the

      1493
      enclosed information be available to all those who apply to the gender recognition panel from January 2005 at the latest. My Department and I have no worries about making our guidance available, as soon as it is drafted and completed to our satisfaction. Of course, the guidance note produced by the NAPF and the industry is not mine to bandy around, and I shall have to ask them when they are willing to make it public. I am certainly happy to respond to those Members who have an interest in this issue, once I have consulted those who play a part in the preparation of the guidance note, but I should make it clear that there is no point in allowing a guidance note to be surrounded in secrecy.
      My hon. Friend the Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) asked a question relating to general divorce law. I should point out that I am not a divorce lawyer—or indeed any sort of lawyer any more. I do not wish to get drawn into specific instances, but I can say that the court has the power to make pension-sharing orders on divorce. To the extent that couples are concerned that even though they intend to stick together after divorce, that may not actually happen, they can certainly have pension sharing on divorce. That would be the right thing for them to do.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead asked a number of questions. One was what would happen if pension providers did not live up to the hopes that we have all expressed in the House today. May I tell him that our first example has been the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York? It seems that a good and positive outcome resulted in that instance. I am optimistic about people's responses to such problems. When the Bill becomes law, when the guidance note and the rules for trustee schemes have been published and when the members start to discuss the issues, I hope that we will not encounter any serious problems. At this stage, all I can say is that, if that proves not to be the case, we will have to examine the position again. I am sure that the House would not expect me to commit the Government any further than that at this stage, but we want to be as helpful as possible to ensure that people do not lose out.
      Let me emphasise again that the primary purpose of the Bill is to enable legal recognition in the acquired gender and to give human rights to a group of people who have demanded them but who have been ignored in the past. That is the Bill's primary purpose, and no other purpose overrides it. To the extent that we have to make choices between that purpose and others, we have to choose the primary purpose, and I hope that no problems will result from that.
      The guidance from the Department will advise individuals to approach their schemes for information about what would be likely to happen if a decision were taken to divorce as a result of one person wanting to gain a final gender recognition certificate. Couples can take a decision on the basis of what information comes back to them from their particular scheme about their particular circumstances.
      The right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), who is obviously a trust lawyer—he convinced me through his questions that he knows a lot about trusts and equity—asked what would happen if the construction of the trust fettered the good will of the trustees. Obviously, all I can say is that the trust deed comes first. Trustees w ill be able to respond
      1494
      positively to the extent that they have the discretion to do so. We hope that they will do so, but if the rules of the scheme and the trust deed are such that they do not have discretion, clearly the answer will be rather different. We wait to see what happens.
      The right hon. and learned Gentleman also referred to public sector schemes and the wording of statutory instruments. I am not in a position today to tell him whether there would be problems with the construction of statutory instruments. No doubt that will become clear as we start to go through the process. Again, if there is a major problem, we will have to consider it when it emerges. I believe that I have dealt with the right hon. and learned Gentleman's other point.
      Mr. Hogg: The Minister is making a perfectly fair response. One could envisage circumstances in which some people lost out, but in which we found out that there was a problem with the statutory instrument only after they had lost out. The Minister might then have to consider the possibility of paying benefits retrospectively on the introduction of any statutory change.
      Maria Eagle: The right hon. and learned Gentleman, in talking about retrospection in relation to benefits, is tempting me into serious constitutional waters, but I hear what he says, and we would have to consider it if a problem emerged. I will have to take that point away with me, although we hope that there will not be any problems.
      The hon. Member for Daventry spoke about scheme rules and discretion, and asked me whether the guidance notes could be placed in the Library. As I said, there is no point in keeping a guidance note secret. I, for one, would want to spread the guidance as far and wide as possible for the benefit of those for whom it might be of some use.
      I end by paying tribute to the dedication and effort of my hon. Friend the Member for City of York. I hope that I can convince him not to press the new clause, and that the guidance note on which the Government and the industry are working hard will do the job that he wants done. Finally, I hope that he will not be too upset if I say again that he has done a very good job for his constituents.
      4 pm
      Hugh Bayley: I feel almost as if I have been praised to death. I should begin by thanking my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who put their names to the proposal. As to whether guidance, as opposed to statutory provision, will be sufficient, there is a great temptation for Back Benchers to be fundamentalist and to press for legislation just in case it is needed, even though that may be a one in 10,000 chance. When I ceased to be a Minister, I decided that I should not set for my successors a sterner test in respect of the necessity for legislation—or anything else—than I would have set for myself.

      1495
      My hon. Friend the Minister said kindly that she wondered whether she was redundant. She is not: she is a very good Minister, as her response to my concerns on this matter shows. It is I who feel redundant after her answers to all the difficult and penetrating questions asked by the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg).
      Of course, non-statutory guidance will not override trustees' responsibilities. However, when the trustees have discretion, how will they use it? I want them to use it in a way that protects the rights of the spouse of a transsexual who legally changes gender. The guidance will give advice to trustees about how to use discretion, and it will move them in the right direction.
      The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said that there had been good co-operation across the parties on this matter. I am grateful to him for his help and support in Standing Committee, and to the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten), who also put his name to the amendment.
      The Minister said that she hoped the guidance would provide the level of protection needed by the small number of people who find themselves in this situation. The implication was that we would have to make some legislative provision if the guidance failed in that respect. If my judgment that the guidance note will be sufficient proves to be wrong, I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak that she can enlist me as a willing supporter in pressing for statutory provision. However, I do not think that that will be necessary, and I prefer to have a simple and unencumbered Bill.
      The Minister said that she was willing to consult other Members who have expertise in this matter about the content of the guidance that is sent out. I am grateful to her for that. I accept that the final draft of the guidance needs to be signed off by the ABI and the National Association of Pension Funds as well as by her Department, so she cannot give the House a firm date, but I am pleased to hear that she hopes the guidance will be available before the Bill goes live, assuming that it receives Royal Assent.
      In light of the clear assurances from the Minister, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 3

      OLYMPIC ATHLETES
      'Unless and until the International Olympic Committee publishes a policy on participation by transgendered people, athletes resident within the United Kingdom and wishing to compete in the Olympic Games shall be required to inform their National Olympic Committee if a gender recognition certificate has been issued to them under the provisions of this Act.'.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 6—Changing and washing facilities—

      'Nothing in this Act shall prejudice the rights of the management of facilities where there are gender specific changing and washing areas, such as open showers and open sports changing areas, to regulate their procedures as they see fit, providing reasonable provision is made for transsexuals.'.

      Mr. Boswell: It will indeed be convenient to consider new clause 3, which I tabled, with new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous), who was a member of the Committee. I hope that all the issues on the selection list will be discussed before the deadline, but the bracketing of these two new clauses under the heading "Sport" is a little bizarre, because they are very different. Given that new clause 3 relates to Olympic competition, I wondered whether we might call the new clauses the coxless pairs. I shall allow my hon. Friend to row his side of the boat in a minute, but I wish to concentrate on the Olympic issue.
      We did not discuss the issue in Committee, but it has concerned my noble friend Lord Moynihan, who is active in debates on sport in the other place and in Olympic affairs. The Minister may know that as part of our all-singing, all-dancing home affairs team I am also a member of our culture, media and sport team, and take a certain vicarious interest in Olympic activities. We all want our activities to be successful and conducted to the highest possible standards.
      New clause 3 would impose an immediate duty on British athletes who have received gender reassignation to advise the British Olympic Association of that. That is entirely consistent with clause 19, which concentrates on the need for fair competition and, in certain cases, safety. It would give sports administrators the chance to withdraw their sports from the provisions of the Bill.
      Mr. Oaten: I come fresh to the issue. and I wonder whether the hon. Gentleman could explain why he has limited the clause to the Olympic committees. If the arguments are valid, surely they apply also to a range of other sports.
      Mr. Boswell: Clause 19 provides that national sports administrators have responsibility for their own sports, which is how it has worked in the past. I imagine that the situation will be different for different sports—for example, the shot-put and boxing. We are happy with those general provisions, but the difficulty occurs when the various sports administrators seek to integrate in a national effort to produce a team for the Olympic games—as we shall do shortly. In that sense, the new clause sets out a clearance procedure that would require any transgendered person in receipt of a certificate to advise the British Olympic Association of that. The requirement is an important safeguard to secure consistency and good order.
      The hon. Gentleman may have spotted that the implied suggestion in the new clause is that the International Olympic Committee should get on with the job of defining a satisfactory international policy. If time permits, we shall debate the Minister's welcome change of heart on European gender recognition certificates and the immediate rights that would attach under British law if the Government's amendments are

      1497
      adopted. I would like to see the integration of national policy on the issue, but it would be even better if it were overtaken by a proper decision by the IOC. We all understand that it is difficult to formulate policy—it is what we have been discussing all afternoon—but I hope that the IOC will get on with it so that we all know where we stand. I also hope that the IOC's policy will have a common basis with ours.
      Mr. Oaten: I understand a little better now, but if the IOC produces a set of standards, would they then cover the Commonwealth games, the European championships and athletics at all levels in this country?
      Mr. Boswell: I cannot give the, hon. Gentleman a definitive answer. My immediate reaction is that it would be for the competent authorities in each case—the Commonwealth games commit tee, for example. Just as we want international standards on anti-doping, so, too, we want standards that are internationally agreed and applicable to all competitions, whether at Commonwealth, European or Olympic level. That is the aim of the new clause and I shall be interested in the Minister's response. I was not intending to press the matter to a vote but it is important that the Government focus on it.
      I turn briefly to new clause 6, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for South-West Bedfordshire. The Minister will be aware that we had to hurry our consideration of my hon. Friend's proposals in Committee, so the matter was not adequately dispatched. We all understand what good practice would be; we do not want people purposely to create embarrassing situations and I seek the Minister's assurance that that will not happen in practice. My hon. Friend's observations, at greater leisure than he was permitted in Committee, will help us to come to a conclusion.
      Andrew Selous: I rise to speak briefly to new clause 6, which, as my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) said, had about three minutes' debate at the very end of the Standing Committee proceedings.
      First, let me say what the new clause is not about. It is right and proper that transsexual people should use changing and washing facilities appropriate to their acquired gender. That is what should happen and I am confident that in a vast and overriding number of cases it will happen without difficulty. However, as the measure will give legal recognition, in all cases, to the acquired gender, I want the House to consider, and the Minister to explain, what would happen if someone had a gender recognition certificate but had not undergone sex reassignment surgery and wanted to cause difficulties to the management of the facilities.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that under the Bill a person would have to be diagnosed with gender dysphoria, to have lived with the condition for two years, to demonstrate that there was some permanence in the condition and to convince the panel that they merited a gender recognition certificate. He is right to suggest that that may not always mean that they
      1498
      had undergone an operation—there could be medical reasons for that—but those are substantial hurdles to overcome and that is the purpose of the Bill.
      Andrew Selous: I am grateful to the Minister for that clarification but, to return briefly to a point raised in our debate on new clause 1, I do not know whether he is aware that in the Diane Parry case in south Wales, Diane Parry's physical appearance was very much that of a man. I am concerned about circumstances where someone is legally a man but physically a woman or vice versa, and where there are open changing areas. For example, in football or other sports, teams might change together and there are no cubicles, and in the armed services it is common to find open showers with no cubicle division.
      I accept that the possibilities are remote but I want to know what would happen in such circumstances. It is relevant because, as the Minister may be aware, several pub landlords have experienced difficulties in this matter, although they relate to an issue that is separate from my new clause. I simply want to understand what will happen where there are open changing and showering facilities.
      4.15 pm
      Mr. Lammy: I do not want to prejudice what I may have to say shortly, but surely the hon. Gentleman is not suggesting that we should legislate to allow a form of prejudice because it may exist in pubs throughout the country.
      Andrew Selous: New clause 6 does not deal with pubs. It clearly deals with the specific circumstance of complete nudity in open changing areas. The Minister has a slight habit of setting up men-of-straw arguments that differ from the arguments made by those with whom he is debating. I ask him to restrict himself to the circumstances of new clause 6. I used the pub analogy only because that is happening now, so the scenario that I envisage is not wholly far fetched.
      There is always a very small litigious minority. I accept that the vast majority of transsexual people will want to behave in a discreet and private manner; but, given the Diane Parry case in south Wales, if we are to pass a law of this nature, the Minister needs to explain clearly what will happen to a sports club if parents say, "Right. My children aren't going there anymore." The club could go out of business. He also needs to explain what could happen in the situation that I describe in respect of good order in the armed services, in which I served for 12 years, so I know a little about that. Those are the type of issues that the new clause raises.
      Richard Younger-Ross: We debated this issue briefly in Committee. Is the hon. Gentleman aware that most female changing rooms are already divided into cubicles? My background is in architecture, and I cannot think of an instance in all my time in architecture where we have ever built open changing rooms.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Gentleman is quite right. The public swimming pools that most of us use and where I go to with my family almost entirely have changing rooms with cubicles. That is not a problem. If

      1499
      he reads new clause 6 carefully, he will see the word "open" before the words "showers" and "sports changing areas." He will be aware that hotel sports areas often have open changing areas; football clubs and many other sports clubs have open changing areas; and open showers are very common in the armed services.
      The difficulty arises purely in a case where someone is legally a man but has the body of a woman, or vice versa. It may be a small and far-fetched case, but we are entitled to know what would happen for the sake of good order and for another reason as well: the purpose of the Bill is to give transsexual people some rights that are overdue and should rightly be given to them. If the Minister does not deal with the issue that I am raising, there will be resentment and a public backlash that will undo the very work that he is trying to do. He has said time and again that we cannot legislate for other people's concerns on these matters. I am not entirely sure that that is right. It is the function of a Parliament that is considering such matters in the round to ensure that there are reserve powers—I emphasise the word "reserve"—so that public resentment does not build up and undermine the support for the very group that the Bill seeks to help.
      Lynne Jones: Does the hon. Gentleman seriously think that a trans-man who has not undergone phalloplasty would go into a male changing room, for example, with a football team and expose himself? That is highly unlikely. I can confirm that there are open women's changing rooms. I went into one just over the road this morning. Quite frankly, the idea that a male-to-female trans-person would be granted a recognition certificate if they did not undergo a penectomy is, again, unthinkable.
      Andrew Selous: If the hon. Lady is fair, she will acknowledge that I said that, hopefully, the circumstances to which my new clause relates would never arise. However, we would be negligent in our duty as legislators if we did not get some guidance from the Minister on what would happen if they did. Perhaps the hon. Lady is not aware that, in the south Wales case, Diane Parry had a full beard at the time when he wanted to join in the ladies' activities. Thus the scenario that I am describing is not wholly far-fetched.
      Lynne Jones: To be candid, if the hon. Gentleman is suggesting that someone who sports a full beard would have their application for a gender recognition certificate granted, I wonder what world he is living in.
      Andrew Selous: The hon. Lady attacks me for raising the issue, but on several occasions over the years the House has not foreseen potential developments. I fully accept that the vast majority of transsexual people will not want to go down that route, but there is always the litigious minority to deal with. I am keen to avoid public resentment and concern.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman keeps talking about a litigious minority. I remind him that there are more than 60 million people in this country and only about 5,000 transsexuals, and the Bill contains a number
      1500
      of hurdles. For example, the person concerned must have had gender dysphoria, and as my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) explained, persons with that condition do not want to be exposed in public in that way. Surely, therefore, the hon. Gentleman's preoccupation with the minority becomes redundant. Has he not argued himself out of the position from which he started?
      Andrew Selous: No, I do not think that I have. Who would have thought that the Churches would be dragged through the courts by people from a very small minority of 5,000 people in a country of 60 million? Yet that has already happened, and other legal cases are in the system. I want the Minister to take the matter seriously. What will happen to a sports club in the scenario that I have described? Is there any protection in the Bill?
      Mr. Lammy: Let me begin with the remark made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). The International Olympic Committee announced on Monday last week its policy on the participation of transsexual sportspeople. The policy will apply in the forthcoming Olympic games in Athens. In brief, it allows transsexual sportspeople to compete in their acquired gender, but only if they have legal recognition in the acquired gender and have undergone surgical and hormonal treatment such as to minimise any gender-related advantage. The hon. Gentleman said that we have been waiting a little while for that announcement, but he will understand that, as a consequence of it, new clause 3 is not necessary—although I am grateful for the manner in which he proposed it, as if to move things along. Indeed, the new clause acknowledges that any policy announced by the IOC should supersede any suggestion that it contains.
      The Government agree that it is for the IOC to decide the terms on which transsexual sportspeople may compete in the Olympic games. Clause 19 provides UK sporting bodies, including the British Olympic Association, with the scope to restrict the participation of transsexual sports people where that is necessary to maintain competitive parity or for the safety of other competitors. The IOC has been guided by similar considerations, and we believe that the clause provides UK sporting bodies with sufficient scope to use the IOC guidelines.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister for updating me. I cannot claim responsibility for single-handedly getting the IOC to get its act together, but could he or the Under-Secretary confirm whether there is any possibility, given that transgender people, in addition to the remedial medication to which he referred, typically have to continue with other medication indefinitely, will fall foul of anti-doping codes? Will medication that they are required to take, whether medically or legally, lead to such problems?
      Mr. Lammy: The IOC prescribes a two-year period for hormonal treatment and so on. The hon. Gentleman has asked an important question to which I do not have an answer off the top of my head, but I shall be happy to deal with it later.

      1501
      Although the IOC acknowledges that hormonal and other treatments used by transsexual people typically eliminate any competitive advantage that male-to-female transsexual people may have over other women, there may be cases where competitive parity or the safety of other competitors are valid concerns, and the IOC recognises that, as does clause 19. We shall issue guidance to sporting bodies in advance of the implementation of the Bill setting out the legal position and the scope that remains, quite properly, for sporting bodies to make decisions that reflect the needs of their particular sport.
      Lynne Jones: I am interested that my hon. Friend said that safety grounds might prevent a trans-competitor from competing. Sports bodies already have the power to exclude someone if safety is a factor, and in Committee I queried the need for clause 19. I am pleased to learn that the IOC has made it clear in its ruling that claims, pursued in the House of Lords, that the Bill

      "has put the entire future of competitive sport in jeopardy"

      are entirely bogus. The IOC's sensible proposal negates the need for clause 19.
      Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for putting her views on the record. There were arguments circulating in another place that were deeply unhelpful, but clause 19 makes the position clear. My hon. Friend will accept that there are many sports in which these issues simply do not arise, but there are other contact sports such as rugby and basketball where safety considerations might be pertinent. By definition, the individuals playing those sports come into contact with others, so although the parity test remains, the safety requirement needs to be taken into consideration as well.
      In an intervention, I made clear the Government's position on new clause 6, which raises an issue that, even though we had only three minutes to deal with it in Committee, was, I believe, dealt with satisfactorily. Its implication is, unfortunately, that transsexual people are more likely to expose themselves or seek to cause offence than other people who use communal changing or washing facilities.
      Richard Younger-Ross: Is not the logic of the new clause on changing facilities that there should be separate changing cubicles in shops, not communal changing areas? Equally, changing rooms at swimming pools would have to have a door saying "Transgender person".
      Mr. Lammy: I am grateful for that intervention from the hon. Gentleman, who has drawn the natural conclusion from the debate. Frankly, new clause 6 would warrant the exclusion of transsexual people from changing and washing facilities, and the creation of separate facilities for their use.
      4.30 pm
      Andrew Selous: If the Minister is fair, he will acknowledge that at the start of my remarks about new clause 6, I said that I hope, expect and believe that the vast majority of transsexual people—if not all of them—will use the facilities appropriate to their acquired
      1502
      gender. I am discussing a reserve power to cover serious difficulties, and we all accept that such circumstances are a remote possibility.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman may well approach the issue on the basis of separate-but-equal treatment, but the Government entirely reject the implication of the new clause that transsexuals might set out to cause offence to others. That is not the Government's experience, and we therefore reject the new clause.
      The Government also believe that separate facilities for minority groups are objectionable, and we urge the House to reject the proposal. For obvious reasons, many hon. Members fought to ensure that separate signs for minorities became a thing of the past in South Africa, and we did not engage in that fight in order to set up such prejudice over here.
      Mr. Boswell: In view of the Minister's assurances, particularly in relation to new clause 3, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 4

      MARRIAGE BETWEEN TRANSGENDERED PERSONS
      ?(1) This section shall have effect in connection with marriages between two persons both of whom have subsequently applied for and received an interim gender recognition certificate under section 4(3) of this Act.

      (2) Both parties to a marriage who have each received an interim gender recognition certificate under subsection (1) may jointly apply to a gender recognition panel for the issue of a full gender recognition certificate to each of them, and in such cases the Gender Recognition Panel may confirm the continuing validity of the marriage between them:—[Mr. Boswell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 7—Successful applications: married couples—

      `If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—

      (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,

      (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and

      (c) the marriage took place before the date of Royal Assent of this Act.'.

      Mr. Boswell: New clause 4 is tabled in my name and, I am pleased to say, that of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who played a big part in the constructive discussions in Committee. I have remarked before—and I do so again—that the Bill brings together a remarkable range of issues. New clause 3 concerned the Olympics; new clause 4 concerns an entirely different and rather small problem. The problem has wider implications, however, and I shall

      1503
      discuss them and new clause 7, which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) tabled, in a moment.
      Hon. Members on both sides of the House share a strong wish to underpin the importance of marriage, and above all not to force persons lightly or wilfully to annul their marriages, unless it is strictly necessary. New clauses 4 and 7 have slightly different effects, but they are both designed to underline that principle.
      New clause 4 would have a small numerical effect, but—this point was made in earlier debates—the principle is important for those concerned. New clause 4 relates to a limited number of real world cases, although it might apply in future. The Minister will be familiar with the arguments because, although we motored through the Bill in Committee, we discussed this point.
      First and foremost, the matter concerns an issue of principle, which is to try to support marriage wherever it subsists and is seen to do so. We envisage a situation in which two persons marry as man and woman—whether they knew about these issues when they contemplated marriage is not my concern—and then both decide that they need gender reassignment, so they apply for gender recognition certificates. They both receive interim certificates, but are unable to convert them into full gender recognition certificates to give them legal effect unless and until they annul their marriage. Because they were married and wish to continue to be married—albeit with different genders—I cannot see any reason in principle why we cannot cater for that situation.
      In Committee, I tweaked the Minister by saying that I thought that might be one of those issues that was invented here, or words to that effect. He made the valid point that concerns arose about mucking about—my phrase, not his—with the marriage certificate. I then tabled a new clause that made provision for rewriting the marriage certificate. The new procedure proposed in new clause 4 strikes down that objection by suggesting that both persons could apply to the gender recognition panel for full certificates at the same time as the issuing of a statement confirming the continuation of their marriage. That would be a more elegant and simple solution.
      That deals with the technical argument, but the Minister will realise that there are wider concerns of a prudential nature in relation to inherited rights. In Committee he made the slightly surprising assertion, which I have checked again in the Official Report, that discontinuation of the marriage for 24 hours—its extinguishing and almost immediate reintroduction—would not invalidate any inherited rights. The only comparison that I can suggest is that of the late King Baudouin of Belgium, who stood down for 24 hours because of some legislation that he found objectionable and was then reinstated. I do not know whether that is treated as one reign or two in Belgian law, but that need not concern the House. In the context of British law, would the courts recognise the continuation of all the rights and duties in what is effectively a continuing relationship?
      My new clause is based on the important point that persons should not be required to divorce or annul their marriage unless it is absolutely essential that they do so.
      1504
      That brings me to the new clause tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield. He has been persuasive in arguing his case with me, but he needs to do so before the House, and I will consider what to do in the light of that.
      Mr. Forth: I wonder whether my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) can help me through this, as I was not a member of the Committee. Do I understand him to say that the effect of his new clause would be that two people who were of different genders, and would now again be of different genders albeit reversed, could continue to be married; but that the effect of new clause 7, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), would be that two people of different genders who had been married—
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Are married.
      Mr. Forth: I thank my hon. Friend for his correction. Would the effect be that two such people could now continue to be married when of the same gender? If so, the two new clauses would have quite different effects, because my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry wants to maintain different-sex marriage, whereas my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield appears on the face of it to want to allow the sanctification of same-sex marriage.
      Mr. Boswell: As I understand it, my right hon. Friend has it exactly and puts it very clearly to the House. My difficulty with my hon. Friend's new clause is that it would arguably validate same-sex marriages. We could have a debate about same-sex marriages, although the House is perhaps not ready to do so. The Minister and other hon. Members will know that that matter is highly controversial, even in the United States—in one state, in particular. We could not fruitfully discuss it now, not least because Ministers have consistently said that they are against same-sex marriages and seek to underpin different-sex marriages.
      My hon. Friend's new clause would facilitate the continuation of marriage in several situations about which he feels strongly because they may involve the maintenance of pension entitlement and so forth. We rehearsed that at length in Committee and to some extent this afternoon. However, his proposal could in effect lead to marriage between persons of the same gender. I would warm towards it more if we had tried to confine it to validating—retrospectively, if we wish-grandfather rights or grandmother rights to persons who are already married, on the grounds that there is no reason to break up such relationships. Like other hon. Members, I know serious people of repute who are in a continuing relationship, which is currently marriage but will not be.
      However, in trying to limit the effect of new clause 7, my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield has weakened the validity of his argument. There will be persons unknown to the House who will marry in future in a specific gender, subsequently wish to undergo gender reassignment arid perhaps wish their relationship to continue. Under the new clause, they would be

      1505
      precluded from doing so because they were not married before the Bill was passed. That is invidious and shows the weakness of principle behind my hon. Friend's point.
      I readily concede to my hon. Friend and others who have put their names to new clause 7 the strong practical argument about the need to encourage continuing relationships and to protect the financial and other positions of vulnerable people if they choose to change the nature of their relationships. That is perfectly understandable and should not be sacrificed to a wider principle about preserving marriage between different genders.
      However, I understand that the sensitivity of my hon. Friend's points, which are set out in the new clause and were mentioned in Committee, will be easier to bear because of the Civil Partnerships Bill. I outlined in Committee my impatience for that measure, which has now appeared. I also expressed my support for that measure in principle because we should persist with the doctrine that marriage should he between people of different and legally recognised genders but, if persons of the same gender wish to have a continuing, genuine relationship through civil partnership, we should also facilitate that. We say yes to relationships but no to marriage between persons of the same gender. In that spirit, I express advance reservations about new clause 7 but commend new clause 4 to the House.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I rise to support new clause 7. I am conscious that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), speaking from the Front Bench, has hopped from foot to foot about the provision and I understand the reasons for that. Most of us who have considered the issue carefully will have been caught on the horns of the dilemma that he outlined so eloquently.
      I did not serve on the Committee, although I have read the proceedings. Clearly, there was considerable support for the principles behind new clause 7. I bring no expertise to the issue of gender dysphoria—we are considering complex and deep matters—but, like several hon. Members, I have two constituents who are caught in the situation ghat new clause 7 tries to tackle. My experience of them rather than any expertise in the psychology or medicine of gender dysphoria has led me to table the new clause. I have their permission to discuss their circumstances in the House today.
      My constituents, Joy and Christine Timbrell, have been married for some 30 years. They are devout Christians who have two grown-up children and many grandchildren. Under the Bill, either they will be obliged to divorce, which neither wishes to do, or Christine will remain wrongly gendered and unable to have the certificate to which the Bill refers and all that that implies. Against their will, their marriage will be "put asunder". That is wrong and an injustice to my constituents. I have therefore tabled new clause 7 in the hope that it can rectify a wrong. I greatly regret that the Government have decided to whip the Bill and this particular new clause. I believe that there would have been considerable support for my proposal across the House, and my decision whether to press it to a vote will depend in part on what the Minister says in his response and what the feeling in the House is at that point.
      1506
      4.45 pm
      I took my two constituents to meet the Minister in the Lords with responsibility for the Bill, Lord Filkin. He was courteous and offered tea, biscuits and sympathy to my constituents. He was clear, however, in his total refusal to consider any change. I had gone along to listen to the arguments and to see what I thought, on behalf of my constituents, and it was clear that the Government were terrified by the opening of the door, as they see it, to same-sex marriages. The Minister's response, though courteous, was extraordinarily unimaginative, given that the Government have shown themselves willing to look at these issues. What I did not receive from the Minister was justice for my constituents.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman has not said whether that meeting took place before or after the introduction of the Civil Partnership Bill, which many people consider to be very imaginative and timely legislation.
      Mr. Mitchell: The Minister makes a fair point, but neither I nor my constituents believe that that Bill will make any difference in this case. Nor do I believe that it will make any difference to the force of the arguments in support of my new clause.
      I wish to make five points. First, I sincerely believe that my new clause is not about same-sex marriage. Each marriage covered by the provision will have been contracted by two people of the opposite sex. The measure would not pave the way for a marriage to be solemnised between two people of the same gender. It would allow only for a marriage solemnised between a male and a female to continue if, at a later stage, a spouse sought to have a new gender recognised. People who enter into a valid marriage contract in good faith should not have to divorce in order to have their new gender recognised and endorsed.
      Secondly, when a couple wish to separate that is a different matter, as my amendment recognises. When they do not, the innocent party—that might be someone who is deeply religious, as in the case of my constituents—is effectively being forced to separate by the Bill. The innocent party in the case that I have described has rights too, and the House should be sensible of them.
      My third argument is that I have further limited my new clause to cover only those married at the time of Royal Assent. Some argue that it should go further, but I am seeking to define it very narrowly, so that only those who are caught in this position and who are married today would be affected. It is difficult to know how many people would be affected, because people often keep very quiet in such circumstances. Perhaps 30 couples would be affected, and I urge the House to bear that in mind when considering the new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Robathan: I thank my hon. Friend for giving way, and I apologise for not being here for the beginning of his speech, but I did watch it on the monitor. He is making some extremely good points.

      1507
      I was prompted to come down because I want to ask him whether he agrees that he is illustrating that the details of the Bill have just not been thought through.
      Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I do not wish to be drawn on the wider issues. I wish to focus on my new clause, which I hope will commend itself to him.
      My fourth argument is that the new clause could well save the Government from falling foul of human rights legislation. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry pointed out in Committee, couples forced to divorce may well have a case under the Human Rights Act 1998. The Joint Committee on Human Rights urged the Government to

      "reconsider the requirement for a party to a subsisting marriage to end the marriage before obtaining a full gender recognition certificate".

      The Bill places some people in the truly dreadful position of having to choose between their marriage—their relationship with their family, their children, and their grandchildren—and their right to have their new gender recognised. Different sets of rights are being traded off against each other. I urge the House to bear in mind the position of the wider family in the circumstances, for example, of my constituents, which I described earlier.
      Fifthly, I return to the terms of the marriage contract. These couples married according to the laws of the United Kingdom as they then stood. There were certain grounds for annulment and certain grounds for divorce. The state could sanction divorce where love had broken down, or annul where there was no intention of lifelong commitment. Where those characteristics of marriage remain—that is, love and lifelong commitment—it is wrong for a law that is effectively retrospective to introduce new grounds upon which the marriage may be dissolved.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman rightly cites love and commitment as fundamental to marriage, but does he recognise that many people watching and listening to the debate believe that marriage is also a union between a man and a woman? Should one partner who is gender dysphoric change gender, the marriage is in a different situation.
      Mr. Mitchell: With the greatest respect, I sincerely believe the Minister is completely wrong. We are not talking about a new marriage contracted between people of the same sex; we are talking about a marriage originally contracted between a man and a woman, for better and for worse. The fact that the change has taken place does not annul or destroy the terms upon which the marriage was contracted.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. Does he also acknowledge that the couple have a choice? The Government do not require them to proceed down the road of gender recognition. They have a choice. They can choose not to, and there will be some couples who choose not to.
      Mr. Mitchell: With respect to the Minister again, I covered that point in the earlier part of my speech where
      1508
      I dealt with the way in which rights were being traded against other rights. If he looks back at my earlier remarks in Hansard, he will see that I addressed that point precisely. Couples should not be put in that position. My constituents should not have to make that dreadful choice.
      A group of marriages that have not gone wrong, which are loving and based on years of commitment, will be prejudiced by the Bill. It would be wrong for the House to put asunder those whom God hath joined together. Over many years marriages survive many changes. Some marriages experience extraordinary changes in circumstances, in sickness and in health. A relationship that survives a gender change is by any definition extremely strong. I invite the Minister to improve the Bill, to stand up for the sanctity of marriage, far from undermining it, and to defend the rights and freedoms of a very small minority who will suffer as a result of the Bill as drafted and should not have to do so.
      Lynne Jones: I support both new clauses, although if new clause 7 were accepted, new clause 4 would be unnecessary. I thank the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for moving new clause 4. An existing marriage of transsexual people should be permitted if they subsequently have their correct gender recognised through the process laid down in the Bill. I cannot for the life of me understand why the Government are not prepared to accept new clause 4.
      I have some understanding of the Government's reservations in relation to new clause 7, because they believe that it would set a precedent for same-sex marriages. I would argue that that is not the case. We are speaking of a very small number of people—unique people, who were married at a time when the transsexual person may have been trying not to come to terms with the fact that they suffered from gender dysphoria. That was quite common in the past but is much less common now, when that is a recognised condition for which medical treatment is available, and society is much more accepting of such people than it was.
      As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) has said, denying such people the right to gender recognition and the right to continue with their marriage provides a choice, but it also requires them to deny themselves one set of rights in order to acquire another. Many trans-couples have written to the Minister and his colleague in the House of Lords setting out their concerns; for example, Janet and Sarah Wood, who demand the right to retain their marriage and to have Sarah's correct gender recognised. Clearly, the hon. Gentleman's new clause would allow for that.
      Even at this late stage, I ask the Government to consider whether that small number of cases should not be allowed to go through. It would be a time-expired phenomenon, as, rightly, the new clause requires that the marriage should have taken place before Royal Assent to the Act. It is therefore clear that, when the marriage took place, the persons involved were man and woman, and the person who subsequently had to accept that they are transgendered married in all good faith. That person was trying to take on board the implications of their birth gender before finally coming to the conclusion—which often seems like a matter of life and death—that they could no longer live in their

      1509
      birth gender, and had to accept that the only way for them to go forward in their life was to have gender reassignment.
      All those couples, as the hon. Gentleman pointed out, will have demonstrated their strong commitment to each other and many will have strong religious principles in relation to their marriage vows. They should be allowed to uphold those principles in a manner that does not affect anyone else and that causes no harm to any other person, and they should be allowed to enjoy the rights that will be given through this laudable legislation.
      Angela Watkinson: I apologise for not having been present to hear the earlier stages of this debate. Does the hon. Lady agree that there is a difference between undergoing gender reassignment treatment and acquiring a gender recognition certificate, and that when there are pre-existing marriages in which one partner undergoes gender reassignment, it is open to that person not to apply for the certificate if they wish their marriage to remain legal?
      Lynne Jones: Of course it is open to them not to apply for their human rights, but cases have gone to the European Court of Human Rights and such people have human rights. I believe that it is their right to apply for their correct gender to be recognised under the Bill and at the same time they should be able to maintain their commitment to the person to whom they are married, and in many cases, to the vows that they made when they married.
      Mr. David Bendel: Is it not the case that, if there is any point in passing this Bill at all, there must also be a point in passing this Bill for people who wish their marriages to remain? All the other things that the Bill will provide are just as important for them as for those who are happy to get divorced if, for example, they later want to go to a job interview.
      Lynne Jones: Sadly, most marriages fail when one spouse "transitions". We are talking about a very small number of very strong, binding marriages. The hon. Gentleman is right: why should a party to such a marriage forgo human rights granted in the European Court and now granted more widely in the Bill?
      5 pm
      Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend has spoken throughout with the passion that we all expect of her. However, the right granted in article 12 of the European convention on human rights is the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Strasbourg made it clear that it did not recognise same-sex marriage.[Interruption.]
      Lynne Jones: As the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield says from a sedentary position, when the marriages took place the parties were of opposite sexes and believed that they were. The point is that the human right to obtain a gender recognition certificate is clearly not the right to marry, but the right to privacy under article 8, whereby a transgendered person should be able to acquire a birth certificate in his or her corrected gender.
      Dr. Evan Harris: A Statutory Instrument Committee considering the
      1510
      exciting subject of clinical trials directives prevented me from participating earlier. I am pleased to do so now. I feel that the excellent contribution of the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) exemplified what is best about the House when issues such as this are discussed. When there is a mixture of views within and across parties, thoughtful speeches are made and a coalition develops, in which Members whose perspectives may differ nevertheless seek the same changes in legislation.
      This subject was debated at length on Second Reading, on an occasion that both the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and I remember well. It may be useful to recall some of the Government's arguments then, to see whether we can flush out some more detail.
      The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield, my hon. Friend the Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) and I—all of whom have put our names to new clause 7—are not alone. We have the support of the Joint Committee on Human Rights, which has argued that it was perfectly possible for the Government not to insist that couples divorce in order to obtain their rights under the European convention. The Government have employed several arguments. The first is that people have a choice—that they are not being forced to end their marriages and can choose not to. As has been said, that is a terrible choice. It seems unreasonable to force people to choose between a human right recognised in case law and their marriages.
      In fact, the Government had a choice. Even while believing that they could not sanction the bringing together in marriage of people of the same gender, they could have taken the view that the marriage was between people of different genders at the time when the contract was made and that subsequent events should not mean that it should end without good reason. Instead of seeking to impose difficult choices on others, the Government should have recognised that they had a political choice to make.
      We have yet to hear from the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but I cannot imagine what terrible political consequences there might have been for the Government had they conceded that the small number of people who will have married before Royal Assent need not divorce to gain access to their full human rights. Indeed, they would have been supported by Liberal Democrats, some Conservatives and, I know, some Labour Members.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman in a sense makes the Government's point for us. He is right to say that the Government had a choice, and that choice centred around marriage for opposite-sex couples and civil partnerships for same-sex couples. The situation is difficult indeed for transsexual people in pre-existing marriages, but the Government have nevertheless made their choice.
      Dr. Harris: I accept that the Government have made their choice, and they have done so on the basis of further arguments that I shall briefly explore.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for the moderate way in which he is putting his case. Does he agree that, by the logic of his

      1511
      position, transsexual couples who wished to sever their relationship would not be able to do so by seeking annulment on the grounds of gender reassignment and the acquisition of a certificate? They would have to find other grounds for a divorce.
      Dr. Harris: I do not believe that that is the intention or consequence of the new clause. It is a relatively narrow clause that provides only for the relevant sections of the legislation not to apply in certain cases. I certainly believe that it is possible to frame legislation to meet my requirements.
      Another Government argument, and the only one that the Minister used in Committee, runs as follows,

      "We need to be clear that if existing marriages were not required to end, the Bill would pave the way for the creation of a small category of same-sex marriages. Those are not permitted under UK law and the Government do not intend to change that."—[Official Report. Standing Committee A, 9 March 2004; c. 66.]

      That is not a reason, but a statement of the Government's position. I sought in Committee to identify why the Government were not seeking to change that position, because it was tautological to state that they were not going to change the law because it was the law.
      In fairness, today the Minister has twice clarified in interventions his belief that marriage and the state of marriage, rather than entry into marriage, must be restricted to those of different genders. Again, that is a political judgment. The question that we must ask, for the small number of people for whom he is making a provision that will cause upset and distress, is why he is sticking by that narrow, specific interpretation. Those people would not be hurting anyone else. Were what we seek to be allowed, as it is in other parts of the world, the sky would not fall in and disaster would not occur. I do not even believe that there would be one of those moral panics that we have from time to time. The Minister must explain not only the basis for the decision, but the political reasons behind it. There does not seem to be clamour on all sides for the Government to take the view that they have taken.
      Finally, I turn to civil partnerships. As I said in Committee, my party welcomes civil partnerships as far as they go, but it does not appear that such partnerships will give rights equal to those that marriage provides. They are not with us yet, as we put this piece of legislation on to the statute book, and they are not the same as marriage for many people. Many people have chosen to get married because of the personal implications that that has for them. For those reasons, as the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield said, although civil partnerships are welcome as far as they go, they do not let the Government fully off the hook on this issue. I applaud him for tabling new clause 7, and if he is not satisfied with the Minister's reply—which is for him to judge, but I suspect that he will not be—I hope that Liberal Democrat Members will join him in the Lobby in support of it.
      Mr. Forth: This debate shows all too well the convolutions into which the legislation is taking us. My hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) illustrated that, unwittingly but all too
      1512
      well, by the way in which he had to try to justify his new clause 7. I can see the logic in the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), albeit that new clause 5 would affect an extremely small number of people, but it is new clause 7 on which I shall say a few words.
      Two issues have emerged from the debate. One, which always bothers me somewhat, is where we set out to alter the law and challenge long-standing conventions and social arrangements for the sake of very small groups of people in society. It is argued that it is self-evidently beneficial to identify ever-smaller groups of people and change the law to help them. Yet in some instances—this could be one—doing so endangers, challenges or undermines something of long standing that is very important to society. In this case, we are talking about marriage.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: If I might have the temerity to differ with my right hon. Friend, it is the Government who are seeking to challenge convention and to change the law. The very small group of people whom we have been talking about will be forced by this legislation to get divorced, and I am seeking to ensure that that change does not take place.
      Mr. Forth: As ever, my hon. Friend anticipates my next point, which concerns choice. Life is full of choices and we all have to make them from time to time. Some are very difficult and others less so, but to arrange the law simply so that people can avoid making very difficult choices is not a sound basis on which to work. However difficult it might be for the individuals, whom we are talking about, to change the law in the way proposed by my hon. Friend, so that they will not have to make a very difficult and painful choice, is not a good basis on which to argue for a change in the law, particularly if it would lead—as I fear his new clause would—to what would amount to the sanctification of same-sex marriage. That would be the inevitable result.
      This is exactly the issue that we must confront. However well intentioned, my hon. Friend's new clause would challenge marriage as we have understood it and as the Government continue to understand it, I am glad to hear; I hope that Conservative Front Benchers take the same view—and it would say to people that we are now in the business of trying to eliminate difficult choices from life and of easing their path, whatever the result might be.
      Richard Younger-Ross: On a doctrinal point, is it not true that many faiths and Churches would not in any case recognise a divorce under these circumstances, because we are talking about a sacrament that is taken, and which is there for life?
      Mr. Forth: That is an argument against the Bill itself, which I shall be voting against on Third Reading, as it happens. The more that we consider the Bill and its ramifications, the mole that it appears to be nonsense. I suspect that that was true in Committee and it has certainly been true this afternoon. One such nonsense the hon. Gentleman has just illustrated all too well. Whether or not one is a person of religion or faith—
      Richard Younger-Ross: I am sorry, but the right hon. Gentleman is being inconsistent. He says that he will

      1513
      vote against the new clause and against the Bill on Third Reading, but surely the consistent thing to do would be to vote for the new clause, which supports the doctrinal position.
      Mr. Forth: No, it would not. Sadly, I anticipate that this dreadful Bill will get on to the statute book, in which case my position is completely consistent. Although I will vote against the Bill, I have the slight feeling that I could be in a minority.[Interruption.] Oh yes, I have a feeling for these things. I have been in this place long enough to know when I am probably going to be outvoted. Today might be one of those occasions, in which case I shall carry the principle through to my hon. Friend's new clause.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I am in a double embarrassment, for I fear that I might have to agree with the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). Is he not right in saying that it is perfectly possible to take the view of the Bill that my right hon. Friend takes while supporting my new clause? My right hon. Friend says that I am seeking to change the law, but it is the Government who are requiring the couples whom I described to make this dreadful choice between not receiving the certificate or getting divorced. That is the dilemma that they face.
      My right hon. Friend also say—shuddering as he does so—that my new clause could be a back-door way of supporting same-sex marriage, but I am not supporting same-sex marriage. All these people were married as man and woman, and that fact should be considered pertinent. Nothing should change it thereafter.
      Mr. Forth: Surely my hon. Friend recognises that, if a person is acknowledged to be of a new gender and if the marriage continues, the effect will be to have same-sex marriages. He cannot wriggle around by talking about the position before, during or after it happens: same-sex marriage will inevitably result.
      Mr. Mitchell rose—
      Mr. Bercow rose—
      Mr. Forth: I give way to my excitable hon. Friend.
      5.15 pm
      Mr. Bercow: The hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) should understand one thing about my right hon. Friend the Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth)—that his consistent view is that the world has been going progressively downhill since at least the 11th century and probably some hundreds of years before that. May I ask my right hon. Friend, in the best possible spirit, what a concession to a small group of people, whom many would judge deserving of it, can possibly do to undermine the great, valued and prized institution of marriage that he supports so much? Why does benefit to one group damage a great institution? Surely it is capable of sustaining itself, even in the event of the passage of new clause 4.
      Mr. Forth: I am grateful to my hon. Friend, but why he picked on the 11th century, I do not know. If pressed,
      1514
      I might well go much further back, but we will leave that debate for another day, Madam Deputy Speaker, because I know you disapprove of such digressions. We are here talking about slippery slopes and thin ends of wedges, with which my hon. Friend is as familiar as the rest of us. The sad truth is that every time we try to accommodate this or that group within society, we are in danger of undermining or challenging some of our long-standing and cherished traditions. For me, the new clause proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield is, sad to say, an example of that, so I shall be unable to support it. On this occasion—I will not say these words very often, but they are appropriate now—I will be happy to support the Government.
      Richard Younger-Ross: We have heard how far back the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) might like to go back. My first parliamentary foray was in the old parliamentary constituency of Chislehurst, so I well know that there are caves located there.
      The Government have challenged much religious thinking in introducing the Bill, but they may have become somewhat doctrinal in their position on new clause 7. When we could smell the smoke earlier, I wondered whether the fires of hell were opening up to consume those who were in favour of the Bill. On reflection, that is not the case, because much of the Bill is very Christian and religious. It recognises the genuine problems and the dilemma faced by transgender people.
      The new clause helps people who are in an invidious position. People who have been married in church, taken vows and made a sacrament or people of other faiths who have taken vows and committed themselves for life—"till death do us part"—will be faced with the dilemma of whether to change gender or not. If I changed my gender, I would have to get divorced and break the vow that I had made in church. As we discussed earlier, there are some inter-sex people and some whose gender may have been incorrectly prescribed at birth. Those people may not necessarily be committing a blasphemy, as some have claimed, because the marriage may not be between people of the same gender. The marriage may be between people of opposite genders, but it becomes a problem of legal necessity purely because of the gender on a birth certificate.
      Mr. Lammy: For the record, I must correct the hon. Gentleman. The inter-sex condition is clinically different from gender dysphoria and it is important that he is aware of that. Also, the Bill requires transsexual people to end their marriages in law, but the marriages could continue for religious purposes, as it were. Some religions do not recognise divorce for civil purposes.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I made the same point in an intervention on the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst. However, if religions can accept that marriages can carry on in those circumstances, why cannot the law do the same? Why are we creating an anomaly and putting a very small number of people in a totally invidious position? People who have felt trapped in the wrong body from an early age are under immense pressure. The Bill means that their inner man or woman

      1515
      can now be recognised, but at the very high cost of divorce. That leaves them between a rock and a hard place.
      Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman makes a good point and it is true that such people are in a difficult position. However, let us take the example of a woman with gender dysphoria who meets the Bill's criteria, satisfies the panel and subsequently becomes a man. To all intents and purposes, that person then is a man and must accept what goes with that status. Therefore, if that person is in a pre-existing relationship, the civil partnership route may represent the best option. A marriage may be so important that a person may decide not to apply for the full gender recognition certificate. I accept that such judgments are difficult to make, but the Government are not forcing people down any route.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I do not accept that the Government are not forcing people down any route. People will be told what they can do, but then the door will be slammed in their faces. We must remember that the people involved are under great pressure. They may have felt since the age of five that they were in the wrong body, and gone through life with that feeling. If they are in their 50s, they may have had an operation 20 years ago, and lived as man and man, or woman and woman, for many years. All of a sudden, however, the Bill will mean that their relationship, and the fact that they live with each other, cannot be recognised as marriage any longer.
      That is cruel, and un-Christian, and I think it is wrong in doctrinal terms.
      Mr. Bercow: I endorse the hon. Gentleman's argument, but does he agree that the slippery slope or thin end of the wedge argument is discredited in respect of new clause 4, as a result of the publication of the Civil Partnership Bill that is going through another place at present? The Government have made it clear that their commitment is to civil partnerships for same-sex couples, but not to same-sex marriage. Indeed, they specifically and unequivocally oppose the creation of same-sex marriages, so the canard that the hon. Gentleman raises will not run.
      Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman makes his point well, as he did earlier. However, there is no thin end of the wedge in this case, because the number of people involved is so limited. Moreover, new clause 7 is time-limited and applies only to marriages entered into before the legislation is granted Royal Assent. I hope that hon. Members who oppose the Bill will accept that new clause 7 would be a proper amendment to make to the Bill. People who might have opposing views on the Bill could unite to defeat the Government, who have taken an incorrect doctrinal and legal standpoint.
      Mr. Lammy: Never did I think that I would be on the same side as the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth), but on this occasion I am. The issue of existing marriages is a difficult one and we discussed it at length on Second Reading and in
      1516
      Committee. I have made the Government's view clear again today, and little would be gained from repeating all the arguments.
      The new clause is similar to the one moved by the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) in Committee and it would allow for the marriages of those couples who were married before the date of Royal Assent to continue. I accept the argument that was made in Committee that such an amendment would naturally limit the number of couples whose marriages would subsist. However, we cannot escape the fact that those marriages would be same-sex marriages, and they are not permitted under UK law. It is as simple as that.
      The decision has been difficult to make. As Lord Filkin said in the other place, it is hard to look someone in the eye and say no. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) made the point squarely, however, when he said that this is a matter of principle for the Government. I look forward to the debates, in which I shall take part, on the Civil Partnership Bill, but marriage as an institution is for opposite-sex couples.
      We do not deny that the Bill will have an impact on the couples in question. However, in deciding whether to seek legal recognition of their acquired gender, people will have to take all the implications of the change into account, including the effect on an existing marriage. That may be difficult, but we are talking about adults—the Bill will only affect those over the age of 18—and they will have to think the issues through. As I said in Committee, the Bill will have an emotional impact on those couples who have to end their marriages, but that will not be unexpected. Couples will have had a long time to prepare for it. Indeed, many couples in that situation have already made their decisions.
      We have also considered the practical impact of the Bill on finances, arrangements for children and mutual rights and responsibilities. As I said earlier, the courts will be able to decide on some of the issues that arise, especially in cases of contention between the two parties.
      The Government seek to safeguard the nature of marriage as an institution for opposite-sex couples. We do not believe that it is acceptable to create even a small category of same-sex marriages. At the same time, we are working hard to ensure a smooth transition into civil partnership for couples who want to stay together. Indeed, schedule 3 of the Civil Partnership Bill is devoted to providing couples who have to end their marriage with the means to form a civil partnership on the same day as the dissolution of their marriage.
      5.30 pm
      New clause 4 raises an issue that we also discussed in Committee. I said then that the Government had not provided for the situation of two transsexual people who are married to one another, as the circumstances were extremely remote. I have to tell the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) that that remains our position.
      For the new clause to have effect, there would have to be a situation in which two transsexual people were married to one another, and both were able to satisfy the criteria for recognition in the acquired gender at the same time. We must also bear in mind the fact that the

      1517
      total number of transsexual people in the UK is only about 5,000, and that only between 100 and 200 of them are in existing marriages.
      There are only two ways in which the situation to be addressed by the proposal could arise. The first is that two people who married each other in their birth gender, without any feelings of gender dysphoria, were subsequently both diagnosed with gender dysphoria and began to live in the other gender. Given the low incidence of that, it is incredible to suppose that two people who were married to each other would both be diagnosed with gender dysphoria.
      The second possibility, however, is that two people who were both already living in an acquired gender would marry one another. They would thus be an opposite-sex couple, but would need to marry in the gender in which they were no longer living. The person living as a man would have to present as a woman, as that would remain his gender in law, and the person living as a woman would present as a man. We do not expect that transsexual people will do that. Hence, again, we find that the possibility raised by the new clause is incredibly remote.
      Nevertheless, if that possibility were to arise, and both spouses wanted to change gender at about the same time, we think that that would be such a major change in the nature of their marriage—with the identities of the man and wife in the couple swapping over—that it is not unreasonable to require the marriage to end, and for a new marriage to be contracted afterwards.
      Mr. Boswell: I am following the Minister's argument with interest and will comment on it in a moment, but can he tell the House whether the seamless procedure envisaged for what would become, under the Bill, a same-sex couple to move front marriage to civil partnership would be available in the annulment of a marriage between persons of different genders who had both received gender recognition certificates, so that they could remarry almost immediately in their acquired gender?
      Mr. Lammy: We would expect registrars to look sympathetically on applications for a reduced notice period. It would thus be possible for the couple to remarry on the very next day. There could be a gap of 24 hours during which the relationship had no legal status, but given that the existence of such marriages is an incredibly remote possibility, the Government do not believe that such a 24-hour period would be too problematic.
      Based on a fundamental principle, the Government stand by the requirement that marriage is for opposite-sex couples. I realise that the hon. Gentleman's proposal is well intentioned towards transgendered people who are together, but the Government's position is that such a possibility is remote, and in those circumstances, we believe that ending such a marriage and beginning afresh would not be unreasonable. On that basis, I am unable to accept the new clause.
      Mr. Boswell: I am somewhat disappointed in the Minister's response. His essential argument was that this is a such a small and unlikely set of circumstances that we should not even contemplate legislating,
      1518
      although he sought to dress that up later by saying that it amounted to a radical change in the marriage. I understand that there is at least some significance in that view, but the point is that there is no change of gender.
      Lynne Jones: I disagree with the hon. Gentleman, because the most likely scenario when two trans-people are in a legal marriage is that they will have known each other in their transgender identity, so they will have known when they contracted the marriage that, for legal purposes, the trans-woman was married as a man and that, for the same reasons, the trans-man was married as a woman.
      Mr. Boswell: I am sensitive to that point. That is quite possible. Indeed, in seeking to minimise the intellectual problem that the Minister had, he sought to minimise the numbers involved. They are more than zero already and, clearly, they will be in the future. At least we heard some assurances about the ability to put such things right within 24 hours—not an ideal arrangement, but it has at least arisen during the passage of the Bill through the House.
      Mr. Andrew Mitchell: Following what my hon. Friend has said, I have listened very carefully to what the Minister said about new clause 7. There is a difference of principle between him and those hon. Members from all three main parties who have spoken to new clause 7. There is a great difference between getting married and the rules on same-sex marriages, on which he and I agree, and what happens during a happy marriage. On those grounds, if I am able to, I shall seek to divide the House on new clause 7.
      Mr. Boswell: Before I sit down to allow the House to reach a conclusion on the matter, I wish to say that I do not propose press new clause 4 to a Division, in the light of what my hon. Friend has said, although he will equally understand that, because of the reservations that have been expressed not just by Labour Members but by my right hon. and hon. Friends, I may not be able to follow him into the Lobby. In the light of those exchanges, for the avoidance of doubt and to facilitate my hon. Friend if he wishes to persist in pressing new clause 7 to a Division, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 5

      DISCLOSURE OF PURPOSES OF CRIMINAL RECORDS BUREAU CHECKS
      `It shall be a defence against any charge of the disclosure of protected information under section 22 that the information was disclosed by an individual in connection with Criminal Records Bureau checks; and it is an offence for any person who has obtained a gender recognition certificate to fail to disclose in any such application that he or she has obtained a gender recognition certificate:.—[Mr. Boswell.]
      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Mr. Boswell: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
      I will motor on with this new clause because I am conscious of the fact that the House wishes to make a decision on the other matter. New clause 5 is designed to

      1519
      pick up a somewhat fragmented and rushed discussion in Committee and relates to Criminal Records Bureau checks. In the light of recent events, there is absolutely no disagreement among hon. Members about the fact that that is an important subject; we are anxious that relevant information is conveyed as it should be and that effective checks are made.
      My interest in the issue was to some extent stimulated by the Evangelical Alliance, but its concerns go much more widely. The purpose of my new clause is, first, to make it absolutely clear that, under the somewhat restrictive clause 22, there would be no restriction on the conveyance of information in relation to Criminal Records Bureau checks. People would not be up before the beak because they had furnished information about those checks that could be of value. Secondly, my new clause would deal with the individual who received a gender recognition certificate who might not choose to disclose that information for the assistance of the bureau.
      Let me briefly summarise my understanding of the position, which is derived from some of the correspondence that I have seen between the Home Office and outside parties; I am not absolutely clear of its status, so I shall not draw on it formally or in terms. Following the Goodwin judgment, the CRB put in place a regime that was described as a compromise—a perfectly proper one—between the rights of the transgendered person to live in their own identity and the rights of the CRB to secure the necessary safeguards. That regime has applied ever since. I think that it probably works—I seek the Minister's confirmation of that—and that it therefore deals with the first part of the new clause.
      Outside interests rightly asked what would happen if the transgendered person made no reference to their change of legal status and, as a result, some of their previous identities were not picked up. I understand that the CRB, the Home Office and the Department for Constitutional Affairs are discussing that question. I assure the Minister that my aim is not to make trouble —the matter is far too serious for that—nor do I suggest that anyone would seek gender reassignment or to acquire a gender recognition certificate in order to carry out nefarious activities. However, it is most important that the process set out in the Bill does not become a means by which people can slip through the net.
      Mr. Lammy indicated assent.
      Mr. Boswell: The Minister is nodding. I hope that he will share with the House his thoughts on how the discussion is going, and that he can assure the House that the arrangements are as watertight as possible; that the bureau will know what it needs to know even if a gender recognition certificate has been issued; that no one can escape the reasonable checks that are imposed on us all in certain circumstances—I hold a disclosure certificate myself, as it happens—and that people must act in good faith and draw the bureau's attention to any certificate that is relevant or that might conceal a previous identity. If the Minister can give those assurances, we shall all feel a lot happier.
      Mr. Lammy: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for tabling the new clause. The
      1520
      Criminal Records Bureau exists to help employers in the private, public and voluntary sectors correctly to identify candidates who may be unsuitable for certain work, particularly work involving regular contact with children or with vulnerable or disabled adults, by running background checks against records held by the police, the Department of Health and the Department for Education and Skills. The employer will ask the candidate or applicant for such a sensitive position to complete a disclosure application form, in which he or she is asked to give consent to checks on details against data sources. That consent will enable verification of identity and enable the application for CRB checks to be processed.
      Given that the applicant will have consented to the checking process and that clause 22(4)(b) provides an exemption that enables protected information to be disclosed where the person has agreed to it, we do not believe that it is necessary to provide any further protection for those who provide information in response to CRB inquiries. An additional safeguard, which I mentioned in Standing Committee, is that subsection (4)(f) provides that disclosure is permissible if it is for the purposes of preventing or investigating crime. The hon. Gentleman will understand that that wide provision is designed to pick up the possibilities that he envisages.
      The second half of the new clause proposes that it be made an offence for an applicant who has a full gender recognition certificate to fail to disclose that fact. The disclosure application form contains questions that must be answered and others that require an answer if they are applicable to the person concerned. The latter category would include details from which a gender change might be inferred such as details of previous names. Failure to provide the information needed to carry out background checks or knowingly to make a false statement is a criminal offence and may result in prosecution.
      5.45 pm
      The Criminal Records Bureau, in response to the Goodwin and "I" rulings of the European Court of Human Rights, which the hon. Member for Daventry brought to the attention of the House, has decided that a transsexual applicant facing the dilemma of revealing their gender history to an employer or voluntary body can exercise their right to privacy by omitting previous identity details on the disclosure application form itself. Instead, transsexual people are required to send a separate notification of previous identity details directly to the Criminal Records Bureau, which has systems in place enabling the inquiry from the employer or voluntary body and the separate notification to be linked and matched. The usual checks will then be triggered.
      I assure the House and the hon. Gentleman that the guidance accompanying application forms for the gender recognition panels will make it very clear that failure to provide additional information in support of the disclosure application could result in prosecution. That guidance will be similar to the guidance attached to a passport application. We therefore believe that the process operated by the CRB properly balances the

      1521
      privacy interest of the transsexual person with the wider interest of checking criminal records, so the safeguards sought by the new clause already exist.
      The House will also be aware that the Bichard inquiry is looking into wider issues, and should recommendations be made I am sure that we will have an opportunity to discuss what more can be done.
      Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to the Minister, who has sought in good faith to respond in detail and with precision to concerns expressed both by outside interests and by myself. I will study his answer carefully, but prima facie he has made a convincing case that the matter has been considered and decisions made that again seek to achieve a proper balance between, on the one hand, the interests of the transsexual person and their right to privacy and, on the other, the interests of the wider community and the right to security enforced through the work of the CRB. As he rightly said, a major inquiry is under way, and he has demonstrated openness about accepting lessons that it may draw. In the light of his implication that if anything further needs to be done after the inquiry or for any other reason, he will pursue that with his colleagues, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
      Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

    New Clause 7

      SUCCESSFUL APPLICATIONS: MARRIED COUPLES
      'If an interim gender recognition certificate has been issued to a person under section 4(3) an application may be made to the Secretary of State to award a full gender recognition certificate without the provisions of Schedule 2 or section 5 having effect if—

      (a) neither party to the marriage wish the marriage to be dissolved or annulled,

      (b) both parties to the marriage can show they intend to continue living together, and

      (c) the marriage took place be fore the date of Royal Assent of this Act.'.—[Mr. Andrew Mitchell.]

      Brought up, and read the First time.
      Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 303.

      Division No. 188]

      [5:48 pm

      AYES

      Allan, Richard

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Amess, David

      Doughty, Sue

      Ancram, rh Michael

      Duncan, Peter(Galloway)

      Baker, Norman

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Barrett, John

      Fabricant Michael

      Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

      Fallon, Michael

      Bellingham, Henry

      Flook, Adrian

      Bercow, John

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      George, Andrew(St. Ives)

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Green, Damian(Ashford)

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Hancock Mike

      Burstow, Paul

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Burt, Alistair

      Cable, Dr. Vincent

      Harvey, Nick

      Chidgey, David

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Collins, Tim

      Hendry, Charles

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      Hermon, Lady

      Davis, rh David(Haltemprice & Howden)

      Holmes, Paul

      Howarth Gerald(Aldershot)

      Dodds, Nigel

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      1522

      Keetch, Paul

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Kennedy, rh Charles(Ross Skye & Inverness)

      Salmond, Alex

      Sanders, Adrian

      Kirkbride, Miss Julie

      Selous, Andrew

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

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

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Lamb, Norman

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Leigh, Edward

      Swayne, Desmond

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Syms, Robert

      Lidington, David

      Taylor, Matthew(Truro)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      McDonnell, John

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Mackay, rh Andrew

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      McLoughlin Patrick

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Moore, Michael

      Waterson, Nigel

      Moss, Malcolm

      Webb, Steve(Northavon)

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Weir, Michael

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Whittingdale, John

      Öpik, Lembit

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Osborne, George(Tatton)

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Willis, Phil

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Wishart, Pete

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Young, rh Sir George

      Rendel, David

      Robathan, Andrew

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Richard Younger-Ross and

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Mr. Paul Goodman

      NOES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Cawsey, Ian(Brigg)

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Challen, Colin

      Ainger, Nick

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Chaytor, David

      Allen, Graham

      Clapham, Michael

      Armstrong, rh Ms Hilary

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Clarke, rh Tom(Coatbridge & Chryston)

      Austin, John

      Baird, Vera

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Banks, Tony

      Clelland, David

      Barnes, Harry

      Clwyd, Ann(Cynon V)

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Coaker, Vernon

      Battle, John

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bayley, Hugh

      Cohen, Harry

      Beard, Nigel

      Coleman, lain

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Colman, Tony

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Connarty, Michael

      Bennett, Andrew

      Cook, Frank(Stockton N)

      Berry, Roger

      Cooper, Yvette

      Best, Harold

      Cousins, Jim

      Betts, Clive

      Cran, James(Beverley)

      Blackman, Liz

      Cranston, Ross

      Borrow, David

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Boswell, Tim

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Cummings, John

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Brown, rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Brown, Russell(Dumfries)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Browne, Desmond

      Davidson, Ian

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Burden, Richard

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Burgon, Colin

      Dawson, Hilton

      Burnham, Andy

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Denham, rh John

      Cairns, David

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Doran, Frank

      Caplin, Ivor

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Casale, Roger

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Caton, Martin

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      1523

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Edwards, Huw

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Etherington, Bill

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Farrelly, Paul

      Kidney, David

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Field, Mark(Cities of London & Westminster)

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      Fisher, Mark

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Lammy, David

      Follett, Barbara

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Forth, rh Eric

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Lepper, David

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      Linton, Martin

      Gapes, Mike(Ilford S)

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Love, Andrew

      Gerrard, Neil

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Luff, Peter(M-Worcs)

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Grogan, John

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hain, rh Peter

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      MacDonald, Calum

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      McFall, John

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hanson, David

      Mclsaac, Shona

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      McKechin, Ann

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      McNulty, Tony

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Healey, John

      McWalter, Tony

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      McWilliam, John

      Hendrick, Mark

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Mandelson, rh Peter

      Heppell, John

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Heyes, David

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Hodge, Margaret

      Martlew, Eric

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Merron, Gillian

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Miliband, David

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Moffatt, Laura

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Mole, Chris

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Moran, Margaret

      Howells, Dr. Kim

      Morgan, Julie

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Morris, rh Estelle

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Murphy, Denis(Wansbeck)

      Hutton, rh John

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Illsley, Eric

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Ingram, rh Adam

      O'Hara. Edward

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Olner, Bill

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Organ, Diana

      Owen, Albert

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Jenkins, Brian

      Perham, Linda

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Pickthall, Colin

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Plaskitt, James

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Pound, Stephen

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Kaufman, rh Gerald

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      1524

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Stringer, Graham

      Purchase, Ken

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Purnell, James

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      Quinn, Lawrie

      Taylor, Dari(Stockton S)

      Randall, John

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Timms, Stephen

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Tipping, Paddy

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Trickett, Jon

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Ruane, Chris

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Twigg, Derek(Halton)

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Salter, Martin

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Ward, Claire

      Sawford, Phil

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Watkinson, Angela

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Sheerman, Barry

      Watts, David

      Sheridan, Jim

      White, Brian

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Singh, Marsha

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Skinner, Dennis

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Smith, Geraldine(Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Woodward, Shaun

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Woolas, Phil

      Southworth, Helen

      Worthington, Tony

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Squire, Rachel

      Starkey, Dr. Phyllis

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Stevenson, George

      Wyatt, Derek

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Strang, rh Dr. Gavin

      Joan Ryan

      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 [23 February].
      Government amendments Nos. 3 and 4 agreed to.
      Order for Third Reading read.
      6.4 pm
      Mr. Lammy: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
      I am grateful for the co-operation and assistance of the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). She has tackled important pensions issues that have concerned many hon. Members and I thank her for her detailed deliberations on those matters.
      This is a Bill with a simple rationale. It addresses the difficulties faced by a small, vulnerable minority who have been denied basic legal rights for too long, and seeks to provide transsexual people with legal recognition of an everyday reality: the gender to which they now belong. On meeting the criteria in the Bill, a person will become in law the gender in which he or she

      1525
      now lives. That means that he or she will be able to get a birth certificate that reflects the acquired gender, and be able to marry or claim a pension in that gender.
      Of course, a Bill of this kind raises issues about the rights of others. We have had an important debate today about the right to freedom of religion, and I hope that we have demonstrated that we are alive to those concerns and are engaging with religious communities and their representatives. Just as the Bill provides legal recognition of the identity of transsexual people, it also respects the conscience of others.
      Many hon. Members have made an invaluable contribution to scrutiny of the Bill. The hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has been remarkably thorough, and in Committee he tabled a series of probing amendments that allowed us further to discuss some of the key aspects of the Bill. The Government amendment on placing the panels under the supervision of the Council on Tribunals—which was agreed to today—was a consequence of one of those probes.
      The hon. Members for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) welcomed the Bill, and although there were areas in which they would have preferred the Government to legislate otherwise, I hope that they agree with the view expressed by members of the transsexual community that the Bill meets 95 per cent. of the needs of transsexual people.
      On the Labour Benches, my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) merits particular credit. She has been a forceful advocate of the rights of transsexual people for many years in the House. She set up the parliamentary forum on transsexualism, and she has brought her expertise and experience to bear on our consideration of the Bill. She and the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon both caused us to reconsider the issue of foreign gender change and to table the amendment to clause 21 that was agreed to earlier today.
      Perhaps most importantly of all, hon. Members have discussed these issues with compassion and understanding, and I know that that has been appreciated beyond the Chamber. Many in the small community of transsexual people feel that they are excluded no more, that the House does not regard their concerns as trivial, and that the Bill is creating a robust and credible process whereby they can gain legal recognition of the gender in which they now live.
      The Bill is about equality, human rights, dignity and respect. We judge our civilised societies by how they treat their minority communities. I suspect that the House has never before had to consider equality and human rights legislation on behalf of such a small minority, and it is a credit to the House that this judgment has been made today and that the Bill should receive its Third Reading.
      6.8 pm
      Mr. Boswell: I should like to say at the start that I remain a supporter of the Bill, but that the Conservatives have decided to have a free vote on it. That will already have become apparent from the voting that took place earlier.
      The House is often criticised for spending its time on trivia when there are other, more important things to discuss, but is to be commended today for spending a
      1526
      day of its time on a matter of intense interest to a small number of affected persons. It is a very small number in comparative terms: perhaps 5,000 people. Whatever else one may say about the transsexual community, they probably have very little direct political influence. It is therefore important that we address their interests if there is something wrong.
      The Minister spoke strongly and eloquently about his commitment to human rights. That commitment is by no means confined to those on the Government Benches. I would say that if a human right is denied to one person for no good reason, that is a denial of one human right too many. How we implement that commitment and the interlocking with other commitments is the whole substance of our consideration.
      Bearing in mind the historic wrongs suffered by the transsexual community and the degree of misunderstanding that is still apparent, the tone of our debates has been extremely important. I have tried to bear that in mind, and I know the Minister has. Hon. Members with different positions on the issue have generally brought that kind of flavour to our deliberations. It does this place credit and shows respect for the people we have been discussing. That has gone on throughout our debates and I hope it will continue into the post-legislative resolution of some of the issues.
      In my own approach to the Bill, I have applied an overriding simple test: is there a wrong that needs to be remedied? Yes, I believe there has been. I ask myself two further questions: does the remedy create potentially difficult precedents and/or would it do more harm than good in practice? On the first question, we have just voted on a proposal, which, the House agreed, would have the effect of validating a very limited number of same-sex marriages. The Minister and I found ourselves in the same Lobby opposing that on principle, even if we have great sympathy for those people in practice. That is the type 1 danger. The type 2 danger is that although we may be legislating with good intentions, in practice our best intentions may be frustrated by difficulties. I cite as an example, as it was the last major debate that we had, the issue of Criminal Records Bureau checks. Anything in the Bill that made those more difficult to effect would be wrong. We must apply those tests.
      The debates today and in Committee and, if I may add to the Minister's general commendation of those who participated in these debates, also in another place, have been an example of Parliament working well together, and that includes the Minister's colleagues as well as himself. Throughout this proper period—the kind that we do not always spend on legislation—we have had some indication of particular problems. Some of those are hypothetical problems or ones that may arise in the future. They generally will not arise at the instigation of transsexual people, who will want to be able to enjoy their rights. I hope that nobody else will make a political demonstration about the issues or turn matters into a lawyers' paradise. There are better, less sensitive and more lucrative matters for lawyers to argue about.
      We have had in Committee and on Report ministerial assurances about matters that could be difficult and difficulties that we anticipated. We have been broadly satisfied with those assurances. That may be reflected in

      1527
      the way that some of us vote. We will probably keep our fingers crossed that those assurances work in practice. I recognise that some hon. Members will have no coincidence of view on the principle and will still be unable to reconcile themselves to the Bill, but on the practical side we may have made some progress.
      As regards my personal judgment of the Bill, let me put two points to the House for consideration. They may have slightly wider application than just to the Bill. First, as Ministers have constantly conceded, we need to find an appropriate balance between the human rights of individuals. Where those rights conflict, that conflict must be resolved. The Bill arose from European human rights legislation based on articles 8 and 12, and the UK's apparent breach of those provisions. A very powerful case today has today been deployed for the protection of religious rights, as the Minister has acknowledged. which are enshrined under article 9 of the European convention on human rights. As I suggested in my comments on that new clause, we may find that some of the issues in relation to conflict of rights, and different obligations to secure rights, become more common in the future. Perhaps all the easy work on human rights has been done, and the difficult work, and some of the tensions, will build up later.
      This is not just a matter for the lawyers. It is also about society's acceptance of these rights and the way in which it can be comfortable with them, at ease with itself and at ease with the new situation that has been created. As I said, I know that some hon. Members will feel uneasy about that. We should do nothing to inflame that situation, because were we to do so, we would prejudice the newly acquired rights of transgendered people.
      My second point is that however Members intend to vote in a few moments, while it is easy to spot problems and pick holes in the legislation, leaving matters as they are would also be extremely difficult and, in my view, less satisfactory. Let us consider an actual situation—many of us will be familiar with similar ones—of a couple who are constituents. They are legally a man and a woman, married and living together over a number of years, and in a firm and loving relationship. One of them has already undergone gender reassignment surgery. It is difficult, as they would have to sever their marriage if that person were to avail themselves of the procedure for a gender recognition certificate. In everything except the legal sense, however—we are legislating tonight, and our concern is the legal meaning—those persons are already a same-sex couple. Incidentally, that is one reason why it is extremely important that we have now got the Government to come forward with the civil partnerships legislation, at least to provide a way of resolving some of these issues.
      I say to some of my colleagues that just saying, "This is all a bit odd. We don't like how it sounds," is perhaps to condone other situations in which these rare but not insignificant cases have created dilemmas for us all. We should not run away from those. When the House confronts a dilemma, the answer is not to look for a simplistic solution or to consider how it plays in the tabloids, but to try to find the right approach.
      1528
      Were there a simple answer, we would either be making no changes tonight because we had got it right, or we would have male those changes long ago, because we would have needed to do so and it would have been easy. We would probably not be making them now were it not for the judgment of the European Court of Human Rights, but that has spurred Ministers into action, in my view, constructively.
      We are making those changes, and the Bill will pass shortly, if not without dissent. Even with its problems, on balance—to use the phrase for the last time—I welcome the Bill's righting of wrongs to a minority. I wish it well as it passes.
      6.18 pm
      Lynne Jones: Our society will become more civilised with the passage of this legislation. For decades, we have lagged behind more enlightened countries that have already granted civil rights to transsexual people. In this country, transsexual people have suffered from discrimination and fear of being exposed to ridicule because they suffer from a medical condition. That wrong is being put right, and I pay tribute to the Government, to the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), and to the Minister in the other place, Lord Filkin, for their work in bringing forward this legislation and taking it through both Houses. I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) for the way in which he has put forward his sensible, considered view and been generally supportive of the legislation, and to Liberal Democrat Members for their contribution.
      A remarkable transformation has taken place even in the 10 years since the setting up of the Parliamentary Forum on Transsexualism. At that time, transsexual people were regarded as sexual deviants who had had a choice, and had chosen to mutilate themselves in order to gain some strange gratification. Thanks in large part to the trans-community itself, that view has gradually changed. If tribute is to be paid tonight, it must be paid to those brave individuals who have been prepared to tell the world that they are transsexual people, and have thus been able to demonstrate that far from being florid, strange characters, they are normal human beings who just want to lead a normal life and get on with working. They do not want to suffer discrimination at work or in personal relationships. They do not want to live in fear that because of a lack of appropriate documentation—birth certificates are an obvious example—they risk being exposed as transsexual people and therefore discriminated against, laughed at and treated in an extremely unkind way by individuals, the media and some less-than-enlightened parts of our society.
      All that is changing. The fact that there has been all-party support for the Bill is very heartening, as is the fact that it has had a relatively smooth passage through both Houses. As the Minister has said, it gives the trans-community 95 per cent. of what it seeks. There are still causes for dissatisfaction, which have been discussed this afternoon—notably the requirement for married transsexual people, in order to gain their full civil, human rights, to dissolve their marriages. That is unfortunate. I am sorry that the Government were unable to accept that such people should be allowed to

      1529
      retain their marriages, and retain their human rights under both article 8 and article 12 of the European convention.
      I am also disappointed that I could not move my compromise amendments, which would have allowed the life of the interim certificate to be extended so that those whose marriages ended either through divorce in the normal way or through the death of their spouses could gain full recognition. That was particularly important to those taking advantage of clause 27, which allows a simpler method of application, requiring less documentation, to those who have lived in their reassigned gender for more than six—as opposed to two—years. I am sorry that the Government did not recognise the strong arguments for letting the interim certificate be used as a device to enable trans-people to benefit from a fast-track approach.
      It has been an eventful 10 years since the establishment of the parliamentary forum. Many brave people have exposed their personal lives to scrutiny and contributed to the Bill. They have demonstrated their patience and common sense, and have been very willing to present strong arguments to the Government and civil servants. Members of the trans-community, and Press for Change in particular, have made an important contribution by devoting so much time to convincing civil servants and Ministers that the Bill is necessary, and should take a form that will allow practical realisation of their human rights. I also commend those Ministers who have been prepared to listen and to engage in dialogue with the trans-community. As a result of that dialogue, the legislation is much better than it otherwise would have been. People have been willing to give their expertise and devote their time to ensure that the legislation is as good as the Government are prepared to make it.
      This is a great day for me personally. As a Member of Parliament, I have campaigned for more than 10 years for the legislation. It is a wonderful moment, in particular, for members of the transsexual community, as they see that, at long last, they will have almost full civil liberties and their human rights will be recognised. I thank all Members who have made positive contributions to achieving that aim.
      6.26 pm
      Dr. Harris: It is a privilege to follow the hon. Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones), who has worked and campaigned so hard on this issue as chairman of the parliamentary forum—an organisation that I, like the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), have been attending since long before the Bill was published. Through the hon. Lady we should pay tribute to organisations such as Press for Change, which have worked so hard in the way that she described. I shall later quote from the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights. The hon. Member for St. Helens, South (Mr. Woodward), who has had a long interest in this field, has contributed greatly through that report—a report on which I relied during my contributions in Committee, as Ministers will know.
      1530
      I also thank my hon. Friend the Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross). I do not always agree with him on religious matters, but we have found unanimity—
      Richard Younger-Ross: An unholy alliance.
      Dr. Harris: An unholy alliance, which is not always the case in our party on such issues. In that respect, it was interesting to note the sensitive contributions in Committee and on Report of the hon. Members for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) and for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh). Although there were people who strongly disagreed with the line that they took, it was important that those issues were raised in such a way and in such a tone by those hon. Members. I also welcomed the contribution of the hon. Member for Daventry, who is always regarded as one of the more reasonable—[Interruption.] And eminent. The hon. Gentleman is always regarded as one of the more reasonable and eminent Conservative Members in his contributions and scrutiny in Committee.
      It was a pleasure to serve in Committee with the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs, the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Lammy), and the Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. the hon. Member for Liverpool, Garston (Maria Eagle). Although we did not always agree on the detail of the Bill, there was much consensus in Committee, as there has been today, on the need for the legislation.
      We intend to support the Bill on Third Reading, as we did on Second Reading, not on a free vote, because it is our party policy to allow transsexual people to access their human rights. Although I welcome the support of the Conservative Front-Bench team, and particularly the effective way in which it has been delivered during the different stages, it is still a test for all parties in this House that there should be a Whip on these issues of fundamental human rights, as there is on other issues that are less fundamental and less related to human rights.
      As we debate such matters and put this recognition on the statue book at the end of May 2004, we must ask why that has taken so long. Yes, it was the case that we were not found to be outwith European human rights law until July 2002, when the courts ruled, in the cases of Goodwin v. UK and Iv. UK, that

      "the United Kingdom's continuing refusal to take steps to recognise the reassigned gender of a post-operative transsexual person was"

      no longer

      "necessary in a democratic society for any legitimate aim under
      ECHR Article 8/".
      Although it was only then that we were found to be outwith Strasbourg law, there were already clear signs that misery was being created for individuals in this country, and that sooner or later we would fall outwith that law. It is regrettable that it takes so long for us to respond to the challenges posed by the European convention on human rights, to which we signed up. I hope that we will manage to stay ahead of the game in other areas.
      There has been no reaction in general, or in the right-wing press in particular, to this measure, and it should stiffen the Government's backbone to know that they

      1531
      can introduce such measures—they are the right thing to do—in sensitive areas sooner rather than later. It is sad to note that, as the report of the Joint Committee on Human Rights points out, while we were waiting for this legislation the Government had to advise marriage registrars to continue to apply section 11(c) of the Matrimonial Causes Act 1973 in the traditional way. As the Joint Committee states, the approach recommend by the Government was "clearly lawful" at that time. We need not have been in such a position if we had responded more quickly.
      This is a good Bill but it could have been better. A particular issue that we did not discuss today, but which was touched on in Committee, is the Bill's failure to extend freedom from discrimination to transsexuals in the provision of goods and services. I fear that campaigners for the rights of transsexuals will have to continue campaigning even after the legislation is on the statute book, in order to drive the Government to provide on the basis of gender reassignment the protection from discrimination that people already enjoy on the basis of gender. I suspect that we will see sad cases of marriages having to split up unnecessarily because of the decision that the House has just taken, but it was encouraging to see Members from all parts of the House voting in the same Lobby. Indeed, I voted in the same Lobby as the hon. Member for Gainsborough. He did ask me not to remind the House of that fact, so I shall seek to avoid doing the same thing on the final vote.
      We welcome the appearance of this legislation on the statute book, but we hope that the Government recognise that there is work still to do in this field.
      6.32 pm
      Sir Patrick Cormack: I am sorry to provide a slightly dissenting and jarring note. I do not for a moment criticise the integrity, sincerity or campaigning zeal of the hon. Members for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) and for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and I have great admiration for my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). My hon. Friend is a decent and good man and I respect him greatly, but I believe him to be wrong on this issue.
      It is not just the road to hell that is paved with good intentions; so is the road to bad legislation. This is bad legislation, because legislation that calls upon people to tell lies is fundamentally flawed. My main objection to the Bill derives from those clauses that oblige registrars to issue birth certificates that are untrue. I do not object in any way to people seeking to show understanding and compassion to minority groups. I would hesitate to call transsexuals a "community"—I have never known a transsexual community—but there are individuals who no doubt feel deeply distressed, and who will be relieved when this legislation is on the statute book. But we are doing the wrong deed, however right and honourable some of the reasons might be.
      This is a case of people of a liberal disposition—people who are deeply anxious not to offend anybody and to please everybody—introducing legislation that is fundamentally flawed, and which will cause great
      1532
      heartache and real worry in certain religious communities. I know that those issues were discussed earlier today, and I am sorry that I was not present; I was attending a meting of the House of Commons Commission. I also know—I heard the Minister's winding-up speech—that they have not been satisfactorily addressed or answered. We will have to depend on secondary legislation, which will not be amendable, and we do not know when it will be introduced.
      At the end of the day, we are faced with a Bill that obliges people to say things that are not so. I do not want to go into great detail as others wish to speak and I want my contribution to be brief. We know that those who are persuaded that that they are of the wrong sex or gender do not necessarily have physical differences and do not necessarily have to undergo surgery of any sort, yet they are to be recognised and issued with a birth certificate that contradicts the natural facts of life. That cannot be right and I am profoundly disturbed and troubled that the House should be passing such legislation. I am very sad indeed that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry, who speaks, from the Front Bench, and others among my hon. Friends feel that they have to agree, because of their natural compassion, to the enactment of such deeply flawed legislation.
      6.36 pm
      Rev. Ian Paisley: The Bill is amazing in many ways. It comes to the House from the European Court. Without that Court's findings, the Bill might not have been put before the House. More and more, the House will be directed to act by similar cases, even though the bodies deciding them are not answerable to the people of this country.
      I strongly hold the view that all people, however many, have rights and that those rights should be defended by all. I want to make that absolutely clear to the House tonight. However, if we give certain rights to people, we must be assured that it will not alter the ability of others to keep and practise their rights.
      The Government well know that there are deep religious feelings about this matter. I welcome what the Under-Secretary said when he affirmed that he would look again at this matter—or words to that effect—because I do not believe that we can afford to leave it as it stands. There are fears in many churches—especially among those whose views on marriage are of the historic Christian faith—that the Bill could have serious consequences.
      The Christian Institute issued a document in March entitled, "Christian beliefs on transsexualism". It referred to passages from the Bible and the works of Christian theologians to—support the proposition that

      "the body determines personhood, not just the mind",

      and that

      "Biblical Christians hold that 'sex change' surgery desecrates a body made in the image of God."

      The document also stated that

      "the Bible teaches that the State should validate what is right and not what is wrong".

      1533
      For those reasons, individual churches wish to be free to decide on many matters that they believe should be under their control. For example, who should join or lead a women's prayer meeting is a matter for the church; who should use the toilet facilities in a church is a matter for the church; who should be entitled to receive holy communion is a matter for the church.
      Religious freedom is primarily a matter of individual conscience, but it also implies freedom to manifest one's religion alone and in private or in community with others in public and within the circle of those whose faith one shares. We must remind ourselves that we have to abide by that. It would be a sad day if the Government were to invade the believer's right to freedom of religious expression and so destroy something that lies at the very heart of true peace and true faith in our land.
      These are serious matters, which must be pondered deeply and discussed in a serious way. Some religious rights—such as people's right to bear witness, and to act and enforce uniformity in the organisations that they join voluntarily—are held to be of particular importance. Any threatened interference with those rights by other people will engage the responsibility of the state, but no state interference with them at all can be justified.
      As we enter the final part of the debate on the Bill, we must remind ourselves that any attempt to infringe, or do away with, people's religious rights and purposes must be resisted. Some of those rights are now in the melting-pot, and we must face up to that.
      Marriage lies at the heart of society. Without it we would have no society. These day; we must defend and uphold marriage, and anything that weakens it is very dangerous. No member of my party was on the Standing Committee considering the Bill. so we had no opportunity to express ourselves on these matters. That is why I am expressing myself at Third Reading.
      However, some of what the Minister said offered a glimmer of hope. It is possible that the Government are having second thoughts; I hope so. Various religious bodies have spoken on this matter, and the Government cannot treat them with contempt or refuse to consider what they have said. Those bodies have influence: they are part of the warp and woof of our country, and give it stability and prosperity.
      6.42 pm
      Angela Watkinson: I rise to speak against the Bill because of the impact that it will have on the institution of marriage. In addition, I am concerned about the reaction among many people in our Church communities to marriages between people of the same gender—that is, same-sex marriages.
      Let us take the example of a pre-existing marriage in which one spouse supports the other getting gender reassignment treatment, and where both partners want the marriage to continue. It is perfectly possible for that to happen, if the person who gets the treatment does not apply for a certificate. It is the certificate that will render a marriage null and void: where no application for a certificate is made, the marriage can continue in its original form.
      1534
      However, a marriage in which one spouse does not support gender reassignment treatment for the other can be rendered null and void, against the will of both partners. The person who wants the treatment must protect their own rights but take into consideration the rights of the person with whom they are deeply involved and to whom there is a long-term commitment.
      It is possible for a person to acquire a gender certificate by living in the other gender for a period and then applying to a gender recognition panel. In that way, surgery or drug treatment can be avoided. That would enable that person to become the opposite gender in law and then marry in that gender. Many people would view that as same-sex marriage.
      I am also very concerned about the issue of disclosure of information by ministers. Two people might approach a minister in preparation for marriage and he might believe that one of those people was transgendered but that the other person was not aware of that. The minister is not free to disclose that information and that would be a serious dilemma.
      Mr. Lammy: The standard for receiving a gender recognition certificate from the panel is a rigorous and high one. It is not just the degree of permanence that is required: the person will have to have gender dysphoria. Some people will not be able to undergo the operation, as they would probably wish to do, for medical reasons that have nothing to do with their gender dysphoria. It will take a high standard of proof to convince the panel that one is gender dysphoric, and it is not right to suggest that those few applicants unable to undergo operations would be trying to slip through the net. It will be necessary to have lived in the state for two years and to have a diagnosis of gender dysphoria.
      Angela Watkinson: The issues are so controversial. People other than those who apply for the gender recognition certificate will be deeply affected, especially children of pre-existing marriages. If the biological father of children has a newly acquired gender, the children will have, to all intents and purposes and outward appearances, two mothers, but one of them will be their biological father. The effect on the children and spouses can be profound, and we need to balance the respective rights of all the people concerned. The institution of marriage is greater than its component parts and, for that reason, I shall vote against the Bill.
      6.47 pm
      Mr. Leigh: I shall vote against the Bill if for no other reason than because it will require public officials to rewrite history and tell an untruth. If I, Edward Leigh, were to choose after 53 years in this world to change into Esmeralda Leigh that would be my own affair. Those of us who oppose the Bill do not argue with such choices. We argue with the fact that I could then require a public official to change my birth certificate and deny that 53 years ago I was born Edward Leigh. For that reason alone, this is a deeply disturbing Bill.
      I shall vote against the Bill for a second reason. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) mentioned the anguished arguments about

      1535
      how those of us who opposed the Bill should vote on the amendment tabled by my lion. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell). It is not surprising that there were anguished arguments. In the end, many of us voted for the amendment because we thought that it would be absurd if, having obtained the certificate, my marriage were automatically dissolved. But the Government had put themselves in an impossible position. They had to oppose that amendment because otherwise they would have driven a coach and horses through their professed strong opposition to single-sex marriages. The situation was illogical and impossible, and there was no way round it.
      The third reason I shall vote against the Bill was adduced by the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley). I am disappointed that my amendment was not passed. Many people will disagree with strongly held religious views, but such views exist out there. Many people believe, in the words of Psalm 139,

      "For it was you who formed my inward parts; you knit me together in my mother's womb.

      I praise you, for I am fearfully and wonderfully made. Wonderful are your works".

      Those are the beliefs of many people in this country and this Bill could put their civil liberties at risk. For those three reasons, I shall vote against it.
      6.50 pm
      Richard Younger-Ross: It has been said that the Bill was a long time waiting. I was particularly reminded of that when the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous) made a slip of the tongue and referred to the hon. Member for Hampstead and Highgate (Glenda Jackson) as the hon. Gentleman. That reminded me of the 1950s film, "Plan 9 from Outer Space", made by Ed Wood, who also made a movie called "Glen or Glenda?", about a transgendered person who wanted to change from one sex to the other.
      We think of transgender as a new issue, but that was in the 1950s. The issue is new only to the extent that science has allowed us to make physical changes to a person's outward appearance so that they can acquire the gender that their mind tells them is theirs. Historically, the issue goes back an extremely long way. A Roman emperor who was a boy of 17 when he became emperor was transgendered. A medieval monk, the Abbé de Choisy, was transgendered. It was said of him that he carried his habit in a feminine manner. There was a French—
      Mr. Stephen Pound: Spy?
      Richard Younger-Ross: The hon. Gentleman is ahead of me. There was a French spy who lived out his life, and died, in England as a woman, and, to keep the balance right, there was a pirate whose name I cannot recall who did the reverse. People have been transgendered not only over the past couple of decades, nor even over the past few centuries, but over a couple of millennia, so it is not true to say that the issue is new and a fabrication of modern society.
      1536
      The legislation will help to stop little boys running down the street taunting someone who has had a sex change. It will correct a wrong that we have allowed to continue in our society for too long. We have denied people the gender, not of their choice as has been said, but that their mind tells them is theirs. That is the fundamental point of the Bill.
      There are failings in the Bill. The loss of the amendment on marriage tests me hard, as a Roman Catholic, in my support of the Bill. However, on balance, I shall support the measure. I hope that some of the issues raised by religious groups will be dealt with directly in the secondary legislation to which the Minister alluded. It would be wrong for a Church group to be prosecuted because the deacon had told the vicar that someone applying to be married was transgendered. In Committee, I understood that that would not be the case, but that is no longer clear from what the Minister said today. He shakes his head as though I have got that wrong, but he clearly said that there could be such prosecution. If I misunderstood him, he has the chance to correct me.
      Mr. Lammy: There could not be a prosecution. However, we have discussed the fact that someone might engage in litigation. There is a distinction.
      Richard Younger-Ross: I thank the Minister for that clarification, which is important. If there were ways to reinforce through secondary legislation the other issues that were raised, it would be beneficial, even if we were only doing that to avoid litigation.
      I shall conclude my remarks to allow other Members time to speak. I shall vote for Third Reading.
      6.54 pm
      Mr. Robathan: As the hon. Member for Teignbridge (Richard Younger-Ross) reminded us, this is certainly not a new issue. Jan Morris wrote "Conundrum" well over 30 years ago. To avoid doubt and put this beyond peradventure, I should say that I have enormous sympathy for people who find themselves in this very difficult and complex transgender situation. No one should pretend that it is not complex. It is certainly not trivial. I happen to think that the House should spend its time—it often does—dealing with the issues of just one person, and this important issue affects many people.
      Of course this issue needs consideration, but I have listened to speeches on. Second and Third Reading and the dissenting voices among the Opposition made some good points that have not been answered. I do not always agree with the hon. Member for North Antrim (Rev. Ian Paisley), but I did today largely. I do not always agree with my hon. Friend the Member for South Staffordshire (Sir Patrick Cormack), but I thought that he made in excellent speech.
      This is not good legislation. What is it for? It will certainly not satisfy all transsexuals, yet we are saying, "Oh well, it will satisfy most, so that's all right." Yet if we are standing up for the rights of one or two people, surely we should satisfy all if we possibly can.
      Lynne Jones: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Robathan: I am sorry, but we have only a few moments left.
      Will the Bill improve human rights? Will it make us a more civilised society? Personally, do not think so. The families who will be appalled and split asunder by the Bill include those with a husband who has been depressed and prescribed hormone treatment. I do not believe that we are yet in a position to legislate for all those complicated issues, and nor should we. What happens to the people who under go operations, cross genders and then decide that they want to go back? What can we do about that? It is not easy. I pose those questions to the Minister, and I will certainly give way if he wishes to answer.
      Despite marvellous intentions, I am afraid that the Bill opens a can of worms, and we all know what happens when a can of worms is opened. New clause 7, which was proposed by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), revealed the outcome: we will split asunder some people who are currently legally married if they wish to follow such a path. The Bill poses as many questions as it answers.[Interruption.] The hon. Member for Lewisham, East (Ms Prentice) tries to intervene, from a sedentary position. but she has not considered all the difficulties that will arise. It is bad legislation. Good intentions are not enough. As my hon. Friend said, the road to hell is paved with good intentions. For that reason, I shall vote against the Bill.
      Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:—
      The House divided: Ayes 355, Noes 46.

      Division No.189]

      [6.57 pm

      AYES

      Abbott, Ms Diane

      Brooke, Mrs Annette L.

      Adams, Irene(Paisley N)

      Brown rh Nicholas(Newcastle E Wallsend)

      Ainger, Nick

      Ainsworth, Bob(Cov'try NE)

      Brown, Fussell(Dumfries)

      Allan, Richard

      Browne, Desmond

      Allen, Graham

      Browning, Mrs Angela

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Bruce, Malcolm

      Austin, John

      Buck, Ms Karen

      Baird, Vera

      Burden, Richard

      Baker, Norman

      Burgon, Colin

      Banks, Tony

      Burstow, Paul

      Barnes, Harry

      Byers, rh Stephen

      Barrett, John

      Cairns, David

      Barron, rh Kevin

      Campbell, Alan(Tynemouth)

      Battle, John

      Campbell, Mrs Anne(C'bridge)

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie(Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Casale, Roger

      Beckett, rh Margaret

      Cawsrey, Ian(Brigg)

      Bell, Sir Stuart

      Challen, Colin

      Bennett, Andrew

      Chapman, Ben(Wirral S)

      Bercow, John

      Chaytor, David

      Berry, Roger

      Chidgey, David

      Best, Harold

      Clapham, Michael

      Betts, Clive

      Clark, Paul(Gillingham)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke rh Kenneth(Rushcliffe)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Tony(Northampton S)

      Boateng, rh Paul

      Clelland, David

      Borrow, David

      Coaker, Vernon

      Boswell, Tim

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Bottomley, Peter(Worthing W)

      Cohen, Harry

      Bradley, rh Keith(Withington)

      Coleman, lain

      Bradley, Peter(The Wrekin)

      Colman, Tony

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Cooper, Yvette

      Brake, Tom(Carshalton)

      Corbyn, Jeremy

      1538

      Cousins, Jim

      Hinchliffe, David

      Cranston, Ross

      Hodge, Margaret

      Cryer, Ann(Keighley)

      Hoey, Kate(Vauxhall)

      Cryer, John(Hornchurch)

      Hogg, rh Douglas

      Cummings, John

      Holmes, Paul

      Cunningham, Jim(Coventry S)

      Hoon, rh Geoffrey

      Cunningham, Tony(Workington)

      Hope, Phil(Corby)

      Curry, rh David

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Howarth, rh Alan(Newport E)

      Dalyell, Tarn

      Howarth, George(Knowsley N & Sefton E)

      Darling, rh Alistair

      Davey, Edward(Kingston)

      Hughes, Kevin(Doncaster N)

      Davidson, Ian

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Davies, rh Denzil(Llanelli)

      Hurst, Alan(Braintree)

      Davies, Geraint(Croydon C)

      Hutton, rh John

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Iddon, Dr. Brian

      Denham, rh John

      Illsley, Eric

      Dhanda, Parmjit

      Ingram, rh Adam

      Dobson, rh Frank

      Irranca-Davies, Huw

      Donohoe, Brian H.

      Jackson, Glenda(Hampstead & Highgate)

      Doughty, Sue

      Dowd, Jim(Lewisham W)

      Jackson, Helen(Hillsborough)

      Drew, David(Stroud)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

      Johnson, Boris(Henley)

      Eagle, Angela(Wallasey)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie(Welwyn Hatfield)

      Eagle, Maria(L'pool Garston)

      Edwards, Huw

      Jones, Helen(Warrington N)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Jones, Jon Owen(Cardiff C)

      Ennis, Jeff(Barnsley E)

      Jones, Kevan(N Durham)

      Etherington, Bill

      Jones, Lynne(Selly Oak)

      Ewing, Annabelle

      Jones, Martyn(Clwyd S)

      Fabricant, Michael

      Jowell, rh Tessa

      Farrelly, Paul

      Joyce, Eric(Falkirk W)

      Field, rh Frank(Birkenhead)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Fisher, Mark

      Keen, Alan(Feltham)

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Keen, Ann(Brentford)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Keetch, Paul

      Flynn, Paul(Newport W)

      Kelly, Ruth(Bolton W)

      Follett, Barbara

      Kennedy, Jane(Wavertree)

      Foster, rh Derek

      Key, Robert(Salisbury)

      Foster, Don(Bath)

      Khabra, Piara S.

      Foster, Michael Jabez(Hastings & Rye)

      Kidney, David

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Francis, Dr. Hywel

      King, Andy(Rugby)

      Gapes, Mike(llford S)

      King, Ms Oona(Bethnal Green & Bow)

      George, rh Bruce(Walsall S)

      Gerrard, Neil

      Kirkwood, Sir Archy

      Gibson, Dr. Ian

      Knight, Jim(S Dorset)

      Gidley, Sandra

      Kumar, Dr. Ashok

      Goggins, Paul

      Ladyman, Dr. Stephen

      Griffiths, Jane(Reading E)

      Laing, Mrs Eleanor

      Griffiths, Nigel(Edinburgh S)

      Lamb, Norman

      Griffiths, Win(Bridgend)

      Lammy, David

      Grogan, John

      Lansley, Andrew

      Hain, rh Peter

      Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

      Hall, Mike(Weaver Vale)

      Laws, David(Yeovil)

      Hall, Patrick(Bedford)

      Laxton, Bob(Derby N)

      Hamilton, David(Midlothian)

      Lepper, David

      Hamilton, Fabian(Leeds NE)

      Leslie, Christopher

      Hancock, Mike

      Levitt, Tom(High Peak)

      Hanson, David

      Lewis, Terry(Worsley)

      Harman, rh Ms Harriet

      Linton, Martin

      Harris, Dr. Evan(Oxford W & Abingdon)

      Lloyd, Tony(Manchester C)

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Harris, Tom(Glasgow Cathcart)

      Love, Andrew

      Harvey, Nick

      Lucas, Ian(Wrexham)

      Havard, Dai(Merthyr Tydfil & Rhymney)

      Luke, lain(Dundee E)

      Lyons, John(Strathkelvin)

      Healey, John

      McAvoy, rh Thomas

      Henderson, Ivan(Harwich)

      McCabe, Stephen

      Hendrick, Mark

      McCafferty, Chris

      Hendry, Charles

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Hepburn, Stephen

      McDonnell, John

      Heppell, John

      McFall, John

      Heyes, David

      McGuire, Mrs Anne

      Hill, Keith(Streatham)

      Mclsaac, Shona

      1539

      Mackinlay, Andrew

      Russell, Ms Christine(City of Chester)

      Maclean, rh David

      McNamara, Kevin

      Salmond, Alex

      McNulty, Tony

      Sanders, Adrian

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Savidge, Malcolm

      McWalter, Tony

      Sawford, Phil

      McWilliam, John

      Sayeed, Jonathan

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Mallaber, Judy

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Mendelson, rh Peter

      Sheerman, Barry

      Mann, John(Bassetlaw)

      Short, rh clare

      Marris, Rob(Wolverh'ton SW)

      Simpson, Alan(Nottingham S)

      Marsden, Gordon(Blackpool S)

      Singh, Marsha

      Marshall-Andrews, Robert

      Skinner, Dennis

      Martlew, Eric

      Smith, rh Chris(Islington S & Finsbury)

      Merron, Gillian

      Michael, rh Alun

      Smith, John(Glamorgan)

      Miliband, David

      Smith, Llew(Blaenau Gwent)

      Miller, Andrew

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

      Mitchell, Austin(Gt Grimsby)

      Mole, Chris

      Southworth, Helen

      Moonie, Dr. Lewis

      Squire, Rachel

      Moore, Michael

      Steen, Anthony

      Moran, Margaret

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Morgan, Julie

      Stevenson, George

      Morley, Elliot

      Stewart, David(Inverness E & Lochaber)

      Moss, Malcolm

      Munn, Ms Meg

      Stewart, Ian(Eccles)

      Murphy, Jim(Eastwood)

      Stinchcombe, Paul

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Straw, rh Jack

      Naysmith, Dr. Doug

      Stringer, Graham

      Oaten, Mark(Winchester)

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      O'Brien, Bill(Normanton)

      Tami, Mark(Alyn)

      O'Brien, Mike(N Warks)

      Taylor, rh Ann(Dewsbury)

      O'Hara, Edward

      Taylor, Dr. Richard(Wyre F)

      Olner, Bill

      Teather, Sarah

      Öpik, Lembit

      Thomas, Gareth(Clwyd W)

      Organ, Diana

      Thomas, Simon(Ceredigion)

      Ottaway, Richard

      Thurso, John

      Owen, Albert

      Timms, Stephen

      Page, Richard

      Tipping, Paddy

      Palmer, Dr. Nick

      Todd, Mark(S Derbyshire)

      Perham, Linda

      Tonge, Dr. Jenny

      Pickthall, Colin

      Trickett, Jon

      Pike, Peter(Burnley)

      Turner, Dennis(Wolverh'ton SE)

      Plaskitt, James

      Turner, Dr. Desmond(Brighton Kemptown)

      Pollard, Kerry

      Pope, Greg(Hyndburn)

      Turner, Neil(Wigan)

      Pound, Stephen

      Tyler, Paul(N Cornwall)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget(Lewisham E)

      Tyrie, Andrew

      Vaz, Keith(Leicester E)

      Prentice, Gordon(Pendle)

      Vis, Dr. Rudi

      Prescott, rh John

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Price, Adam(E Carmarthen & Dinefwr)

      Ward, Claire

      Wareing, Robert N.

      Purchase, Ken

      Watson, Tom(W Bromwich E)

      Purnell, James

      Watts, David

      Quin, rh Joyce

      Weir, Michael

      Quinn, Lawrie

      White, Brian

      Rapson, Syd(Portsmouth N)

      Whitehead, Dr. Alan

      Raynsford, rh Nick

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Reed, Andy(Loughborough)

      Williams, Betty(Conwy)

      Reid, Alan(Argyll & Bute)

      Williams, Hywel(Caernarfon)

      Rendel, David

      Williams, Roger(Brecon)

      Robertson, Angus(Moray)

      Willis, Phil

      Robinson, Geoffrey(Coventry NW)

      Wills, Michael

      Winnick, David

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Winterton, Ms Rosie(Doncaster C)

      Ross, Ernie(Dundee W)

      Roy, Frank(Motherwell)

      Wishart, Pete

      Ruane, Chris

      Wood, Mike(Batley)

      Ruddock, Joan

      Woodward, Shaun

      Russell, Bob(Colchester)

      Woolas, Phil

      1540

      Worthington, Tony

      Younger-Ross, Richard

      Wright, Anthony D.(Gt Yarmouth)

      Wright, David(Telford)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Wright, Tony(Cannock)

      Mr. Fraser Kemp and

      Wyatt, Derek

      Joan Ryan

      NOES

      Beggs, Roy(E Antrim)

      Mitchell, Andrew(Sutton Coldfield)

      Bellingham, Henry

      Brazier, Julian

      Murrison, Dr. Andrew

      Burt, Alistair

      Paisley, Rev. Ian

      Campbell, Gregory(E Lond'y)

      Paterson, Owen

      Chope, Christopher

      Randall, John

      Cormack, Sir Patrick

      Robathan, Andrew

      Dodds, Nigel

      Robertson, Laurence(Tewk'b'ry)

      Robinson, Peter(Belfast E)

      Donaldson, Jeffrey M.

      Ruffley, David

      Fallon, Michael

      Selous, Andrew

      Flook, Adrian

      Smyth, Rev. Martin(Belfast S)

      Francois, Mark

      Spicer, Sir Michael

      Gale, Roger(N Thanet)

      Streeter, Gary

      Goodman, Paul

      Swayne, Desmond

      Grieve, Dominic

      Syms, Robert

      Hawkins, Nick

      Taylor, John(Solihull)

      Hayes, John(S Holland)

      Taylor, Sir Teddy

      Hermon, Lady

      Turner, Andrew(Isle of Wight)

      Howarth, Gerald(Aldershot)

      Wilshire, David

      Leigh, Edward

      Winterton, Ann(Congleton)

      Lewis, Dr. Julian(New Forest E)

      Winterton, Sir Nicholas(Macclesfield)

      Liddell-Grainger, Ian

      Lidington, David

      Tellers for the Noes:

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Angela Watkinson and

      McLoughlin, Patrick

      Mr. Eric Forth

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

      NORTHERN IRELAND GRAND COMMITTEE
      Ordered,

      That—

      (1) the matter of the future direction of community relations policy in Northern Ireland be referred to the Northern Ireland Grand Committee;

      (2) the Committee shall meet at Westminster on Thursday 17th June at half-past Two o'clock; and

      (3) at that sitting—

      (a) the Committee shall take questions under Standing Order No. 110 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (questions for oral answer)), and shall then consider the matter referred to it under paragraph (1) above;

      (b) the chairman shall interrupt proceedings not later than two and a half hours after the commencement of proceedings on the matter referred to the Committee; and

      (c) at the conclusion of those proceedings, a motion for the adjournment of the Committee may be made by a Minister of the Crown, pursuant to paragraph (5) of Standing Order No. 116 (Northern Ireland Grand Committee (sittings)).—[Margaret Moran.]

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Ordered,

      That, at the sitting on Tuesday 8th June, proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House relating to the Future of Air Transport White Paper may continue, though opposed, for three hours or until Seven o'clock, whichever is the later, and shall then lapse if not previously disposed of.—[Margaret Moran.]

  Air Passengers (US Immigration Requirements)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Margaret Moran.]
  7.12 pm
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: It is modish in this day and age to speak frequently of rights, which are bandied about in the Chamber of the House of Commons with a felicity and occasional fluency that must be defended. It is not new for the Chamber of the House of Commons to re-echo the call for extra rights to be granted to whichever group feels itself to be disadvantaged, and more frequently than ever before, rights are defined in exceedingly narrow and sometimes strangely unimaginative ways. It is therefore even more frightening when we appear almost without thought to abandon some of those rights—the right to privacy and the right to defend our interests—without so much as a backward glance.
  I rise tonight to raise an extraordinarily important question concerning a basic right, which we are in danger of treating with astonishing levity, as though it were not important. I refer to the right of one country, in pursuit of its own legitimate interests, to access detailed and important information about the lives of passengers from another country without so much as discussing the basis of that decision. I have been waiting for some months for the question of what is happening in our relationship with the United States as regards the exchange of information to be raised in this House.
  Let me begin by saying that no one can seriously underestimate the enormous trauma of what happened in New York and the great shock and agony that it inflicted on the American people. However, the reality is that we, too, have faced some appalling traumas in the past, and have had to strike a balance between the liberties and rights of a democratic people and the need to defend ourselves and our society from those who seek to undermine it. In relation to what is happening in America, somewhere along the line we have got things rather disastrously wrong. I want to ask the Government a series of questions that are in need of an urgent answer.
  Since September 11, travellers have accepted that a few more checks and questions are the price that they have to pay for safety. However, Michael Kerr of The Daily Telegraph questions whether that security is turning into surveillance. He points out that when one books to go to America on an airline these days, one is required by new laws introduced in the United States to give border control agencies access to passenger data. He says:

  "Among that information is your passenger name record, or PNR, which includes…the date and time of your flights, the flight numbers, the destination and any stopovers. Depending on how you booked…the PNR…can also include your date of birth, address, credit card numbers, emergency contacts and frequent-flier details."

  It can also include information about one's state of health and, indirectly, one's religion, which can be mentioned in relation to choice of menu.
  Airlines have been notified that from the end of this year they will be expected, either before take-off or immediately afterwards, to provide information about
  1542
  the passenger that includes not only the items I listed, but foreign registration numbers, if applicable; country of residence; address in the United States during the stay; contact telephone number; and, more importantly, any other data deemed necessary to identify the person travelling.
  Frankly, we in this House would be extremely leery of accepting legislation that was framed in those terms. What is more, what undertakings have we received from the United States Government about the use to which that enormous amount of information is to be put? For how long is it to be held? How many agencies are to have access to it? I would not gladly hand over my credit card details to any agency in this country without questioning the checks and balances to which it was subject. Why, then, am I required to do so to a foreign Government without a squeak from the United Kingdom Government?
  Much of that information is supposed to be safeguarded by data protection law, which means that having been collected for one purpose, it may not be used for another without the subject's approval. Yet it is clear from the statement that I have from the Association of British Travel Agents that in relation to much of the information that is handed over, we have very little idea of what is included and to what use it is to be put. When United Airlines was asked by The Daily Telegraph whether it provided US Customs with passenger data, it said:

  "In line with all carriers, we provide whatever information is required. We abide by the rules that govern the aviation industry."

  Correction. It abides by the rules that have been unilaterally imposed by one Government, who, although acting in the genuine interests of security, make no attempt to discuss with any of the people concerned the nature of their rights or protection.
  The deputy commissioner of US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection said that since 1995, more than 200 airlines, including EU carriers, had "voluntarily provided…data" to his agency. Was that made clear? Did the British Government know that? What attempt did they make to discuss with the American Government whether that was the right way in which to treat citizens of another country other than in circumstances of immediate and absolutely urgent needs?
  Cedric Laurant of the Washington-based Electronic Privacy Information Centre said that seeking such information was part of a much bigger intelligence-gathering operation that would entail "data mining" and profiling all passengers. Furthermore, there was nothing to prevent such data from being fed

  "into a huge…database for purposes…unrelated to the combat of terrorism or the protection of airline security".

  It is perfectly possible, as in the case of some other countries, that routine income tax investigations could be included in the data made available to the Americans. That could also apply to individuals, who had been suspected of, for example, paedophilia, on the basis of repeated travel to countries that have a flourishing sex trade.I am indebted to The Daily Telegraph for a quote from Benjamin Franklin:

  "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

  We ought to take that message to heart.

  1543
  When we examine statistics and the number of people who travel backwards and forwards, we begin to understand that we who have always been an island nation are happy and ready to cross the seas and visit not only for business purposes but for holidays. However, many British visitors will find themselves faced willy-nilly with many extraordinary extra barriers.
  People in my constituency who want to take their holidays in America will find that they must come to London to apply for a visa—a journey that not only costs them a great deal of extra money but entails displacement for them and their families. If they want access to visa information, they will discover that the American embassy visa information lines in London charge £1.30 and 60p a minute. They will not find it easy to get rapid responses.
  In a series of articles,The Daily Telegraph raised individual cases of people who had faced considerable hostility and inconvenience. In one case, an individual was apparently shackled. When I took the Select Committee on Transport across America a few months ago, I was struck by the fact that members of that Committee, who had been identified as Members of Parliament and carried information to which we had made privy the United States Government were asked to step out of the line for special searching every time we changed planes. I got quite good at removing various items of my clothing. Luckily, they happened mostly to be boots, but they could have been almost anything.
  Without being in the least offensive, I must say that the searching was carried out extraordinarily ineptly by people who had not been properly trained and obviously did not know what they were searching for, but who were happy to seek out those of non-American origin. Indeed, I heard that a seven-year-old boy who had the misfortune to be the right number in the line of people was called out and subjected to a full body search, despite his father's protestations that that was not the way in which to proceed.
  So I say to the American Government that we have to quite honest about this. There has been an enormous growth in traffic between the United States and Britain. Indeed, many thousands of Americans come into this country every day. Lord forbid that we should start to play silly persons and seek tit-for-tat arrangements, but we have to ask ourselves whether it is really in the interest of the British public that they should be treated automatically as though they are all felons seeking to enter the United States to pursue some nefarious activity! The director general of the International Air Transport Association, speaking at the annual aviation security—AVSEC—meeting, said:

  "Security is an issue that goes far beyond aviation. It is a government responsibility, just like war and peace, and the costs must be assumed by society at large, not just by one industry."

  We are talking about very large numbers of people. Tourists go across the Atlantic all the time to take part in the many brilliant activities that the United States offers to its visitors. But those people also have a few basic human rights, and it is about time we asked a few questions. If the only way for the aviation industry to proceed is by producing a great deal of security data, let the two nations agree a basic set of systems with which
  1544
  both of us have to comply. Let us not simply accept that the data on non-US citizens retained by the United States Government can be held for up to 50 years. Let us make it clear that the sheer volume of data being required by the Americans will not only slow up all the traffic in British airports but make it increasingly difficult for people to run commercial flights effectively and sensibly.
  Why should there be constant discrimination against non-US citizens without the agreement of the passengers that their data may be retained in a responsible manner by agencies that are subject to proper controls? We hear a great deal about American legislation, but where is the evidence that the agencies concerned think that individual privacy is important enough? That legislation includes the Enhanced Border Security and Visa Entry Reform Act of 2002, which obliges airlines arriving in and departing from the US to transmit certain personal data. It has been used in such a way that British planes have—unreasonably, in my view—been detained for many hours while the various agencies decided among themselves which was going to do what with which bit of information. Airlines that fail to comply with that legislation could be subject to a host of penalties, including fines or the loss of their landing rights in the United States. These are draconian penalties, yet where is the evidence that the British Government have said, "Hang on a minute. There's a limit to the way in which you can treat British citizens unless you want us to enter into similar arrangements at Heathrow and other major UK airports."?
  What is going to happen? Will there be any way of knowing what is being done by the various American agencies that are garnering all this information? Heaven forfend that we should suggest that computers are not the be all and end all so far as machinery is concerned, but it has been known for them to record information that is not 100 per cent. accurate. Indeed, it has been known for citizens dealing with Government agencies in this country to find it difficult to get information held on them corrected. How much worse will it be with a foreign Government that appears to have lost all sense of proportion?
  One suggestion is that if the Americans continue to demand a raft of information as extensive as is expected, we could have five-hour check-ins. What is the sense of that? I know that people who are under pressure have a tendency to lose all sense of proportion. In a democracy, those of us who are at risk must make the necessary assessment and decide whether our jobs require us to take some kind of risk. We must then put that into proper proportion and deal with it accordingly. The lesson that we in the House should learn is that we have certain duties to fulfil, and certain responsibilities to the general public.
  We should not stand idly by and allow the constant intrusion that I have described without asking why it is happening, how long it will go on and whether it can be justified. If it is not justified, let us ask for some change in the situation, or let us point out that we can all play undignified games. There is no evidence that what is asked for in any way improves the security or the protection of the US citizen.
  It is not easy to say these things and it makes one unpopular, because in these days it is almost a religion to believe that in our support for the Americans we

  1545
  should accept almost unquestioningly the things they do that under other circumstances we would not find acceptable. The House allows these changes to take place at its peril. What is happening is unacceptable. The travel industry is expected to add considerable delays. It is reported that in Miami passengers frequently queue for one and a half to two hours. From 26 October passengers must have individual machine-readable passports, and new passports must be biometric, even though, as far as I can see, they are not being issued by the states concerned and we will not be capable of doing that for some time.
  We should resist any attempt to insist that the home addresses and telephone numbers of all passengers should be given 72 hours in advance of departure. Let us work out what we are doing. Are we suggesting that passengers travelling to the US in increasing numbers every year, who want to enjoy the civilisation, the intelligence and the stimulus of American society, are little better than felons and are not entitled to have their interests protected?
  I have always admired the Americans and enjoyed my contacts with them. I work closely with the American Department of Transportation. I have been honoured by a visit from the Secretary of Transportation and I have been very impressed with the work that that Department does. But there comes a moment when it might be sensible to say, "Enough!" A very large, powerful and politically important state has a special responsibility to others not to use its muscle unreasonably to impose a set of conditions on those who are in no position to hit back—because that is what is happening.
  America, for whatever reason, seems to have lost its sense of balance. Perhaps occasionally, we should say to it, "Democratic states do take risks." Those who are focused on destruction, who are intolerant, who are savagely uninterested in the important institutions of a democratic state will always have an advantage over those of us who believe there should be free access for people and institutions. That is why we have a House of Commons, and why we defend the rights of the people of the United Kingdom. That is why, this year, I shall not be taking a holiday in the United States of America.
  There comes a time when small nations must say to large nations, "Co-operation and friendship are one thing. Subservience and intolerance are something else." Unless the Minister can assure me that the Government are pointing out in no uncertain terms to the United States Government that their behaviour has overstepped the bounds of reasonableness and is no longer accepted in a tolerant and balanced relationship, the House must individually and collectively pursue the rights of United Kingdom citizens to travel in a sensible but protected way, without the imposition of other people's suspicions when there is no defence and no interest.
  7.35 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this timely and important debate.
  I simply cannot accept the phrases bandied around at the start of my hon. Friend's speech—that all this has been done almost without thought, with astonishing
  1546
  levity and without so much as a discussion or a squeak being raised. Much of the current position has been the result of a good deal of discussion and negotiation between the European Union and the USA. She will understand, too, that while I have responsibility for civil aviation in the UK, the provision of personal data to third parties is regulated in Europe by the data protection directive, which is implemented in the UK by the Data Protection Act 1998. Policy on that matter is the responsibility of my right hon. and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor. If there are matters that she feels that I have not covered, and that need to be pursued in that direction, I am therefore more than happy to follow them up.
  As my hon. Friend said, following the terrorist attacks on the US in September 2001, the US passed legislation that required airlines flying to or from its territory to provide the US Bureau of Customs and Border Protection, which is now part of the Department of Homeland Security, with information about the passengers whom they carry. This information is contained in the airline's reservations and departures database and is known as the passenger name record or PNR. Each passenger has their own PNR.
  The amount of PNR data collected about passengers varies from airline to airline but it can be up to 60 individual pieces of data. The data generally include the passenger's name and address and data such as method of payment, details of special requirements and details of the passenger's travel history—all the data used by the airline to provide a full service to the passenger.
  Following the 2001 terrorist attacks, the US authorities require airlines to provide these data to help them screen people planning to enter their country. The data are required for the purpose of combating terrorism and other serious international organised crime. PNR data enable the US authorities to identify and focus their resources on possible high-risk individuals and so facilitate and safeguard the passage of the bona fide traveller.
  Most of the data elements contained in PNR could in fact be obtained from passengers on arrival by examining travel documents and conducting interviews. Clearly, that would result in significant delays for passengers at US airports. In one real sense, it is for the US Administration to justify their legislation. The simple fact, however, is that the legislation is in place, and any airline wishing to operate to the US must abide by its national law—as it would operating in any other country—or risk facing sanctions. Those sanctions include stiff fines or could even result in the withdrawal of operating permits.
  My hon. Friend will appreciate that EU airlines were left in an impossible position following the introduction by the US of the PNR requirement. They were caught between a rock and a hard place—they faced US sanctions for non-compliance, or litigation in Europe under the data protection directive if they did provide the data.
  Rightly, my hon. Friend is particularly concerned about UK citizens travelling on British planes, but both are subject to the national laws of the country to which they travel. The absolute right of the US to determine within its own jurisdiction the measures that it believes

  1547
  that it needs to take to protect its borders and the people who live on its territory, including many people from the UK and other EU member states, cannot be questioned.
  The European Commission and US customs negotiated for much of 2003 to find ways of reconciling the US's legitimate need to collect such data to fight terrorism with the EU's equally legitimate concern to safeguard the information that passengers provide. My hon. Friend expressed those concerns eloquently to the House this evening. The negotiations resulted in the US authorities giving a number of undertakings about the way in which they will handle the data that they receive from EU airlines.
  The Commission takes the view—and the Government agree—that those undertakings provide good safeguards for the PNR data. The Commission has now made a formal decision, under the data protection directive, that US customs provides adequate protection for the PNR data transferred from the EU, and the Council of Ministers has adopted a bilateral agreement with the US providing the necessary legal underpinning.
  The US undertakings provide important data protection safeguards. For example, they set out the security arrangements that will apply to the data and restrict the number of people who may have access to it. They limit the time for which the US authorities may hold PNR data to three and a half years rather than the 50-year period that, as my hon. Friend pointed out, was originally required. They limit the amount of PNR data required to 34 specific elements; the US wanted far more. US customs has undertaken to filter out and
  1548
  delete the most sensitive data, such as that which might reveal racial or ethnic origin or particular opinions or beliefs. That includes the dietary requirements mentioned by my hon. Friend. Most important, the undertakings restrict the use of the data to use for the purpose for which it was originally sought by the US authorities. They also provide a complaints procedure for passengers who believe that that the data held by US customs might be wrong or might have been misused and establish a chief privacy officer in the Department of Homeland Security to expedite the handling of complaints.
  My hon. Friend particularly mentioned financial details. The payment information and billing address are two of the 34 elements that the US requires, but the US authorities have undertaken to use only lawful processes, such as subpoena or court order, if they believe that they need to see transaction information linked to a particular account number.
  The provisions of the agreement are acceptable to the Government. Indeed, I believe that they are essential to protect the interests of UK airlines. I need not remind my hon. Friend—she certainly reminded the House—of the importance of transatlantic traffic. Without the agreement. data transfers would be exposed to challenge at this end under the data protection directive.
  We believe that the undertakings provide a pragmatic solution and that the agreement is proportionate and practical. It provides the necessary legal—
  The motion having been made after Seven o'clock, and the debate having continued for half an hour, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER adjourned the House without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.
  Adjourned at eighteen minutes to Eight o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. EDWARD O'HARA in the Chair]

Specialist Health Services (West London)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Gareth Thomas.]
9.30 am
Mr. John Randall: I am grateful to have the opportunity to raise issues that are important not only to my constituents but to people in the wider area of west London—perhaps I should say Middlesex.
When London's specialist health services are mentioned, people tend to think of the famous names—for instance, the Great Ormond Street children's hospital, Moorfields eye hospital and the Royal Marsden hospital. However, the area of which I speak, although designated as west London by the national health service management, is outside that central, inner core.
I am delighted to see my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) here today and, in our part of west London, Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals and the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital at Stanmore come to mind as beacons of excellence. All are situated in beautiful and peaceful rural surroundings—the antithesis of city life—and all are efficient, respected and valued. Having spoken to many patients, I would say that they are loved and cherished.
None of those hospitals is more famous than Harefield; under the leadership of Sir Magdi Yacoub and his team, it has pioneered advances in heart care, and has carried out more heart transplants than any other hospital. The result is that the name of the English village in which it is situated, from which it takes its name, is known all over the world. Sir Magdi Yacoub's heart science centre is also on that site, ensuring that bed and bench—patient and research—are near each other, to the benefit of all.
Last August, Harefield's clinicians again demonstrated that they remain in the forefront by performing the first heart bypass in this country with a local rather than a general anaesthetic. We should congratulate them on such a wonderful advance. Risks will be fewer for such patients, and recovery times will be shorter, which will ease pressure on hospital beds.
Despite such advances in patient care outside London, two of the specialist hospitals that serve my constituents and so many others are under threat. They are Mount Vernon and Harefield. The public reaction to that threat was anger tempered with disbelief, made more so by the fact that the views of patients and the public have been ignored. The way that they have been treated, and continue to be treated, makes a joke of the Government's policy of patient and public involvement in health care.
356WH
Those who are fighting for Harefield's survival have tried to gain the ear of the Secretary of State for Health. However, the request by my hon. Friend—the hospital is in his constituency—that the Secretary of State meet the hospital's representatives has been refused.
Mr. Andrew Lansley: My hon. Friend refers to patient and public involvement in health. Last week, I sought the names of the members of the patients forum at Addenbrooke's hospital in my constituency, only to be informed by the Commission for Patient and Public Involvement in Health that such names were not yet available. Indeed, the commission said that it proposes this week to write to members of the forum to ask whether their names can be made public. As the forum has existed for some time, and as its role is meant to be representative, that seems rather remiss. Has my hon. Friend had any greater success?
Mr. Randall: I am hardly surprised by that lack of success. My hon. Friend may be interested to know that, as a result of a recent parliamentary question, I found that the turnover of members of such forums has been surprisingly high, with a large number of resignations. Perhaps the commission cannot give the names because members do not stay long enough.
As I was saying, the request made by my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood to meet the Secretary of State for Health with the representatives of Harefield hospital was unfortunately unsuccessful. A similar request, made by the chief executive and chairman of the hospital, was ignored by his predecessor. However, my hon. Friend has previously given us much of the history, so I shall move on to the issue that interests me: the business side of the Paddington health campus scheme.
By taking its work, the Paddington health campus would close Harefield hospital. My interest in the issue grew after I learned that the project costs had escalated from £360 million in 2000 to £800 million in 2003. By then, the press were beginning to compare the campus to the millennium dome and estimated the eventual cost at £1 billion. The doubling of the costs in that short period is equivalent to a financial fire alarm going off—it means that the original business case is bound to have been flawed.
When it also became clear that the Paddington scheme did not have planning permission, despite having applied for it in 2000, I asked a question in the House. NHS management does not have expertise in schemes such as the Paddington health campus, so they must make use of external advisers. Given that so little visible progress had been made, I wanted to know how much had been spent on advisers. The Minister's response in November 2003 was that £3.177 million had been spent on external advisers up to the end of March 2003. My hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) later asked a question on the same subject and found that more than £5.5 million had been spent by the end of December 2003. That is well over what was spent on the new patient centre at Harefield hospital.
On 23 March 2004, I asked the Minister for a progress report on the Paddington health campus. I noted that

357WH
the word "progress" was rather a contradiction in terms when applied to the scheme because there had, quite blatantly, been none. I said:

"seldom has so little been done by so many at such great cost to the public purse"—[Official Report, 23 March 2004; Vol. 419, c. 695.]

I respect the Minister, who takes these matters seriously, but I am afraid that on that occasion—perhaps because he was in the bear pit of Question Time—he rejected my concern on the grounds that I was against the project. I am not, however, against the project per se—I am against wasting public money on a project that has lacked viability since September 2002.
I was surprised that the Minister rather brushed aside such legitimate concerns, given that the doubling of the costs has led to an independent inquiry. The Department is one of the participants, and the others are the Treasury and the National Audit Office. The inquiry is reviewing not only the rise in costs but how the situation arose. Given that it is supposedly independent, I thought that the Minister might have given a slightly different answer—that he was aware of the concerns but would reserve judgment, pending the independent inquiry's report. However, I have never reached the dizzy heights of being a Minister so I do not understand quite how such answers are produced.
The Minister did not inspire great confidence when he did not appear to know that the Treasury and the NAO were involved in the independent inquiry into the project, which he said his Department was reviewing in conjunction with local health bodies. I would not describe the Treasury or the NAO as local health bodies. Furthermore, the statement that the Minister expected to make before the end of March about the future of the Paddington health campus has not yet materialised.
Sadly, no amount of spin can disguise the fact that the project is in crisis. We cannot ignore the fact that if the Government had listened to the solid arguments that well-informed bodies raised against the scheme, it would not have gone ahead. By informed bodies, I mean the community health councils of Harrow, Brent, Hillingdon and South West Hertfordshire, all of which objected to the scheme, but all of whose objections were dismissed. Barrie Taylor, then the chief officer of South West Hertfordshire CHC, which covers Watford, pointed out that should the project go ahead, it would lead to a diminution in patient care.
Mr. John Wilkinson: My hon. Friend makes some exceedingly important points. Does he remember the extraordinary fact that the health council that promoted the Paddington basin project was the one that was charged with analysing the results of the consultation? That is an amazing state of affairs. Everything was geared up from the start to produce the result that the Government desired, namely that the Paddington health campus project should go ahead regardless of public opinion, fairness or objectivity.
Mr. Randall: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. However, I am never surprised these days. I came to this place free from conspiracy theories, but the longer I go on, the more cynical I become, and the more inclined I am to believe such things. Perhaps one day I shall have my innocence restored to me.
358WH
Perhaps hon. Members representing the area should concentrate on ensuring that Paddington's local hospital, St. Mary's which desperately needs attention, is improved. For a fraction of the cost of the project, both Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals could be expanded and improved, and so retain invaluable staff. That would also solve the problem of space on the Paddington site. That is what Sir Magdi Yacoub counselled in May 2000, when he welcomed progress in London, but not at the expense of Harefield. Over the last four years the need has grown to retain specialist hospitals outside the capital. They are far less likely to be disrupted by threats of terrorism and transport problems.
Any building development, NHS or not, is governed by whether it is practical, affordable and good value for money. Paddington health campus does not meet any of those criteria. By September 2002, those managing the project knew that they were nearly one fifth short of space on the designated site and that it was impossible, within existing planning regulations, to accommodate such a shortfall on an inner-London-constrained site. There was also the knock-on effect of the £360 million estimated cost having been shattered by the need for more space.
Correspondence shows that, instead of stopping and reassessing the viability of the project, the management attempted to keep knowledge of the shortfall out of the public arena: it depicted the 17.5 per cent. shortfall as a 17.5 per cent. rise in the elderly population in the Paddington area. That is not borne out by census statistics. The term that is often heard in such circumstances is cover-up. However, why should one occur if there was no mismanagement? How could a project team put in its third amendment to a planning application, get a "minded to grant" in August 2002, and then realise the following month that that was useless, due to there being nearly 20 per cent. too little space? The only rational explanation is that the project team did not take into account the need for greater space in hospital planning, due to the higher consumer standards introduced by the Department of Health. Whatever the reason, by September 2002, the project had more problems than it had had at the outset.
Further losses could have been prevented by a reassessment of viability. Instead, the project management team ploughed on, seeking extra space off-site in the Paddington area, which would only add further cost to the project. It is self-evident that those who spend public money have a duty to ensure that it is spent wisely. Inability to get planning permission for a project on a designated site equates to the end of that project when the development is tied to that site. I do not think that I am painting too harsh a picture of the failure of the management of the project. A recent edition of Building magazine described it as problematic and the "PFI from hell". When those with knowledge of the construction industry make such severe criticisms, they cannot be brushed aside as being against the project.
An equally critical article in Construction News in March commented:

"Faced with burning millions bidding for a scheme that has not got planning permission, many firms will turn and run."

The conclusion must be that such an ill-fated scheme has brought the NHS and Government policy on PFI builds somewhat into disrepute. However, such remarks are

359WH
perhaps rather unfair to PFI in this case, because no PFI partner was involved, neither has a PFI partner been advertised for. Whatever blame there is falls, I am afraid, on the management team.
Since 2000, the proposed Paddington health campus has been hard sold as an everything under one roof development for specialist services in west London. Harefield hospital is one of the most successful hospitals in the world, but the fact that it would close if the development were built has been ignored. Relocating Harefield is impossible, because its staff will not work in London, but that has also been ignored.
In response to a staff survey conducted as early as 2000, only 10 per cent. of Harefield's nurses said that they would be willing to work in the capital. In the latest independent staff survey the figure fell to 8 per cent., while the figure for all Harefield's staff was 7.1 per cent. In 2003, the Institute of Employment Studies reported that 19 per cent. of respondents intended to move, 46 per cent. had said no, and 35 per cent. were unsure. However, those percentages hide big differences between the Royal Brompton hospital and Harefield hospital. At Brompton, 24 per cent. of respondents said yes, 35 per cent. said no, and 44 per cent. were unsure. At Harefield, 8 per cent. of respondents said yes, 64 per cent. said no, and 28 per cent. were unsure.
When senior NHS management of the trust concerned has so obviously failed to persuade its staff that the project is worth while, there is a lesson to be learned. It is bad management to consider moving an organisation that employs skilled staff if they will not relocate and there is little or no possibility of replacing them in the proposed new area. The lack of management skills is compounded when the area chosen to relocate to is extremely expensive, making reasonably priced accommodation, whether rented or bought, an impossibility. Firms are relocating out of London, not into it, for that very reason. The shortage of NHS staff in London is well known. It results in huge agency costs, which strain NHS finances. Adding to that problem is irresponsible. Retention of staff is as important in the NHS as recruitment.
When permission was given to plan the project, certain undertakings accompanied it, including one to continue surveying staff attitudes to the proposed move. Rather than carrying that out and discussing the results sensibly, however, in 2002 the survey was evaded. In the latest staff survey, trust management refused to include the one question that was suggested on behalf of Harefield's staff by Heart of Harefield, which is an organisation fighting for the hospital's survival. The question was on retention of staff and simply asked what Harefield staff would say if the project did not go ahead. The probable answer to such a key question in assessing staff attitudes to the Paddington health campus made it unacceptable to those promoting the project. The Health Service Journal described it as a hair-raising question. NHS staff are its most important asset and we should treat their opinions with respect.
It is also unacceptable for those hard-selling the project to promote their scheme by denigrating the facilities at Harefield hospital. Harefield has a new patient centre, with the most up-to-date technology, two new operating theatres and new pathology labs, and ongoing plans to remove its older, disused buildings.
360WH
There is still room for improvement, but Harefield is at a stage when patients ask whether the intention to close it down is due to the money being spent on it.
A Paddington health campus briefing note of 19 December 2003 gave the opposite impression of Harefield, however. Those reading it would be misled into believing that the hospital was almost contravening health and safety regulations and was so short-staffed that it would soon be closed. Such allegations are untrue. The briefing said that should Harefield hospital remained open for a longer period, it would

"require significant investment to remain safe and viable. This will exacerbate the already acute staffing and clinical governance problems that this site prevents".

It is disgraceful that a deliberate smear tactic against Harefield hospital should appear in a briefing document from the Paddington health campus project. It would have remained hidden, giving Harefield no chance to refute it, had the briefing note not been leaked to Mrs. Jean Brett, who leads the campaign to save this great hospital.
When such distasteful tactics are used, the Paddington health campus loses all credibility. Desperation and misinformation have now become its hallmarks. Misinformation also reared its head when the project team sought to make up the shortfall in space by leasing the Point building, a prestigious office block on the other side of the canal to St. Mary's hospital. The cost of leasing it would be enormous, and it was absolutely ludicrous for the project team to describe it as an investment, because money would be going out with no prospect of a return.
Leasing the Point building would incur costs in addition to the £800 million already on the table, yet in two presentations in 2003 the Point was talked up as the ideal solution for the decant of St. Mary's hospital and to the space problem. The most important fact was not mentioned, which is that the Point is the least suitable building for decanting a hospital.
The terms of the lease forbade any in-patient treatment, meaning that no patient could stay in the Point overnight. As unclear was the fact that the only access to the main Paddington health campus site from the Point was by a public footbridge over the Grand Union canal. In addition, only 25 per cent. of the Point could be used for medical purposes, and within that was a restriction on any substance abuse clinic. It needs to be remembered that we are talking about the Paddington area of London. Just as oddly, the use of the ground floor, which is the most accessible, for patient care was denied for clinical purposes. There are different ways of being economical with the truth—misleading by the omission of relevant facts is among the worst.
Such details mean that we have a fatally flawed project, where saving face has become more important than openness, accountability and a willingness to admit that serious mistakes have been made. Since February 2003, the project team has been made aware by Westminster city council that it has to put in a new planning application in order to make any progress. Fifteen months later, that new planning application is still not in. If there had been a viable solution to the space problem, it would have been found.

361WH
[Mr. Randall]
Can the Minister confirm whether his answer of October 2003 about the number of beds in the Paddington health campus scheme still holds? The House was assured that the project would have 1,088 in-patient beds—80 more than those provided by St. Mary's, the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals. Will he also confirm whether the assurance still stands that the Paddington health campus now planned

"is 20 per cent. larger in size and will treat a higher number of acutely ill patients"?—[Official Report, 20 November 2003; Vol. 413, c. 1407W.]

The bottom line is that there has been an arrogant determination to force through this project, despite the lack of viability. The same arrogance of attitude was displayed in dealings with patients, members of the public and the objections of the community health council. The public consultation process was a farce. Before it had even started, a planning application for the project had been put in to Westminster city council. Planning applications for complex schemes take time, trouble and expense. Clearly, the public consultation process was to be cosmetic.
The lack of respect for the public consultation process was underlined when the post of project director was advertised before the consultation had ended. That is shocking and inexcusable. Events have now overtaken those planning the destruction of Harefield hospital. Two years away from its original completion date of early 2006, the Paddington health campus has not only made nil progress, but it is in a worse position than when it started. The completion date now varies between 2012 and after 2014, depending on which statement of the project is referred to. Its capital costs are unaffordable, its space problems insoluble and a supposedly independent review into how its £360 million outline business case was so flawed is still ongoing.
It is time to draw this tale of inefficiency to a close by abandoning the scheme. It was always described as a vision. I have no problem congratulating people on having a vision and wanting to achieve it, but I am afraid that that vision has turned into a bit of a mirage.
The clinical argument that every specialty needs to be under one roof, adjacent to accident and emergency departments, is as flawed as the management skills of those running the Paddington health campus project. Accident and emergency departments feed into Harefield—not the other way around. Due to advances in the skills of paramedic ambulance crews and the equipment that they carry, cardiac patients who need specialist care will be taken straight to Harefield. That has already happened, and it increases patients' survival chances.
Also flawed is the argument that because differing health problems sometimes appear in the same patient, other specialties should be on tap. It is well within modern technology for clinicians to confer on a patient visually without being in adjacent buildings.
The gross mismanagement of the Paddington health campus demands that there should be an independent inquiry, alongside which there should be an inquiry into why the public consultation process was such a mockery. I would welcome an explanation as to why, in
362WH
December 2003, the Minister assured a London MP in writing that the Secretary of State had written to the Chief Secretary to the Treasury expressing confidence in the project and making it clear that he expected it to go ahead. There could not be greater interference during an independent review than for one of the involved parties to pressurise another.
I make no apologies for concentrating on Harefield hospital because of its link to the flawed Paddington health campus scheme, and because it illustrates how plans for major private finance initiative schemes can implode. The if it's not broken, don't mend it argument applies equally to Mount Vernon and to Stanmore orthopaedic hospital.
It is ironic that the chief executive of the excellent hospital at Stanmore was, for years, one of the main drivers for the Paddington health campus. Stanmore does not have an accident and emergency department and, like Harefield, is a specialist stand-alone hospital. However, instead of promoting its closure, its chief executive, Andrew Woodhead, is promoting a PFI plan to improve it. Those who support Harefield's retention agree with London clinicians that the bed and bench should be together for the benefit of all, as at the Harefield site. The research could not be led by a more eminent clinician than Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub. The Government's contribution to the heart science centre at Harefield contradicts any decision that could result in the loss of the adjoining hospital.
When the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) was the Secretary of State, he officially opened the second phase of the Harefield research centre. That was greeted by applause from the assembled Heart of Harefield campaigners, but a far bigger cheer will go up when Harefield hospital is saved. The relocation of Harefield hospital is a euphemism for its destruction. The core problem is that its success has made it vulnerable to what might be termed clinical takeover bids from London.
In my seven years in this place, I have tried to take the middle line on most things, but with my business experience, and having looked at all the options, I am quite angry about this project. The Government would show great courage by putting an end to this project, and would save the public a lot of wasted money that is desperately needed in the NHS. It would be apt for the Government to remember that when the Home Secretary was the shadow Secretary of State for Health, he described a threat to Harefield hospital as vandalism. Vandalism does not cease to be vandalism just because there has been a change of Government.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Hon. Members wishing to participate in the debate should bear it in mind that the Front-Bench speeches must commence not later than 10.30 am.
9.59 am
Mr. John Wilkinson: We owe a deep debt of gratitude to my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall), who has taken a sustained interest in NHS services in west London as a whole. His presence, his exposition and the attendance

363WH
of the hon. Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) demonstrate that concern about the future specialist services in the NHS in west London extends far beyond my constituency, in which Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals are located.
Since 1997, no health subjects have consumed more parliamentary time than the future of Mount Vernon and Harefield hospitals. We have had countless debates on each hospital, and a few years ago in this very Chamber, we had a similar debate on the future of hospital services in west London. To day's debate shows that instead of getting a grip on the situation and rectifying several of the problems, the Government are still floundering about and cannot provide the sort of specialist hospital services in west London in which the public can have confidence.
To be candid, that is an unutterable disgrace. If the general public knew how much time Parliament, Ministers, NHS officials, consultants, the Department of Health and others had devoted to these questions, and still so little progress made, they would be even more critical of the NHS and of Her Majesty's Government. I suggest a slogan for the hustings in the London elections: "Remember Harefield and Mount Vernon, and look at what is happening in the Paddington basin." That says it all. If we want a monument to the inefficiency of centralised, socialist control in providing the sort of specialist hospital services that people want and need, we have only to consider the stillborn Paddington basin project and, of course, the uncertainty about the future of those two admirable hospitals—Mount vernon and Harefield—which my hon. Friend rightly calls beacons of excellence.
Let us consider the hospitals one by one and in alphabetical order. Objective, fair-minded observers would find it utterly incomprehensible that Harefield hospital should be under threat of closure when it is regarded worldwide as probably the most pioneering, innovative and imaginative hospital in the cardiothoracic field in the United Kingdom, particularly with regard to transplantation. Those observers would point to the amount of support that Harefield hospital has always enjoyed from a variety of organisations such as the ReBeat club, whose members have had surgery but who have improved, continued in good health, and maintained their interest in the hospital, and the Heart of Harefield organisation, a marvellous organisation led by Mrs. Jean Brett, which, in the many years since the project to move to Paddington basin was announced, has produced a formidable range of well researched memorandums, papers and presentations, has admirably conducted meetings with high officials, the public and others, and has sustained great interest.
Members of the Hamsters—a club formed by people who have had transplants—do not speak against Harefield hospital or say that it must move to Paddington basin. On the contrary, their experience has been that there is no better environment than Harefield hospital for recuperation and the sustained treatment that they require after transplantation. Its quiet, rural location is ideal for the purpose. I invite hon. Members to imagine going out into the Paddington basin area near Praed street after surgery, if not on one's Zimmer
364WH
frame, then hardly able to move. One is more likely to be mugged than to make a good recovery.
I wish that the NHS would listen to the counsel of good, sound common sense. We are not talking about any advice that I may have given, but about the advice given by the tens of thousands of members of the general public who have written to the consultation in support of Harefield hospital. It is remarkable that a Government who are, as my hon. Friend said, supposedly so amenable to public opinion, should fly in the face of all the advice of all interested parties and the general public and press ahead with the move of Harefield to Paddington basin.
My hon. Friend has said most of what there is to say about Paddington basin; however, I, who have never, in my 28 and a half years in the House, had cause to initiate a National Audit Office inquiry, asked the National Audit Office to look into the Paddington basin project. I did so because the consultation was a fraud. It was a fraud, because, first, as I said in my intervention, the Kensington and Chelsea and Westminster health authority, which is promoting the project, was the body that analysed the responses and reached conclusions based on them. That is improper and wrong.
Secondly, the Government, under the leadership of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn) when he was Secretary of State, had initiated an NHS plan, which was to put most attention and most resources into the care of heart problems and cancer. In both instances they were hellbent on closing the most fantastic facilities in London and moving them at vast expense to places where people did not want to go, although the money could have been used to improve the facilities even further and to build on their success. As the military men say, one should build on success, not reinforce failure. That is one of the first things that one learns at staff college, and the same applies to politics and management; it is common sense.
After I initiated the National Audit Office inquiry I was promised that the outcome would be made known in April. Of course, it was not. The fact that it has been so delayed is proof in itself that the project is hardly going well. All the leaks from the specialist journals to which my hon. Friend referred show that even the construction industry has no faith in the project.
I call the consultation a fraud because in that consultation the project was predicated on cost figures that have been exceeded to what most people would consider an incomprehensible degree. We were told that the cost of moving Harefield to Paddington basin would be something of the order of £360 million gross, and after the land sales, presumably of the Harefield and Royal Brompton sites, about £135 million net.
We are now talking about £837 million, if the latest article is to be believed. The Secretary of State gave a figure of £800 million. That is utterly grotesque. It damages the economy of the country, making the Chancellor borrow more and making everyone poorer, but above all it has delayed the full improvement of the cardiothoracic facilities at Harefield, and again the public have suffered.
Similar points can be made about Mount Vernon. One would have thought that after all the trauma of the Harefield episode the NHS, under the present Government, would have learned a lesson, but no.

365WH
Again the approach was to ignore all the consultation and to take not a blind bit of notice of community health councils, Community Voice, or the thousands of people who wanted the cancer centre to remain because the facilities on the Mount Vernon site are second to none.
There is a complementarity of facilities at Mount Vernon. Expertise is to be found there, particularly in radiotherapy, and there is cancer research at the Gray Cancer Institute. Macmillan Cancer Relief is there; Michael Sobell house is a facility for cancer patients; cancer patients can go to the Bishopswood private hospital and enjoy the services of consultants in the NHS but support Mount Vernon; there is a centre for reconstructive, plastic and burns surgery, while the Restoration of Appearance and Function Trust supports research in the field of reconstructive surgery; and, of course, there is a scanner centre.
Only a fortnight ago I was at the scanner centre—the Paul Strickland centre—for the opening of a £1.5 million combined PET-CT scanner. I think that it is only the second in the United Kingdom. Like all the other scanners there, it was installed through the support, sacrifice and dedication of people who charitably provided the money—it was not NHS money. By golly, what a comparison. Some £837 million has been spent at Paddington basin, but there is still nothing there, while £1.5 million from people's pockets has provided yet another scanner at Mount Vernon's Paul Strickland centre.
The mind boggles, but it boggles further when one considers that we do not even know where the proposed cancer centre is to go. All that we have been told is that it will be in Hatfield, but one could not have anywhere further removed from my constituents in north-west London. Hatfield is difficult to get to, and accessibility is important for not only patients but the many people who want to visit them. Yet, the centre will be on the old British Aerospace airfield or somewhere else, although we do not know where. Honestly! What a way to run things. It is deeply sad.
People at the opening of the scanner centre told me that the proposed scheme was wrong-headed. It is far from certain that specialist centres alongside or incorporated into general hospitals are the right way to provide the best patient care. A strong body of clinical opinion believes that specialist centres such as Mount Vernon and Harefield are the optimum locations for work at the frontiers of medical science.
I hope that the debate will at least cause Her Majesty's Government to think again. There is no point in putting vast amounts of public money into projects that the public do not support and that are in the wrong locations. The opportunity cost to the NHS is enormous. Harefield and Mount Vernon do a superb job as it is, but if just a little of that money had gone into them since the start of the Government's term in office in 1997, how wonderful they would be now. When the Heart of Harefield team asked specialist consultants to look into how much it would cost to modernise Harefield, the answer was just £18 million to £20 million.
To conclude, I shall support Harefield, Mount Vernon and other specialist centres of excellence until my last day in the House of Commons. We are grateful
366WH
to my hon. Friend for introducing the debate and for his interest in the issue. We are also grateful for the interest shown by my hon. Friend the Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley), whose constituency includes the Papworth heart hospital, and who only recently took the time and trouble to go to Harefield. That gives us great hope for the future because we trust that, before very long, he, and not the Minister, will be in government. Time is passing, politics in the United Kingdom is changing and we are looking for a new start under a new Government and for the revivification of Harefield and Mount Vernon hospitals.
10.13 am
Mr. Paul Burstow: congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate and the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) on his contribution.
I come relatively fresh to the issues of Middlesex health care and reconfiguration, although, over the past few days, I have carefully studied some of the issues that the hon. Member for Uxbridge has brought to the Chamber. What has struck me—it is self-evident from the passion that has been expressed in the debate—is the fierce loyalty and pride that people feel for their local health care systems and hospitals. As a result of the health care that they receive, people form an emotional attachment to their health care facilities and may, as the hon. Gentleman said, even come to love them.
In considering reconfiguration, it is important that we are satisfied that the processes on which we have embarked—their conclusions are unfolding and being implemented in part of London and in Hertfordshire and Bedfordshire—are objective and robust and have properly taken into account all the economic, social and health-related factors. Therefore, I shall simply ask a few questions by way of a contribution.
Both hon. Gentlemen referred to the reconfiguration proposals that will affect Harefield and the Paddington health campus, and Mount Vernon hospital. I want to talk primarily about Harefield, but I shall touch on the other programme. The hon. Gentlemen told us of their experience and knowledge of Harefield, saying that it is a centre of excellence and at the leading edge of developments; they also told us of their own and their constituents' concerns.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge mentioned that a meeting with Ministers had been sought. I know that, a little while ago, a petition was presented to the House about the need for dialogue with Ministers in respect of Mount Vernon. In connection with that and with progress on the Paddington health campus, I hope that Ministers will take the opportunity to meet local Members of Parliament. I hope that the Minister of State will say today that it will be possible.
Concern has been expressed about access to patients forums, a subject that came up only last week when the Minister of State appeared before the Health Committee. Problems are said to be the result of data protection difficulties I say difficulties, but I am not convinced that that is the real reason for denying access to information about who is representing the public. The forums are meant to enable a genuine public involvement in the making of health care decisions; it is

367WH
unsatisfactory that people cannot yet find out who are their representatives. I hope that the Minister can say a little more about that than was said in exchanges at last week's Select Committee meeting.
The costs of the Paddington health campus have been rehearsed today, especially the fact that they increased from £360 million in 2000 to £800 million in 2003. The Minister said in a written answer in September that that was due to an increase in the size of the campus. It is not clear from the written answers that I have read on the subject what level of scaling up we are talking about. There seem to be an extra 80 beds compared with the original plan; and, as we heard, there will be a 20 per cent. increase in capacity or activity. Will the Minister elaborate in his response on how a 20 per cent. increase or an extra 80 beds can account for the more than doubling of the cost of the project? It would be useful to know.
Will the Minister also say a little about the exercise being undertaken by the National Audit Office and the Treasury? Back in March, it was said that that exercise would inform the next stage of the project. What are the findings? As the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood said, it would be useful to know when they will be published. If we are to be confident that taxpayers are getting value for the money that they are putting into the project, that work needs to be in the public domain.
Reference has been made to PFI Today's debate is not so much about every last dot and comma of PFI, or even about the principle. However, when reading an article in last week'sHealth Service Journal, I was struck by some of the consequences of PFI projects. The journal gave the example of Norwich university hospital PFI, which was completed in 2001, Under that scheme, the isolation wards were supposed to be plumbed into the ventilation system, but when the system did not work and the ceiling tiles were removed, it was found that the ventilation pipes were still unconnected. Such problems could arise with conventional building methods, but in that case it was laid at the door of PFI.
Consultation with staff at Harefield covered the issue of staff retention and recruitment, which has been touched on already. I was struck by the fact that the survey mentioned by the hon. Member for Uxbridge said that 33 per cent. of Harefield staff and 27 per cent. of Royal Brompton staff cited transport as one of the issues that would be either a barrier or an inducement to moving, and that free transport might be a deciding factor. Will the Minister say what weighting was given to the question of transport and access by staff to the new campus? Are moves afoot further to ease the concerns of staff on that matter?
Costs have been referred to, and we have heard that the use of agency staff is a big factor. About half the total cost of agency nursing in the country is borne by London. The current cost, according to answers supplied by the Minister, is about £1.4 billion a year—a huge sum. Although a specialist centre might find it easy to attract staff to work at it more readily than others, we must ask whether any facility in central London will always be able to get the full range of staff, from the porter up to the consultant surgeon, to work there. I hope that the Minister will say how those concerns were weighted in the assessments to date.
368WH
The situation that the hon. Gentleman described at Harefield hospital is obviously of great concern to him and his constituents. I conclude with a question about time scales. It has been said that the original completion date was 2006, but most of the material that appears on the websites associated with the project seems to talk about an opening date of 2010. Will the Minister say when the campus will open, if that nirvana of a Conservative Government, which the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood described, does not come to pass at the next general election?
Mount Vernon is of great concern and generates fierce loyalty among residents in that part of the world. The Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority has led the project. In reading the documentation from its consultation exercise, I was struck that comments that London Members had made were not even listed, although I can understand why. The material came solely from those outside London.
Mr. Wilkinson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Burstow: I am not making a criticism.
Mr. Wilkinson: The hon. Gentleman makes an important point. To an objective observer, it is amazing that a health authority from outside London should dictate the future of cancer services inside London. It is par for the course, is it not, that London MPs should be ignored, because the objective was, quite clearly, to build a hospital in Hertfordshire and to ignore the opinions and needs of Londoners? We know that, but I am grateful that the hon. Gentleman has highlighted it.
Mr. Burstow: I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's intervention. When the Minister reviews the consultation exercises that have led to the decisions to change the character and content of services provided at Mount Vernon hospital, will he satisfy himself that the process is robust enough to ensure that the health needs and aspirations of the population in north-west London, in Middlesex, have been properly taken on board? There seems to have been a parallel exercise in north-west London, which was solely about Mount Vernon, but the changes to the hospital have been entirely driven by decisions made outside the strategic health authority. That other exercise almost seems to have been lost.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge has used this Adjournment debate in a powerful fashion to raise some important concerns, which have already been rehearsed through written answers, oral questions and debates. I look forward to the Minister's response.
10.23 am
Mr. Andrew Lansley: I join others in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on initiating this debate and on the way in which he opened it. He rightly pointed out that during his seven years in the House he has sought to strike the right balance and adopt what one might characters as moderate views on issues. He spoke with great concern and commitment to his constituents. He will recall that I played a small part in his victory back in 1997—actually, I played no part,

369WH
because as I went round Uxbridge everybody knew who he was. They knew perfectly well that, with his integrity and commitment to Uxbridge, he was exactly the person to represent them. He was a shoo-in.
My hon. Friend has always represented his constituents in the most exemplary fashion, as indeed has my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson), who has shown passion and commitment to his constituents and to Harefield hospital. I know that my hon. Friend's record is recognised, not least because when I visited Harefield on 15 April I was told so. I am glad that I had that opportunity. I did not know that we might have a Westminster Hall debate on the subject then, but I knew that it was right to visit, because these problems are increasingly coming to a head. Even then, it was clear that the strategic health authority could not be too far away from making an announcement.
If I recall correctly, the Minister told us during oral questions in March that an announcement would be made by the end of the month. It was not; nor was it made in April. So far, none has been made in May, and I suppose that none can be made before the elections on 10 June. If, indeed, the strategic health authority is to say anything, it will say it much later than was anticipated. However, as my hon. Friend made perfectly clear, such is the nature of this project that, so far, nothing has happened according to the anticipated timetable.
I shall make a few observations about the issues that my hon. Friends have raised. I will not, however, confine myself to Harefield hospital, but will discuss other specialist hospitals—in effect, tertiary services—to which they referred. There are important issues relating to the future of tertiary services. Interestingly, I first became familiar with the benefits of tertiary centres of excellence at the Royal National Orthopaedic hospital in Stanmore, which I visited while I was private secretary to Norman Tebbit. Margaret Tebbit was receiving treatment at the hospital at the time.
I got to know some of the clinicians at the RNOH very well through Aspire, the Association for Spinal Injury Research, Rehabilitation and Reintegration. The Minister will be familiar with Aspire and its work. I engaged in fundraising to provide Aspire with facilities to treat spinal injury patients at Stanmore in the mid-1980s, and have been privileged to remain a patron of Aspire ever since.
The clinicians told me how they could improve outcomes significantly, and attributed much of that to their ability to operate as an independent centre of excellence. Patients at the RNOH were receiving their second hip replacement when patients in many other hospitals throughout the country would have been having their third hip replacement, such was the quality of its artificial hips and the work done there. I have never needed to be persuaded that centres of excellence can deliver the best clinical outcomes. The question that we need to answer is how best to protect and maintain those centres of excellence—a question that is especially relevant to Harefield hospital.
Several questions should be asked about the Paddington health campus and Harefield. First, why is the cost of the project escalating, and why is the project
370WH
being managed in a way that fails to deliver what was originally intended? What is going wrong? Such questions demonstrate precisely why my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood was right to call for a review, and why the National Audit Office is party to it. The NAO is not there to decide whether this is the right project for the future, but to discover why a project that was supposed to cost £360 million will cost in excess of £800 million. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) rightly said, only a 20 per cent. increase in capacity is required—although that is still a significant increase—so why has this happened? If we knew the answer, we would not need the NAO, the Treasury and others to conduct a review.
I am still uncertain and sceptical as to whether the announcement that is due from the strategic health authority will be accompanied by a transparent publication of the results of that review, so that we know what has happened in the past and not simply whether the strategic health authority is asserting the business case for the Paddington health campus in the future on its changed costings.
The question of the management of the project goes beyond the escalating costs, and prompts the question whether the project will meet the original business case. The business case was essentially constructed around the co-location of a range of services, including those of St. Mary's, Royal Brompton, Harefield and the medical faculty of Imperial college. If the nature of the site and the compromises that have to be struck are such that the benefits of co-location are not being realised and split-site or dispersed activity is being engaged in around the Paddington site, serious questions are raised.
The third point, which I found most compelling and had not fully appreciated before visiting Harefield, is that although it is asserted that the business case for the Paddington health campus remains strong, from the standpoint of either of the two main trusts—particularly that of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust—the environment that the health service lives in has significantly changed from the environment in which the original business case was constructed. To look at it from Harefield's point of view, that is true in a number of respects, including in terms of clinical practice and outcomes in relation to heart disease.
Only a few weeks ago, I was present when the British Heart Foundation launched the results of its minutes save lives campaign in the Jubilee Room. Dr. Roger Boyle, the national director for heart disease, made presentations, and others spoke about the dramatic changes in the treatment of heart disease resulting from not only the prophylactic benefits of stains, but the improved call to needle times for thrombolysis for heart patients. These developments are changing the volume of activity, certainly at Harefield. The idea that one can simply assume, as one did three years ago, the levels of demand for cardiothoracic work in the future is far from obvious. The business case needs to be revisited on that basis.
If Dr. Boyle is right, and 20 years hence—or perhaps it was 10 years—if we do the right things and lead the right lifestyles, there will be no need for anyone under the age of 65 to experience a heart attack, the nature of commissioning of specialised cardiothoracic surgery across the UK will look very different from now. However, that is not the only matter that impacts on the

371WH
business case. The Minister knows that, as we talked about it throughout the proceedings on the Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill last year and since. Other matters include the structure of payment by results, the structure of the national tariff and its implications, and the possibility of hospitals becoming foundation trusts and being able to manage and determine their futures to a greater extent.
All such matters have an impact on the business plan. The ideals of the days when PFI projects were essentially negotiated on the basis of guarantees by primary care trusts for future income now seem to be misplaced. As the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam said, this is not really the place to discuss the whole future of PFI, but one particular point is apposite. Unless I am mistaken, it is necessary to go back to the original business case for the Paddington health campus and to re-establish it, not on the basis of guarantees from PCTs but on expectations of the levels of work, the nature of tariffs and the volumes of activity that will support the future of the trust.
I hope that the spirit of greater freedom for NHS hospitals, which we subscribe to, will be embraced in the decision. This decision is not for the strategic health authority to make. It is for the boards of the Royal Brompton and Harefield and the St. Mary's NHS trusts to decide whether to go ahead. They are accountable to their local communities. In due course, if they become foundation trusts, they will be genuinely accountable to their local communities?much more so than patients forums appear to be; it is difficult to understand how they work.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood referred to Papworth, which, as a cardiothoracic institute, shares many of Harefield's characteristics. I believe that last year more heart transplants took place at Papworth than at Harefield, but I do not want to argue about the pre-eminence of one cardiothoracic institute over another. They are very similar, as the Minister knows, and the debate continues as to whether Papworth should move from its Papworth Everard site to the Addenbrooke's campus, creating a further extension of the south Cambridge medical campus.
There are strong arguments for such a move, and many clinicians at Papworth are in favour of it. Not the most important argument, but one with which people identify, is that a person involved in a road traffic accident, who suffers major trauma and has both chest and head injuries, might have to be transferred from Papworth to Addenbrooke's in order to have neurosurgery, or the other way for chest surgery. That may not happen often, but it does happen.
Clinicians want to be at Addenbrooke's because they want to be where the research is taking place, and near the large biomedical campus that is likely to be created alongside them there. Ever since the move was mooted some four years ago, I have been clear—as has the Papworth board—that two things are necessary. The first is that the staff should be carried with it. There are substantial differences in the willingness or otherwise of staff who are vital to the provision of services at Harefield to migrate to Paddington and that of staff at Papworth to move—in many cases, to return—to Addenbrooke's.
372WH
The second is that Papworth and Harefield should retain their independence as separate institutes. We are not talking, nor should we do so in future, of merging tertiary centres of excellence, which have very successful, positive outcomes, into large hospitals where their services become part of what is offered by a much larger organisation. It is clear from the clinicians at Harefield that they have to maintain their focus on using their expertise to deliver the best outcomes for their patients, to the exclusion of other considerations. If that focus can be maintained only on separate sites, that is a compelling argument, notwithstanding the other considerations.
My hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood said that he hoped that we would, in due course, be in a position in which these issues would come before us as Ministers, rather than before the present Government. With that in mind, I cannot now say how Conservative Ministers would judge the issues, not least because of the desirability of decisions, including project finance decisions, being made by the boards of NHS trusts on behalf of their patients and the communities that they serve. However, I shall put four key issues to the Minister, because I hope that he will share the view that they must be thoroughly guaranteed before the Paddington health campus proceeds or the future of Harefield is decided.
The first is that the financial sustainability of any such project can be brought into question not only by cost escalation but by changing commissioning and cardiothoracic care requirements. No project should go ahead if it is not financially sustainable in the long term. Looking 20 years ahead, I see some big changes to the health service in prospect.
Secondly, there must be opportunities for service development. We know only too well the difficulties that can ensue from putting hospitals in urban, city-centre locations on sites that are too constrained, with the need to manage service development and possible consequent changes in service.
Thirdly, we must be able to realise the benefits of synergies between clinicians and scientists, such as those at Imperial college's faculty of medicine and Sir Magdi Yacoub's heart science centre, which I have visited. There will be competing considerations with regard to synergies in research in relation to Harefield, and the best interests of Harefield's patients, in terms of location, will need to be carefully considered.
The last and absolute requirement is that the independence of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust and its sense of focus on its task must be retained, as must its ability to deliver positive outcomes for its patients, regardless of location.
I have not mentioned Mount Vernon hospital and I will not go on about it, but it, too, can be used to illustrate by analogy. The Royal Marsden hospital has a site in the constituency of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam, and if one were to say to it, "Well you've just got to put everything from Sutton into Chelsea, because the benefits of co-location and the synergies of research with clinical practice are so compelling," notwithstanding that there is a substantial research facility on the Sutton site, I think that the Royal Marsden would reply, "Don't be foolish; we cope now,

373WH
and we have the benefit of two sites. We are preeminent." That hospital is the leading cancer specialist tertiary referral service in the country.
The reconfiguration of services sometimes seems to be driven more by bureaucratic objectives than a desire to meet the needs of patients and clinicians. It is not an obvious decision. For example, it will be difficult to decide whether Papworth hospital should be transferred to the Addenbrooke's site, and if there is a good reason for Harefield to transfer, it has not been compellingly made. In fact, the reverse is true for the clinicians, staff and patients of Harefield.
10.43 am
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Hutton): I warmly congratulate the hon. Member for Uxbridge (Mr. Randall) on securing the debate. This matter is, quite rightly, of concern to him and his constituents and to millions of NHS patients in west London. The same applies to the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson).
It comes down to this: the challenge that we all have to face—whether we are in or out of government—is how best we can maintain the clinical excellence of those important services in a rapidly changing scientific and medical environment in a way that maximises as their convenience and patients' access to them. It is not easy to do that, especially in a way with which everyone, including patients, the public and staff, can always agree. The NHS has set out proposals to achieve that for specialist services in west London, but it is obvious from this debate, and from the previous occasions on which this issue has been raised in the House, that those plans have generated considerable controversy.
I have listened carefully to hon. Members, but I am not at all clear about what alternatives the hon. Member for Uxbridge has to those plans, or about the level of medical or clinical support that any such alternative would have. Neither he, nor the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow), nor the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) set out any such alternatives today with any clarity.
The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire made a thoughtful contribution, which was devoid of some of the passion that the hon. Members for Uxbridge and for Ruislip-Northwood, who have constituency interests, brought to bear. His speech may have served as cold comfort to his two hon. Friends. The hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood shakes his head, but I saw the look on his face.
One thing is clear. We have not heard from the official Opposition today any promise to keep Harefield open or to keep Mount Vernon in its current state. They put the best face they can on the matter, but that is the uncomfortable truth for those two hon. Gentlemen.
The hon. Member for Uxbridge has often raised the question of the future of Harefield hospital on behalf of his constituents—rightly. Under the inspirational clinical leadership of Professor Sir Magdi Yacoub, the hospital has been remarkably successful in its development of heart and lung services and has rightfully earned a reputation as a centre of excellence for that specialist work. Research and development
374WH
have become an integral part of its work to improve life expectancy and the quality of life for those with serious cardiothoracic conditions. Like all hon. Members who have spoken in the debate, I pay tribute to the staff at Harefield who have contributed over many years to the hospital's excellent work.
Specialist care of the type that has been pioneered at Harefield will continue to form a crucial part of the overall network of services that are provided for people with coronary heart disease. As the hon. Gentleman is aware, in October 2001 the Department of Health confirmed that it intended to move ahead with plans to develop a new health campus at Paddington—a development that could bring together three world-class hospitals alongside cutting-edge research facilities. The decision was reached after full local public consultation and after the proposal had been referred to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for a final decision.
It is obvious from the remarks of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood that he views the consultation exercise as a fraud. That was the word that he used. That is a pretty serious accusation and it is noteworthy that the outcome of the consultation was not challenged. Certainly no challenge was made to the decision of my right hon. Friend.
Mr. Wilkinson: I am grateful to be able to give an explanation of my remark. Is the Minister aware that there was virtual unanimity in the responses? People were unanimous in not wanting the transfer of Harefield to Paddington basin. Notwithstanding that fact, the Government pressed on, and that is an insult and a fraud. If consultation means anything, there has to be an active response to try to modify proposals in the light of what people want. Otherwise, why engage in consultation in the first place?
Mr. Hutton: I shall come to that point, but the hon. Gentleman has been around the block many times. He will remember the outcry in his constituency when a Conservative Government closed the accident and emergency unit at Mount Vernon, despite widespread local opposition. He said today that decisions that had been taken about Harefield represented centralised socialist control of the NHS. What a load of nonsense that allegation is. I do not remember him making that allegation about the right hon. Member for Charnwood (Mr. Dorrell) when he made that decision to close accident and emergency services at Mount Vernon.
I do not want to embarrass the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire any further than I may already inadvertently have done, but his speech showed balance and a recognition that in such matters it is not always possible to make decisions about services that guarantee unanimity among the public. Sadly, that is the responsibility of Government. He recognises that and his hon. Friends do not. That is a difficulty for him, not for me.
Despite the wish of the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood to brush over the matter, doubts have been expressed by clinicians about the ability of a single specialty hospital to continue in relative isolation. That

375WH
is because it is becoming crucial for the success of single specialty hospitals to have access to a wider range of related sub-specialties. The hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire sensibly drew attention to the strong arguments for such relocations in relation to Papworth and Addenbrooke's. Fortunately, he could not see his two hon. Friends' reaction.
Harefield, being several miles from local general hospitals with accident and emergency departments, is not in a position to draw on support from the wider range of specialties that are found at such hospitals, or to benefit from the closer relocation of tertiary services. I am sure that the hon. Member for Uxbridge will agree with me—to be fair to him, I think that this was his starting position—that we should all be prepared to accept that hospital and community services will, from time to time, need to change if they are to continue to fulfil patients' needs and improve services.
Services should not remain state forever, frozen in time, but should reflect advances in technology and clinical practice. The only way to achieve those benefits in the case of Harefield's specialist heart and lung services would, I am advised, have been to build a completely new general hospital on the Harefield site. Such a proposal would seriously have threatened the viability of three other existing hospitals—Hillingdon hospital, Northwick Park hospital and Watford general hospital. With the benefit of not only hindsight but a bit of common sense, I do not think that that it would have been sensible or wise to take such a course of action.
That is why a different way forward has been chosen. It will incorporate St. Mary's hospital, the Royal Brompton and Harefield hospitals and Imperial College's faculty of medicine on a new, purpose-built health campus in Paddington.
Mr. Lansley: Lest we proceed under a misapprehension, let me ask whether the Minister is really suggesting that Harefield has literally no alternative but to go to the Paddington health campus? If so, I disagree. I am not signing up to the alternative of re-provisioning the tertiary cardiothoracic institute on the existing site, but Harefield clearly has that option, and the same is true of Papworth.
Mr. Hutton: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reconfirming that he is not promising to keep Harefield open. Of course there are other options, but the question is which is the optimum one. Which will guarantee the highest standards and the benefits of new technology and closer collaboration between specialties? That is the choice that we face, and it does not serve the purpose of this debate or the wider debate to suggest otherwise. I am certainly not suggesting that there are no alternatives: there have always been alternatives, which have been considered, but, crucially, they have not been supported by the clinicians involved, and I shall come to the reasons why in a second.
The purpose of the health campus will be to create a new centre of clinical excellence, innovation and teaching research in one of the capital's major urban regeneration schemes. The hon. Member for Uxbridge said that the vision was originally exciting, and I think that it remains exciting.
The hon. Gentleman accused me of wrongly saying that he opposed the Paddington health campus project, but given his contribution today, I would prefer to stand
376WH
by my remarks. I do not know whether he originally supported the Paddington health care campus, but he certainly has reconfirmed his opposition to it today.
Mr. Randall: The Minister seems to think that it is wrong to oppose it. I am concerned that the costs and everything else in the business case are escalating out of control. We have discussed the other options before, but my point today is that I am deeply concerned about the project itself.
Mr. Hutton: I understand the hon. Gentleman's concerns. I, too, have concerns, to which I shall come in a minute. However, his view might have had more credibility if he had supported the Paddington health campus in the beginning. I understand, however, that he always opposed the campus because he wanted to appease local campaigners over Harefield's future.
Mr. Randall: The Minister is being unfair. He says that hon. Members oppose something only when they want to appease someone, and it is unfair to suggest that we cannot make up our own minds. My own business experience tells me that some of these things, which have been dreamed up by people with wonderful vision, simply cannot be afforded.
Mr. Hutton: Hon. Members will come to their own view on all these matters when they read the debate and the hon. Gentleman's remarks. However, it might be helpful if he could confirm whether he supported the Paddington health care campus on the basis of the original costings.
Mr. Randall: I have not been a supporter of the Paddington health campus because I thought from the outset that it was a fraud.
Mr. Hutton: Well, there we are. I said that the hon. Gentleman had always opposed the campus, and he said that that was not true, but now we know the full story.
Mr. Randall rose—
Mr. Hutton: I shall not give way to the hon. Gentleman again. We have had several exchanges on the issue, and this one is pedantic and is not taking us much further forward.
Given the steep rise in the costs of the new campus development, a review of the outline business case and the management of the project to date was begun late last year, and rightly so. The team was led by officials from my Department and included officials from the Treasury and the National Audit Office. The review has now been completed, and the North West London strategic health authority will, I think, make a statement on the outcome in the next fortnight. It will cover the timetable for the new campus, as well as its affordability. It was right to conduct that review: costs have risen steeply, and delays in the project have become obvious. That cannot be allowed to continue without adversely affecting the proper organisation of those crucial NHS services.
The recent review has brought a new and necessary focus to the project. The NHS and patients in west London need to know soon that the project can be taken

377WH
forward quickly and expeditiously. I shall ensure that those hon. Members who raised concerns today will be fully advised of the outcome of the review; we can share the results of the report.
The hon. Gentleman raised a number of questions on staff, specifically whether staff will consider transferring to the Paddington health campus. It is true that only a small percentage of Harefield staff have said that they will definitely relocate, and that a large number have not yet decided. That is hardly surprising, as the move will not take place for several years; it will not be until 2010 at the earliest. However, it is important to recognise that the project continues to enjoy broad clinical support. Leading clinicians at Harefield continue to give their support for the Paddington health campus and the model of care that it proposes, and they recognise the part that the campus will play in preserving the heritage of Harefield.
Dr. Rosemary Radley-Smith, associate director of the Royal Brompton and Harefield NHS trust, has made clear her firm support for the move to Paddington. She has worked at Harefield for more than 30 years, treating many thousands of patients, but she recognises that without the support of other disciplines Harefield may not be a viable choice for transplant surgery in the longer term, an issue rightly raised by the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire. Other centres could provide a better and safer service for patients; as a consequence, they will be sent there. That is not in the long-term interests of Harefield, nor of what it stands for.
Dr. Charles llsley, chair of the Harefield medical committee, confirms the wider support of hospital consultants at Harefield hospital, saying that they are fully behind the relocation of services to Paddington. Those are serious voices; we should pay them serious attention.
Not all of Harefield's work will transfer to the new campus project. Only a third of Harefield's cardiology patients will need to travel to Paddington; 65 per cent. of all cardiology patients will be treated in local services at their nearest acute hospital. For cardiology outpatient and day-case patients, the figure is even higher at 82 per cent. Up to 25 per cent. of surgical patients already travel to St. Mary's or the Royal Brompton hospitals for care. Because the treatment is highly specialist and complex, it depends on proximity to the specialist care provided by St. Mary's.
With much of the clinical work load staying locally, staff will have the opportunity to do the same; they will be able to transfer to a local district general hospital—
378WH
for example, to Hillingdon or Watford—if they do not want to remain with Harefield in Paddington. As I said, staff at Harefield have enormous skill and expertise, and I am confident that they will not be lost to the NHS family.
In the couple of minutes left to me, I want to deal with Mount Vernon hospital. The hon. Gentleman was right to speak about the future of the hospital and its cancer services. For the past two years, the NHS in Bedfordshire arid Hertfordshire has worked extremely hard with its local communities in the North West London strategic health authority to develop an agreed strategy for health care, including specialist cancer care. Between June and September 2003, Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire SHA held a formal consultation on the future configuration of health services in the two counties.
It took more than two years to come to a conclusion—rightly so, because it is a complicated and important issue. The chosen option will see Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire retaining and developing the five existing hospitals, and building a new hospital in Hatfield to replace the QEII hospital at Welwyn Garden City. The plans for the new hospital will include the provision of a new cancer centre.
In light of the Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire proposal and the subsequent decision to establish a cancer centre in Hertfordshire, two further consultations were held in 2003 to determine and guarantee a future for Mount Vernon hospital. It is important to ensure that that future is made available. I know that that is what local people want to see. My hon. Friend the Member for Harrow, West (Mr. Thomas) led a delegation from his constituency to press home the point to me only last month. He has fought tirelessly for Mount Vernon, and I want to record my appreciation for the way he has put the argument to me.
The consultation has resulted in a clear commitment to maintain cancer services, including radiotherapy and chemotherapy, at Mount Vernon. Its future as a cancer centre is not in dispute. I accept that more work needs to be done on the details of the services that will be provided on the site. That will be determined through the development of a new strategy for cancer services across the whole of north-west London.
Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire strategic health authority is continuing to work closely with colleagues in North West London SHA on the development of its cancer strategy, which includes future cancer services on the Mount Vernon site.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. We must now turn our attention to the commercial use of Hyde park.

Hyde Park
11 am
Mr. Mark Field: I have called this debate because of my constituents' increasing concerns about the commercialisation of Hyde park. In recent years, Hyde park has been host not only to millions of resident Londoners, commuters and tourists relishing the tranquillity of one of London's world attractions, but to noisy rock concerts and large-scale, commercially sponsored events, such as the Red Bull Flugtag and the Star Trek show. Such activities have led to destruction of the fabric of the park, from which it will take many years to recover.
Not only are even more such events planned for this summer, but only last week the Mayor of London, Ken Livingstone, proudly boasted that he intended to bring the royal parks under his control in the years ahead, presumably in order to turn them into entertainment playgrounds for Londoners and tourists. In the programme for Hyde park over the next few months, there are three rock concerts, the annual party in the park for the Prince's Trust and a special event in July for Simon and Garfunkel. Not only am I a keen rock and pop music fan, but Simon and Garfunkel are among my favourites. I will have to avoid going or being invited to that concert, although I suspect that I shall be able to hear one or two of their songs, given the amplification and the fact that I live quite nearby. It is also increasingly traditional to hold the proms in the park in September.
Although those commercial activities raise significant sums— £1.5 million last year—that does not fully compensate for the damage and disruption to Hyde park. I look forward to what the Minister says about that. The Department for Culture, Media and Sport grant for the royal parks as a whole was frozen in the three-year period from 2002 to 2005. The grant will presumably be subject to similar if not tighter pressures in the next public sector expenditure round. Although Hyde park bears the brunt of many money-spinning events, relatively little of the money comes back to help maintain the park, being instead spent on other royal parks under the Department's auspices.
London's eight royal parks rank among the UK's greatest outdoor attractions. Free and open to everyone, they are a special cultural and recreational resource, as I am sure everyone in the Chamber would agree. They face a miserable future, whether they operate as an Executive agency under the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, as they do now, or fall under an increasingly power-crazed mayor, excited by the prospect of one rock band after another and their multitude of fans appearing in Hyde park. During the Iraq war, we also saw weekly demonstrations in central London, a number of which decanted into the Hyde park area. There is also the spectre of the park being used as the starting point or decanting point for the Notting Hill carnival, on which I shall comment later. Are there no traditions in this city or country of ours that the Government do not wish to trash?
I have files of correspondence from local residents who have watched the commercialisation of Hyde park with utter dismay. After last year's Bon Jovi concert, my
380WH
postbag was full of letters from local residents who could not believe how loud the noise was. That applied not only to roads in the immediate vicinity, but to roads in Marylebone and Mayfair. Nor am I talking about one afternoon or evening of mayhem. The erecting and dismantling of a concert site means literally a week of noise and upset to the park's tranquillity, including juggernauts moving along roads that were not built for such heavy vehicles. Last year's Flugtag was the most destructive event the park has ever witnessed. Trees were badly and permanently damaged, and there was a lot of graffiti in the area. Many who love the park have observed that the parade ground has been ruined.
This year, on 18, 19 and 20 June—a Friday, Saturday and Sunday—more than 80,000 paying people will come each day to watch the Red Hot Chilli Peppers. As one of the world's biggest rock bands, they will, I fear, attract huge numbers of additional people, who will congregate in the area, causing great disturbance. I invite everybody here to go to the park on the Sunday evening of 20 June, and perhaps again on the Monday morning, to see the crowds and the mayhem and to witness the mess left behind.
I am a great fan of popular music, and I recognise the attraction of such events. However, Hyde park is a special place. The frequency of such events means that it is being damaged beyond repair. Everybody would agree that it should be a people's park, but let us remember the countless people who wish to use this priceless London amenity as an oasis of calm in the midst of the hustle and bustle of city life. Such people tend not to be very vocal, but the popularity of Hyde park, rain or shine, is a testament to their passion for the place. For heaven's sake, let there be some balance between the desire to party, and, as we have discussed, to raise funds, and the need to relax and recharge one's batteries.
London is unlike many cities in the world in having such a central park. Access to Hyde park, St. James's park and Green park is among the charms of living in the city. I know that many people in the UK look askance at the busy life that we lead in cities. They would be amazed by the tranquillity that we enjoy and the way in which, particularly in the summer, the park is used by young and old for rest and relaxation. While I do not say that we should not have any large-scale events, increasing commercialisation will subtly but, I fear, irreparably change the manner in which the park is used as an all-round asset.
I am in regular touch with Kenneth Stern, chairman of the Friends of Hyde Park and Kensington Gardens, with the dedicated officers of a multitude of local residents associations, such as Sir Anthony and Jennifer Cleaver, who live south of the park in Belgravia, and with many residents who live close to the park. They are entirely realistic. They are concerned about the increasing commercialisation, but they would not turn the clock back. With the party in the park, sponsored by Capital radio, the proms and other events, London's parks are a centre of attraction for the nation, and it is right that certain events should take place in the vicinity. My grave concern, as the Minister will know from my correspondence with her Department in the three years since I have been the local Member of Parliament, is that the views of residents associations and individual

381WH
residents are all too often ridden over roughshod. On occasion, decisions are made without reference to such interested parties.
It is important to my constituency that it has vocal and articulate amenity organisations with a vocal strength that I sometimes encounter as the constituency MP. Their views are important. They should be heard and, to an extent, they should hold sway. In so far as there is to be a restructuring of Hyde park, I sincerely hope that the Minister will give some thought to reserving places for the officers of local residents groups and amenity societies so that their voices can be heard. Many who love Hyde park fear that there is an undeclared agenda to transform part of it into a permanent entertainments area. The Mayor's words of last week have confirmed those worst fears.
I want to add a little bit of context. It makes sense to look across the water to New York, a city of similar size, aspirations and importance in world affairs. Last year, the president of New York's Central park conservancy said that no more large-scale outside events were to be allowed in Central park because of the damage caused in the past. What is true for New York should be no less true for London. The cost of policing large-scale rock concerts, for example, and the expense of clearing rubbish, fall as ever on Westminster's council tax payers, and are a greater insult given that they have to suffer disturbance for many days. As yet, thankfully, no one has been seriously injured at any of the events. However, with the Mayor's proposal for the Notting Hill carnival to start in Hyde park, I fear that there will be distressing and distressful news one weekend night over an August bank holiday in the future.
Last year, I carried out quite an extensive survey among the 4,000 of my constituents who live nearest to Hyde park and its environs. One question that I asked was how they felt about Hyde park featuring in the route for the Notting Hill carnival. Some 80 per cent. of the respondents were totally against it, and only one fifth felt positive about the idea. The idea of the Notting Hill carnival, with its massive street march beforehand, struck fear into the hearts of most of the respondents. That included many who have first-hand experience of the carnival, either at a previous address or as interested nearby residents.
Discussions with some of the organisers of the carnival and some of my constituents who live on the current carnival route have shown that there is a strong belief that redirecting the procession to include Hyde park should not happen, because it goes against the whole tradition of the carnival and because such a change would undermine its relevance. The carnival would risk becoming another central London event, rather than one focused on the Notting Hill area. Obviously, I do not need to rehearse the arguments about the great history and tradition of the event and why it was located there after the 1958 race riots in that part of London.
The Mayor seeks to go ahead with the idea against almost everybody's wishes. It is almost as though the Government and the Mayor want Hyde park to be the central focus of all large-scale outdoor London events. I would be interested to hear the Minister's vision for the future, not just for Hyde park but for all the royal parks.
382WH
In short, commercialising Hyde park is a short road to destroying one of London's most beautiful jewels. It is globally recognised as a place of great beauty in the middle of a great world city. If we parliamentarians cannot play our role in halting that destructive force, I wonder whether we can look forward to a day under this Government and Mayor when College green and Parliament square will be home to revenue-earning car boot sales and not much else.
11.12 am
The Minister for the Arts (Estelle Morris): I recognise the obvious and keen interest with which the hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Field) has chosen Hyde park as the subject of the debate, and I understand its central importance to his constituents. As well as looking at what it contributes to the life of London and the nation, he has a particular responsibility to look after the near neighbours of the park. He has a special role that no other Member has, and I acknowledge that at the start.
In summary, this is about getting the balance right. I welcome the comments that the hon. Gentleman made about not wanting to turn the clock back or to deny people from areas other than those immediately surrounding the park the pleasure and joy that it can bring. I would not like to reach a position in which one could not find solace, solitude and quietness in the park without being bothered by loud noise or lots of people. We will do what we can over the next few years to get the balance correct.
The Royal Parks Agency's vision perhaps sums up the combination better than I have. It talks about trying

"to achieve the perfect balance, where all understand and value the Parks, where everyone finds something in the Parks for them, and where no one's enjoyment of the Parks is at the unacceptable expense of others, now or in the future".

It is important to make that statement. I do not think that that is a difficult vision statement to sign up to for people on either side of the discussion—I will not call it an argument—about Hyde park. The key question is how we make such an approach a reality and balance the interests of one side with those of the other.
It is important that there are commercial events in Hyde park. I do not think that the hon. Gentleman wants to go back to a time when there were no such events. When one looks back through the history of the nation, one sees that the large parks and main outdoor areas in London have always been centres where we have celebrated our traditions, as we did the jubilee; where we have expressed protest, as with the "Stop the War" marches; and where there have been pop concerts. He referred to the concerts that had been planned; I might well sign up for the Simon and Garfunkel one. The practice is not something started in recent years—the Rolling Stones played there in 1969.
In Hyde park, we have somewhere that some people see as solitude and solace. For others who live nearby, it is neighbouring land, and it has a place for the nation as a centre for traditional gatherings and the expression of national protest, as well as for celebrations in the form of pop concerts. I do not want that to change. The

383WH
balance is about right. One of the unifying characteristics of the nation is that we have places where we feel comfortable holding such events. However, I readily accept that there is an obligation on those with responsibilities for the park to ensure that such events happen in a way that does not make life impossible for the people who live nearby.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the royal parks are funded predominantly by the taxpayer with an annual grant of £24.2 million. That is the right thing to do, but the sum involved is sizeable. Inevitably, Government finances must be raised and spent carefully. It is correct for the royal parks to augment that funding from other sources. The subject of the debate is commercial activities in Hyde park, but we have talked mainly about the big events, which were the focus of his comments. Nevertheless, catering, boating and deckchair hire are all commercial operations in Hyde park. Over the years, other, bigger events have been added to those activities.
I should think that we would want to welcome as many people as possible from this country and abroad to see the educational, cultural and recreational benefits of the park. I have no doubt that if it were not for those commercial activities, some people would not think to go there. If they visit the park for commercial events they may return for other events, perhaps including some of the quieter, free events.
As the hon. Gentleman said, money is indeed raised by the park's activities. Last year, £1.2 million was raised, and I believe that this year's target for income through commercial events is £1.6 million. Of course, there is a downside, as is inevitable in any place where once a week or once a month, lots of people with lots of equipment are imported to do things that do not happen for the rest of the time.
The hon. Gentleman summed up the matter well. Wear and tear to the parks and then fabric is a sensitive issue to which professional planners and managers should have regard.
Mr. Field: I have two concerns that I want to raise on behalf of my constituents. Clearly, there should be professional managers. Furthermore, the issue that I have raised is of grave concern to residents and people who cherish the amenity in question. Will their voice be heard in the strategic and day-to-day decision making about whether to prioritise work on wear and tear or work on other, larger-scale developments?
Estelle Morris: Perhaps I should deal with that point now; I was going to deal with the consultation later. I think that the hon. Gentleman would admit that his constituents are consulted, and I admit that we need to get better at carrying out such consultation. It is easy to say that we should consult people, but it is sometimes difficult to get the balance right. It is crucial that the people whose everyday lives and environment are most affected by events in the park should be consulted in a way that leaves them feeling that the consultation was meaningful and that they were listened to.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will acknowledge—I accept that he has not made such a suggestion—that we could never get to a point at which residents had an effective veto on what went on in the park. I took it from what he said that people still feel to an extent that they
384WH
have not been fully consulted, and I shall refer that issue back to my right hon. Friend Lord McIntosh, the Minister for Media and Heritage, who has the primary ministerial responsibilities in this regard. I know that Lord McIntosh has regular meetings with the Hyde park and other royal parks friends associations, which is why he will be particularly keen to read today's debate. The chief executive also has regular meetings.
Mr. Field: For obvious reasons, Lord McIntosh is not in a position to take part in this debate, but I wish to put it on record that I hear positive words from many of those to whom I speak. He has a true commitment and he spends a significant amount of time and effort trying to understand our concerns. I make no criticism whatever of particular Ministers; rather, I question the strategy about where the park should be in the general scheme of culture and recreation in central London in the next 20 or 30 years. I hope that the Minister may be able to elucidate on that point.
Estelle Morris: I am grateful for those comments. I shall summarise by saying that the consultation is not perfect. When I was preparing for today's debate, the Royal Parks Agency told me that it is working on its consultation, and that the process is better than it used to be. However, the agency knows that it must continually keep it eyes and ears open in order to make improvements and to help make local residents feel more involved. I wonder whether the agency was trying to make that happen in its recent consultation on the events strategy, which leads me to the next subject.
As the hon. Gentleman knows, the royal parks have been consulting on the draft events strategy for the past few months. That is important, because it is time that we had such a strategy. Over the past few years, bits of change have been building up year by year—just one more each year—until, as he said, we run the danger of seeing the late spring, summer and early autumn entirely taken up with events. We may not want such an environment for the park. That is why I put a lot of store by the events strategy. Consultation has taken place, and more than 50 organisations have expressed views.
I want briefly to record the aims of the strategy. It should ensure the effective management of events; make the parks accessible for major cultural and sporting events that are important to the profile of London as a world cultural capital; make the parks accessible to people wishing to hold community events; develop a programme of low-impact events that increase appreciation of the parks' natural environment and history; and, lastly, allow a programme of commercial events to enable the parks to maintain current levels of income from events in 2005–06. We have received comments on the strategy. Lord McIntosh will reflect on them, and he hopes to respond before the summer recess. I hope that the events strategy will be the blueprint for the future.
Crucial to the strategy is how it is put into action. It is no good having a strategy unless we have a clear way of turning the words into action. I hope that the hon. Gentleman and his constituents see in the strategy a determination to plan events so that people know what is coming up. I think that, most of all, people would welcome a reduced dependence on Hyde park. Despite the fact that the Royal Parks Agency is responsible for

385WH
eight or nine open spaces, there has been a predominance of events in Hyde park. The other parks in the royal estate have seen few such events. The strategy has the stated aim of reducing the number of events in Hyde park, which will inevitably increase the number of events in the other parks.
New commercial events on a small scale have taken place in other parks. A good example was the Frieze art fair, which was held last year for the first time in Regent's park and is coming back this year. The agency plans to reduce over time the number of large-scale events in Hyde park and to reduce the royal parks' dependency on income from events in Hyde park alone. I hope that that offers some comfort to the hon. Gentleman and his constituents, and that it gives them a peg for further consultation and discussions with the Royal Parks Agency and Lord McIntosh.
Mr. Field: That good news will obviously be welcomed by many of the constituents who have written to me on the matter, but I wonder whether the Minister might say something in the remaining minutes about the future of the Royal Parks Agency. As I said, there is speculation in the Evening Standard that the Mayor of London—currently Ken Livingstone, but it may be someone else after 10 June—will want some control over the agency. Is any change envisaged in the status of the royal parks and in how they are managed in the years ahead?
Estelle Morris: We have no plans for that. The Mayor can voice his aspirations, but there have been no discussions between the Department and the Mayor about a change in status. The DCMS has a very good working relationship with the Royal Parks Agency, and we have no plans to change that in the foreseeable future. I, too, read the Evening Standard. We in politics are led to believe that it reflects everyone's aspirations, but such things are not always achieved. We therefore look to the future.
As well as ensuring that there are fewer events in Hyde park, and fewer big events in particular, we must find other ways of raising income. The hon. Gentleman may have had time to visit the Inn the Park restaurant in St. James's park, which is also situated in his constituency. In the four weeks in which the restaurant has been open, it has had excellent write-ups. It is in a beautiful building that is built to the highest standards and completely fits in with the environment of St. James's park. The Royal Parks Agency is doing more such things to raise income, and we should welcome the investment that it is making to ensure that it can rely on more than the big event to generate income.
The creation of the new Royal Parks Foundation, an independent charity that was established only recently under the chairmanship of Peter Ellwood to raise funds
386WH
for large projects, is also important. It is very difficult to raise money for the bread-and-butter maintenance of the parks and much easier to gain sponsorship or to raise money for other activities. I very much hope that, with the money given by the DCMS, the foundation will be able to carry out the bread-and-butter repair and maintenance of the parks.
I acknowledge the hon. Gentleman's point about the Bon Jovi concert. Indeed, perhaps I should not say this, but he could have mentioned other events that had gone wrong in Hyde park. I have been told that the sound at the concert far exceeded the permitted level. I am not sure whether he knows this, but a condition of holding such events in Hyde park this year is that the groups use a public address system provided by the Royal Parks Agency, which will ensure that the sound is kept within permitted levels. I understand that Bon Jovi had its own PA system and did not respond to requests made during the event to reduce the noise. I cannot promise that what happened will never be repeated, but the key point to note is that there was a problem with an unacceptable noise level and that the Royal Parks Agency responded by introducing a new requirement to use its PA system so that it can control it.
I also acknowledge that the amount of mess that is left after such events is deplorable, but I should point out that a licence fee is paid for events staged in Hyde park. The fee can be up to £150,000, depending on the scale of the event. That is meant to compensate the borough and the Royal Parks Agency for the cost of clearing up the mess the next day.
The park is the jewel in the crown, and an important part, not only of the capital, but of national life. In or out of London, there is no one who does not know Hyde park. It is one of the factors that unify this country. It is changing, but it must raise some of its own income. It has managed its events haphazardly in the past few years, but some of those events, such as the jubilee celebrations, have been a great success and have become part of our national folklore. Equally, however, some of the events have gone into local folklore as nights that local residents would not want to live through again.
The way forward is to work together with proper consultation. I very much hope that the events strategy will become a reality and that it will be endorsed by September. I hope that it will form an agenda for the Royal Parks Agency and my right hon. Friend Lord McIntosh, so that, along with local representatives and residents, they can find a way forward. If it does so, I very much hope that Hyde park will continue to be a valuable asset as well as a beautiful neighbour to the hon. Gentleman's constituents.
11.29 am
Sitting suspended until Two o'clock.

Transport (London)
2 pm
Martin Linton: I feel slightly guilty about having called this debate, because when I tried to find the Minister last night, I realised that he was still answering an Adjournment debate on the Floor of the House. However, this is an apposite time to debate Londoners' transport needs, because we are coming up to the comprehensive spending review, and Londoners are about to elect a Mayor for the second time, although that has nothing to do with my purpose in calling the debate.
We should start from the basic point that the Government have an excellent record on improving public, and indeed private, transport in London. Traffic levels have fallen by 30 per cent., which has reduced congestion and shortened journey times. The tube has undergone a £16 billion programme of investment, while bus use has gone up 33 per cent. in the past three and half a years and the number of rail passengers has increased by a similar percentage—I do not have the figure to hand, but I am sure that my hon. Friend will know it.
In calling the debate, it was not my purpose simply to read out a list of achievements. We must not allow ourselves to become complacent as we measure ourselves against the Conservative Government. It was not difficult to do better than them; indeed, it would have been difficult to do worse. We are light years ahead of them, but our achievement must be measured against the transport needs of London and our strategy for meeting those needs, which are growing and changing all the time. That strategy must inform our priorities for capital projects.
Some people have tried to cast doubt on the Government's commitment to the capital projects that are already in the pipeline, such as the East London line extensions, simply because those projects are being considered alongside others as part of the comprehensive spending review. I believe that the Government remain fully committed to the East London line project, and I hope to hear the Minister repeat that commitment today. After all, work has started, the planning permissions have been granted, compulsory purchase powers have been confirmed, legal challenges have been overcome, the frequency and timetabling of the trains have been agreed, and the Minister has signed off the business case. We are already a long way down the track, and all we need now is a nod from the Chancellor to approve the funding.
Obviously, funding decisions must be taken in the context of a capital programme, but I do not believe that that poses any threat to this scheme. I say that not only because the project is already far advanced, but because it is good value for money. Even given the new costing of £1 billion, it is a snip compared with Thameslink at £3 billion and Crossrail at £8 billion —although given the benefits that both of those schemes will deliver, they are well worth the price.
Linda Perham: As my hon. Friend knows, I chair the all-party group on Crossrail. I am sure that he will agree with Ken Livingstone, the Mayor, that Crossrail is London's single most significant transport requirement, and that it would have huge benefits for the whole United Kingdom economy—not to mention the effect that it would have on overcrowding on the tubes and trains, particularly in my area, on the eastern side of London.
Martin Linton: I believe that Crossrail will enormously reduce pressure on the tube system, and I shall return to that after I have dealt with the East London line.
The East London line extensions project—or ELLX, as it is called—will be good value for money, but there are four other good reasons why it must go ahead. First, it makes excellent transport sense, relieving pressure on rail terminuses, enabling commuters to avoid the centre and take the tube straight to their destination, and allowing through-London passengers to bypass the centre and travel straight to one of the interchange stations on the main lines out of London, such as Stratford, Finsbury Park, Ealing Broadway or Clapham Junction. Even though the project may not be considered essential for the Olympic bid, it will enormously facilitate journeys to and between Olympic venues, especially Wimbledon.
Secondly, the project will open the way for a London orbital network by joining the eastern, southern, western and northern London lines and linking them to the interchange stations, or nodes. One could, for instance, get off the Cardiff train at Ealing and go straight to Finsbury Park to pick up an Edinburgh train, rather than having to fight one's way through the centre of London. More importantly, however, it will make cross-London journeys much easier for Londoners.
Thirdly, the project will make excellent regeneration sense. In fact, it has been called the regeneration express, because it will link south London's five most deprived areas—Peckham, Camberwell, Brixton, Clapham and Battersea—with jobs in docklands and elsewhere, cutting many journey times in half.
The scheme will be no good if Brixton and Battersea do not have stations, however. At the moment there are two-mile gaps where Brixton and Battersea stations should be. I have been speaking to Transport for London and the Mayor about a station in Battersea, and we await further discussions when the funding is settled.
Fourthly, the project will be a godsend to parts of London that were left off the underground network in the Victorian era. I see that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) is here, and Hackney is a prime example of that problem, as are Peckham and Battersea, and even north Kensington, in the context of the west London line. Many of London's communities are poorly served by the railways. In Battersea we have more railways per square mile than any other constituency in the country. There are lines all over the place—we even have a line that is used by only one passenger train a week, and by freight the rest of the time—but having so many lines is of little use if the trains do not stop.
Joan Ruddock: I congratulate my hon. Friend on securing this debate, and apologise that I shall not be able to stay until the end. He has not mentioned the deprived areas in my constituency, which would also receive economic, travel and other benefits from the southern and northern extensions. We will be privileged to have the Surrey Canal Road station, which will make a huge difference to the opportunities for travel.
Does my hon. Friend share my concern that we are being told to wait for the spending review, because the East London line extension team tells us that little public money is required in the period of the current spending review, and that the major expenditure will be post-2010? There is therefore little reason for delay by the Government. We should press the Minister to reassure us about a development that is so important to us all, especially my constituents. My constituency contains the fourth largest proportion of people in the country who are dependent on rail, and there is very low car usage. The line is essential to us, and I trust that my hon. Friend will continue to press the Minister forcefully.
Martin Linton: My hon. Friend is right. I mentioned the five most deprived areas in south London, and I had thought of Deptford as the sixth most deprived, but it is already connected to the tube. However, she is right to say that a new station in Surrey Canal road—I cycled past the spot this morning—will give Deptford an additional link and start the regeneration express across to Battersea. She is also right to say that the expense that will fall within the period 2005–08, which I understand is the period covered by the comprehensive spending review, is small. That is why I am hopeful—verging on confident—that the scheme will go ahead in its present form, but we must await events.
As I was saying, the usefulness of the project depends on having stations for the trains to stop at. Whenever we raise the question of opening new stations, however, the railway industry reacts with horror. The problem is partly to do with the industry's mindset. The train operating companies tend to be run by people who think inter-city—about getting people to and from London, rather than around London. They do not think about frequent trains and frequent stops, as on the tube. For a large part of London, however, the train is our tube. We need to adopt the same "metro" approach to the inner-city railways as we take to the tube.
There is also a problem of incentives. Privatisation left Railtrack and Network Rail with no incentive to support new stations. They get no more money for new stations, so they do not build them. In the last 10 years, only two new stations have been built in the entire south-east, one of which was West Brompton, in London. However, in my constituency alone we need a new station in north Battersea, on the East London line, and on Crossrail. We also need to reopen Battersea High Street station, on the west London line, but we just get told, "It's a freight problem."
I rejoice in the increased use of rail freight, which I believe is up by 38 per cent.—that figure is probably wrong, but I am sure that someone will correct me.
Mr. Andrew Love: That is right.
Martin Linton: Thank you.
Every piece of freight unloaded at our channel ports and taken to any destination north of London has to travel through my constituency and over the Battersea railway bridge. As a result, there is almost no space left for passengers on the south London and west London lines. If that happened on our road system, and all freight traffic had to use one bridge over the Thames, there would be mothers in prams demonstrating and blocking zebra crossings to draw attention to the situation, but because it affects the rail system, no one asks what local people think.
No one is saying that London ought to take over sole responsibility for railways in London. Obviously, they must be run as part of a national system; the London regional rail proposal recognises that, but others must recognise that railways are part of London's local transport system. Londoners make more train journeys than all the people in the midlands, the north, Scotland and Wales added together. Trains are, overwhelmingly, a London form of transport, but the railways do not seem to be run in the interests of Londoners. We need to reclaim the railway lines of inner London for greater use by Londoners.
Mr. Love: Is not the strongest argument for the change the fact that the railways in London have been run so badly that it could not do anything but improve the situation?
Martin Linton: That is right. As I said in my opening remarks, if we compare ourselves with the Conservative Government, it is almost impossible for what we have done not to be an improvement, but we need to set our standards higher than that. We should aim to create a railway system that serves Londoners' interests.
I return briefly to the East London line. I hope that I have demonstrated that that scheme is good value for money and makes good transport and regeneration sense. For those reasons, I would be surprised if we did not go ahead with it. In football parlance, I would be gobsmacked—indeed, I would be gutted—as I have invested much of my time and campaigning energies in that scheme.
Crossrail 1 and 2 are not as far down the track. They are much bigger projects, with a longer time scale, but they are just as vital. I hope that we keep up the momentum for them. Crossrail 2 is the answer to Clapham Junction's century-long exclusion from the London tube network, although the East London line will, if all goes well, link Clapham Junction to the tube system earlier—2011 is currently the best estimate.
The people living around Clapham Junction station, which, despite its name, is in the centre of my constituency, are puzzled as to why it is not linked to the tube, despite being the busiest station not just in London or the UK, but in Europe. In Victorian days, the reason was that Battersea is built on clay, but it is at least 50 years since clay ceased to be a difficult material through which to tunnel; indeed, it is now one of the easiest. I hope that my hon. Friend will be the Minister who is finally able to announce definitively that the 100-year wait is over and that Clapham Junction will be linked to the tube—possibly to coincide with its overdue redevelopment, which is in the Strategic Rail Authority plan for 2010.

391WH
Perhaps the most urgent transport need in London has been answered by the introduction of the congestion charge, using powers granted to the Greater London authority by the Labour Government. That charge has reduced traffic by 30 per cent., taken 65,000 cars a day out of the central zone, cut nitrogen oxide and carbon dioxide by 16 and 19 per cent. respectively—not a bad
achievement in itself—and has significantly reduced journey times for people who travel by bus. Battersea is a classic bus commuter constituency. The charge has also reduced journey times for motorists. I cannot believe that the Conservative candidate in the mayoral election has threatened to end the congestion charge on day one. I cannot think of a quicker way to ensure a return to the bad old days of daily gridlock in central London.
I pay tribute to Transport for London and its London Buses for the way in which they have increased bus use—with enormous help from the Department for Transport. On one day towards the end of April, they had more than 6 million passengers for the first time. Bus reliability is at an all-time high, although there is still a long way to go, and bus occupancy is double that outside London. Satisfaction with bus services has risen in each of the last four years and is now at 77 per cent.—although that does not stop me, and, no doubt, my hon. Friends, from receiving the occasional letter of complaint—and the buses are attracting many new users. Perhaps the most impressive statistic is that in London, the percentage of the population who never travel by bus has been reduced front 29 per cent. to 21 per cent.
I should like to make two more points about buses. One is that it is imperative that the comprehensive spending review does not freeze the money going to London's buses. If that were to happen, the frequency of buses would undoubtedly reduce, and that would inevitably affect off-peak and night buses most. The maximum possible revenue from fares and the congestion charge cannot plug more than a small part of the gap. I am sure that my hon. Friend will have said all that in his submission to the comprehensive spending review.
Secondly, buses are improving, although there is still a problem with the training of bus drivers. Frequency is being improved and so is reliability, but I should like to see buses developed as a more luxurious form of travel. Rather than think of them in old-fashioned terms as poor people's transport, why not introduce city express buses that go fast from suburbs to the city? Why not develop buses that will give people a smoother ride? Too many people get thrown around when they stand up in a bus, and for that reason fear to use buses. None of the new rail schemes can produce extra capacity until 2010 at the earliest, so although it is essential that we proceed with them, and build a transport system for London worthy of this century, in the next six years our only way of improving public transport will be to make buses quicker and more comfortable. I therefore hope that my hon. Friend will do everything in his power to make that happen.
2.17 pm
Mr. John Wilkinson: We are all grateful to the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) for having introduced this timely
392WH
debate. He need not feel guilty for having done so, unless there is guilt by association with the socialist administration in City hall, which has not fulfilled the promises of the Labour Administration to improve transport in London. We shall hear more about that in the election campaign—but for now, on with the debate.
My constituents' principal concern is that the tube system should be improved, and I shall concentrate on that. It is understood that the mayoralty has invested a great deal of money and political energy in London's buses. There are even bus lanes to prove it, and more buses too. There has not been too bad a service on the buses—in fact, there has been an improvement. Whether that improvement has been cost-effective is for others to decide, particularly our representatives on the hustings.
The tube is another matter. I am pleased to see the Under-Secretary of State for Transport, the hon. Member for Harrow, East (Mr. McNulty) in his place representing the Department for Transport, because he will understand the west London perspective. My constituents rely on the tube system for commuting, but it is unreliable: trains are slower than they should be, the track needs repair, the stations are often dirty and people fear that the system is not secure. The public-private partnership has yet to deliver the results that were promised. However, it cannot bring anybody any delight to know that the facilities for disabled passengers are well below standard. I cannot think of one tube station in my constituency, which has eight, with proper lifts and other facilities to enable disabled passengers to get to the platform easily. We need better leadership and higher standards.
We also need much more investment, and that should be the central theme of today's debate. We are all conscious that London is the powerhouse of the country's economy. We are aware that London pays a great deal more in taxes than it receives back in public service investment. We are also somewhat sore that so much of our hard-earned money goes to subsidise the Scots—with no change in the Barnett formula, even after the establishment of the Scottish Parliament—rather than being reinvested in services for the benefit of the Londoners who earned the money.
Let us consider the investment plan for the next few years. Transport for London reckons that under its business strategy, an extra £1 billion of Government money needs to be invested in transport in the capital for the foreseeable future. That is quite right. Even the much vaunted congestion charge is not bringing in the money that had been anticipated; the administrative costs of introduction were far higher than had been programmed, and the mayoralty is facing a shortfall in revenue from that source.
I will make only modest proposals relevant to west London for the consideration of the Chamber and the Minister this afternoon, and I will set them in the context of the air transport requirements of the capital. Air transport is very important to my constituents as a source of jobs, particularly at Heathrow, and as a source of local economic prosperity, but it is also the cause of much congestion on the overburdened road system. We need investment in tube extensions and links that can get people out of their cars and on to the tube system.

393WH
The first proposal that I shall put to the Minister is one with which he is familiar, and with which he probably instinctively has sympathy; whether the Treasury has such sympathy, I do not know. He has reminded me of the spending review being conducted this year, and I am sure that if the Treasury does its sums properly, it will find that the Croxley link to connect the metropolitan tube network to the west coast main line rail network at Watford Junction would bring substantial returns for a modest investment. The line is essentially there already, and it would take a great deal of passenger traffic from the west coast main line directly on to the tube system, and also make it easier for people to get on to the west coast main line.
The second proposal is to extend the Piccadilly line from Uxbridge down to Heathrow. If there is to be a fifth terminal—we know that it would be in service quite soon—it deserves an improvement in the transport facilities that service it. That proposal would be such an improvement, at modest cost. Another idea would be to extend the Central line from West Ruislip to Heathrow.
I suspect that those two extensions are especially relevant because Crossrail, which we so earnestly desire, seems to have slipped further and further into the future. I wish that Her Majesty's Government would put money into it now. We would be much more likely to get the Olympic games if Crossrail was a definitive project, officially supported, properly funded and effectively programmed. The fact that Crossrail is not an official Government-sponsored project creates a built-in headwind for our Olympic promoters. As Crossrail is so delayed, the two extensions of the tube to which I have referred are particularly important.
In conclusion, let us consider the promotion of the Olympics at the Stratford site in connection with air transport in London. London is already well served by air transport facilities—Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, Luton and City airports. For business aviation within the Greater London authority area, there is Northolt for movements up to a fixed limit of 7,000 a year, and Biggin Hill. We do not have a shortage of facilities, but we need better transport access to them. Another Heathrow runway would make the road congestion in west London intolerable. Let us concentrate on the road connections that need improving, at modest cost, but above all, on investment in tube infrastructure.
If we can do that, and the extra £1 billion a year can be provided for Transport for London, there is, I think, hope for west Londoners. Otherwise the present financial situation may continue, with money siphoned off from the capital for use elsewhere, and the congestion charge bringing in no more money. In that connection I ask the Minister to state now that he will veto any imposition of a congestion charge for access to Heathrow.
If the Government adopt the modest projects that I have proposed, London, particularly west Londoners, will benefit substantially. Congestion will be eased and a good return will be gained for relatively modest input by the taxpayer.
2.26 pm
Jeremy Corbyn: I shall be brief, because many hon. Members want to speak. It is interesting that so far no one has suggested massive road
394WH
building as a solution to any of London's transport problems. That is a welcome change from debates in past years. We now talk about public transport solutions, and I join other hon. Members in congratulating the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on the enormous improvement and the investment that he has managed to make in bus services.
I have two pleas for the Government. First, will they ensure that the subsidy level is continued into future years? There will be a serious problem in two or three years if investment falls off. Secondly, will they study the question of the money being made by private operators out of franchised routes? I welcome the improvements in bus services, but it is noticeable that enormous profits are being made by private enterprise bus companies that are essentially operating a closed market on TFL-authorised routes. East Thames Buses, which is directly owned by the Greater London authority, runs a service as efficient and effective as any other, and that seems to me to be a positive way forward.
I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) said about the need for increased and enhanced bus driver and staff training and the importance of job retention. Turnover is still too fast. There was a time when working on London's buses was seen as a prestige job. We want that atmosphere back, with some degree of parity in salaries with people working on the tube network.
As one who cycles around London a great deal, I was interested in an item on last night's London news about a recent death in a traffic accident on Blackfriars bridge. There is an insane cycle route there, which was apparently approved in some form or other by the Minister's Department. The cycle route goes between two fast-moving lines of traffic, which is completely crazy and very dangerous. One accident like that, which gets a lot of publicity, puts an awful lot of people off cycling.
I urge the Department, when it issues advice, to encourage the continuation of safe cycling routes, not just on the easy bits of main roads, but on the harder bits, such as around junctions. Appropriate safety arrangements and priority should be given. Cycling has increased a great deal in London, but the accident rate is still high. That is in part because of the conflict with traffic at junctions, although it is also in some cases caused by dangerous cycling, such as cycling across pavements and jumping lights. It is also partly because children lack safety awareness, and there is not enough training in schools on riding and maintaining a bicycle. It is all simple stuff, but it is important if we are to maintain the growth in numbers of people who cycle.
The debate is essentially about investment, and I shall quickly mention three areas where investment is needed. My hon. Friend mentioned the East London line, and I support all that he said about it. If the East London line extension is to be improved, work can go ahead quickly. The route is largely established, particularly now that the Bishopsgate goods yard issue has been resolved. The track bed is already available for running to Dalston Junction. It can then join with the North London line and run round to Highbury and Islington station, at last linking Hackney to Islington by tube. The one thing that all Hackney residents want is to be able to get a tube to Islington?then they will be able to shop more easily in Upper street, which I am sure is their main aim in life.

395WH
I also feel strongly about the East London line extension route, which would go up to Finsbury Park station. That would enable the Finsbury Park interchange to be improved and developed. It would make a good stopping-off point, and allow many people to get on to the tube before the trains reach King's Cross. At the moment, they can get on to the Victoria and Piccadilly lines, but with the East London line there would be a link through to the City, which would be extremely welcome.
That leads me on to the vexed question of Finsbury Park station. I am sure that the Minister has been there, as has every Minister for the past 15 years. They have all said that it is appalling, and I agree with them. It is a mess. It is overcrowded, badly laid out, and on a difficult site. Transport for London has put in a great deal of effort to improve the station and the interchange. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) would support the need for improvement or that station, and if possible, its complete rebuilding.
We have reached agreement on most of the things that need to be done, but Network Rail has proved difficult, and has decided that all its investment must go somewhere else. I have raised the matter with the Secretary of State and with other Ministers and I would be grateful if the Minister will confirm in his reply that his Department is fully behind the TFL proposals for Finsbury Park station, and will ensure that Network Rail plays its part in improving it.
Ms Diane Abbott: My hon. Friend will agree that the investment and rebuilding of Finsbury Park is key to the regeneration of what is a rather neglected corner of north-east London, perhaps because three boroughs meet there. So much would be done to improve the quality of life of those living there if the Government could give the scheme their full backing.
Jeremy Corbyn: I agree with my hon. Friend. In the past, we have had plans to close railway lines and turn them into roads, and to run down various lines deliberately. Fortunately, those days are now behind us, but we still have quite a lot of underused surface-level railways lines, with unimaginative train routes using them. I am thinking of the North London line system, which includes the Barking to Gospel Oak line and the North Woolwich to Richmond line. I live near the Barking to Gospel Oak line, and we have complained about it for a long time. Silverlink has improved the service and the stations are better than they used to be, but several things could be done.
First, an interchange station near Tufnell Park station on the Northern line could be constructed. The route would then not only link with the Victoria line at Blackhorse Road, but passengers could transfer to the Northern line at Tufnell Park. Secondly, there could be a more imaginative service. Why does the service have to stop at Gospel Oak? Why on earth can trains not run through to Willesden, Ealing, Richmond or the west London line? The entire basis for an outer circle surface rail link is in place, and it could be developed. Is there a complete lack of imagination, or is nothing done because several railway franchises are involved and it is just too complicated for them to get together and work something out?
396WH
That leads me to the question of the future structure for transport in London. When this Government were elected, they did the right thing in establishing Transport for London, a Greater London authority and a Mayor who had considerable powers over transport. Unfortunately, he has only just received powers over the tube. It is time that the rail system in London was handed over to Transport for London, which could then ensure that a properly integrated system ran within London, that another ran in and out of London, and that the two were integrated.
The problem with London's transport infrastructure is largely its age. Some of it is very old. It is wonderful and historic, but expensive to maintain. New tube networks are expensive to install, particularly when we have so many different operating systems within the same network. I would be grateful if, when the Minister replies, he gives us hope on two issues. First, we want hope that Crossrail will finally go ahead. Secondly, we want him to continue to give his blessing to the development of surface-level tram lines.
The Croydon Tramlink has proved to be successful and the Mayor's proposals for tram links in west London and from Camberwell to Camden seem exciting, relatively cheap and quick to install. They are a rapid way of improving public transport in London. We have great opportunities and a wonderful city, but unless we continue to improve public transport quickly. we will end up with congestion problems that will encourage people back into their cars. All the success of the congestion charge will be lost unless we continue to invest heavily in surface-level transport links in London.
2.35 pm
Mr. Andrew Love: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing this debate at a very apposite time, and I shall take up the theme of his contribution—the transport challenges facing London.
Three million people use the underground every day, which is about the same number as use the rail network; 5.9 million people use London buses, which is a third of the total for the whole of England and Wales; and 85 per cent. of the commuters who come into central London use public transport. On top of that, London is the fastest growing city in Europe; as the Mayor likes to put it, it will grow by the size of the Leeds conurbation about 800,000 people—by 2016. The capital city also has an enormous tourist industry; 30 million tourists visit us annually. They spend a huge amount and are very important to the London economy. However, our infrastructure has been deteriorating for years under different Governments, and there has been a failure to address the increasing need for good-quality 21st–century transport.
I welcome the new powers, agreed by the Treasury, to allow Transport for London to borrow for capital expenditure. That can be done because of the fees that arise from the fare structures in London transport. However, that does not go far enough; it does not fund all the needs of London transport.
We must ask: why should we invest in the capital? There are many reasons. I do not think that one of them is that London is a net tax contributor to the rest of the country; in my view, that is right and proper. However,

397WH
it must be recognised that London is the engine of the UK economy and that, economically, it faces not inwards but, in many ways, outwards. It competes internationally with cities in other countries rather than with other cities in this country.
The vast bulk of the investment that goes into London comes from abroad. The state of London's transport is critical to such decisions about whether to invest in London rather than other cities. That is critical to a wider area than London alone; all the evidence shows that that investment ripples out into the rest of the south-east and the entire country. If we lose that inward investment in London, not only will London suffer, so will the rest of the country. London has higher productivity than the rest of the country. Its competitive edge not only works internationally, it helps the rest of the south-east, and the country, to raise its game by improving its ability to attract investment.
Investment in London is good value for money. There has been a study that shows that the benefits will be two and a half times greater if investment is made along the lines that Transport for London suggests, rather than if the absolute minimum is done. The Transport for London plan shows that there will be a 7.5 per cent. increase in capacity if we invest the sums suggested. Those are just the benefits in transport terms; there are also the knock-on benefits of reducing social exclusion and regenerating parts of London that are exceptionally deprived.
Having made that case, I shall now look at two areas where investment is urgent. First I will take up the themes of previous speakers, and talk about London buses. They promote social inclusion. Who uses London buses? Bus passengers are the elderly, people on low incomes, people without cars, minority ethnic groups and women—all the groups that are most excluded within the London economy. If we are to reduce that exclusion, buses will have to be the primary transport mode that we use.
Transport for London, the Mayor and the Greater London authority have had some success on this issue, and I pay tribute to them for what they have achieved over the past four years. Bus use has gone up by 30 per cent., although it is stagnant in most of the rest of the country. There has been a 15 per cent. rise in the average number of passengers travelling on each bus, so buses are giving better value for money.
From the vantage point of my constituency, I can see that buses have made a major contribution to public transport in outer London, which does not generally enjoy the benefits of the underground or a good rail service. Buses therefore make a critical contribution to outer London, and that has been important over the past four years.
The second issue, however, is critical. We want to invest in the tube, the rail system and the other things that hon. Members have mentioned, but it will be some time—perhaps 10, 15 or 20 years—before we see the major benefits of that investment. Investment in buses, however, is ideal because it can be delivered in the short term and can increase capacity now. That is why we need to fund the plan to increase bus capacity throughout London, particularly in outer London.
398WH
Two issues are critical to my constituents. First, Edmonton Green bus terminus is among the top 10 in terms of daily bus movements, so it is critical to the whole of that part of north London. However, negotiations over the delivery of a new terminus are mired in complex issues and never seem to end. I make a plea to the Minister, and in particular to Transport for London and the developer, to sort things out. They desperately need to do so if the service to my constituents is to be improved.
Secondly, I am interested in the school bus service, which the Department has been carefully studying. I have corresponded with local schools, one of which said:

"What a much needed service! Like many schools in Edmonton we suffer from massive congestion at the start and end of each day. This leads to real issues of road safety for our children. We would be delighted to be involved in a pilot scheme".

So, too, would the rest of my constituency. Perhaps the Minister could take that idea away and consider it for future reference.
In an intervention on my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea I mentioned that the rail service was in urgent need of upgrading, but that is an understatement. I know from the nods around the Chamber that that view is shared throughout the capital. We must create more capacity and improve performance on our railways, because commuters have suffered long enough. The train operating company on the railway line in my area has recently changed, and the transition has been relatively smooth; indeed, hardly anyone has noticed it. However, if I were to ask my constituents whether they had seen any improvement in performance or standards, they would say no to that, too, because the problems and challenges on the line are still to be addressed.
I strongly agree with my hon. Friend that we need to consider an alternative solution, and that suggested by Transport for London begins to address several of the issues. In its brief for the debate, for example, Transport for London says that it will be looking to increase capacity, to improve the integration of fares across London and to enable funds to be raised for major rail projects. Its expertise would bring real benefits to London commuters, and on that basis alone, its proposed alternative should be considered sympathetically.
The Minister will say that the commuter lines do not start in London and that London is only part of the service that they deliver. However, London commuters have suffered long enough, and there must be a positive way forward. A link-up between Transport for London, Network Rail and the train operating companies would deliver real benefits, without necessarily challenging or making things more difficult for the rest of the rail network in the south-east.
Finally, I want to raise a local issue. My local central station at Edmonton Green sits cheek by jowl with the bus station, and is in need of urgent improvement. That is set out in the plan, as are improvements to stations throughout the capital. Improvements will not happen without the plan. The use of the station by my constituents is severely limited because improvements have not taken place. They fear using the station in the evening. The multiple stairs to the station cause great problems for disabled people. Such matters should be dealt with.

399WH
I make a final plea to the Minister. Transport for London is doing all that it can to develop the transport network, but it needs the support of the Department to achieve all that it wants. The benefits will come primarily to London commuters and to people in constituencies such as mine, but benefits will also be delivered to the rest of the south-east and throughout the country. On that basis alone, I commend the plan to the Minister.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Edward O'Hara): Order. Before we continue, I remind hon. Members who wish to contribute to the debate that winding-up speeches should start not later than 3 pm.
2.46 pm
Clive Efford: I, too, congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing the debate. As has been said, it is timely not only because of the elections for Mayor and the comprehensive spending review, but the fact that a debate about London's transport system has begun as a result of our being shortlisted for the Olympic bid—an issue to which I shall return. Reference has been made to many projects, such as the East London line, Crossrail, Thameslink, the extension of the Docklands light railway in the Thames gateway area and the Woolwich rapid transport link along the river front. However, alongside those issues we must consider how we bring the benefits of those schemes to the wider community, and how people who do not live or work in the immediate areas that will see major improvements in their infrastructure can link into them and reap the benefits of that investment.
We must appreciate the successes. It is easy to slip into a debate about London's transport network and be only negative, not positive, about it. That reflects the level of use of public transport in London. We should not forget that there is a high dependency on public transport in London, which to some degree is a reflection of its success. Over the past few years, several successes have come from the office of the Mayor—
2.47 pm
Sitting suspended for a Division in the House.
3.3 pm
On resuming—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I remind hon. Members that the winding-up speeches will now start at 3.15 pm.
Clive Efford: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
TFL's research shows a 30 per cent. modal shift from cars to other forms of transport between 1999 and 2003. There are many other figures relating to increased bus usage and so on, but I shall not go through those now, as other hon. Members want to speak.
London is essential to the economic well-being of our country. It supports 4 million jobs, 1.4 million of which are in central London. Five local authorities in London have employment densities of 5,000 workers per square
400WH
kilometre, and in the City of London the figure goes up to 130,000 jobs per square kilometre. More than 90 per cent. of those people travel to work by public transport. Two thirds of all UK rail journeys begin and end in London, and Londoners account for 50 per cent. of all UK rail journeys. That demonstrates that it is essential for London to have an effective voice in how not only our rail services but all our transport services are integrated. London will need more money to invest in public transport networks.
I heard my hon. Friend the Member for Battersea support the East London line, which he rightly called the orbital route. I support it too, but coming from southeast London, I must ask what happens to my constituents who are outside its orbit. How do we ensure that our train services link into it? Is it possible to make it turn east, so that it really is an East London line, linking with communities in south-east London who do not have direct access to the London underground? They, too, will then benefit directly from the new rail service.
Crossrail is another essential development, particularly for south-east London. It is crucial that there is a station at Woolwich, and that Woolwich becomes a major transport hub, linking with other modes of transport and allowing the wider community in south-east London to use the road network. We must develop a bus network on those roads to link with the other new transport developments.
We seem to be approaching the end of the difficulties with Thameslink 2000—perhaps we should stop using that name, because it sounds like the number of years that it is taking to get off the ground; a new name may be needed. That extension to the rail service is needed in my part of London. We need to plan and ensure that we integrate our network. One example of such planning is the development of the Jubilee line, which has made its way to North Greenwich station in the north of my borough. One bus service goes direct to that tube station from the south of Greenwich, through my constituency, but in the rush hour it takes 45 minutes to get there, and is not an option for commuters.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) said earlier, we need express bus routes to take people from outlying areas, link them rapidly with the new transport developments and give them an alternative method of getting to and from work each day. We need to develop such strategies if we are to address the growth in demand that we all know will happen in London's transport system and reduce car use, which is increasing. We cannot afford the Mayor of London's voice not to be heard in those debates, including on the development of transport and train services.
I should like to dwell for a moment on train services. The 12-car strategy for the network in south-east London seems to be disappearing completely from the agenda. If we are to develop a transport network to meet the growing demands, particularly in north Kent and the Thames gateway, we need to increase the capacity of the existing rail network. We cannot continue with a train system that has an inadequate electricity supply and cannot grow as required to meet future demand. In the absence of any other form of public transport, failure to increase that capacity means that our road network, which is already overloaded, will become even

401WH
more congested. We must ensure that London's needs—particularly those of south-east London, where there is no direct access to the London underground—are heard in that debate.
Finally, there is the discussion of London's transport network in relation to the Olympic bid. A lot has been said about our transport network creaking at the seams, the infrastructure needing repair and improvement and the fact that we desperately need to develop new schemes to meet future demand. In a sense, that is a private debate among ourselves. For those outside looking in, it may seem that our transport infrastructure could not support a scheme such as the Olympics. However, the truth is that we have an effective transport network. but we are so concerned about it because of the heavy demand on the rail network, and the value that we accord it. A debate about the need to improve and develop that network should not be mistaken for a debate about a system that is incapable of supporting London's needs in the future, or the needs of a major event such as the Olympics.
3.9 pm
Ms Diane Abbott: I am glad to have the opportunity to speak in this important debate on London's transport needs. Colleagues have gone through the range of transport issues, and I want to focus on a few key infrastructure projects and the importance of transport for regeneration.
We cannot talk about transport in London without congratulating the Mayor, Ken Livingstone, on his visionary leadership in transport issues, particularly the introduction of the successful congestion charge and the massive improvements in buses. However, I want to focus on transport and regeneration.
We have heard a lot about transport for commuters and for people wanting to go through London to somewhere else, but we cannot overstress the importance of transport links for regeneration in inner London. There is sometimes a tendency to talk about London as if it were very wealthy, with lots of jobs, but in inner London—in my borough, Hackney, in Islington and in Deptford—one in two children live in poverty.
There is no more certain lever of economic regeneration than improved transport. First, it provides a Mecca for new business and retail projects. Secondly, it makes it easier for people to travel to work and enlarges their travel-to-work areas. Thirdly, investment in transport, in new stations and in developments above stations can transform the whole look of an area.
I am so keen on these infrastructure projects because of the benefits of transport improvements for people in some of the poorest areas of London. We have heard about Crossrail; what we want to hear from the Minister about Crossrail 1 is whether it will go ahead. Even if it were given the go-ahead tomorrow, its completion would still be too late for the 2012 Olympics. Nevertheless, it is still a vital project for London.
Business, the communities and the Mayor want to see Crossrail happen, and if the Minister gave the definite go-ahead in this debate, he would have the gratitude of Londoners from one end of the London underground to
402WH
the other. Everyone inside the M25 would be singing his praises, and casting flowers on the road as he went about his daily business.
We do not hear enough about Crossrail 2, the Chelsea-Hackney line, but that is another vital infrastructure project, which would help redevelop the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) to the south, and which would help the people of Hackney and inner London.
As for the East London line, let me remind the Minister that it was the subject of a manifesto pledge. The Government have already committed more than £100 million to it; it would link Highbury and Islington in the north, passing through Dalston, Canonbury, Haggerston, Hoxton and Shoreditch down to West Croydon. No single project would do more for the east end than the East London line would. Other Members are quick to talk about crime, deprivation and social exclusion, but such infrastructure projects could probably do more than any single one-off scheme or project to counter social exclusion and poverty in the east end and other poor areas of London.
The London elections and the elections for the Mayor and the London assembly are not too far away. I remind colleagues, and the Minister, that within the next 12 months there will almost certainly be a general election. When we are on doorsteps during that campaign, people in London will want to know what their Labour Government have done for them. I want to be able to say on the doorsteps of Hackney that, yes, we did deliver the East London line, that, yes, there is a definite go-ahead for Crossrail 1 and that, yes, Crossrail 2 is definitely going to happen. That would make sense for Londoners, for the poorest areas of London and for business. Above all, it would make sense for the Government to make the money available for those long anticipated and desperately needed infrastructure projects. On behalf of the people of Hackney, I ask the Minister to let us have a real green light for Crossrail 1, Crossrail 2 and the East London line.
3.14 pm
Siobhain McDonagh: I shall spend my one minute singing the concerns of south-west London, which, as people know, is the greatest bit of London. We recently had a visit from the Mayor. who called my office and suggested that he would like to arrive by public transport, but in that respect, in my constituency we feel that Paris is closer than north London.
From looking at the transport planner, we discovered that he would have to take three different buses plus the train to get there; it would have taken him in excess of two hours. When he finally got to Pollards Hill, he would find an area that has lots of great transport systems, but no access to any of them. The area is on the longest bit of the Brighton to Victoria rail line without a station, in spite of the fact that Eastfields station has been promised since 1936.
The Mayor would find a fantastic Croydon to Wimbledon tram line, which people in Pollards Hill cannot access unless they happen to be long-distance runners and can cross Mitcham common, because they do not have a bus to get there. He would also find that the 463 bus—a fantastic bus service provided by Quality

403WH
Line—does not yet reach Pollards Hill, although that has been promised for years. We need to be able to access the systems that already exist. That would be quite simple; it just needs a little attention.
3.15 pm
Tom Brake: I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing the debate. I wholeheartedly agree with much that has been said today, but one aspect of the debate has surprised me—the difference that the Mayor's Labour party card has made to the plaudits given to him. Admittedly, several hon. Members in the Chamber have regularly congratulated him, but others have not been so forthcoming.
Ms Abbott: I hope that the hon. Gentleman acknowledges that I have consistently supported Ken Livingstone.
Tom Brake: I was looking directly at the hon. Lady when I commented on the fact that some Members have been consistent in their plaudits.
Another aspect of the debate that surprises me is the fact that, a couple of weeks away from elections, the Conservative mayoral candidate, Steve Norris, has not been mentioned. I would have thought it appropriate to mention him during the debate and to highlight some of the problems that his candidacy presents.[Interruption.] At least now many hon. Members are commenting, if only from a sedentary position, on the lack of suitability of such a candidate in the forthcoming mayoral elections.
London's transport needs are great, and are growing. If the Mayor's projections that an extra 800,000 people will arrive in London by 2016 are accurate, the demand will greatly increase. Clearly, transport funding needs are not being met. That was always going to be the case, given that when the legislation was passed, there were no means, with the exception of the congestion charge, by which the Mayor could raise funds for transport in London. The mayor, whether aspiring Labour, independent, or—as it now appears—independent
Labour, was always going to have to go cap in hand to the Government to seek funds for transport in London. As several Members have pointed out, the framework within which funding is obtained, particularly for rail, is not fit for purpose.
It is regrettable that, seven years on, we are only now discussing the fact that rail is not included in the Mayor's portfolio, when four or five years ago there was an opportunity to ensure that it was. That was a missed opportunity. Four or five years ago there was a need for the Mayor to be given much greater powers over rail in London to ensure better integration. However, we are where we are. How do we get a transport system that Londoners can be proud of, and that tourists, businessmen, and perhaps visitors o the Olympics, will believe is appropriate for their needs?
Several Members have commented, entirely correctly, on very large schemes such as the Fast London line and Crossrail. It is, however, important to concentrate on the much smaller schemes too. At least one hon. Member focused, rightly, on the need to improve walking and cycling facilities. The Government are
404WH
rightly focusing on improving people's health and trying to encourage people to take 10,000 steps a day, which by my reckoning means the average person walking about 5 km a day. Walking and cycling are key to improving people's health. Anyone who walks and cycles is taking some of the pressure off public transport in London. The focus on walking and cycling should therefore be greater, and some relatively low-cost schemes could be introduced to improve them.
The big schemes for the tube need to be tackled. The tube should be run much later to make it much more appropriate for London's needs, particularly at weekends. We also need simplified ways of measuring performance on the tube. I see from the glossy magazine sent me by Metronet that mystery shoppers have been examining the worst square metre of carriages and noting every piece of rubbish larger than 5 cm in width. That is one way to measure the cleanliness of trains, but I am not convinced that it is the best; nor it is necessarily the cheapest way, given the overheads involved in such schemes.
I agree entirely with the hon. Members who spoke of the need for a rail authority—a body that can integrate rail services with other transport providers. Several Members commented on bus improvements. Improvements have certainly been made, although I doubt whether it is prudent to build in improvements only to run out of money and find that a huge new injection of Government cash is needed.
No one has yet mentioned something that could make a significant difference to those who use buses, especially the socially excluded, to whom some have referred, but others as well. I am thinking of Countdown. If people are to use the buses, they need to know reliably when they are due to arrive. At the moment that does not happen. Until that issue is addressed, we cannot expect commuters, particularly those who now use their cars, to use buses, and those who now use the buses will still not receive a proper service. That has to be a priority.
I, too, welcome the fact that no one has proposed major road schemes as a solution. We can improve the road network by much tougher enforcement of bus lanes. So that we are not perceived as anti-car, there needs to be some sort of pan-London co-ordination on parking enforcement. People need to know that they are being dealt with firmly but fairly. They should understand that the system is fair, and has consistency across London.
Finally, the River Thames, which is only a few yards away from us, is severely underused. That is regrettable. I hope that the development of the Thames gateway will result in the provision of additional river services, and that we can use that main artery to great effect, which would reduce congestion on the roads.
We need to make progress on many relatively low-cost schemes, to improve the roads for walkers and cyclists, to improve bus lane enforcement and so on. However, we need also to make progress on the much larger schemes. Many hon. Members have made a case for Crossrail and the East London line extension. It is time that the Montague report was published; we need to see its it recommendations and get some of the projects under way, and we need to see progress before the International Olympic Committee returns. If we have not made progress, I suspect that the committee need not even bother to get off the plane.
3.23 pm
Mr. Mark Field: London's transport needs—and, accordingly, the outcome of the Government's forthcoming spending review—crucially affect the residential population. As one or two hon. Members have pointed out, they affect also commuters, tourists and businesses. As has already been said, the lifeblood of our nation lies in London. It is the economic powerhouse not only of the nation but, to a large extent, of Europe. The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) rightly pointed out that a loss to London is a loss to the UK. Jobs lost in London will not necessarily go to Birmingham or Manchester—or even, dare I say it, to Glasgow or Edinburgh—but may leave our shores entirely.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) on securing this important and overdue debate. He is critical of my party's record, but I take that on the chin—although I could argue that his party has been in Government for the past seven years. However, as he rightly says, the East London line is the key. I will be interested, as he will, to hear the Minister's copper-bottomed commitment and guarantee to fund the line.
London's transport is—perhaps wrongly—widely regarded as being in something of a mess. I take on board the comments of the hon. Member for Eltham (Clive Efford); he is absolutely right to say that the transport system undertakes an enormous task daily. We have all had, and know constituents who have had, negative experiences of commuting to and from and moving around London, but to a large extent London's transport is a great success. It does its job, albeit with certain glitches. We cannot deny what was said in the International Olympic Committee's report on the Olympic bid. That report raised the profile of the issue, and will continue to do so in the months ahead.
I have repeatedly said that our Olympic bid will be in great difficulty unless there is a commitment to Crossrail and the East London line. There is little doubt that we will have great difficulty putting forward a coherent case in July next year unless that case is turbo-charged by a Government commitment to the funding needed for the transport system.
I appreciate the concerns about the reliability of the tube felt by the constituents of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson). He mentioned that he has eight stations in his constituency at the moment; I am sure that he is hoping for nine or 10 when the Croxley link is in place. He rightly identified the need for better leadership on transport. That lies at the core of this debate. Where do we want our transport system to be, not just in the next few years, or in the run-up to the next mayoral or other elections, but in 20 or 30 years' time?
We need a strategic vision. To that extent, I have some—very limited—sympathy with Ken Livingstone. I agree with the hon. Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott) that he has been visionary. I do not agree with much of what he has done, but at least he has driven the agenda forward on the congestion charge and the buses—and I am a more regular bus user than I was in the past. There have been great successes with buses, and I am the first to admit it.
406WH
However, what is the cost? There is a colossal cost, which will affect all London council tax payers in years ahead unless we get investment from the Government, and unless some economic sense is put in place.
Clive Efford: On the economics of London's transport network, the Conservative party's candidate for Mayor— [HON. MEMBERS: "Jarvis."] Yes, Mr. Jarvis; he said that he would scrap the congestion charge on day one. At the moment, the estimate is that the congestion charge will increase our income per annum by about £60 million. What would the hon. Gentleman cut to finance the abolition of the congestion charge?
Mr. Field: Obviously, I have to bow to the hon. Gentleman's knowledge, bearing in mind his taxi-driving interests. Perhaps scrapping the congestion charge would be good for those with such interests.
It is fair to say that, economically, the congestion charge has been something of a disaster. The hon. Gentleman points out that it will apparently raise £60 million a year, but he will remember, as I do, that 18 months or two years ago, when it was evident that the congestion charge would be introduced, people were talking about its raising £200 million a year, which was to be securitised into an enormous number of transport projects. That has not happened; in fact, the congestion charge may well be one of the few taxes that lose money. That cannot be a sensible way forward. I entirely support my candidate, Mr. Norris, in his plan to scrap the congestion charge.
However, although the congestion charge has not proved its worth economically, not least because many businesses in central London have suffered, at least the idea showed a sense of leadership and the vision to take the issue forward.
Tom Brake: The hon. Gentleman has not answered the question: how do the Conservatives propose to fund the shortfall of £60 million a year?
Mr. Field: The hon. Gentleman will appreciate that such issues are, rightly, in the hands of the Mayor and the Greater London assembly. However, there is no question of a £60 million shortfall. There will be no shortfall this year, and it is questionable whether there will be a shortfall in future.
Time is pressing, and I should like to mention a few specifics. Inevitably, we have not had much discussion about aircraft noise, apart from the contribution of my hon. Friend the Member for Ruislip-Northwood. I have not said, and will not say. much about pedestrianisation, although I entirely agree with what the hon. Member for Carshalton and Wallington (Tom Brake) had to say about it. We need to look at such matters in an integrated way. I should like more aesthetic design, for example, to make pedestrianisation more attractive, particularly in central London.
Where is the Government strategy? There was a 10-year plan in 1999, which is now defunct. We encountered a refusal to commit to Crossrail. Inevitably there has been a plan, which will no doubt come to fruition now, to delay any announcement until after 10 June, when the mayoral and GLA elections will have come and gone. I am concerned that the

407WH
Secretary of State for Transport is a man who, as a Scottish Member of Parliament, represents nothing and no one on transport matters in the House—yet he is making decisions that will affect all Londoners, as well as tourists and businesses.
We now face the prospect of prolonged strikes, courtesy of the RMT, affecting the tube and the rail network in London during the hot summer months ahead. We are long overdue for an agreement that will, it is to be hoped, lead to a no-strike deal, if we are to get the requisite level of investment.
Where has Mr. Livingstone, Labour's hand-picked candidate, taken us on transport matters? In the first three years of his mayoralty he spent millions of pounds of Londoners' money suing the Government in a futile attempt to block the public-private partnership on the tube. Indeed, things have got markedly worse on the underground system in the past seven years. They will get worse still in the next five years, I suspect, even with the investment promised under the PPP scheme, and I believe that there is a financial night mare ahead for the buses. The optimism that has been shown about the congestion charge is also unlikely to come to fruition.
Several hon. Members made interesting contributions; one was the hon. Member for Islington, North (Jeremy Corbyn). Having been a Finsbury Park resident and one of his constituents, I suspect I am solving one of the longest-standing mysteries troubling him. He wanted to know who the one Tory voter in Tollington ward was during the early 1990s. It was me. However, I endorse what he said about Finsbury Park station. It could and should be an important hub, just as, as the hon. Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) would say, Clapham Junction could be an important hub outside the central area. It is such an unattractive place at the moment that it needs fundamental redesign.
Jeremy Corbyn: That is the nicest thing that has ever been said about it.
Mr. Field: That is also the nicest thing that I have said to the hon. Gentleman.
The hon. Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love) rightly identified the failure to deal with the expanding need for new transport. We must have more vision on this matter. The Conservative party, too, failed, when in government, to achieve a visionary outlook. However, it is important, just as it is to get the transport issue right in the context of London governance. If London's economy fails, the UK will fail. I cannot overstress the importance of that. Yet although the Mayor has been given power over Transport for London, he does not control the financial aspects that he needs to control if he is to be able to drive forward an agenda.
I have some sympathy with the Mayor of London, however financially illiterate I believe him to be, because he cannot influence the development of tramways and other projects, on which some detailed feasibility studies have been done. I have great sympathy, too, for the Transport for London staff in Windsor house, who are working on many of the relevant schemes. They know that those schemes will never leave the drawing board, because of the Treasury's financial control-freakery.
We need to break the logjam. The true congestion in London's transport lies in the failure to see through imaginative projects, because of the Treasury's
408WH
reluctance to invest in our capital. I hope that the Minister will have something sensible to say about that, because otherwise all Londoners, all tourists and all London's businesses will continue to be let down by the Government.
3.34 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. Tony McNulty): As I have said in the previous couple of one-and-a-half-hour debates that I have replied to in Westminster Hall, the substantive, informative and intelligent Back-Bench contributions have been marred only by substandard contributions from the two Opposition Front-Bench spokesmen. If they were really detailing the substance of what each party would provide for London, God help us if they ever got near power at mayoral level or in a general election.
Tom Brake: That is so offensive.
Mr. McNulty: I shall come back later to the Liberal Democrats' press release, which is so misleading and does London such a disfavour that it is unworthy of the most fifth or sixth-rate mayoral candidate.
I am grateful that many of my colleagues started their contributions by saying that London's transport system had much to commend it. Of course improvements are needed—I shall come to those in a moment—but it is worth repeating that every day, Transport for London and the rail network move phenomenal numbers of people in and out of the capital, and around it. All concerned are to be commended—TFL, those involved on the railways and on the buses and the local boroughs whose input helps everything to flow smoothly.
Last year there were 947 million passenger journeys on the underground. Every day there are more than 1.5 million trips by rail, 3 million by tube and 5.5 million on the buses. Increasingly, unsung, more than 100,000 people travel in and out of Docklands on the Docklands light railway. Are there problems? Yes, of course there are. Do the Government have the vision and leadership to deal with them, working with TFL and the Mayor, before and after 10 June? We do. Am I going to stand here and give the green light to all sorts of major projects? No. This close to the spending review, of course I am not. However, it is important to understand that the leadership, the plans and the vision for London's transport system are in place, and the doom and gloom merchants, the collective Victor Meldrews, do their constituents and their parties no favours if they suggest otherwise.
We hear from the Opposition that we need better leadership for London's transport. What leadership at all was there for meeting London's transport needs prior to 1997? If that was leadership, again I say God help us. We are told that we have no vision. The Mayor, through TFL, has issued a business plan update, and I commend that document to anyone who wants an example of vision for London's transport system. Read it in conjunction with the London plan and see the options that London has to meet its transport needs.
The vision is clearly there. I have no problem with that, nor did I in the past. At the last party conference I was told off for saying that, at least in terms of transport,

409WH
we have had a new Labour Mayor for the past four years. I said it then, I have said it before, and I will keep on saying it. Heaven help London if any of those other clowns is elected on 10 June. The cheerful fact is that they will not be.
Let me try, in the limited time that I have, to address some of the specific points made by my hon. Friends on the Back Benches before dealing with—if I have time—the minor and rather substandard comments from those on the Opposition Front Benches.
My hon. Friend the Member for Battersea (Martin Linton) outlined good reasons for the East London line extension. In reality, procurement strategy and everything else has to be considered by the Department. We are assessing it. We are not like the previous Government, who willy-nilly said yes or no to things, and then they collapsed three months later—Crossrail or anything else.
The case has been made, and well made. TFL now has an alternative procurement strategy and we need to consider that seriously in the same context. The East London line extension is an important project, for all the reasons that have been suggested. This is grown-up government. It is not to do with standing up and spending £11 billion, as Opposition Members have said that they would do. Like all the projects that have been mentioned, it is a serious matter.
In passing, I shall have to take issue with my hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Joan Ruddock)—I am sorry that she is no longer here—and her notion that over the horizon of the spending review, not a lot of money would be spent on the East London line extension. We could say yes, and hope and pray that by the next review the money was still there, but that is a silly way to go about public procurement or public accounting.
I am going to disappoint my hon. Friend the Member for Edmonton (Mr. Love), who put words in my mouth. Talking about TFL's suggestion of a seat at the table, if not more, for London's rail services, he said, "The Minister will say that commuter lines do not start in London. so they should not have one." I am not going to say that. I am going to say, very seriously, that TFL's refined suggestion—it made two or three—is in the mix with the rail review. It is a serious proposition, suggesting a range of savings via fare structures, Oyster cards and wider procurement models, and we would be foolish not to take it seriously, as part of the comprehensive rail review.
My hon. Friend also said that TFL needed support from the Department for Transport. I hope that TFL would say that, in the past year if not previously, its relationship with the Government, through the Mayor and his officers, has been robust and productive. We shall continue in that way when, in a few weeks, we come to a decision on the rail review and on any number of other projects. I understand, and would not demur from, any of the comments that my hon. Friends made about their importance to their respective areas.
I have never lived in Islington, but I worked there for 14 years and I know Finsbury Park very well. Sadly, I know the Holloway road even better, and I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Islington, North
410WH
(Jeremy Corbyn) about that. I shall take up the detail with him later. However, I must say emphatically that the Government do not approve cycle lanes. The notion that the Department for Transport was somehow associated with the one on Blackfriars bridge is erroneous. However, my hon. Friend is right about the fact that cycle lanes are not about putting paint on roads, but about safe cycling. I have already dealt with the East London line.
I was interested to hear the hon. Member for Ruislip-Northwood (Mr. Wilkinson) stand up for some six minutes and offer to spend at least £11 billion. I agree with him in principle, because it is a constituency interest of mine. The Croxley link is important. It was reviewed thoroughly last year as part of the local transport plan because, although it benefits London, it sits outside London. We said reasonably to TFL, which was a partner, along with Hertfordshire county council and those with an interest in Watford, that if it were to proceed, TFL should stump up some money. Clearly the rail network would benefit. However, the money is not yet forthcoming; discussions and assessments are going on. With my constituency hat on, I think that that should happen.
My time is running out, but I shall try to address some of the other points that have been made, especially about access for the disabled. Wherever the tube has got to, the story is far better on trains, on buses, on taxis and on the Docklands light railway. We need to tell the whole story, across the transport system, rather than focusing on the negative. Let me put some canards to bed—if that is not too mixed a metaphor. I agree with the Mayor that in broad planning terms, the central area is now well served by buses. However, the points about inter-suburban links and express buses were well made, and he is exploring those issues.
The notion still put about by mischievous and irresponsible parties that Crossrail was ever part of the Olympic bid is nonsense, and it always was. The very people who put the Crossrail bid together, Cross London Rail Links, which is a combination of the Strategic Rail Authority and Transport for London, say clearly in their business case that, even on the most optimistic of estimates, it will be 2013 or 2014 before it becomes operative.
I have seen silly little press releases from the Liberal Democrats, in which someone called Simon Hughes—or perhaps I should say the hon. Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey—claims that the delay in Crossrail could prevent London from winning the Olympics. How dare he talk down our Olympic bid in those terms? His argument is fundamentally wrong. He should go and read the business case. I sat through the proceedings on the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and I do not profess to have committed each of the 1,500 amendments made to it to memory, but I am sure that there were none on rail services in London, or on what should and should not be part of the GLA structure in that respect.
Tom Brake: Go and look.
Mr. McNulty: I shall look, because I know that to be the case.
I have one last point, with which I hope hon. Members will agree—funnily enough, it is non-partisan. Is it really beyond the wit of our only substantive serious

411WH
paper in London, the Evening Stanaard, to get behind our Olympic bid, as the Manchester Evening News and other media in Manchester did for the Commonwealth games? Can it not engage with the debate? The International Olympic Committee has, of course, sent a shot across our bows—we have been well aware of that, as is reflected in the bid and the plans for the future. We will win that bid, and Londoners' transport needs will be served.

Medicines
3.45 pm
Paul Flynn: The discovery of medicines and the work of scientists in pharmacy over the past 150 years have been and continue to be a triumph. My purpose today is not to attack the work of those scientists, but to concentrate on how it has been used, subverted and perverted by the pharmaceutical industry in pursuit of greed.
Often, the only purpose of the pharmaceutical giants seems to be maximising their profits. They do so in an age when we in the western world have conquered most of the major diseases that assailed us in the past. The pharmaceutical industry pursues its goals by disease-mongering—trying to invent new diseases and exaggerating existing ones. Its activities have a huge impact on human health, public consciousness, medical practice and the ballooning burden of health service finances.
Those in the industry engage in such practices by inventing new illnesses, and billions of pounds have been spent on attempts to convince healthy people that they are sick. Such new illnesses include social phobia, attention deficit and hyperactivity syndrome and compulsive shopping disorder—it is hard to believe that the latter is not a joke, but it appears to be genuine. Social phobia is a new invention by the drug firm Roche. In order to promote and create a market for its anti-depressant, the company decided that people who occasionally feel shy or intimidated by society actually suffer from a psychiatric disorder.
Firms do such things by exaggeration and claiming that diseases that affect a small minority actually affect many millions. We know that depression or chronic obesity are life-threatening, but when a definition of obesity includes Russell Crowe, Brad Pitt and George Clooney, one may presume that it is almost certainly drawn so widely in the self-interests of the company that hopes to extend that view. GlaxoSmithKline tells me that it believes that 25 million people in Britain should be on anti-depressants. That is a vast exaggeration to promote the use of substances that are of little utility and can lead to dependence.
The companies define inevitable features of normal lives—sadness, grief, ageing and even baldness—as illnesses. The British Medical Journal had a competition to put together a list of 20 non-diseases in descending order of non-diseaseness, and came up with: ageing, work, boredom, bags under the eyes, ignorance, baldness, freckles, big ears, grey or white hair, ugliness, childbirth, allergy to the 21st century, jet lag, unhappiness, cellulite, hangovers, anxiety about penis size or penis envy, pregnancy, road rage and loneliness. The drug companies have attempted to reclassify each of those things as illnesses that require medical intervention. Baldness is an interesting one. When the firm Merck produced a new hair growth drug, it planted stories in newspapers suggesting that bald people suffered from emotional trauma and that hair loss led to panic and emotional difficulties. There are similar stories in dozens of other cases.
Such tactics are not deeply serious, in that they only involve emptying the pockets of gullible people. However, there is a terrible side to such practices,

413WH
because the drive for profits has led to something that I, with my scientific background, find deeply shocking. I have always respected the integrity of trials, and particularly double-blind trials. All scientific evidence is based on them. We now know that there is severe criticism of the veracity of the trials that are carried out.
One such case involved an antiarrhythmic drug called Lorcarnaid. Ninety-five people with heart problems were involved in a trial in Nottingham in 1980, and the tests went on for many months. During the test, one of the people on the placebo died, but nine of the people taking Lorcarnaid died. The report was not published through the whole of the 1980s, but it was eventually published 13 years later. In the intervening period, the drug directly caused the death of between 20,000 and 70,000 Americans per year. More American males died from the use of Lorcarnaid than died in Vietnam.
We now know from the recent evidence—from an article in The Lancet and another in the British Medical Journal—that the trials of the drug Seroxat on children were misreported, that the data collected did not match the published conclusions and that the advantages of the drug were exaggerated and the disadvantages downplayed. The result of that trial was fixed. There were two other trials whose results were not published for 12 years. That is a shocking indictment of a drug. According to the Department of Health, that group of anti-depressants—selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors or SSRIs—are at present prescribed to 100,000 children in Britain. They have never been recommended or approved for children, but that is the situation today—a slightly happier situation than that in America, where 10 million children are prescribed those drugs.
We have been conditioned to believe that there is a pill for every ill. Let us again take the example of what has happened with anti-depressants in this country. In 1994, there were 2.6 million prescriptions; in 2003, there were 14 million. If those drugs worked and were successful, we would have seen a corresponding reduction in the incidence of self-harm or suicide. We have seen no such thing.
A typical example of how such drugs are marketed—it applies to dozens of examples, although we will take just one, in which the marketing strategy was leaked—again involves GlaxoSmithKline. The publicity firm involved was In Vivo Communications. The firms decided to raise the awareness, in their words, of the condition known as irritable bowel syndrome. It is rarely a disabling condition, so they gave it a makeover and it was remarketed as a serious mass scourge. For many people, it is a mild functional disorder, but a three-year medical education campaign was launched as the strategy for the drug Lotronex. The aim was to establish irritable bowel syndrome in the minds of doctors as a significant and discrete disease state and to convince patients that IBS is a common and recognised medical disorder. That was not the case before that campaign. In such cases, the idea of the disease is established and built up, so that fear-mongering about the latest illness is accompanied by news of the latest wonder drug.
Articles were planted in the medical journals; the health correspondents were recruited to write about Lotronex. Medical opinion had to be shaped so that
414WH
there would be a reception for the drug, and groups were formed to maximise its sale. There were plans to establish patient groups. In the event, the drug was withdrawn after serious and fatal adverse side effects. The food and drug administration in the United States said that using the drug to treat patients in whom the condition was not serious—95 per cent. of them—could do more harm than good. That is one example of the irresponsible way in which those companies behave.
Part of that irresponsible behaviour was the creation of patient groups. As our stricter regulations make it difficult for companies to advertise new medicines, some of which are useless or damaging, a favourite way of getting their message across is to infiltrate existing patient groups or to set up new groups. Again, that is in their literature. We all know how many patient groups we are in contact with in our daily lives. There are hundreds in this country, many of which do splendid work, but we must look at patient groups that are formed alongside campaigns for new drugs. We want more openness with patient groups.
The splendid Mind organisation has played a valuable role in exposing the dangers of anti-depressants. Its chief executive made a principled resignation from the Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency because he thought that reports on the dangers of anti-depressants were being suppressed. Mind takes not one single penny in funding from drug companies.
The Depression Alliance, however, which admits to taking 80 per cent. of its funding from drug companies, has not uttered a word of criticism about antidepressants. I have had much correspondence with the Depression Alliance. I have met its representative and accused it of acting as a stooge to pharmaceutical companies. That accusation could be made about many patients associations. They are put in a position in which they have to ask whether they should attack the people who fund them and put the jobs of a quarter of their staff at risk—in the case of the Depression Alliance, it would be three quarters of the staff—or continue to say nothing.
There is a serious danger that we politicians listen to patient groups in our all-party groups whether they support patients or have a secret agenda as Trojan horses acting in the interests of drug companies. There are few cases of shameless promotion of drugs and drug companies, but in every case in which organisations receive substantial donations from drug companies, their mouths are bandaged when they should be criticising. I ask the Minister to support genuinely independent sources of information.
One of the Government's greatest triumphs is their establishment of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, but it comes under attack when it releases reports, as with yesterday's preliminary report. NICE has an objective view, and it is a small voice against the might of the pharmaceutical companies.
We need a campaign of demedicalisation. We have deregulation, but more is necessary with the onslaught of companies finding new diseases and inventing new treatments. There is also the problem of "Me, too" drugs. When the patent on a drug is running out, companies tend to rework part of the drug, rename it and establish it so that they can get a new patent. That

415WH
process is cynical, expensive and counter-productive. I want to see greater transparency with drug company donations to tackle the problem of Trojan horses.
We live in an incredible world. In the United States, 10 million children are on anti-depressants, and the third greatest cause of death after cancer and heart disease is medical intervention. The Americans are the greatest buyers of medical health—they spend almost three times what we in the UK spend on some areas of health—yet their life expectancy is lower than in the UK and most European countries.
We in the western world waste billions on drugs and medicines for trivial and non-existent complaints or complaints of doubtful value, while people in the underdeveloped world are dying from lack of simple medicine, sanitation, immunisation and clean water. Meanwhile, the scandal of the over-prescription of neuroleptic drugs to those in homes for the elderly and to women in prison continues. We are pushing people into a dependency culture. The disease-mongers gnaw away at our self-confidence by playing down the strategies of self-coping.
There is a good side, however, with a growing realisation of the harm that is being done by over-medicalisation. "Breaking the Bonds", the splendid book by Dorothy Rowe, is probably the best book on escaping from depression by the techniques of self-awareness, meditation and exercise. A new book entitled "Healing without Freud or Prozac" by Dr. David Servan Schreiber is causing a great stir. Like Dorothy Rowe's book, it supports using exercise, throwing endorphins around our bodies and serotonin around our brains, and using other non-drug remedies.
The splendid new book by Charles Medawer, "Medicines out of Control", which was published a month ago, gives a clear view of what has happened over the past few years. Instead of dishing out anti-depressants and reaching for the prescription pad—a great temptation to clear a waiting room—a GP in Cardiff prescribed self-help, self-coping books to those who suffer from such problems. Such policies will certainly not do anyone any harm. They are non-addictive and non-dangerous.
The medically celebrated writer on such matters, Ivan lllich, said:

"The medical establishment has become a major threat to health."

He said that people are conditioned to get things, not to do things. They want to be taught, moved, treated or guided rather than to learn to heal or to find their own way. The more money we spend on coping with death and pain, the further away we drift from reality. The choice is for us to continue to become more passive and dependent on ourselves or to stand on our own feet and cope in an active way with our problems.
I have the chance now only to go rapidly over an enormous subject, but it is clear that many lives have been destroyed in order to fuel the profits of the pharmaceutical companies. Many people's lives have been thrown into confusion and dependency because of their reliance on addictive drugs that have little value. I wish to finish with a quotation from The Lancet. A month ago, it concentrated on the fiddling of the research results for Seroxat, and said:

"People around the world understand the desire to achieve success and to work in a profitable environment. They will not, however, tolerate the notion that in biomedical research this could be at the expense of their children's lives."

4.3 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Newport, West (Paul Flynn) on his success in securing this debate, which is on an extremely important issue. As ever, his contribution was thoughtful and thought provoking. I am well aware that he has raised several worries, but I hope that he agrees that this debate provides an opportunity to consider the major contribution that medicines have made to health care delivery and how they have eased the burden of chronic disease on a vast number of people.
Many diseases have been eradicated by vaccination programmes, and fatalities from some diseases have been reduced. Polio disappeared from the United Kingdom, and the meningitis C vaccine, which this Government introduced, dramatically cut the rate of that terrible disease. Spending on statins is now about £230 million a year more than three years ago—an investment that has already achieved a 23 per cent. fall over five years in death rates from heart disease and strokes in people aged under 75. Vast advances and many benefits have come from medicines, but our challenge is to ensure that all developments serve the best interests of patients. If we are to achieve a society that is fully engaged in health, every aspect of health care design and delivery must focus on patients' best interests—on people, not clinicians, managers or the pharmaceutical industry.
My hon. Friend mentioned several concerns about that industry, which plays an extremely important role. We all want the development of new and potentially lifesaving treatments, and we want them to be available for patients as soon as that is safely possible. For any medicines to be licensed, however, the pharmaceutical industry must demonstrate that it can provide evidence of the safety, quality and effectiveness of any medicine. That includes evidence from clinical trials. We need fully to evaluate the risks and benefits of a medicine in the circumstances in which it will be used. The Medicines and Healthcare products Regulatory Agency monitors the safety and use of all the medicines that are on the UK market.
My hon. Friend referred to patients groups. It is true that many patients organisations not only in the mental health sector but across the board are given support by the pharmaceutical industry. I hope that he also accepts that charity law ensures that, as with all charitable donations, support can be accepted only on a no-strings-attached basis. He also referred to the medicalisation of normal everyday problems, such as grief, and their classification as diseases that seem to require drug treatment. I share his concern that we must not encourage the belief that there is a pill for every ill.
At the same time, we must recognise the burden that depressive illness places on people. It is felt at all levels of society and affects young and old, and rich and poor. We must ensure that we achieve a balance between recognising and supporting those who need some form of intervention and medicalising the emotions that we all feel from time to time.
Even when we get that balance right, we need to decide what sort of therapy will have the right outcome for the patient. whether it is talking therapy or drug therapy. I believe that all health interventions should be

417WH
made against that background. That is one of the reasons why we tried to increase the number of bereavement services that are available. My hon. Friend was right to highlight that issue and to say that people may have been steered too readily towards drug therapy when alternatives might have been examined.
I join my hon. Friend in praising the National Institute for Clinical Excellence. It is in the sort of sector that we are discussing that NICE can come into its own. It is producing guidance on the effective management of depression and anxiety to tackle head-on the question of prescription and over-prescription in that area. It has delivered guidelines and appraisals to help clinicians and managers deliver more effective mental health services, including talking therapies. It is now examining further work, including how we deal with anxiety and related common mental disorders, the management of disturbed behaviour in acute settings and the management of self-harm.
We need to use that process to ensure that we get right the balance of treatment that is available, so that we provide talking therapies where that is most appropriate and avoid the pitfalls of over-prescribing that are associated with benzodiazepines—an issue on which I have met with representatives of various groups. At the same time, we need to recognise the testimony of those who tell of the benefits that appropriate drug therapy affords. Lives have been turned around by modern antidepressants, which are much less dangerous in terms of overdosing than older anti-depressants and have a better safety profile.
My hon. Friend also referred to the safety of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors—SSRIs. As he knows, an expert working group of the Committee on Safety of Medicines is undertaking a comprehensive scientific assessment of the available data on the safety of SSRIs, particularly in relation to withdrawal reactions and suicide behaviour.
Paul Flynn: That study was interrupted for reasons that the Minister may know. One of the people who gave evidence was Dr. David Healy, who claimed that there was a six times increased likelihood of suicide for people on SSRIs in comparison with a group in the same condition who were on placebos. Another trial involved
418WH
groups of children, and one group was healthy, while the other had problems. One of the healthy children, who was on Seroxat, committed suicide. Does the Minister not accept that the research on Seroxat has been fiddled? It has been corrupted; that is what The Lancet and the British Medical Journal say. Is that not a reason why the Government should act or at least give some acknowledgement that the CSM and the MHRA, which are full of people with long experience as employees with contracts for the pharmaceutical companies, could come to some objective conclusions that are rather different from what she is saying now?
Ms Winterton: I hope that my hon. Friend will allow the expert group, which is taking evidence from a wide range of sources, to come to its conclusions. Those conclusions will be placed in the Library, and there will be an opportunity for us to debate them.
On my hon. Friend's point about clinical trials in paediatrics for SSRIs, I hope that he understands that I cannot comment on the specific case that he raised, because it is the subject of an investigation. However, he knows that the MHRA has published summaries of the relevant clinical trials and that the European law governing both the industry and clinical trials has been strengthened.
I turn now to our overall approach to medicines. We are putting increasing emphasis on medication reviews, which is helping in the appropriate management of drug therapies. That has been recognised in the general medical services contract for GPs. We are also funding a taskforce, which has published a medication review guide for patients providing information about what medication reviews are and what patients can expect. We want people to understand their medicines, to be able to manage them and to have access to the maximum amount of information about them.
It has not been possible to address every issue that my hon. Friend raised, but I hope that he recognises in the light of a range of actions—the regulation of medicines, the work of the expert group, the work being taken forward by NICE, the delivery of the medicines management collaborative and the development of clinical practice through the national service frameworks—that the Government will not shrink from taking the necessary action to protect and promote public health, and to put the patient at the centre of health care delivery and design.

NHS Wales (Working Time Directive)
4.15 pm
Mr. Simon Thomas: What an esoteric title this is for a Westminster Hall debate. I assure hon. Members that the working time directive will have an impact on the national health service in Wales. It is timely and appropriate that we explore that issue in an advance of the introduction of the directive in August this year. To date, Members of Parliament have had little time to consider in detail the impact of the directive, which has been negotiate I directly between the United Kingdom Government and the European Union, and its effect on the health service in Wales, which, on the whole, is a devolved issue.
I welcome the hon. Member for West Carmarthen and South Pembrokeshire (Mr. Ainger) to his place. It is unusual to hear the Whip's voice and as I am not a member of his party, I will be able to bear it, although I cannot speak for members of his party.
Let us be clear about the directive Employees should work only a 48-hour week averaged nit over a reference period. They should rest for 11 consecutive hours per day, have a rest break when the day is longer than six hours, have a minimum of one rest day per week and a statutory right to four weeks' holiday. Night working must not average out at more than eight hours at a stretch. That is all very commendable, although the Government chose an opt-out from the directive for many years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confirm that the Government are not seeking further opt-outs and that the directive will be introduced as planned.
It is clear what the directive's effect on the NHS will be. By August 2004, junior doctors will be able to work only 58 hours per week; by 2007, that will be 56 hours per week; and the full directive hours of 48 per week will be implemented by August 2009. Many NHS trusts in Wales are concerned that there are simply not enough doctors to cover the new arrangements. The NHS could do one of two things: hire hundreds of new doctors, which is hardly feasible given the time it takes to train them, or radically rethink the v ay in which some services are provided. I would like to examine some aspects of that issue today.
In England, the Department of Health has set up a strategic change fund to examine how we can change the service. It supports pilot projects on new ways of working. It is not clear whether anything similar will happen in Wales, so I hope that the hon. Gentleman will comment on how Wales can respond to the change.
Patients will be concerned about something much more fundamental—the impact on waiting times and on primary, secondary and tertiary care. A few days ago in The Western Mail, Mike Ponton, director of the Welsh NHS Confederation, said:

"These developments"—

recent developments in the NHS—

"and others such as the impending European Working Time directive which will affect junior doctors' hours, mean that there is no option but to think radically about the way we provide services."

420WH
A scoping exercise on the European working time directive undertaken by the North West Wales NHS trust found the following. The adoption of a full shift system, which would be necessary under the directive, will significantly reduce the daytime availability of junior doctors. The areas that need to be addressed to achieve compliance are mainly those of human resources, reconfiguration of services, training and education. The reconfiguration of services may not be
restricted to secondary care—that is, the district general hospital—but could involve primary care and tertiary or specialist care as well, and even NHS Direct and the ambulance service. Finally, the factors that will impinge on working towards compliance with the directive will be the GP contract, which has been newly negotiated in Wales, and the consultant contract. The report concluded that the main issue with the directive is the provision of out-of-hours cover, as that is what impacts on waiting time targets and GP contracts.
We know that waiting times in Wales are worse than in England. We know that the first Assembly Government's dream to have no one waiting more than six months for out-patient treatment and no one waiting more than 18 months for in-patient treatment has never been realized; it is a promise that has never been fulfilled. Currently, 68,000 patients are awaiting out-patient treatment. The number waiting for in-patient treatment has recently fallen to 1,401, although that is of no comfort to those who are waiting or to those who are attending hospitals in England. I think of my constituent, Mr. David Duff, who contacted me recently. His appointment at Gobowen orthopaedic hospital is not for another 18 months. It seems that the English hospitals contracting with the NHS in Wales are taking the Welsh time of 18 months not as the longest time, but as the earliest possible time, because that is how they can fulfil their contract.
The situation in Wales and in the NHS was recently examined in considerable detail by the Audit Commission, which had some rather shocking things to say. It said that the health service in Wales is currently "unsustainable" and that health spending is "inefficient and ineffective", despite the funding increases. It says that the NHS in Wales applies

"the wrong resources in the wrong place for the wrong reasons."

There could be no more obvious condemnation of what has been happening. It says that too many patients are treated in the wrong setting and—I hammer home the lessons of the working directive—that Wales has fallen behind England in reconfiguring services.
Lembit Öpik: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
Mr. Thomas: As the hon. Gentleman is about to get married, why not?
Lembit Öpik: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his congratulations. Does he support or oppose the suggestion of an opt-out from the working time directive for certain sectors?
Mr. Thomas: I do not support any opt-out from the working time directive, which I support completely. I am saying that the NHS in Wales needs to reconfigure

421WH
its services to meet the obligations of the directive, but it is not doing that. It is rather late in the day to achieve those aims, which is a pity.
The Audit Commission report comes to the same conclusion. On the failure to implement change or reconfigure services—the hon. Gentleman might be interested in this conclusion—it states:

"The consequence may also be severe damage to community, social, and political confidence in Wales' ability to use devolution effectively to meet the challenges of change."

As a supporter of devolution, he will be as shocked as I am about that conclusion.
We know that north-east and north-west England have similar patterns of apparent comparative poor health, but they have consistently delivered more and better health care at a lower cost than in Wales. The differences between England and Wales in terms of admissions to hospitals are not caused wholly by the myth that Wales is somehow a sicker society, but by the fact that many more patients in Wales are treated in acute centres—for instance, in hospital rather than by the GP—when they could be treated elsewhere, which would be a more effective use of money.
The only reconfiguration that has taken place in Wales is the establishment last year of 54 unnecessary health quangos. As the Audit Commission said, that has resulted in

"duplication of services and complex managerial problems."

Only this week, the Secretary of State for Health announced the abolition of half the English health quangos, which has freed up £500,000. I would be delighted if the hon. Gentleman responding to the debate were to announce the same for Wales today or even say that the National Assembly will shortly be making such an announcement.
Finally, the working time directive will affect the new contract for GPs in Wales. A survey by Pulse magazine reported in January this year that 92 per cent. of GPs felt that the new contract would lead to a rise in referrals to accident and emergency departments. That is precisely what the Audit Commission report and the earlier Wanless report warned against for Wales. More pressure will be applied to A and E because, under the new system of working, as many as eight out of 10 GPs will be able to opt out of out-of-hours care. That is a huge worry. It was announced today that the first independent private GP in Wales has been appointed. I hope that the name of Joanna Longstaff will not go down, like that of Aneurin Bevan, as the signal marker of a real change in how the NHS is working in Wales.
From my perspective, general practitioners in Ceredigion have already announced that they are to close 24 branch surgeries as a result of the new out-of-hours contracts. That means that many patients who usually go to their branch surgery to meet the GP will be isolated if they have no car or cannot visit. Whether or not they are elderly, they will let their condition worsen, and they will certainly end up referring themselves to accident and emergency departments rather than going to their GP. The implications are huge.
422WH
The 24 branch surgeries that will close include the Llanilar health centre at Ponterwyd, Pontrhydfendigaid and Pontrhydygroes—I love these names; it is great that Hansard finds a way of coping with them, and they are all in the best part of my constituency—Aberaeron surgery at Llangeitho, Llanon and Tregaron; Newcastle Emlyn surgery at Cardigan, Cilgerran, Aberporth and Velindre; and Tregaron surgery at Llanddewi Brefi and Pontrhydfendigaid Llangrannog, which is some 11 miles away from the nearest surgery, is also losing its branch surgery. I could go on, but as I said, there are 24 of them, and I shall not mention them all. One result will be more referrals to accident and emergency departments.
It is clear that the working time directive will improve the lot of many NHS staff. It is about time that that happened, and we support it. However, it is not clear whether it will improve NHS treatment. That lies in the hands of the National Assembly for Wales and the Treasury. I must say that the Treasury has done its bit. In the past three or four years, its spending on the NHS in Wales has increased by 30 per cent., and we should welcome that. However, will the hon. Gentleman who is answering on behalf of the Government say how the Government propose to grasp the nettle of reconfiguration and address the waste and inefficiency that the complex and many-layered system of the NHS in Wales has introduced? Will he also say how we can be assured of proper primary and secondary care when the working time directive is introduced in Wales in August?
4.26 pm
Hywel Williams: I thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for the opportunity to speak very briefly on this important subject. I also congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this brief debate.
Plaid Cymru Members fully support the implementation of the working time directive, and have done so for a considerable period. Other parties that I could mention were not quite as committed to it as we were. My hon. Friend outlined several NHS-related issues that concern us. The arguments relating to junior doctors' hours, for example, have been well rehearsed, and he also referred to them to some extent.
The out-of-hours duty for GPs is a particular concern in my area and in other rural parts of Wales, as my hon. Friend said. The current pattern worries patients who have found services to be scarce and have had to travel considerable distances, as well as medical staff. The medical staff with whom I spoke in preparation for the debate were, rightly or wrongly, unclear about future arrangements and the effect of the working time directive on GPs' out-of-hours systems. My former GP, Dr. John Webb of Criccieth, put it succinctly when he asked how GPs would be affected by the working time directive if they were contracted in to provide out-of-hours services and were otherwise self-employed. They are both self-employed and employed, so do they count as employees only for the period during which they are contracted in for out of-hours service? What about the times when they are self-employed? Do not these hours also count?

423WH
The aim of the working time directive is to improve the quality of services, as well as the conditions for people at work. What if a GP works as a self-employed GP one day, is due to work the following day and is then up all night? Will the working time directive do anything to improve the standard of service that is provided then? I should also say that Dr. Webb's practice ensures that partners who have been up and out all night have a day off. That is the best practice that can be followed.
Will the working time directive be practicable? My hon. Friend referred to the possible shortage of doctors when the hours are limited. Will it be practicable for small medical centres in rural areas that cannot recruit sufficient numbers of new doctors to give people time off when they have been up and out all Light? Furthermore, the employment status of some GPs will change when the new contracts are introduced. Presumably, there will be an effect on the number of hours hat they may work. Again, will there be sufficient staff?
I want to note the effects on GPs themselves. I am a former approved social worker who is well used to being up overnight performing one or two sections, having gone to work the previous day or being about to work on the following day. I know something of the pressure on people who do that sort of work, such as medical staff. I think that medical staff should be protected from that sort of pressure, but we need reassurance that the quality of service to the public will not decline.
4.30 pm
Mr. Nick Ainger: I congratulate to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas) on securing this important debate on the impact of the working time directive on the NHS in Wales, although at times his contribution appeared to stray away from the directive itself.
The Government are committed to delivering a world-class health service for patients while maintaining a safe working environment for all health professionals across the NHS. We share that commitment with our colleagues in the Welsh Assembly Government.
We have been investing heavily in the men and women of the NHS in Wales. As the hon. Gentleman recognised, in recent years there has been a huge increase in the number of NHS staff, although that on its own is not the answer to the working time directive issue. There are now almost 19 per cent. more NHS staff in Wales, 30 per cent. more whole-time equivalent hospital consultants and almost 16 per cent. more qualified nurses than in 1997, and there are 6 per cent. more GPs than a decade ago. In the past, there used to be cuts in the numbers of doctors and nurses being trained, but the number of medical students in Wales increased from 950 in 1998 to 1,320 in 2003. This coming academic year, that figure is projected to rise to 1,385.
By 2010, the Assembly Government plan to have 700 more consultants and GPs, 6,000 more nurses and 2,000 more other health professionals. However, we are well aware of the challenge facing the NHS as a result of the extension of the working time directive to include training grade doctors from 1 August this year.
The working time directive became law in the UK in 1998, and it fixed working hours to 48 hours in every
424WH
seven days, but that was not applied to doctors in training. From 1 August 2004, doctors in training will be included under the working time directive and will be expected to work no more than 58 hours in every seven days, averaged over 26 weeks. From August 2007, that will change to 56 hours in every seven days, and from August 2009, it will become 48 hours in every seven days. In both cases, that will be averaged over 26 weeks.
The issue has been compounded by the SIMAP and Jaeger rulings at the European Court, which mean that all time spent on duty in the hospital will count as work. That will include time spent resting, or even asleep, while on call. In addition, any doctors who continue their residential duty period beyond 13 hours, breaking into a rest period, will be owed compensatory rest. The Jaeger ruling suggests that that compensatory rest must be taken immediately after the end of that duty period. In effect, that would prevent doctors from continuing to learn or from delivering a service the day after a night on duty.
Those judgments were not initially part of the directive, and they are making full compliance more rigorous than had originally been envisaged. Due to the potential impact on the continuity of care and junior doctor education, the Government are urgently discussing the impact of the SIMAP and Jaeger cases with their European partners.
Mr. Thomas: The hon. Gentleman has introduced an important point. It is not just about the increasing numbers, which he rightly outlined, or the response of the National Assembly Government, but about the legal framework and what will have to come into the NHS in Wales. Does he think that the answer to the working time directive is to increase the training and the numbers—an approach that I think will fail—or that some of the structural problems of the NHS in Wales should be addressed?
Mr. Ainger: I do not think that this is a matter of structural problems; it is a matter of how the health professionals work and the mix of skills that are used. The hon. Gentleman referred to the experiments and pilots that have been carried out in England. Such things are being considered, including multidisciplinary teams in which some nurses taking on duties that have traditionally been carried out by doctors. I shall deal with that point later.
The potential modification to the original directive is most keenly felt in small sub-specialties or smaller district general hospitals, such as Bronglais, in the hon. Gentleman's constituency. Bronglais highlights the issues faced by the Welsh NHS in meeting the directive while continuing to offer a high standard of care to patients and maintaining training opportunities for junior doctors.
Meeting the directive is not optional. It is a legal requirement and a failure to comply carries the possibility of significant penalties. However, there are no knee-jerk changes that will jeopardise the standard of care that is offered to Welsh patients, and neither will the education of our future general practitioners and consultants be put at risk.
Lembit Öpik: The hon. Gentleman speaks about a blanket opt-out. Is he aware that the Chairman of the European and External Affairs Committee of the National Assembly for Wales said in response to a consultation:

"We have some concerns about the blanket use of opt-outs in the UK and suggest that sector-specific opt-out arrangements might be more appropriate"?

Is he aware of that proposal, and that there was cross-party support for it? That means that Plaid Cymru agreed with it and that it supports the blanket use of opt-outs in Westminster, but opposes them in Cardiff.
Mr. Ainger: The hon. Gentleman makes an interesting point, but the Government are not seeking an opt-out. They are discussing the impact of the SIMAP and Jaeger cases with their European partners.
The Welsh Assembly Government are encouraging the local health boards and trusts in Wales to prioritise junior doctor rotas that are outside the directive, because they mean too long a working week. Assembly officials have visited trusts and health boards and are offering assistance to them on meeting the directive. About two weeks ago, from 11 to 14 May, Assembly officials visited the trust responsible for Bronglais and met the local health board. They are working with the mid and west Wales regional office to explore sustainable long-term solutions, which may involve some additional staff and the possibility of employing consultants and of GPs working differently in future. I was making that point earlier.
Assembly officials are also working with local health boards throughout Wales to advise them, as commissioning bodies, about how best to invest the 1 per cent. uplift for inflation that is included in their discretionary allocation. The £30 million a year is directed at additional support to junior medical staff to meet the dual requirements of the new deal for doctors and the working time directive.
The hon. Member for Ceredigion mentioned the problems with branch surgeries. I should like to make a couple of points about that. He may be aware that the working time directive was discussed with the general practitioners committee in Wales at its monthly negotiating meeting with the Assembly Government. It is aware of the direct and, more importantly, the indirect impact on it and its staff, and it has been planning accordingly.
The hon. Gentleman believes that the working time directive has affected branch surgeries. In fact, it is far more likely that it is the general medical services contract, which is due to come in at the end of this year, that has had the impact. The contract introduces a new set of quality standards for premises to ensure that surgery premises are fit for their purpose, and that guidance is produced on issues including information technology, patient note availability, patient privacy, infection control and clinical waste disposal, which are all important.
Mr. Thomas: I agree with what the hon. Gentleman has just said, but my point was not that the working time directive directly affected the branch closures. In fact, it was the other way around: branch closures will put more pressure on hospital accident and emergency
426WH
departments, and particularly that of Bronglais general hospital. That will have an effect on junior doctors and others working in those hospitals.
Mr. Ainger: I understand the hon. Gentleman's point. The Welsh Assembly Government recognise the importance of branch surgery closures, particularly in rural areas. They understand that those branch surgeries form an important part of the fabric of primary care delivery in rural areas. There is a proper laid-out procedure to be followed before any branch surgery can close. There should be full consultation, and there is an appeals procedure. However, we are dealing with general practitioners; at the end of the day, they are independent contractors and cannot be directed to carry on providing particular services in particular areas.
Complying with the directive is crucial, but the directive is not the only development in the health service in Wales. It is being addressed alongside other changes in Wales, such as "Agenda for Change", the new consultant and GP contracts, NHS modernisation and the local Wales action plans. Together with the directive, those initiatives offer us an opportunity to deliver a different but better health service in Wales. The Assembly Government are dealing with those changes through NHS trusts and, on a wider basis, through their regional offices. Trusts are being encouraged to explore the possibility of sharing resources, and they are seeking sustainable long-term solutions to certain specialties on an all-Wales basis.
As I said, at the level of the Welsh trusts, we are exploring a phased implementation of more innovative systems of care, including systems that utilise available staff more effectively and efficiently. That includes many of the ideas that are being piloted in England under the hospital at night principle. In addition, the introduction of cross-cover between specialties is being looked into. The question of who needs to be on duty and whether they can be on duty from home is being examined critically as a possible means of solving the problems posed by the SIMAP and Jaeger judgments. We aim to comply with the directive through doing that, and through the addition of limited numbers of key professionals.
Concern about the issue is understandable, as it clearly needs to be addressed. There needs to be a greater integration of primary and secondary care in the out-of-hours period. That is planned by the health boards in various reports. They are trying to bring in GPs because of new developments in contracts. Obviously, radically different systems will be in place in hospitals in order to cut out the repetitive aspects of the care pathway. All tasks will be scrutinised and appropriately delegated to competently trained staff, who will operate in a multidisciplinary team. That means that many tasks originally performed by doctors will now be performed by other trained staff. The directive will require most junior doctors to adapt to shift systems. That will require some additional staff, and it will represent a cultural change for staff and patients alike, but it is necessary to meet a legal requirement.

427WH
The working time directive and recent case law represent difficult but not insurmountable challenges to the health service in Wales. We must apply simple, logical principles. We will add innovative systems of care and expand staffing where necessary. Whenever possible, we will maintain the current shape of the service. The Welsh Assembly Government are
428WH
addressing that important issue, and are working with local health boards, trusts, GPs and others to ensure excellence in health care while striving for compliance with the directive.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at sixteen minutes to Five o'clock.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Devolution
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Advocate General what devolution issues have been raised with her since 27 April. [174429]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave earlier today to the hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh).

SCOTLAND

  Energy Supplies
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the security of energy supplies in Scotland. [174435]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Government are committed to maintaining the security and reliability of energy supplies in the UK.

  Asylum Seekers
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) the Scottish Executive and (b) Glasgow city council with regard to support for asylum seekers. [174436]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Scotland Office officials and I have regular contact with the Home Office, the Scottish Executive and also Glasgow city council regarding the support of asylum seekers and refugees in Scotland.

  Ferry Subsidies
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last discussed with(a) representatives of the Scottish Executive and (b) ministerial colleagues subsidies to ferry services. [174437]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Regular discussions are undertaken on a wide range of issues with the Scottish Executive and ministerial colleagues.

  Postal Services
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Post Offices have closed in Scotland over the last three years. [174439]

  Mrs. McGuire
  I understand from Post Office Ltd. that closure numbers in Scotland, over the last three years for which data are available, are:
  1478W

  Number

  Year ending March 2001

  63

  Year ending March 2002

  26

  Year ending March 2003

  20

  Economic Performance
  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the performance of the Scottish economy. [174438]

  Mr. Darling
  The recent performance of the Scottish economy offers grounds for encouragement. The labour market continues to improve, with employment at its highest level since records began in 19921 and unemployment around its lowest level since the 1970s. Interest rates and inflation are historically low. The Scottish Executive's GDP index, recently revised to better reflect real changes in the economy, shows that growth in Scotland has closely matched that of the UK in recent years. Business surveys are pointing to a continued strengthening of business activity in Scotland in both services and manufacturing and independent forecasters predict that growth will continue to be above-trend in 2004 and 2005. But there is no room for complacency. The Government and Scottish Executive recognise that Scotland's growth has been lower over the long-term than the UK average. They have each taken steps to promote productivity and build a more enterprising, innovative and highly skilled economy.
  1Data prior to 1992 are not yet consistent with this series, though are scheduled to be available in revised form later this year.

  Electoral Systems
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he expects the independent commission on electoral systems in Scotland(a) to begin and (b) to report on its work. [174426]

  Mr. Darling
  I am pleased to announce that Professor Sir John Arbuthnott has agreed to be chairman of the Commission on Boundary Differences and Voting Systems. Sir John was Principal and Vice-Chancellor of the University of Strathclyde for nine years until 2000, and is currently chairman of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Membership of the Commission will be announced shortly.

  The Commission will start work as soon as possible, and will be expected to complete its work in around 18 months.

  Public Expenditure
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on levels of public spending per capita in Scotland. [174432]

  Mrs. McGuire
  The Treasury published "Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses (PESA) 2004" on 19 April, a copy of which is available in the Library of the House. Tables 8.2 and 8.4 detail total identifiable public expenditure per head for each country and region of the UK

  Regional Air Services
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the Scottish Executive to discuss the provision of public service obligations on regional air services. [174431]

  Mr. Darling
  I discuss a wide range of issues with Scottish Executive Ministers. Following on from the White Paper, discussions between the Scottish Executive and the Department for Transport are on-going and have contributed to a consultation paper on interpreting the criteria required for imposing PSOs. This will be published shortly.

  Transport
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding transport issues in Scotland. [174433]

  Mr. Darling
  I receive representations on a wide range of Scottish issues.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Draft Bills
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Leader of the House how many Bills have been introduced as draft Bills. [175293]

  Mr. Woolas
  In the current Session, six draft Bills have been published so far.

  Figures for draft Bills for previous Sessions since 1997 are as follows:

  Draft bills

  Sets of draft clauses

  1997–98

  3

  1998–99

  6

  1999–2000

  6

  2000–01

  2

  2001–02

  6

  2002–03

  9

  1

  Visitors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Leader of the House what proposals he is putting to the Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons to help schools outside of London and the South East of England with the costs of parliamentary visits. [175294]

  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend's view is that, while assistance with the cost of school visits is an option that the House of Commons Commission might wish to consider, the priority is to make a substantial improvement to the learning resources we provide via the parliamentary website. We have some 7,500 educational visitors a year—a figure which I hope we can increase significantly and a further 36,000 schoolchildren visit on constituency tours; but it will always be a minority of schoolchildren who are able to visit in person.
  1480W
  In contrast to the number of visitors to Parliament, during the 2002–03 financial year the Parliament website had 14.6 million hits. This shows that the number of people who might make use of the website is limitless.

  Participation (Debates)
  Julie Morgan
  To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to make proposals to enable more hon. Members to participate in debates. [175295]

  Mr. Woolas
  In its response to the Procedure Committee's report on Procedures for Debates, Private Members' Bills and the Powers of the Speaker (published last week in the Committee's Second Special Report of this Session, HC 610), the Government has indicated that it supports the Committee's recommendation that, on an experimental basis, there should be an opportunity for an hour, or half-hour, of shorter Back Bench speeches before the wind-up speeches on occasions when the Speaker thinks it appropriate. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will table a motion that allows the House to decide, when it debates the Committee's report, whether this experiment should go forward.

  Sitting Hours
  Sir Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Leader of the House what recent representations he has received on the working hours of the House of Commons. [175288]

  Mr. Hain
  In addition to the representations I described to the House on 27 April,Official Report, 27 April 2004, column 749, Members continue to raise this matter with me, from time to time—and, of course, I have read with interest the results of the Procedure Committee's Sitting Hours Questionnaire which is to be considered by the Modernisation Committee.

CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

  Supreme Court
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress the Secretary of State has made in identifying a site for the proposed Supreme Court. [175301]

  Mr. Leslie
  Good progress is being made in evaluating a shortlist of potential locations for a new Supreme Court, but at this stage, in order to protect the procurement interests of the taxpayer, it would be unwise to disclose publicly which sites are under consideration.

  Legal Services
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on proposals for reform of the legal professions. [175302]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government have commissioned an independent review of the regulatory framework for legal services, aimed at promoting transparency and
  1481W
  competition in the legal services sector. Sir David Clementi is due to present his report by the end of this year.

  Courthouse (Colchester)
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if the Lord Chancellor will attend the official start of building of the new courthouse in Colchester. [175303]

  Mr. Leslie
  A new magistrates' courthouse in Colchester is planned to open in 2008. Any decisions on who might attend the start of building works will be made nearer the time, which we expect to be mid 2006.

  Justices of the Peace
  Mr. Llwyd
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary Department of Constitutional Affairs how many justices of the peace there are in England and Wales; and what the corresponding figure was for 1990. [175305]

  Mr. Leslie
  Our records show that, at the beginning of this financial year, there were 28,705 Justices of the Peace in England and Wales. In 1990, there were 28,677 Justices of the Peace in post.

  Legal Aid
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary of State Department for Constitutional Affairs how much was spent on legal aid for immigration and nationality cases in(a) 1997–98 and (b) 2003–04. [175306]

  Mr. Lammy
  Immigration and nationality legal help cases cost £35 million in 1997–98 and £203 million in 2003–04. The figure for 2003–04 is still subject to end of year adjustment.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people have received legal aid in Greater London in the last seven years; and what the criteria are for eligibility for legal aid. [175307]

  Mr. Lammy
  It is estimated that the number of acts of assistance, in thousands, in the London region, over the last seven years, was as follows:

  Number

  1997–1998

  638

  1998–1999

  614

  1999–2000

  622

  2000–2001

  578

  2001–2002

  507

  2002–2003

  486

  2002–2004

  462

  Those figures are for acts of assistance and are indicative though not necessarily the same as the number of people receiving legal aid.

  Since April 2000 civil cases receive funding on the basis of meeting the financial means and legal merits criteria contained in the Legal Services Commission's Funding Code.
  1482W
  Representation is granted in criminal cases where the court considers it is in the interests of justice. Generally speaking that is where the offence is so serious that the accused could go to prison.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the availability of legal aid in domestic violence cases. [175310]

  Mr. Lammy
  Domestic violence proceedings are a priority area for legal aid funding. The Legal Services Commission's Funding Code criteria for funding domestic violence cases are wider than for most other family and non-family areas. At present those who need financial assistance are able to obtain legal aid to go to court.

  Freedom of Information Act
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Parliamentary under Secretary of State Department for Constitutional Affairs by what date all the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 will be in force; and if he will make a statement. [175308]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Act will be fully implemented by January 2005, 11 months before the deadline set out in the Act itself.

  House of Lords Reform
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Parliamentary under Secretary of State Department for Constitutional Affairs when he expects to bring forward further proposals to reform the second Chamber. [175309]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are determined to proceed with further reform of the House of Lords and intends to develop proposals for its party manifesto.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Bribery
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General pursuant to her answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 1W, which were the other two countries referred to in her answer of 2 February 2004, Official Report, column 613W, to the hon. Member for Ceredigion (Mr. Thomas). [174241]

  The Solicitor-General
  The originating countries of these requests were Bosnia and Norway.

  Criminal Cases Review (Angela Cannings Judgment)
  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General what arrangements for expedition have been made with the Criminal Cases Review Commission in respect of convictions reviewed following the Angela Cannings case and forwarded to it with a view to a reference to the court of appeal. [172611]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Attorney-General and the Chairman of the Criminal Cases Review Commission met at an early stage in the review of infant homicide convictions following the Angela Cannings appeal to
  1483W
  discuss the expedition of cases referred to the CCRC. The CCRC has agreed to expedite any cases referred to it as part of the review process.

  In those cases where the convicted person is notified that there may be features in the case which warrant further consideration by the Court of Appeal or CCRC a copy of the letter is sent to each of the above bodies so that arrangement can be made for an early consideration of the case. The letter also offers to speed the process of referral by bringing the case to the attention of the CCRC in appropriate cases by forwarding the case papers where the convicted offender is in agreement to that.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many defendants whose cases are yet to be reviewed following the Angela Cannings case are serving custodial sentences. [172612]

  The Solicitor-General
  As at 19 May 2004, 176 cases remain to be reviewed. Of those, 16 are shown to be cases where the offender is still serving a custodial sentence, according to Home Office lists. Those cases are being accorded the highest priority in the review process.

  Vera Baird
  To ask the Solicitor-General when she expects the review process following the Angela Cannings case to be completed. [172616]

  The Solicitor-General
  I refer the hon. and learned Member to the Attorney-General's statement on 5 May 2004.

  Illegal Arms Trade (Nuclear Weapons)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Solicitor-General what progress has been made towards the prosecution of individuals and companies for the offence of assisting or inducing weapons-related acts overseas, in particular for developing, producing or participating in the development or production of a nuclear weapon; and if she will make a statement. [174626]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Investigation and prosecution of offences involving assisting or inducing weapons-related acts overseas is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. However, Customs cannot comment on whether a matter is under current investigation; Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies.

  Customs have an important role in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They work closely with other Government Departments and agencies, in the UK and overseas, to ensure that effective action is taken against proliferators.

  Any prosecution for such offences require the consent of the Attorney-General.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Energy Efficiency
  Brain White
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions 1484W
  she has had with local authorities on improving energy efficiency measures pursuant to the Sustainable Energy Act 2003. [173048]

  Mr. Morley
  No discussions have taken place with local authorities pursuant to the Sustainable Energy Act 2003.

  "Energy Efficiency The Government's Plan for Action", published in April 2004, sets out the steps the Government intend to take at the local level. (http://www.official-documents.co.uk/document/cm61/6168/6168.pdf)

  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs for what reason the target for energy efficiency savings to 2010 from households has been lowered in the energy efficiency saving plan. [171778]

  Mr. Morley
  In "Energy Efficiency: The Government's Plan for Action" the Government set out their aim to deliver savings in households of 4.2 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010. The figure of 5 million tonnes of carbon in the Energy White Paper was an initial indication of what might be delivered. This projection has been revised as the Government have obtained more up-to-date information and completed more detailed analysis on the cost-effectiveness of energy efficiency policies and measures in this sector. The change in carbon savings in households reflects the fact that:growth in demand for insulation may be slower than originally envisaged;
  'comfort taking' (after the installation of measures) may be higher in 2010 than previously thought, and
  future savings from more efficient lighting are expected come more from lower wattage lamps in lower-use fittings.

  Latest revisions of projected carbon savings from other sectors more than offset this recalculation. The Action Plan sets out how the Government aim to cut carbon emissions by 12 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010 through energy efficiency over the next six years. This is 20 per cent. more than the 10 million tonnes of carbon per annum by 2010 we said we expected to achieve in the Energy White Paper a year ago.

  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Manchester have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency and Warm Front Schemes. [172888]

  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 10,540 households in Manchester received assistance from the scheme. For each constituency in Manchester, the approximate breakdown of households assisted was:

  Constituency

  Number

  Manchester, Blackley

  3,400

  Manchester, Central

  2,900

  Manchester, Gorton

  3,180

  Manchester, Withington

  1,060

  1485W
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in Blackpool, South have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency and Warm Front Schemes. [173069]

  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 5,900 households in Blackpool, South received assistance from the scheme.

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many homes in the constituency of Huntingdon have benefited from the Home Energy Efficiency Scheme. [172639]

  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 550 households in Huntingdon received assistance from the Scheme.

  Bovine TB
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what predictive modelling has been applied to the possible application of the Bovigam gamma interferon test to control bovine TB under different bovine TB scenarios in the UK, using Bovigam's known levels of specificity and sensitivity. [172564]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  Since 1997, DEFRA has commissioned two studies to evaluate the costs and benefits of using the Bovigam gamma interferon test to control bovine TB under different bovine TB scenarios in Great Britain. In carrying out the two economic assessments, predictive modelling was used to determine the likely outcomes under different bovine TB scenarios. The models used values for the specificity and sensitivity of the gamma interferon test published in the scientific literature from overseas field trials.

  Project SE3018 investigated whether it would be cost-effective to use the gamma interferon test in herds with multiple tuberculin reactor animals. As the gamma interferon test is considered more sensitive than the skin test, its use in infected herds could improve the detection of tuberculous cattle. This would hasten the elimination of infection from herds and reduce the spread of infection among herds. However, this benefit has to be weighed against the extra cost that would result from the unnecessary slaughter of more non-tuberculous cattle due to the lower specificity of the gamma interferon test.

  Project TD0604 investigated whether it would be cost-effective to use the gamma interferon test to resolve the tuberculosis status of herds in which only inconclusive reactor animals are detected at a routine herd test.

  Final reports on these projects were submitted to Defra in April 2002 and November 1998, respectively.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what protocol her Department is using to examine post mortem cattle that are slaughtered in the Bovigam gamma interferon trial; and whether the protocol is the same as those used in other countries. [172566]
  1486W
  Mr. Bradshaw
  All animals (including those slaughtered from herds included in the gamma interferon (g-IFN) field trial) undergo standard post-mortem inspection in the slaughterhouse or other suitable facility, by Meat Hygiene Service and/or State Veterinary Service officials, depending upon local arrangements.

  I am unaware of the particular post-mortem protocols applied in other countries, but assume standard meat inspections will be carried out on any g-IFN positive animals slaughtered as part of TB control programmes.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what response her Department made to the proposal of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB to undertake a field trial of the Bovigam gamma-interferon test. [172567]

  Mr. Bradshaw
  We sympathise with the desire of the Independent Scientific Group on Cattle TB (ISG) to maximise the science return of the gamma-interferon field pilot. However, implementing the ISG's proposals would present logistical difficulties, as well as raising complicated ethical and legal issues around identifying disease but not informing the herd owner, and taking samples from animals for experimental purposes rather than for the diagnosis of disease. It would also call for considerable additional resource.

  Cattle
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what cost there will be to farmers from the cattle passports scheme; and if she will make a statement. [173679]

  Alun Michael
  The direct cost of running the cattle tracing system in Great Britain will be in the region of £23 million in 2005–6.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of the British Cattle Movement Service and (b) delays in processing records from farmers. [173680]

  Alun Michael
  The British Cattle Movement Service (BCMS) operates against published service targets and reports against these both to the Bovine Industry Group (made up of farmers' representatives and others in the cattle business) and to the BCMS Management Board (made up of Government Stakeholders).

  In the first quarter of this year BCMS issued 100 per cent. of passports followingreceipt of a valid and complete application within five working days.

  Recently, the BCMS issued its first transaction statement to keepers that brought in over 68,000 returns allowing over 500,000 queries raised by the BCMS to be resolved.

  Climate Change Levy
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the renegotiation of agreed energy saving
  1487W
  targets contained in the climate change levy; and what assessment she has made of the effects on the future competitiveness of UK salt manufacturers. [172941]

  Mr. Morley
  The Climate Change Agreements are agreements with energy intensive industry through which participants pay a reduced rate of climate change levy in return for meeting challenging energy efficiency targets between 2002 and 2010. The agreements require that DEFRA review the sector targets in both 2004 and 2008 to ensure that all future milestone targets continue to represent the potential for cost effective energy savings, taking account of any changes in technical or market circumstances.

  Targets are to be renegotiated with DEFRA at sector level and each sector association is then responsible for proposing how that sector target variation will be applied to underlying agreements. Negotiations with sector associations are now under way. There has been no assessment of the effects on UK salt manufacturers. Sector associations are able to put forward any information regarding changes to market circumstances in the course of these negotiations, and to take into account issues of competitiveness in proposing the variations to be made to underlying targets.

  Coastal Erosion
  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had in the last six months with(a) the National Farmers Union, (b) the Country Land and Business Association and (c) the Tenant Farmers' Association on coastal erosion and coastal protection. [163750]

  Margaret Beckett
  None.

  Mr. Gummer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had in the last six months with(a) English Heritage, (b) the National Trust and (c) the Council for the Care of Churches on the threat to historic buildings from coastal erosion. [163751]

  Margaret Beckett
  None.

  Common Agricultural Policy
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the new schemes set up under Common Agricultural Policy reform will be simpler to administer; and if she will make a statement. [173692]

  Alun Michael
  Under the reform of the Common Agricultural Policy, which the Secretary of State announced on 6 June 2003, some 10 direct support schemes will cease and decoupled payment to farmers will be made under one integrated Single Payment Scheme. This is a significant simplification for farmers and administrators.At the same time, the Rural Payments Agency is implementing a modernisation of its working practices, including replacement of IT systems as part of a co-ordinated Change Programme. This will allow significant benefits to farmers and to the taxpayers as part of a simpler process for handling, validating and paying customers and in streamlining application procedures.

  Dredging (Essex)
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much sediment has been dredged as a result of licences issued for(a) foreshore dredging and (b) estuary dredging from the Essex coast and estuaries in each of the last 30 years. [175022]

  Mr. Jamieson
  This information is not available centrally.

  Emissions
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what representations she has received on behalf of the UK motor industry regarding the energy costs of Government policy on reducing carbon dioxide emissions. [173806]

  Mr. Morley
  Responses to the 2002 Energy White Paper consultation were received from a broad range of transport sector stakeholders, including vehicle manufacturers and trade associations covering most modes of transport.

  More recently, the UK motor industry have been constructively involved in consultation on the National Allocation Plan and in regular contact with the Department throughout the implementation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme.

  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate her Department has made of greenhouse gas emissions from aviation in(a) 2008, (b) 2012, (c) 2020, (d) 2030 and (e) 2050, assuming no fiscal or emissions policy changes; and what proportion of total UK greenhouse gas emissions it is estimated that these figures would represent. [173807]

  Mr. Morley
  The following table shows carbon dioxide from aviation for the years 2010 to 2050 as million tonnes carbon per year (MtC/yr) and as a percentage of UK emissions.

  Table 1

  MtC/yr

  Percentage

  2010

  11

  7.5

  2020

  15

  11.5

  2030

  17.5

  15

  2050

  17.5

  21.5

  The entries in the table are consistent with the White Paper, "The Future of Air Transport", published in December 2003. They are rounded to the nearest 0.5 MtC/yr and 0.5 per cent. The percentage is expressed relative to the sum of (i) UK emissions projected to meet a 60 per cent. reduction in UK carbon dioxide emissions as described in the Energy White Paper published in February 2003 (which includes domestic aviation emissions) and (ii) emissions from international aviation associated with departures from UK airports. Aviation emissions are projected to stop rising between 2030 and 2050 due to fuel efficiency improvements anticipated by the Advisory Council for Aeronautical Research in Europe (ACARE) and the Inter-governmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

  1489W
  The projections do not make assumptions about fiscal or emissions policy changes. Data are not available for the years 2008 and 2012.

  The total effect of aviation on greenhouse gas emissions is likely to be greater than values projected for CO2 only, mainly because the majority of emissions take place at altitude, which could increase the impact of aviation emissions by 2.5 times the impact of CO2 alone. This radiative forcing factor is subject to uncertainty and could be between two and four times. Taking this into account yields the following estimates for aviation as a proportion of total greenhouse gas emissions:

  Table 2

  MtCequiv/yr

  Percentage

  2010

  27

  14.5

  2020

  37.5

  21

  2030

  44.5

  26

  2050

  43.5

  32.5

  The figures in the second table are expressed in million tonnes of carbon equivalent per year and are rounded as before. The percentage is expressed in terms of total UK greenhouse gas emissions to 2050 assuming CO2 meets the Energy White Paper target plus aviation CO2 emissions from Table 2 multiplied by 2.5.

  Net Farm Income

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Cambridgeshire

  29,964

  17,207

  24,827

  25,758

  13,794

  EU East Region

  13,190

  9,604

  11,367

  11,997

  16,894

  England

  10,359

  7,981

  9,886

  13,558

  16,435

  Source:

  Farm Business Survey

  Net farm income is the return to the principal farmer and spouse for their manual and managerial labour and to the tenant-type capital of the business.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what research she has commissioned to examine alternatives to the use of plastic sheeting used to cover fields and crops in farm production. [174469]

  Alun Michael
  A DEFRA-funded research project is under way to examine the feasibility of using innovative types of physical barriers to assist in crop protection against insect pests. If successful this research will allow for a reduction in the use of plastic mulches and sheeting in vegetable crop production.

  £

  Region

  EAGGF 2000

  EAGGF 2001

  EAGGF 2002

  EAGGF 2003

  North East

  40,050,129.43

  37,370,886.64

  35,483,680.86

  64,980,655.45

  North West

  92,344,812.66

  87,942,065.88

  82,485,021.47

  64,408,879.73

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  141,359,755.7 0

  132,426,384.6 8

  121,302,982.7 4

  156,415,335.2 3

  East Midlands

  76,726,571.39

  73,270,305.99

  70,939,947.40

  201,269,620.0 3

  West Midlands

  144,171,286.3 5

  136,276,269.0 4

  126,245,295.9 3

  118,328,138.8 0

  East of England

  295,741,837.7 7

  322,832,075.2 6

  156,649,435.5 5

  247,015,083.5 7

  London

  3,576,189.62

  3,475,194.34

  2,045,673.95

  2,933,818.91

  South East

  117,465,773.7 4

  110,603,194.3 4

  98,589,082.77

  163,282,273.0 2

  South West

  466,686,008.3 2

  447,496,249.9 4

  127,052,633.5 1

  204,787,183.3 1

  Environmental Liability Directive
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the steps necessary to comply with the EU Environmental Liability Directive. [174765]

  Alun Michael
  The directive is required to be implemented by May 2007. It will be necessary to transpose its requirements into UK law, and appropriate administrative and enforcement measures put in place. As part of this process, the Department will consult with stakeholders to assist identification of the critical issues and to ensure that they have an opportunity to influence decisions that will affect them.

  Farming
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the farm income levels for farmers in Cambridgeshire in the last five years. [170854]

  Alun Michael
  Net farm income for farms in Cambridgeshire, the EU East Region and for England over the last five years are show in the table below.

  The fall in incomes for 2002/03 in Cambridgeshire is a reflection of the high proportion of output accounted for by the potato crop on farms in that county compared to the East region in general. In 2002/03 the price of potatoes was low.

  An exercise has also been recently commissioned to look at types of polythene crop covers and mulches used in horticultural production. This will examine the scope for re-use or replacement with sustainable alternatives such as paper, starch or cellulose, which offer easier routes for disposal.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how much was given in farm subsidies to each region of the United Kingdom in each of the last 10 years. [166677]

  Alun Michael
  The figures given below are based on the European Agriculture Guidance & Guarantee Fund (EAGGF) financial years, i.e. 16 October to 15 October. Earlier figures are not available.
  1491W
  North East

  The increased expenditure in EAGGF year 2003 was mainly due to the Cereals, Suckler Cow and Beef Special Premium schemes.

  North West

  The downturn of expenditure in EAGGF year 2003 relates to the Cereals and Set Aside food schemes.

  Yorkshire and The Humber

  The upturn in costs for EAGGF year 2003 was mainly in Cereals.

  East Midlands

  The sizeable increase in EAGGF year 2003 occurred in the Cereals, Oilseeds, Proteins, Set Aside Food and Slaughter Premium schemes.

  East of England

  For EAGGF year 2003 the increase is in the Cereals scheme.

  South East

  The increased expenditure in EAGGF year 2003 is in the Cereals, Oilseeds, Proteins and Set Aside Food schemes.

  South West

  In the EAGGF year 2002 the decrease in expenditure was mainly in Cereals, Oilseeds, Proteins, Set Aside Food, Suckler Cow and Beef Special Premium schemes.

  In the EAGGF year 2003 there are increases in Cereals, Set Aside Food,

  Suckler Cow, Beef Special Premium and Slaughter Premium schemes.

  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the rate of take-up of training of farmers at entry level under the modulation scheme. [173877]

  Alun Michael
  The pilot Entry Level Scheme is an agri-environment scheme that provides payment for good land management. The scheme is being piloted in four areas in England and has proved popular with farmers with a total of 271 agreements that started in August 2003. The Government has announced its intention to roll out the Entry Level Environmental Stewardship Scheme across England, as part of the England Rural Development Programme, using funding generated through modulation.

  There is a separate Vocational Training Scheme, which is also part of the England Rural Development Programme. Under current ED rules, it does not involve modulation funding. Under that scheme, DEFRA has funded over 12,500 farmers to undertake training courses, involving over 30,000 training days, up to 31 March 2004. For the whole of the period of the programme (to the end of 2006), DEFRA has so far committed funding to over 7,500 courses, covering 73,000 training days, for participants in the farming and forestry sectors.

  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what initial consideration the Government are giving to agricultural support and subsidies for farmers beyond 2012; and if she will make a statement. [174081]
  1492W
  Alun Michael
  The UK played a pivotal role in securing agreement to major reforms to the EU's Common Agricultural Policy over the past year, which will help farmers focus their production on market demand, reduce environmental damage and reduce the damaging impact of EU subsidies on developing countries.

  Over the longer term we want to see this progress towards a sustainable subsidy system completed in line with the objectives set out in our Sustainable Farming and Food Strategy. That means addressing remaining barriers to a market driven industry, such as those that still exist in the dairy sector, seeing a greater proportion of expenditure directed towards environmental and rural development measures, which provide real public benefits, and, at an international level, reducing further the damaging impact of trade-distorting agricultural subsidies, through the World Trade Organisation's Doha Development Agenda.

  We also want to see CAP expenditure contained within limits that are consistent with our objectives for controlled EU expenditure as a whole.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many farms in Cumbria will be classified as being in a severely disadvantaged area when the single farm payment is introduced. [169076]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to give a precise answer at the present time as entitlements to subsidy under the new single payment scheme will be allocated on the basis of claims made by farmers in 2005. However based on Integrated Administration and Control System scheme applications in 2003, the latest information currently available, 40 per cent. of holdings registered for IACS in Cumbria, 1,705 out of 4,235 farmers, have the majority of their land within the severely disadvantaged area.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what she estimates the difference in average payment in Cumbria would be if the lower rate of subsidy for land currently classed as a severely disadvantaged area (SDA) were applied only to those farms currently in the hill farm allowance scheme instead of the whole SDA. [169094]

  Alun Michael
  It is not possible to give definitive answers at the present time as entitlements under the new single payment scheme will be allocated on the basis of claims made by farmers in 2005. However from previous claim data, the majority of land claimed in the severely disadvantaged area in Cumbria, also receive hill farm allowance payment.

  David Maclean
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what proportion of livestock in Cumbria will be classed as being in a severely disadvantaged area from 2005. [169100]

  Alun Michael
  The proportion of livestock in a severely disadvantaged area in Cumbria in 2005 will depend upon decisions made by farmers in that year. For single payment scheme purposes, the Department will not seek to class animals as being in a particular area in 2005 as that is not relevant to the number or value of entitlements that farmers are allocated. It will be
  1493W
  necessary to determine the value of payments made to farmers under existing CAP livestock schemes in the 2000–02 reference period. But, the allocation of this 'historical' element to entitlements held by farmers in one region or another will not affect the total value of subsidy that those farmers receive.

  Fertilisers
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what plans she has to make the regulations for(a) the manufacture and (b) the supply of ammonium nitrate fertiliser more stringent; [172742]

  (2) what measures her Department and its predecessors have taken to control the manufacture, storage and use of ammonium nitrate fertiliser; [172745]

  (3) how many tonnes of ammonium nitrate fertiliser was manufactured in the United Kingdom in each year since 2000. [172747]

  Alun Michael
  The Government have taken a number of measures to control the manufacture, storage and use of Ammonium Nitrate fertiliser in the general climate of heightened security. We need to balance the risks of potential misuse associated with AN against its clear and proven benefits in supporting food output in this country.

  The Government have been working with the fertiliser industry to improve controls in the storage and supply chain of AN. We have endorsed industry guidelines which advise producers and sellers of AN fertiliser to:
  sell only to known, bone fide customers, in particular those who have a credit account;
  refrain from making cash sales;
  ask questions to potential buyers of AN fertiliser to establish their knowledge of agriculture;
  in the case of suspicious inquiries, to record and notify the police of the purchaser's name and address (verified by documentary proof such as details from a driving licence) and full details of the inquirer's vehicle, including the registration number.

  We are continuing our dialogue with industry and have asked them to produce a code of practice to encourage direct deliveries from manufacturers to farmers to shorten supply chains and ensure better traceability. We have also endorsed industry guidance, produced in collaboration with farmers unions and the police, on "Security of Fertiliser Storage on Farm".

  To supplement the voluntary measures, DEFRA has introduced regulations to control the supply of both home produced and imported AN. The regulations require AN fertiliser, with a high nitrogen content, including mixtures, to have satisfied a Detonation Resistance Test and all sellers have to maintain records of sales.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has issued a self-help checklist to all those known to be handling or storing significant quantities of AN. The checklist has been distributed widely. It is aimed at spreading good practice and offering HSE as a source of further advice. Additionally, HSE has lowered the notification threshold under the Notification of Installations
  1494W
  Handling Hazardous Substances Regulations 1982 from 500 to 150 tonnes and widened the range of products to be included in the notifications.

  The regulations governing the manufacture and supply of AN fertilisers are kept under continuous review and further measures will be taken if necessary.

  There are only two companies manufacturing AN fertiliser in the UK. It would not be appropriate to release production figures as it would enable each company to identify the manufacturing output of their competitor and would therefore breach commercial confidentiality.

  Landfill Tax
  Mr. Nicholas Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the revenue from landfill tax as a result of the diversion of catering waste from pig swill to landfill since the ban on swill feed was implemented. [172684]

  Mr. Morley
  No estimates have been made of the revenue from landfill tax resulting from the diversion of catering waste from pig swill to landfill.

  Water Quality Standards
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment the Environment Agency has made of the impact on water quality in Aylesbury of the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy. [172161]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency is working with Thames Water to ensure that water quality standards are maintained in Aylesbury in the light of development planned in the draft Milton Keynes and South Midlands sub-regional strategy.

  Orchards
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps her Department has taken(a) to protect orchards and (b) to ensure that fruit varieties do not become extinct. [173316]

  Alun Michael
  The conservation of traditional orchards is funded through the Countryside Stewardship Scheme and fruit varieties are protected in the National Fruit Collection.

  Parliamentary Answers
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make it her policy not to despatch one page parliamentary answers in large heavy-duty envelopes. [174766]

  Alun Michael
  I was not aware that officials were despatching one page parliamentary answers in large heavy duty envelopes. I have today asked officials to ensure that the hon. Members one page parliamentary answers are placed in an appropriately sized envelope.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to her answer of 19 April,Official Report, column 152W, on secondees from outside organisations working in her

  1495W
  Department, in which Answers to Parliamentary Questions (a) Joanna Enright of Ashursts and (b) Nader Bahri of Powergen were involved in the drafting process. [174087]

  Alun Michael
  The Department has been careful not to involve either Joanna Enright or Dr Nader Bahri in the preparation of PQ answers where there is the potential for a conflict of interest.

  Pesticides
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs on what date she expects to make her announcement of pesticide buffer zones. [174764]

  Alun Michael
  Officials have reported to Ministers and the evidence and the implications of any decision are currently being considered. Our priority is to ensure that the right decision is made and I will make a statement as soon as possible.

  PFI Projects
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what role her Department has played in ensuring that private finance initiative projects create the minimum of environmental damage; [173113]

  (2) what assessment her Department has made of (a) the (i) sustainability and (ii) environmental impacts of private finance initiative (PFI) projects and (b) the effectiveness of the PFI process in delivering environmentally sustainable projects; [173114]

  (3) what role her Department (a) has and (b) plans to take to make the private finance initiative process more accountable and transparent in terms of environmental sustainability; [173115]

  (4) what action her Department has taken to ensure other Government Departments deliver sustainability within private finance initiative projects. [173116]

  Mr. Morley
  In line with the Government's overarching commitment, Departments need to consider all aspects of sustainable development when entering into new PFI/PPP contracts. By taking a long term view, PFI/PPPs require an assessment of whole life costs and can promote a more efficient use of resources.

  In July 2002, the Department together with ODPM, OGC and DfT jointly issued a guidance note, Green Public Private Partnerships, on how to include environmental considerations within PFI and PPP projects. This added to guidance on PFI projects issued by the Treasury and supports commitments being developed under the Framework for Sustainable Development on the Government Estate.

  The biodiversity and energy sections of the Framework, published in August 2003 and February 2004 respectively, commit all Government Departments to include clauses relating to sustainable development issues in relevant contracts, including PPPs and PF1s. It is anticipated that future sections of the framework on waste, estates management and construction, and procurement will include similar provisions. The Framework will be reviewed in 2004–05 and further
  1496W
  consideration will be given to how best Departments can take account of sustainable development in future PPPs/PF1s contracts. The Department's officials are working closely with officials from OGC in order to ensure that the Framework is fully coordinated with OGC's Achieving Excellence construction procurement guidance, in particular with Achieving Excellence Guide 11: Sustainability, which is currently under development.

  Furthermore, from 1 April 2004 Departments must now explicitly identify any significant environmental and social costs and benefits, as well as economic costs and benefits when carrying out a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). This will cover RIAs carried out on new PFI/PPP projects.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will list the contracts awarded to W.S. Atkins by(a) her Department, (b) its agencies and (c) its non-departmental public bodies since June 2001, broken down by (i) value of the contract and (ii) nature of the work. [173117]

  Alun Michael
  Over the three financial years 2001/02; 2002/03 and 2003/04 core-Defra spent £6,679,742 with W.S. Atkins on facilities management, technical and professional services. Information on the nature of individual contracts cannot be provided as it is not held centrally. The Department is in the process of compiling a central list for the future but this will take some time to complete.

  Information on the value and nature of individual contracts awarded to W.S. Atkins by the Department's agencies and non-departmental public bodies is not held centrally and can only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Product Recalls
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what discussions she has had with EU Ministers on compulsory insurance for product recall costs; and if she will make a statement. [173678]

  Alun Michael
  The decision to recall a product is usually taken by individual companies in conjunction with advice from the Food Standards Agency (FSA). It is for the companies themselves to decide whether to insure against such an eventuality. I have not been involved in any discussions with EU Ministers on compulsory insurance for such product recall costs.

  In relation to animal feed, the Council of Agriculture Ministers has recently adopted an EC Regulation. One of the Articles of this Regulation requires that the European Commission shall prepare a report on the viability of feed business operators having financial guarantees, such as insurance. This would be to provide cover for the total costs for which such operators could

  1497W
  be held liable as a direct consequence of the withdrawal, treatment and/or destruction of feed from the market, or animals and food produced therefrom.

  The FSA led the negotiations, so as such, I did not correspond with EU Ministers directly. However, DEFRA was kept fully informed by the FSA of their progress and Defra contributed views to the FSA, including on the issues of financial guarantees.

  Rat Control
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs further to her answer of 5 May 2004, to the hon. Member for Romford (Mr. Rosindell),Official Report, column 1497W, on rats, whether a local authority using the enforcement and monitoring powers she refers to may (a) require a water authority to (i) carry out a programme of sewer baiting and (ii) improve the sewer infrastructure in its area and (b) require a railway authority to (A) maintain embankments to a reasonable standard and (B) clear dumped rubbish and litter on their land on a regular basis, in its area; and if she will make a statement. [173239]

  Mr.Morley
  In answer to the first part of the question, under the Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949, a local authority cannot require a sewerage undertaker to carry out a programme of sewer baiting or improve the sewer infrastructure in its area.

  The Prevention of Damage by Pests Act 1949 is used by local authorities to require Network Rail, the owner of operational railway land, to maintain lineside and rail property. Local authorities also have powers under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 Code of Practice on litter and fly tipping to serve litter abatement notices requiring litter or refuse to be cleared and/or prohibiting land from becoming defaced by litter or refuse. Network Rail clears litter in accordance with the timescales and zones given in the Code of Practice.

  In both cases, local authorities have powers to enforce the duties of the owner or occupier and can use default powers to take those steps specified in a notice and recover any expenses reasonably incurred in doing so.

  Recycling
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) domestic, (b) commercial and (c) industrial refuse was recycled in (i) Brent, (ii) London and (iii) England in the latest year for which figures are available. [172814]

  Mr. Morley
  The information is as follows.

  (a) The most recent year's figures for household
  1498W
  waste are found in the Municipal Waste Management Survey for 2002–03.

  Percentage

  London Borough of Brent

  6.6

  London

  10.8

  England

  14.5

  (b) and (c). The most recent year's figures for commercial waste and for industrial waste are found in the Strategic Waste Management Assessment 2000, published by the Environment Agency, relating to figures for 1998–99. The survey collected data from a sample of 20,000 businesses across England and Wales.

  Percentage

  Commercial waste

  London Borough of Brent

  Not collected

  West London (including Brent)

  25.5

  Greater London

  30.6

  England

  22.5

  Industrial waste

  London Borough of Brent

  Not collected

  West London (including Brent)

  29.5

  Greater London

  37.6

  England

  34

  Salt Manufacturers
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the proposed abolition of the product mix output algorithms in 2008; and what assessment she has made of the effects on the future competitiveness of UK salt manufacturers. [172942]

  Mr. Morley
  The Climate Change Agreements are agreements with energy intensive industry through which participants pay a reduced rate of climate change levy in return for meeting challenging energy efficiency targets between 2002 and 2010. The agreements provide for an adjustment to the targets up to 2006 to take account of changes in product mix and output which can increase the energy used per unit of output. The concession lasts only until 2006 because we enter into the Kyoto period in 2008, the date of the next target assessment. The Government must deliver on their commitment to make absolute reductions on CO2, emissions in the Kyoto period, and there must be increased certainty of the contribution to be made from each of the UK's Climate Change Programme policies. Parties to Climate Change Agreements should take the energy use implications of changes in products, and how this will affect their ability to meet their targets, into account when making commercial decisions. The UK Emissions Trading Scheme is available for companies to buy allowances to meet their targets if they wish to produce more energy intensive products. There has been no assessment of the effects on UK salt manufacturers.

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs if she will make a statement on the publication of the National Allocation Plan in respect of the European Union Emissions
  1499W
  Trading Scheme; and what assessment she has made of its effects on the future competitiveness of UK salt manufacturers. [172943]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK submitted its National Allocation Plan (NAP) to the European Commission on 30 April and published it for public consultation on 6 May 2004.

  There are two salt manufactures listed in the UK NAP and they are covered by the EU Emissions Trading Scheme as a result of the combustion facilities on site. Both are classified in the Food and Drink sector, and one is a member of the Chemicals Industry Association.

  The UK NAP acknowledges industry concerns about competitiveness and bases allocations on projected need for sectors open to international competition, including the Food and Drink and Chemicals sectors. Government have involved industry in every stage of the implementation process and have taken concerns over competitiveness on board.

  Scottish Power
  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of Scottish Power plc; who was present; and what was on the agenda for discussion. [171783]

  Mr. Morley
  The Secretary of State last met a representative of Scottish Power plc on Thursday 13 May 2004 at a meeting of the Sustainable Development Task Force, of which Scottish Power is a member.

  Scottish Power's representative at this meeting was Fred Dinning, who was attending in the place of Ian Russell, the Chief Executive. Other Task Force members present were from a range of UK Government Departments, the devolved Administration, and external stakeholder bodies. The full membership list is available on the Government's sustainable development website (www.sustainable-development.gov.uk).

  The agenda for discussion included an update on the sustainable development strategy consultation; education for sustainable development; an update on the outcomes of the Twelfth Session of the UN Commission on Sustainable Development; and papers on breaking down the barriers for renewable energy. Full details and papers will shortly be available on the website, as well as the note of the meeting in due course.

  Severely Disadvantaged Areas
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs pursuant to the answer of 28 April 2004, to the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key),Official Report, column 1025W, on severely disadvantaged areas, whether she has made representations to the European Commission to ensure that British farmers are not penalised if they are unable to meet the 17 May 2004 deadline. [174781]

  Alun Michael
  The Rural Payments Agency has not made representation to the European Commission in 1500W
  respect of the 17 May 2004 Integrated Administration and Control System deadline as the circumstances do not justify a derogation to the regulation on this occasion.

  Single Farm Payments
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment she has made of the future profitability of farms following the introduction of the single farm payments scheme. [173691]

  Alun Michael
  The Single Payment will decouple direct subsidies from the type or level of production. This will encourage farmers to respond to market signals rather than produce according to individual subsidy regimes. Decoupling payments from production is expected to lead to higher farm prices and consequently higher farm incomes. Defra economists estimate that overall, UK farm incomes will increase by around 5 per cent. of the forecast Total Income from Farming for 2003. This is an aggregate figure and the change in farm profitability will vary between different farm types and sizes. Further information can be found in the Economic Position of the Farming Industry report published on the Defra website at http://statistics.defra.gov.uk/esg/reports/repfi.pdf.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what plans she has to provide more assistance to(a) owner-occupiers and (b) tenants of small intensive livestock farms after the introduction of single farm payments. [169740]

  Alun Michael
  We have no plans to differentiate payments to reflect the numbers of livestock kept on individual farms. Basing payments on stocking densities would create an incentive to increase production. By freeing up payments from the volume of production, producers will in future be free to meet market needs.

  Supermarkets
  Mr. Cameron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to ensure that the Office of Fair Trading continues to monitor the economic relationships between food producers and supermarkets; and if she will make a statement. [174201]

  Alun Michael
  We maintain close contact with the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) on issues that have a bearing on the relationship between supermarkets and their suppliers, and in particular on the supermarkets' Code of Practice. As part of the Government's Strategy for Sustainable Farming and Food, the OFT has undertaken to continuously monitor the practices of the supermarkets to which the Code applies.

  UK Produce
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of honey produced in the UK was for the UK market in the last year for which figures are available. [173764]

  Alun Michael
  UK production and supply of honey in 2003 is given in the following table.
  1501W

  UK honey production and supply 2003

  Thousand tonnes

  Production

  7.5

  Imports1

  22.0

  Exports1

  1.1

  Total supply2

  28.4

  UK production for the UK market as percentage3

  85.9

  UK production as percentage of total supply

  26.3

  UK production and supplies of selected fruit 2003

  Thousand tonnes

  Apples

  Pears

  Strawberries

  Raspberries

  Production

  123.6

  29.6

  41.8

  8.0

  Imports

  473.4

  116.6

  35.9

  4.7

  Exports

  12.5

  3.0

  0.2

  0.0

  Total supply1

  584.5

  143.2

  77.5

  12.7

  UK production for the UK market as percentage2

  89.9

  89.9

  99.5

  99.8

  UK production as percentage of total supply

  21.1

  20.7

  53.9

  63.1

  1 Production plus imports less exports.

  2 Production less exports as a percentage of production.

  Underground Fuel Storage
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (1) what action has been taken to reduce the(a) number and (b) severity of pollution incidents from underground tanks at petrol stations; [173802]

  (2) what recent risk assessments have been undertaken of potential oil leakage from underground tanks at petrol stations; [173804]

  (3) what estimate she has made of the proportion of underground oil tanks at petrol stations which have (a) double-skinned tanks and (b) remote wetstock monitoring. [173805]

  Mr. Morley
  The "Groundwater Protection Code: Petrol Stations and Fuel Dispensing Underground Storage Tanks", was published by DEFRA in 2002. It sets out a framework of good practice to help petrol station operators to avoid groundwater pollution and comply with the Groundwater Regulations. The Environment Agency has also developed operating agreements with individual petroleum companies that aim to prioritise capital investment based on a common understanding of environmental risk. The Agency will be reviewing the effectiveness of operating agreements piloted with a number of petroleum licensing authorities, in order to improve notification of spills, with a view to extending their use.

  Environmental risk assessments are the responsibility of the operators of petrol stations. The Environment Agency has worked with the UK Petroleum Industry Association to develop a suitable risk assessment technique that is widely available to operators. The Environment Agency has also undertaken a number of pollution prevention visits to high risk petrol stations for the purposes of the Groundwater Regulations.
  1502W
  1 Includes artificial honey.

  2 Production plus imports less exports.

  3 Production less exports as a percentage of production.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what percentage of(a) apples, (b) pears, (c) strawberries and (d) raspberries grown in the UK was for the UK market in the last year for which figures are available. [173765]

  Alun Michael
  UK production and supply of apples, pears, strawberries and raspberries are given in the following table:

  Information on double-skinned oil tanks, or remote wetstock monitoring, at petrol stations is not collected and held centrally. However, the Environment Agency, in carrying out its duties to prevent pollution from petrol stations, will consider pollution problems on an individual basis according to the particular risk posed.

  Water Metering
  Richard Ottaway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of pensioners who would reduce their water bills if they switched to a metered supply. [172781]

  Mr. Morley
  Research was undertaken by Maxwell Stamp consultancy for the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and published in July 1998 ("Incidence Effects of Charging for Domestic Water and Sewerage Services").

  This research showed that, using the standing charges and volumetric charges at that time, 55 per cent. of pensioners would pay less on measured charges, but 45 per cent. would pay more.

  The existence and extent of savings depends on both the quantity of water used and on the alternative unmeasured basis of charging from which the household might change.

  The research informed the Government's decision to introduce the free meter option, which has been of benefit, especially to those in small properties and making least use of water services.

  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what estimate she has made of the number of pensioners who would reduce their water bills if they switched to a metered supply in(a) Lancashire and (b) Chorley. [173856]
  1503W
  Mr. Morley
  Research was undertaken by Maxwell Stamp consultancy for the Department for Environment, Transport and the Regions and published in July 1998 ("Incidence Effects of Charging for Domestic Water and Sewerage Services").

  This research showed that, using the standing charges and volumetric charges at that time, 55 per cent. of pensioners in England and Wales would pay less on measured charges, but 45 per cent. would pay more.
  1504W
  Information broken down by county or town is not available.

  The existence and extent of savings depends on both the quantity of water used and on the alternative unmeasured basis of charging from which the household might change.

  The research informed the Government's decision to introduce the free meter option, which has been of benefit, especially to those in small properties and making least use of water services.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  CBRN Substances
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate he has made of the costs that may arise from carrying out the decontamination procedures set out in the Strategic National Guidance for the decontamination of buildings and infrastructure exposed to chemical, radiological or nuclear (CBRN) substances or material, issued this month. [175374]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The cost of carrying out the procedures set out in the guidance would depend upon the circumstances of the incident. Factors involved would include the nature and extent of contamination; the characteristics of the building or infrastructure affected and the systems, equipment and other contents; the CBRN material involved; the type of surfaces affected; and the particular objectives of the decontamination plan drawn up for the premises concerned.

  In order to provide help and advice to those dealing with decontamination the Government have set up a team to consider the establishment of a national decontamination and recovery service.

  Council Tax
  Alistair Burt
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what representations he has received from(a) clergy and (b) others whose jobs require them to maintain more than one property in relation to (i) exemption from council tax on second homes and (ii) the amelioration of the effects of council tax; and if he will make a statement. [175871]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (England) Regulations 2003 (S.I. 2003/3011), as amended by the Council Tax (Prescribed Classes of Dwellings) (Amendment) (England) Regulations 2004 S.I. (2004/926), set out the circumstances in which the 50 per cent. council tax discount on the second home is retained where a person is required to live in job related accommodation. Records of correspondence received by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister do not differentiate between the topics requested and other council tax matters. A precise figure could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Planning
  Mr. Laurence Robertson
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister for what valid reason local councils may reject proposals made by Government inspectors under PPG10 for major housing development sites; and if he will make a statement. [175592]

  Keith Hill
  Regional Planning Guidance for the south west (RPG10) provides a regional spatial strategy within which development plans, including those in 1506W
  Gloucestershire, should be prepared; it sets out a broad development strategy for the period up to 2016 and beyond; and provides the spatial framework for other strategies and programmes. RPG10 should be taken into account by local authorities preparing Local Plans.

  Following a Local Plan Inquiry the inspector makes his/her recommendations to the Local Planning Authority (LPA). It is for the LPA to consider in the first instance whether to make modifications to the plan based on the inspector's recommendations. The LPA is required to prepare a statement of its decision on each recommendation and to give its full reasons if it does not accept any recommendation made by the inspector. Currently, most local authorities accept the majority of an inspector's recommendations, but they are not obliged to do so.

  This statement of reasons and any proposed modifications to the Local Plan are published and objections and representations may be made to the council for a period of six weeks.

  There is no criterion against which the reasons for rejecting any recommendation are measured. The Government office for the south west, on behalf of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, will have the opportunity to consider any modifications to identify whether they are consistent with national and regional policies, and whether there are conflicts which do not appear to be justified by local circumstances.

  The general approach of Government is that responsibility for deciding planning matters should be left, as far as possible, to locally accountable planning authorities. This is because local authority councillors are elected to represent the views of local people and, in the main, it is these councillors who are in the best position to make the necessary decisions in respect of their Local Plan.

  In the light of this, while powers have been reserved to direct modifications to the plan or to call-in all, or part, of a plan for determination by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, these powers are used sparingly and as a last resort.

  Mr. Sayeed
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what plans he has to make developers liable for a greater share of the costs of planning inquiries and tribunals. [175879]

  Keith Hill
  There are no plans to change the existing longstanding practice where each party is responsible for their own costs at planning inquiries.

  Local Government Finance
  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much(a) in revenue support grant and (b) in specific grants was provided to City of York in each year since 1997–98. [175274]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Grants provided to City of York in each year since 1997–98 are tabled as follows:
  1507W

  £ million

  General grants1

  Specific grants2

  1997–98

  78.0

  3.1

  1998–99

  80.5

  4.1

  1999–2000

  84.5

  6.2

  2000–01

  88.0

  11.0

  2001–02

  90.3

  15.0

  2002–03

  91.1

  21.2

  2003–043

  100.3

  16.3

  2004–053

  102.7

  28.2

  1 Includes Revenue Support Grant, Redistributed Non-Domestic Rates, SSA Reduction Grant (1997–98 to 2001–02), Central Support Protection Grant (1999–2000 to 2001–02).

  2 Specific and special grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF).

  3 Budgeted figures.

  Source:

  1997–98 to 2002–03 Revenue Summary forms and 2003–04 to 2004–05 Budget Estimate returns

  Hugh Bayley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value is of each of the specific grants received by City of York in 2004–05. [175275]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The specific grants1 that City of York have budgeted to receive in 2004–052 are tabled as follows:

  £000

  Civil Defence

  72

  Adoption Support and Special Guardianship

  51

  Choice Protects

  67

  Leadership Incentive

  364

  Safeguarding Children

  200

  School Standards

  2,678

  Standards Fund

  3,705

  Teachers Pay Reform

  2,571

  Teenage Pregnancy Local Implementation

  101

  Detrunking

  355

  Rural Bus Subsidy

  123

  Access and Systems Capacity

  1,463

  AIDS Support

  19

  Carers

  363

  Child and Adolescent Mental Health Services

  167

  Delayed Discharges

  297

  Human Resources Development Strategy

  63

  Mental Health

  493

  National Training Strategy

  83

  Preserved Rights

  2,564

  Residential Allowance

  1,113

  Training Support Programme

  159

  Council Tax Benefit (CTB) Administration

  344

  Housing Benefit (HB) Administration

  390

  Additional HB and CTB administration due to Pension Credit

  36

  Additional HB and CTB administration due to Tax Credits

  27

  Workstep

  224

  Asylum Seekers

  29

  Homelessness Strategies

  250

  Planning Development

  143

  Supporting People Administration

  236

  Supporting People Programme—Housing

  8,585

  Supporting People Programme—Social Services

  664

  Other Grants inside AEF

  233

  1 Specific and special grants inside Aggregate External Finance (AEF).

  2 Budgeted figures.

  Source:

  2004—05 Budget Estimate RA (SG) form.

TREASURY

  Abortion
  Mrs. Roe
  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 Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000; [174877]

  (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 was in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000; [174879]

  (3) how many conceptions resulting 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 there were in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000. [174887]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mrs. Marion Roe, dated 25 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Questions on conceptions and abortions. (174877, 174879, 174887)
  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 1197–1200W.

  EU Budget
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which of the present member states of the European Union are expected to be(a) net contributors to and (b) net beneficiaries of the European Union budget in 2004–05. [175155]

  Ruth Kelly
  As shown in the footnote to Table C11 of the FSBR (HC 301), the Government forecasts that the United Kingdom will continue to be a net contributor to the EC Budget in 2004–05 Publishing forecasts of the net positions of other Member States is a matter for their respective Governments.

  Aggregates Tax
  Mr. Whittingdale
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much has been raised in tax and licence revenue from the dredging of aggregates off the East Anglian coast in each of the last 10 years. [175029]

  John Healey
  The information on the amount of tax raised from the dredging of aggregates off the East Anglian coast is not available. Revenue from this source and region is not separately identified in either aggregates levy or VAT payments.
  1509W
  The royalty income over the period 1993 to 2003 from aggregate dredging licences off the East Anglian coast (east coast region comprising Great Yarmouth/Cross Sands block and Southwold) is given in the following table:

  Royalty income (£ million)

  2003

  5.06

  2002

  5.29

  2001

  5.36

  2000

  6.16

  1999

  4.77

  1998

  4.44

  1997

  4.71

  1996

  5.21

  1995

  4.67

  1994

  4.18

  1993

  3.67

  Child Tax Credit
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in the Elmet constituency are receiving child tax credit. [174876]

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

  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many families in(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) the constituency of Huntingdon have received child tax credit. [175252]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Burton (Mrs. Dean) on 15 March 2004,Official Report, column 98W. Estimates for each local authority also appear in the publication referred to in that answer.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many buildings in England owned by his Department are used at less than 25 per cent. capacity for more than three months of the year. [175980]

  Ruth Kelly
  None.

  E-Government
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer from what date staff were employed by the Inland Revenue's e-Government programme; how many staff are assigned to the programme; and when planning began for the programme. [174019]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Staff have been employed on the planning and implementation of the Inland Revenue's e-Government programme from 1999. Currently there are 328 Full-time Equivalents (FTEs) assigned permanently to the programme. This includes 253 FTEs that provide support to customers who use the "e" services. (Self Assessment, PAYE, Corporation Tax, New Tax Credits and Stamps.)

  Farming
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will revise the tax treatment of losses made by 1510W
  farmers on holdings of production quotas so as to allow losses to be written off against trading profits rather than capital transaction profits; and if he will make a statement. [173913]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Production quotas held by unincorporated farmers are treated for tax purposes as chargeable assets and as such any losses are set against current or future chargeable gains. There are no current plans to revise this treatment.

  Illegal Meat Imports
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of x-ray technology in detecting illegal meat imports; [175636]

  (2) what use Customs and Excise make of x-ray technology to detect illegal meat imports; and if he will make a statement. [175749]

  John Healey
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Brent, North (Mr. Gardiner) on 23 February 2004,Official Report, column 116W. HM Customs and Excise use x-ray technology to detect illegal meat and other prohibited and restricted goods being imported into the UK both by passengers and in freight. The effectiveness of current equipment is continually assessed.

  Customs continue to work with manufacturers to identify improved technology that would further enhance their detection capabilities.

  Large Business Office
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many hours' training each Large Business Office caseworker has received in tax compliance performance in each year since 1997. [174939]

  Dawn Primarolo
  These figures are not available. Large Business Office caseworkers all have a Performance Development Plan according to their personal needs and experience. They receive continuous technical training on a variety of topics through formal courses and in-house awareness seminars. These include specific tax compliance knowledge and skills.

  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which IT software systems have been procured by the Large Business Office since 1997; and how many hours' training each Large Business Office caseworker has had on those systems in each year since 1997. [174940]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Large Business Office main IT system to manage case handling was introduced in April 1998. Training in the use of this system is provided by local support on induction to the LBO.

  The main desktop support services are provided departmentally. The LBO has one designated officer in each location to support staff familiarisation with these as required.

  Data analysis software products, Win Idea and SPACE, were introduced in 2003–04 for Employer Compliance staff. 20 officers are having 18 days training in their full use, to become local experts, and a further 20 in 2003–04 and 2004–05 will receive support training.
  1511W
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost has been in each year since 1997 of IT software systems procured by the Large Business Office. [174941]

  Dawn Primarolo
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire (Mr. Gray) on 12 February 2004,Official Report, columns 1555–56W.

  The main support IT, such as standard desktop services, audit tools etc. are provided nationally, and not procured by the LBO. The LBO has its own small budget for minor IT software packages and other incidentals, currently £13,000 per annum.

  Lone Parents
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many lone parents were employed in each of the last 25 years, broken down by constituency within each region. [175129]

  Lone parents1 with dependent children in employment by regions—three months ending May, each year from 1992 to 2003

  £000

  United Kingdom

  North East

  North West

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  East Midlands

  West Midlands

  Eastern

  1992

  569

  30

  72

  53

  43

  47

  42

  1993

  615

  29

  82

  51

  34

  53

  47

  1994

  669

  30

  79

  54

  46

  55

  61

  1995

  725

  36

  81

  60

  47

  59

  62

  1996

  703

  33

  94

  69

  44

  52

  51

  1997

  695

  34

  97

  68

  50

  61

  59

  1998

  763

  32

  104

  66

  47

  74

  60

  1999

  795

  43

  106

  66

  47

  72

  60

  2000

  822

  42

  109

  76

  50

  69

  66

  2001

  836

  33

  109

  79

  51

  71

  67

  2002

  893

  47

  136

  72

  63

  71

  76

  2003

  894

  44

  132

  71

  59

  67

  74

  London

  South East

  South West

  Wales

  Scotland

  Northern Ireland

  1992

  76

  74

  42

  22

  55

  12

  1993

  84

  73

  45

  37

  61

  17

  1994

  92

  86

  48

  38

  62

  18

  1995

  100

  99

  54

  38

  69

  20

  1996

  96

  87

  56

  42

  63

  16

  1997

  83

  84

  47

  39

  55

  18

  1998

  97

  92

  61

  45

  64

  21

  1999

  111

  93

  62

  46

  70

  19

  2000

  108

  97

  58

  48

  72

  27

  2001

  116

  98

  66

  42

  82

  22

  2002

  110

  111

  68

  40

  79

  20

  2003

  111

  113

  69

  48

  81

  25

  1 Refers to people who have dependent children and who are neither married nor cohabiting. Dependent children include all children aged under 16, and 16 to 18 year olds in full-time education.

  Source:

  ONS: Labour Force Survey, household data.

  Pensions
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of mis-sold pensions in each of the last 25 years. [175071]

  Ruth Kelly
  Neither we nor the Financial Services Authority (the FSA) hold data in this form. The FSA do hold data on the Pensions Review, which covers pensions that were sold between 29 April 1988 and 30 June 1994.

  1,618,686 cases of mis-selling were identified under
  1512W
  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Chris Ruane, dated 25 May 2004:
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about lone parents in employment. (175129)
  The attached table gives the estimates of the number of lone parents in employment for each region covering the three months ending May each year from 1992 to 2003. Comparable information is not available for earlier or later years. The LFS sample size is too small to give reliable information in each Parliamentary Constituency.
  Estimates are taken from the Office for National Statistics's Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

  the review, of which 1,118,885 cases involved consumers suffering loss as a result.

  The Financial Services Compensation Scheme (the FSCS) have informed the FSA that they have, in addition, offered compensation in 18,746 further cases. The FSCS has also rejected 10,117 claims.

  These rejections may include cases where pensions were mis-sold but where claims for compensation were rejected on the grounds that an advisor was solvent and

  1513W
  able to meet a claim directly. Some, but very few, of these rejections will be included already in the figures above.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his latest estimate is of the value of the Exchequer's liabilities to(a) the basic state pension, (b) SERPS and (c) the state second pension; and if he will make a statement. [171583]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  The future cost of basic state pensions and SERFS/State Second Pension over the next 50 years, as a proportion of GDP, is published on the DWP website at: http://www.dwp.gov.uk/asd/asd4/Table3_Long_Term_Projections.xls and shows that expenditure in the United Kingdom on these elements of pension provision is expected to remain in the range 4.1 per cent. to 4.5 per cent. of GDP during the period.

  Scrap Aluminium
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to tax export of scrap aluminium to sources outside the EU. [174979]

  Dawn Primarolo
  None. The legality of an export tax to protect a domestic industry is extremely doubtful under the terms of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (1947).

  Transport Taxes
  Mr. Martyn Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the paper, "Reforming Transport Taxes", published by the European Conference of Ministers of Transport. [150883]

  John Healey
  The Chancellor notes the contents of this report, which looks at the options for transport taxation in general, and more specifically at the tax treatment of the road haulage industry.

  The report will be considered along with other evidence and analysis as the Government takes forward their agenda on lorry road-user charging, and national road-user charging, as outlined in Budget 2004.

  Labour Statistics (East Riding)
  David Davis
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many young people in the East Riding of Yorkshire were not working, studying or in training in 2003. [171788]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Office of National Statistics estimate from the Labour Force Survey, for the twelve months ending in February 2003, that 4,000 young people aged 16 to 24 resident in East Riding of Yorkshire were networking and were not in full-time education or in Government-supported training schemes. This compares to around 4800 young people in 1997.

  Since 1997 the Government have introduced a wide range of support for young people who are not working, studying or training. Most young people leave unemployment in under six months. The New Deal for Young People and other support is in place for those aged 18–24 who do not. In Budget 2004 the Chancellor announced reforms to the financial support system for 16–19 year olds to improve the support and incentives
  1514W
  available to young people to remain in education and training. These reforms build on the introduction of Education Maintenance Allowances from September 2004 to improve the financial support available to the hardest to reach to stay in education. Young people can also access advice and support on education and training through either the Connexions Service or Job Centre Plus.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Administration Costs
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what targets exist for the achievement of savings in administration costs within his Department; and if he will make a statement. [175769]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID is committed to tight control of Administration Costs. For 2004–05 to 2005–06, the main administration costs target is to hold back office costs to the same cash level as in 2003–04. Between 2002–03 and 2005–06, total administration costs will have fallen from 5.8 per cent. of programme costs to 5.1 per cent. Targets for both back-office costs and total administration costs for 2006–07 and 2007–08 will be agreed as part of the 2004 Spending Review, along with an implementation plan to ensure projected efficiencies are realised.

  Chad
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will list the programmes aimed at institution building in Chad(a) run by his Department, (b) fully financed by his Department, (c) partially financed by his Department within the framework of EU initiatives, (d) partially financed by his Department within the framework of UN initiatives and (e) partially financed by his Department within the framework of the World Bank initiatives; when they were initiated; for how long they are planned to continue; and what aspect of institution building is being addressed by each. [175116]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not have a direct development assistance programme in Chad and is not involved in running or providing either full or partial funding for any institution building programmes there. DFID's assistance to Chad is mainly channelled through it's contributions to multilateral agencies, including the EC, World Bank and UN Agencies, of which the UK's imputed share was estimated at £7.3 million in 2001.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment his Department has made of the(a) scale and (b) nature of corruption within the public institutions of Chad; what measures to fight this problem his Department proposes to provide as part of its development aid to Chad; and if he will make a statement. [175184]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID does not have a direct development assistance programme in Chad. DFID's assistance is mainly channelled through our contributions
  1515W
  to multilateral agencies, including the EC, World Bank and UN Agencies, of which the UK's imputed share was estimated at £7.3 million in 2001.

  DFID has not conducted its own assessment of public sector corruption in Chad and is not directly involved in any measures to deal with this problem. However, DFID does support the efforts of the World Bank and the European Commission in helping to tackle corruption, in particular through the monitoring of the revenues from the Chad-Cameroon Petroleum Development and Pipeline project to ensure they are mainly used for poverty reduction.

  Far East
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid projects his Department plans to develop in the Far East during the next three years; and if he will make a statement. [173540]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The breakdown for our project spend on bilateral programmes in Far East Asia is as follows:

  DFID allocation by programme

  £000

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Estimated Outturns

  Plans

  Plans

  China

  31,000

  45,000

  35,000

  Vietnam

  26,000

  40,000

  60,000

  Total: Far East

  57,000

  85,000

  95,000

  For details of our projected spend in the rest of Asia I refer the hon. Member to the written answer of 7 May 2004 to his question on DFID's development plans in Asia, Official Report, 10 May 2004, column 57W.

  In addition to this bilateral spend, FCO posts administer a DFID funded Small Grants Scheme for poverty reduction, which covers some countries of the Far East. This is allocated on an annual basis. The total grant values for 2002–03 in the Far East were as follows:

  Asia: Far East (Small Grant Scheme) 2002–03

  £000

  China

  124

  Vietnam

  121

  Mongolia

  97

  Total Asia: Far East

  342

  DFID also provides humanitarian assistance to the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, focusing on water and sanitation and disaster preparedness. This is allocated in response to humanitarian need. In 2003–04, DFID channelled a total of £1,223,000 through the United Nationals Children Fund (UNICEF) and the International Federation of the Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies (IFRC).

  Iran
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much aid his Department has(a) pledged and (b) delivered to help
  1516W
  in the ongoing humanitarian and reconstruction work in Bam, Iran; and if he will make a statement. [175118]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has committed £3.7 million, including the UK share of the European community contribution, in response to humanitarian needs following the Bam earthquake.

  DFID contributed some £950,000 towards immediate support to the emergency phase of the Bam Earthquake. The details of the UK response were provided in my Statement to the House on 5 January 2004, Official Report, columns 2–4WS. Thereafter, DFID made an additional commitment of £2 million in support of rehabilitation. This was focused on the restoration of primary health care services in partnership with the World Health Organisation (£0.5 million); the implementation of a mid-term sanitation programme in partnership with the United Nations Children's agency, UNICEF (£0.5 million); the restoration of agricultural based livelihoods, focusing on the rehabilitation of wells and procurement of pumps, livestock restocking and the replacement of agricultural tools in a joint United Nations Development Programme—Food and Agricultural Organisation partnership (£0.25 million) and also through the non-governmental organisation Action Contre La Faim (£0.25 million); and further support (£0.45 million) to the International Federation of the Red Cross's appeal.

  All of this support to rehabilitation has been programmed through the agencies mentioned except the £0 45 million committed to the International Federation of the Red Cross. These funds were originally intended for the restocking of relief items, continued provision of emergency medical services and capacity building of the Iranian Red Crescent Society but we have been informed that these elements of the appeal have been sufficiently covered by other contributions. With the aid of the British Red Cross Society an assessment is planned to consider how this allocation might best be utilised in meeting gaps in provision.

  DFID Officials will be visiting Bam in July to monitor how effectively the UK contribution has been spent.

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development when(a) he and (b) members of his Department last met the UN Secretary-General's special representative for Liberia to discuss (i) the security situation in Liberia, (ii) the humanitarian situation in Liberia and (iii) future plans for the reconstruction of Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [175183]

  Hilary Benn
  I met the Special Representative, Jacques Klein, on 10 May 2004. We discussed the Disarmament, Demobilisation, Resettlement and Reintegration (DDRR) programme, security and security sector reform, arrangements for next year's elections, and Liberia's future prospects. I confirmed our continued support for humanitarian programmes, to which DFID have committed a total of £10.6m, and for DDRR, for which DFID have provided £6m. DFID officials have also recently met representatives of the National Transitional Government of Liberia,
  1517W
  including Chairman Bryant, and a range of UN and other agencies, to discuss possible support to governance reform, as part of the process of reconstruction.

  Nigeria
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assurances his Department has(a) sought and (b) received from the Government of Nigeria concerning the effect of unrest in the Plateau region on the announced resumption of polio vaccinations in Kano state; and if he will make a statement. [175117]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The unrest in Plateau State, which unfortunately spilled over into neighbouring states, especially Kano, is not related to the ongoing polio controversy. It is the view of DFID Nigeria and of the Nigerian Government that this unrest will not have any significant impact on the resumption of polio vaccinations in Kano State. This resumption depends entirely on whether the Kano State scientists are satisfied that there are no contaminants in the vaccines currently being procured from Indonesia.

  The DFID team in Nigeria is in regular dialogue with the Government of Nigeria and with other international partners in Nigeria regarding the polio crisis. DFID is one of the principal financiers of the World Health Organization's "Polio Eradication Initiative". DFID is working actively with key stakeholders across northern Nigeria to ensure that immunization programmes, including polio, are implemented effectively in a way that is acceptable to the general public and to their political and religious leaders.

  Resource Allocation
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will make a statement on the switching of resources from corporate service divisions to frontline operational divisions, stating the amounts of resources in each case. [175747]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID recognises the importance of maximising the share of administration resources available for front-line activities. From 2002–03 to 2005–06, the percentage of DFID's administration budget used by corporate service divisions will have fallen from 7.7 per cent. to 6.8 per cent. This will have released an additional £2.2m for front line activities compared with maintaining the same ratio. DFID plans to accelerate achievement of savings beyond 2005–6 as new systems are introduced, reducing further the proportion of administration costs going to service divisions. Specific targets are subject to the outcome of the Spending Review.

  Shared Scholarships Scheme
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what plans he has to develop the Shared Scholarships Scheme; and if he will introduce support for talented youngsters from developing countries outside the Commonwealth. [174989]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Following a review in 2000, responsibility for administration of the Shared Scholarships Scheme (SSS) transferred, in 2002, to the 1518W
  Commonwealth Scholarship Commission in the United Kingdom (CSC). This transfer was agreed to enable improved coordination of the SSS with the Commonwealth Scholarship and Fellowship Programme and the development of new forms of funding partnerships. The CSC has subsequently established a sub-committee to review the SSS and to recommend improvements. The SSS, to which DFID contributes £2 million per annum, is an initiative with UK Universities jointly to support scholarships for students from developing Commonwealth countries who would not otherwise be able to study in the UK. There are no plans to extend the SSS to provide support for students from developing countries outside the Commonwealth.

  St. Helena
  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether there is a minimum population of St. Helena below which the Government considers the island to be unsustainable; and if he will make a statement. [174759]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has no such limit in mind and remain committed to supporting St Helena. However, DFID recognises that population decline has been a problem in recent years and is supporting the island government's efforts to address it.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what has been the cost to the UK taxpayer of maintaining St. Helena over the past 25 years for which figures are available. [174761]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's bilateral spending on St. Helena between 1977 and the end of the UK Financial Year 2002–03 totalled over £233 million. This included some modest support, totalling less than £200,000 annually in recent years, for the St. Helena "dependency" of Tristan Da Cunha. Final figures for 2003–04 are not yet available, but are expected to add a further £11 million approximately to that total. St Helena also receives some assistance from the FCO Good Governance Fund and Economic Diversification Programme, amounting to nearly £1.5 million since 1999. In addition, the UK government share of European Union financial commitments to St. Helena since 1981 is over £500,000. DFID and the FCO departmental administration costs are not broken down by individual Territory.

  Mr. Nigel Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if he will estimate the annual(a) saving to the UK and (b) benefit to the economy of St. Helena of providing air access for St. Helena. [174762]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The information on which to base that estimate is not available. DFID should have a better idea, however, when current work to assess and compare future physical access options for St. Helena is completed later this year. I refer the hon. Member to my Written Statement on 19 April 2004,Official Report, column 1WS.

  Sudan
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what estimates he has made
  1519W
  of the number of refugees from Darfur in Chad; when these figures were last revised; and if he will make a statement. [175084]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Reliable figures for the number of refugees in Chad are difficult to find because of the inaccessibility of the areas affected. Agencies on the ground are constantly reviewing their estimates. The United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) press statement on 14 May 2004 estimated that there were 120,000 Darfurian refugees in Chad. Refugees International estimated on 19 May that the number could be nearer 200,000.

  The Government are gravely concerned about the serious situation in Darfur. In addition to the refugees

  UK Government-funded humanitarian interventions in Darfur, Sudan

  Period

  Agency

  Description

  Total cost (£)

  October to December 2003

  UNHCR

  Supplementary Appeal for Emergency Assistance to Sudanese Refugees in Eastern Chad—2003

  1,000,000

  October 2003 to September 2004

  SC-UK

  Emergency Response to Conflict Related Internal Displacement in North Darfur

  500,000

  November to December 2003

  ICRC

  Contribution to the ICRC 2003 Emergency Appeal for Sudan

  1,000,000

  November 2003 to March 2004

  WFP

  Additional Contribution to 2003 UN Appeal, due to Crisis in Darfur, to Provide Emergency Food Assistance to Sudanese Populations Affected by War and Natural Disasters

  2,000,000

  January to April 2004

  MSF-F

  Emergency Assistance to IDPs in Darfur—through increasing access to health care in conflict areas, disease prevention, halting nutritional deterioration and treating malnourished children

  491,369

  January to December 2004

  MSF-H

  Darfur Components of Emergency Health Interventions in Northern Sudan Project

  650,000

  February to December 2004

  UNICEF

  Emergency Assistance to Humanitarian Crisis in Darfur for Health; Water Supply; Water and Environmental Sanitation; Relief and Shelter Items; and the Protection of Children

  1,000,000

  February to November 2004

  GOAL

  Emergency Assistance to Population in Kutum Province, North Darfur—through a combined Health, Nutrition and Shelter Intervention

  575,963

  March to December 2004

  ACF

  Emergency Nutrition Programme in North Darfur

  250,000

  March to December 2004

  WFP

  Emergency Distribution of Food Aid Commodities to Sudanese Refugees in North East Chad

  1,000,000

  March 2004 to January 2005

  UNHCR

  Emergency Assistance to Sudanese Refugees in Eastern Chad

  1,000,000

  April 2004 to December 2004

  OXFAM

  Public Health Humanitarian Response Darfur (Water/Sanitation Programme)

  2,193,161

  May 2004 to December 2004

  WFP

  Emergency purchase and distribution of Food Aid for internally displaced Sudanese in Darfur

  2,000,000

  May 2004 to November 2004

  WHO

  Emergency primary health care and response to communicable diseases in Darfur; support to measles vaccination programme

  1,500,000

  May 2004 to December 2004

  UNICEF

  Additional support to humanitarian assistance for crisis in Darfur; emergency nutrition; emergency health care and the protection of children

  1,500,000

  May 2004 to July 2004

  UNJLC

  Support to enable UNJLC to co-ordinate the logistics of an effective humanitarian response in Sudan

  250,000

  Total

  16,910,493

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Zimbabwe about its stockpiling of food in the run-up to national elections. [174777]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  Although the Government of Zimbabwe (GoZ) provides little information about the activities of the parastatal Grain Marketing Board (GMB), donors believe that current GMB stocks are less than 100 thousand metric tonnes (MT), compared with a national food requirement of up to 1.8 million MT. GMB will build up its stocks in coming months as the harvest comes in, which is appropriate. Donors are 1520W
  in Chad, there are over 1.2 million internally displaced people in Darfur who are in a precarious situation likely to become worse with the onset of rains later this month.

  The UK is heavily engaged in the humanitarian response to this crisis. DFID is the second largest donor after the US and so far has committed over £16.5 million to agencies working in Darfur and Eastern Chad. A breakdown of these commitments is given below. In addition, DFID has seconded four humanitarian officers to support United Nations Office for the Co-Ordination of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA)'s response to the crisis in Darfur and are seconding an additional three for the UN Joint Logistics Centre. DFID is also paying for a despatch of non-food items (22,500 blankets and 15,000 plastic sheets) for distribution by humanitarian agencies.

  particularly concerned about the dishonesty of the GoZ in declaring that the current harvest is in the order of 2.4 million MT and that Zimbabwe will be self-sufficient in food for the coming year, as confirmed by Robert Mugabe in a television interview this week.

  The GoZ cancelled a Crop and Food Supply Assessment that was recently in progress jointly with the World Food Programme and Food and Agriculture Organisation of the UN, which would have provided an independent figure. Other recent studies suggest the actual harvest to be at or below 1.2 million MT. Donors are concerned that the GoZ is trying to control food supply in the country in the run-up to parliamentary elections next year, pretending that land reform has

  1521W
  been successful. Apart from deceiving its population, the GoZ is putting many of them at great risk of hunger later in the year, while probably needing to divert a substantial amount of its scarce foreign exchange to import grains.

PRIME MINISTER

  Sudan
  Clare Short
  To ask the Prime Minister what action he is taking to(a) bring about an end to the killing of the black Muslim Sudanese of Darfur and (b) secure access for humanitarian assistance to relieve their suffering. [175840]

  The Prime Minister
  I am deeply concerned about the humanitarian situation in Darfur. Following the cease-fire agreement of 8 April between the Government of Sudan and the Darfur groups, we are calling on all parties to co-operate fully with the Africa Union-led ceasefire monitoring mission. We are also considering how we can contribute to this.

  I wrote to the Sudanese President earlier this year emphasising the Government's concern at the situation in Darfur. We continue to hold discussions with the Sudanese Government on access for humanitarian assistance and my right hon. Friends the Foreign Secretary and the Secretary of State for International Development raised the matter with the Sudanese Foreign Minister during his visit to London on 11 May. The Sudanese Foreign Minister has now announced new measures governing the issue of visas and travel permits to humanitarian workers wishing to travel to Darfur.

  We hope that these measures will facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to a population in great need and will be closely monitoring their implementation. We have already committed £16.5 million in response to the crisis and are urging other partners to contribute as well.

  Govan Shipyard
  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what meetings(a) he and (b) his officials held with the management of Govan/Kvaerner to discuss the future of the Govan shipyard; [R] [174254]

  (2) what role he played in informal and oral approaches made to GEC over the purchase of Govan shipyard; [R] [174256]

  (3) on which dates in 1999 he met Mr. George Simpson of GEC; if he will publish minutes of the meetings; and if he will list the attendees at those meetings; [174311]

  (4) what communications (a) he and (b) his representatives and advisers had with GEC in 1999 over (i) the proposed merger of BAE-GEC and (ii) Govan shipyard; and if he will publish the communications [174312]

  (5) what communications (a) he and (b) his representatives and advisers had with Kvaerner, their representatives and advisers over the proposed closure of the Govan shipyard in 1999; [174313]
  1522W
  (6) what meetings (a) he and (b) his officials held with Sir Gavin Laird to discuss the future of the Govan shipyard. [174315]

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

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what(a) his and (b) his officials' involvement was in the negotiations over the future of Govan shipyard; [R] [174255]

  (2) what meetings took place between Mr. Ed Miliband and his officials in 1999 to discuss the (a) GEC-BAE merger and (b) Govan shipyard; [R] [174259]

  (3) what advice he received in 1999 on the GEC interest in the Govan shipyard;.[R] [174260]

  (4) what advice he received from the Ministry of Defence on the GEC-BAE merger; [R] [174258]

  (5) when he was first informed of the GEC interest in the Govan shipyard [R] [174261]

  The Prime Minister
  Information relating to internal discussion and advice is exempt from disclosure under exemption 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister what(a) his, (b) his officials and (c) his advisers involvement was in approving the GEC-BAE merger. [R] [174257]

  The Prime Minister
  The decision was made by the then Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the right hon. Member for Tyneside, North (Mr. Byers) in his capacity set out in the Fair Trading Act 1973.

  Mr. Blunt
  To ask the Prime Minister what the name was of the task force chaired by Sir Gavin Laird set up by the Government to look for potential buyers for the Govan shipyard; who was on the task force; what its terms of reference were; and when it was disbanded. [174314]

  The Prime Minister
  The Kvaerner Task Force was set up by Lord Macdonald of Tradeston on 13 April 1999 under the Chairmanship of Sir Gavin Laird to identify potential purchasers of the shipyard at Govan, the engineering business in Clydebank, and for any other facilities subsequently identified for sale in Scotland. The other members of the Kvaerner Task Force were Bill Scott, Malcolm Clark and David Smith. The Task Force was wound up on 14 July 1999.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, columns 748–49W, on Iraq, prior to the Prime Minister reading the International Committee of the Red Cross report on 10 May, what the first date was on which an official working in No. 10 Downing Street saw the report; and what action was taken concerning the report between it first being received at No. 10 Downing Street and 10 May. [175568]
  1523W
  The Prime Minister
  The report was first received in No. 10 Downing Street by an official on the evening of 9 May. Officials investigated what action had been taken and were made aware that action into the allegations of abuse in respect of UK forces was already in hand. As I have already made clear, I first saw the report on 10 May.

  People's Peers Road Shows
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Prime Minister whether the practice of people's peers road shows to solicit applications has been discontinued. [175304]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave him on 13 November 2003,Official Report, column 430W.

  World Environment Day
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will take steps to mark World Environment Day on 5 June; and if he will make a statement. [175104]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government and the Environment Agency are working together on a campaign to mark World Environment Day. This will include asking the public to sign the "Pledge to the Future" to identify ways they can improve their local environment, and a publicity campaign by the Environment Agency on how businesses can make their organisations more sustainable.

TRANSPORT

  Flight Security (Northern Ireland)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether a senior citizen's pass with photographic image is an acceptable form of identity for security purposes when flying between Great Britain and Northern Ireland; and if he will make a statement. [173600]

  Mr. McNulty
  While passengers on international flights are required to carry appropriate travel documentation in the form of passports, visas etc., there is no requirement for passengers to carry identification on domestic flights. We are aware that a number of carriers have instituted such a rule. This measure, and determination of what types of identification are acceptable, is part of the aircraft operator's own conditions of carriage. They usually provide clear indications to would-be passengers on their websites etc. of such requirements but in case of doubt or dispute, queries should be addressed directly to the airline concerned.

  Blue Badges
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many and what percentage of people in Great Britain are in receipt of a Blue Badge for disabled drivers. [175866]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Blue Badge scheme provides a national arrangement of parking concessions for severely disabled people who travel either as drivers or 1524W
  passengers. Approximately 2.41 million people in Great Britain are currently in receipt of a Blue Badge. This equates to about 4 per cent. of the population.

  Civil Servants
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many civil servants in his Department are employed to deal with local transport plans and annual progress reports submitted to his Department by local authorities. [174169]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department employs five civil servants to deal with Local Transport Plans and Annual Progress Reports alongside their other duties. As well as the five officials currently employed by DfT, four to six staff in each of the eight regional Government offices also deal with LTPs and APRs alongside their other duties.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport 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. [173364]

  Mr. McNulty
  The DfT website (http://www.dft.gov.uk) provides access to publicly available documents in a range of formats. The majority of content is made available in Hypertext Mark Up Language (HTML), Portable Document Format (PDF) and Microsoft WORD. All images contained within documents are made available in Graphic Interchange Format (GIF) or Joint Photographic Experts Group (JPEG) formats depending on the complexity of the image. Statistical data tables are provided in Excel, Comma separated values (CSV) and PDF format.

  The same formats apply for documents held in archive areas of the website.

  Crime (Public Transport)
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) how many assaults were committed on buses in each year since 1997; [175454]

  (2) how many bus drivers were assaulted on duty in each year since 1997. [175455]

  Mr. McNulty
  The following table shows the number of bus-related assaults reported to this Department by Transport for London and, for outside London, by a panel of PSV operators.

  Total number of assaults on bus crews and passengers in Great Britain

  Total number of assaults on bus crews in Great Britain

  1997

  2,556

  1,899

  1998

  2,195

  1,594

  1999

  2,369

  1,680

  20001

  1,988

  1,036

  2001

  n/a

  2,592

  2002

  n/a

  2,874

  1 Figures for 2000 exclude assaults on bus crews in London.

  The Safer Travel on Buses and Coaches Panel (STOP) has been established to look at ways to combat assaults, anti-social behaviour and vandalism at stops and

  1525W
  stations and on vehicles and property. The panel brings together those involved in dealing with the issue of safety and security, and includes operators, local authorities, police and unions. It is charged with the important task of facilitating the exchange of ideas and spreading best practice and is considering how the collection of accurate bus and coach crime data can be improved.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many crimes of a sexual nature were committed(a) on buses and (b) at bus stops in each year since 1997. [175456]

  Mr. McNulty
  There were 60 sexual assaults on bus passengers in 1997 and 90 in 1998. It is not possible to distinguish between crimes of a sexual nature committed on buses and at bus stops. No data are held centrally for subsequent years.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many acts of vandalism were committed on buses in each year since 1997. [175458]

  Mr. McNulty
  No data are held centrally on the number of acts of vandalism committed on buses in each year since 1997. However, it is estimated that the average annual cost per operator outside London resulting from acts of vandalism was £31,459 in 2002.

  Ministerial Travel
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many coach journeys Ministers have taken on departmental business in each year since 1997. [175072]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport was formed on 29 May 2002. Information about the mode of transport used by Ministers on departmental business is not held centrally. Ministers frequently use a variety of public transport services when undertaking departmental business.

  Nuclear Installations (Air Exclusion Zones)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport on how many occasions since 2000 the Civil Aviation Authority has investigated alleged breaches of the air exclusion zones around nuclear installations. [175080]

  Mr. McNulty
  Since 2000, the CAA has received 72 reports of breaches of the air exclusion zones around nuclear installations. 12 formal investigations have been carried out resulting in two prosecutions, one formal caution, three warning letters and two dismissed by the courts for insufficient evidence. The remaining four are in progress and may result in prosecution.

  Railways
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) if he will list the level of subsidy(a) per rail mile travelled and (b) per passenger for each train operator for each year since 1997; [174984]

  (2) if he will list the subsidy paid to each train operator in each year since 1997 in descending order. [174985]
  1526W
  Mr. McNulty
  Details of subsidy paid to each train operator, in each year since 1997, are set out in Appendix 3 to the Strategic Rail Authority's annual report 2002–03.

  Details of subsidy per passenger mile/passenger kilometre travelled, and of numbers of passenger journeys made, with each train operator in each year since 1997, are set out in SRA and OPRAF annual reports for the relevant years.

  Copies of all SRA and OPRAF annual reports are available in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what percentage of rail journeys were made by freight trains in the last year for which figures are available. [175001]

  Mr. McNulty
  In 2002–03 approximately 6 per cent. of the total rail journeys were by made by freight trains.

  Road Charging
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what plans he has for road charging; whether charges would apply to all roads; whether charges will vary by(a) time of day and (b) level of traffic; and what the money collected in road charging schemes would be spent on. [175558]

  Mr. Jamieson
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made a statement to the House on 9 July 2003 announcing a feasibility study into the potential for road charging in the UK. The study is expected to report this summer.

  Sea ports/Airports
  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the contribution of the(a) seaports and (b) airports industry to the UK economy. [175088]

  Mr. Darling
  The economic contribution that the aviation industry makes to UK economy is set out in the Air Transport White Paper, though the economic analysis of additional airport capacity focussed on the direct economic benefits to passengers. The Department is managing a research project to collect information about employment in the UK ports.

  Mrs. Dunwoody
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the social and economic consequences of constraints on port capacity. [175092]

  Mr. Darling
  The Government are aware of the potential consequences of the emerging constraints on ports capacity and so we ensure that the planning consent process assesses the social and economic aspects of the case for and against port development.

  Speed Cameras
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has reviewed the suitability of locations of all speed cameras in Shrewsbury and Atcham. [175059]
  1527W
  Mr. Jamieson
  The West Mercia Partnership, which covers Shrewsbury and Atcham, has confirmed that they are adhering to the guidance and rules for the operation of safety camera activity. Partnerships are expected on a continuing basis to keep camera sites and enforcement at them under review. My Department will shortly publish an independent report on the operation of the Safety Camera Programme for its first three years, and will also publish details of all safety camera sites in the cost recovery programme.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on his review of the location of speed cameras. [R] [174253]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Partnerships are expected on a continuing basis to keep camera sites and enforcement at them under review. My Department will shortly publish an independent report on the operation of the Safety Camera Programme for its first three years, and will also publish details of all safety camera sites in the cost recovery programme.

  Transport (Bootle)
  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of priority bus lanes have been created in Bootle since 1997. [175492]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 0.6 miles of priority bus lanes have been provided in Bootle since 1997.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many miles of new cycle lanes have been provided in Bootle using public funds since 1997. [175489]

  Mr. McNulty
  A total of 9.85 miles of cycle lanes have been provided in Bootle since 1997.

  Mr. Benton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the effects upon residents of Bootle of investment in railway improvements over the next 10 years. [175491]

  Mr. McNulty
  Merseyrail, which operates local services in Bootle, is a consistently high performer. Residents of Bootle will benefit from the West Coast Main Line upgrade and the new TransPennine Express franchise to make fast inter-city journeys out of Liverpool. The TransPennine Express franchise, which commenced in February, secures investment of around £260 million, which will include the introduction of a new fleet of 100 mph diesel trains leading to increased capacity, improved service quality and performance across the region.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans there are to provide national guidance for schools and care homes in the case of a serious civil emergency. [174687]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Home Office, alongside the emergency services will provide immediate information and advice in the event of a discernible threat or a specific incident. My Department, in its guidance on coping with emergencies www.teachernet.gov.uk/1528W
  emergencies), refers schools to Home Office guidance for civil contingencies; and will liaise with the Cabinet Office before writing to chief education officers about the Civil Contingencies Bill due to come into force later this year. We are not currently planning to provide separate national guidance for children's homes in the case of a serious civil emergency. However, we will keep this under review.

  Child Care
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many child care places were created in each of the past 15 years, broken down by constituency within each region. [175128]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Department is unable to provide details of child care places in the past 15 years. We are also unable to provide details of places within each constituency. Statistics have only been collected by local authorities since 1999 following the introduction of the National Childcare Strategy for England.

  A table, which has been placed in the Library, details the number of gross and net places created each year by local authority and region since 1999.

  Early Years Education
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) free nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four-year-olds in Wirral South in each of the last seven years. [173624]

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

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

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

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

  Number of free nursery education places1,2 taken up by three and four-year-old children in maintained nursery and primary schools and private, voluntary and independent providers Wirral local education authority area 1997–2003: Position in January each year

  Three-year-olds

  Four-year-olds

  2003

  3,200

  3,500

  2002

  3,200

  3,000

  2001

  3,100

  4,400

  2000

  2,900

  3,900

  1999

  1,700

  3,900

  1998

  1,700

  3,900

  1997

  1,600

  3,800

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

  2 A free nursery education place comprises five two and a half hour sessions of early years education per week, for thirty-three weeks of the year, usually three terms of eleven weeks.

  Education Statistics (London)
  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many instances of truancy there were in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in Brent in each year since 1997; and what the average figures for a London borough were in each year. [172809]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information requested is as follows:

  Number of pupils that missed at least a half day due to unauthorised absence in schools in Brent:

  Academic year (September—May)

  Primary Schools (percentage)

  Secondary Schools (percentage)

  1998

  3,585 (0.68)

  1,378 (0.83)

  1999

  3,738 (0.66)

  1,373 (0.89)

  2000

  3,971 (0.60)

  1,875 (1.04)

  2001

  3,198 (0.55)

  1,930 (0.89)

  1002

  3,262 (0.49)

  1,874 (0.73)

  2003

  3,036 (0.41)

  2,438 (0.86)

  Number of pupils that missed at least a half day due to unauthorised absence in schools in the London Government Office Region:

  Academic year (September—May)

  Primary schools (Percentage)

  Secondary schools (Percentage)

  1998

  130,606 (0.92)

  74.492 (1.52)

  1999

  133,433 (0.91)

  77,789 (1.48)

  2000

  137,772 (0.90)

  81,088 (1.43)

  2001

  140,592 (0.91)

  89,320 (1.49)

  2002

  136,781 (0.85)

  95,570 (1.45)

  2003

  135,716 (0.79)

  100,843 (1.34)

  Further Education
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people in the Worthing area he expects to stay in education as a result of the introduction of education maintenance allowances; and what plans he has to provide extra funding to further education colleges in the Worthing area to support these students. [175447]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We estimate there will be about 3,600 extra 16-year-olds in the South East Region in further education this September who would not be participating without EMA. We are unable to provide forecasts of the number of EMA students down to constituency level. The 2002 Spending Review settlement allowed for the expected impact of national EMA in further education institutions.

  Higher Education
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what criteria have been applied since 2000 to higher education colleges applying to move from the private sector to Higher Education Funding Council for England direct funding; and what changes there have been since 2000 to these criteria. [175389]
  1530W
  Alan Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 10 May 2004,Official Report, column 41W. The criteria have been in place since February 2001 and there have been no changes to them.

  ICT
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money has been spent on information and communications technology in schools in the last five years in the London borough of Wandsworth. [175207]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Over the last five years, schools in the London borough of Wandsworth have benefited from the following funding through the Standards Fund grant for ICT (including match funding from the LEA):

  £

  Allocation to Wandsworth LEA

  2000–01

  579,974

  2001–02

  834,881

  2002–03

  1,188,913

  2003–04

  1,199,494

  2004–05

  1,592,626

  Information, Advice and Guidance Partnerships
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people holding above-level 2 educational attainment contacted information, advice and guidance partnerships for assistance in the year to 31 March. [175260]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This is an operational matter for the Learning and Skills Council. The Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Member with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the House Libraries.

  Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills from what date students living in North Thanet will be eligible to receive funding under the Education Maintenance Allowance scheme. [173911]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding reply 19 May 2004]: We are phasing in the EMA scheme nationally from September 2004, to successive 16 year old year groups. EMA will be available to students in North Thanet who are aged 16 at the start of the 2004/2005 academic year.

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Work and Pensions on the impact of education maintenance allowances on benefits. [174856]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This Department has worked closely with the Department for Work and Pensions in developing the English EMA scheme.

  EMA will not affect other family benefits. It is specifically aimed at helping young people from lower income families to overcome barriers to further study caused by the costs of supporting students. EMA is paid

  1531W
  in addition to other support provided by the Government, such as Child Tax Credit and Working Tax Credit. EMA will not affect Child Benefit.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what evidence(a) he and (b) the Department of Trade and Industry have collated on the impact of education maintenance allowances on the national minimum wage for 16 year olds; and if he will make a statement. [174942]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Government submitted evidence to the Low Pay Commission on the possible introduction of a minimum wage rate for 16 and 17 year olds in December 2003. The evidence provided the Government with an opportunity to assess the interaction between a minimum wage for 16–17 year olds and incentives to participate in education and training, such as EMA.

  This evidence can be accessed online at www.dti.gov.uk/er/nmw/index.htm

  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make education maintenance allowances available to young people whose birthdays do not fall within the defined boundaries solely as a result of their being moved a year ahead at school. [174986]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Young people who have progressed a year at school and who are 15 when starting their further education are not eligible for EMA. The EMA scheme is targeted at those who reach compulsory school leaving age. To qualify for EMA under the national scheme a young person must reach the age of 16 between 1 September 2003 and 31 August 2004 and enter full time education in the 2004/2005 academic year. In addition young people aged 17 and over who live in the 56 areas that have already piloted EMA will also be able to apply.

  Maintenance Allowances
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he made of the Education Maintenance Allowance pilot schemes before rolling them out nationally; and what changes were made to the scheme as a result of his conclusions. [174991]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  An independent evaluation of the education maintenance allowance scheme has been taking place since 1999. The evaluation has tested the effectiveness of the scheme in increasing participation. Evidence from the pilots shows that EMAs have increased the number of eligible young people in full time education in year 12 in pilot areas by 5.9 percentage points compared to the local authority areas without EMAs. EMAs have also increased participation by young people in Year 13 by 4.1 percentage points.

  The evaluation has also assessed the comparative impact of different features and this has informed the development of the national scheme. The main changes are: that household income is assessed rather than parental income; that EMA payments are paid at three rates of £10, £20 or £30 dependent on the household income; the bonus payments are linked to retention and
  1532W
  progression in learning rather than achievement of qualifications; and, that more young people can benefit from three years of support.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 37–8W, on medical students, if he will list the factors taken into account in defining a broad range of social and ethnic backgrounds in respect of the criteria for the establishment of new medical schools; if he will break down the widening participation allocation by institution; and if he will make a statement on widening participation and the maintenance of standards of excellence in the medical profession. [175417]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government are absolutely committed to widening educational opportunities, not just in medicine but in higher education as a whole. We have always made it clear that admission to university must be on merit, based on the applicant's academic achievement and potential. It is important that universities, as autonomous bodies, ensure that their admission decisions are professional, fair and transparent.

  In inviting bids to expand medical school places in September 2000, the Department of Health and the Higher Education Funding Council for England (HEFCE) asked institutions to provide data relating to the following factors pertaining to social and ethnic backgrounds: "A" Level grades of successful medical students and, where known, unsuccessful candidates; demographic profile of applicants and students admitted to medical schools over the last two years by race, gender, socio-economic group and proportion of students admitted straight from state school; and for institutions without existing medical students, the same information for related disciplines, especially healthcare students.

  As my answer of 10 May explained, the HEFCE allocation for widening participation is broken down by institution in Table 1 of the HEFCE document "Recurrent Grants for 2004–05" (March 2004/12), a copy of which can be found in the House of Commons Library. Alternatively, the document can be accessed at http://www.hefce.ac.uk/Pubs/hefce/2004/04_127/ on the internet.

  Post-16 Education/Training
  Martin Linton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what progress he has made in talks with(a) the Learning and Skills Council and (b) the Association of Colleges about the respective roles, responsibilities and powers of those organisations and his Department in relation to the (i) provision and (ii) withdrawal of post-16 education and training in local areas. [175248]

  Alan Johnson
  The working group, which will consider the LSC-college relationship in relation to post-16 education and training, has yet to meet. Its membership will be agreed between the Department for Education and Skills, the Learning and Skills Council and relevant sector bodies. The Learning and Skills
  1533W
  Council is leading on establishing the group and will write to the hon. Member once the membership and remit for the group has been agreed.

  School Absences
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what guidelines he has issued to(a) schools and (b) local education authorities about levels of (i) authorised and (ii) unauthorised absence. [174717]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding reply 20 May 2004]: In December 2001, the Department asked all schools with above average levels of unauthorised absence to set themselves targets to reduce the level of unauthorised absence by the end of this school year. In February 2003, I wrote to all local education authorities reminding them of the importance that the Government attaches to improving the levels of school attendance and urging them to work with their schools in reducing both authorised and unauthorised absences. Also in 2003, we provided 56 local education authorities with expert advisers to help them work with schools to improve attendance levels, in particular, to reduce unauthorised absence to a level closer to that of authorities in similar circumstances. The Department also advises authorities and schools on appropriate levels of absence through analysis of targets set, for example, in Education Development Plans, under the Behaviour Improvement Programme or as part of Local Public Service Agreements.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment has been made of the causal links between absence from school and attainment at the level of(a) individual pupils, (b) schools and (c) local education authorities. [174718]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  [holding reply 20 May 2004]: The information is as follows:

  (a) The Department has recently commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to carry out an analysis of data to identify the links between individual pupils' attendance at school and their attainment in examinations. The report is expected in the summer of 2004.

  (b) Analysis of school level data for the 2002/3 academic year indicates that there is a correlation between attendance and attainment. For example, in schools with absence levels of 6.5 per cent. or lower, an average of 74.3 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more A*-C grades in GCSE examinations. However, the average fell to 26.7 per cent. in schools where absence levels exceeded 11 per cent.

  (c) The data also reveal a general correlation at local education authority level with attainment dropping as absence levels increase. Most authorities with absence levels of 7.0 per cent. or less have, on average, over 60 per cent. of pupils achieving five or more A*-C grades. In those authorities with absence levels exceeding 10 per cent., on average, less than 45 per cent. of pupils achieve five or more A*-C GCSE grades.

  School Budgets (London)
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many school budgets in Greater London, broken down by local education authority, were in deficit in each of the last seven years. [170498]

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is only available for the last four years and is contained in the following table:

  Numbers of schools in Greater London with deficit budgets

  LEA name

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  City of London

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Camden

  4

  0

  2

  6

  Greenwich

  23

  13

  21

  24

  Hackney

  21

  15

  21

  13

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  3

  2

  5

  10

  Islington

  10

  3

  2

  7

  Kensington and Chelsea

  4

  1

  3

  2

  Lambeth

  19

  12

  13

  14

  Lewisham

  10

  11

  20

  22

  Southwark

  10

  9

  21

  22

  Tower Hamlets

  20

  17

  23

  26

  Wandsworth

  6

  5

  4

  8

  Westminster

  9

  17

  12

  11

  Barking and Dagenham

  14

  4

  6

  14

  Barnet

  5

  8

  16

  5

  Bexley

  11

  5

  11

  10

  Brent

  10

  10

  14

  17

  Bromley

  13

  11

  8

  15

  Croydon

  7

  2

  2

  9

  Ealing

  9

  7

  5

  5

  Enfield

  5

  5

  4

  5

  Haringey

  32

  23

  18

  11

  Harrow

  2

  2

  0

  2

  Havering

  5

  6

  4

  7

  Hillingdon

  8

  11

  13

  10

  Hounslow

  9

  6

  6

  13

  Kingston-upon-Thames

  3

  3

  3

  4

  Merton

  5

  3

  4

  3

  Newham

  14

  17

  20

  20

  Redbridge

  6

  4

  4

  8

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  3

  2

  2

  6

  Sutton

  1

  2

  3

  2

  Waltham Forest

  10

  7

  12

  13

  Notes:

  1. The data are taken from local education authorities' Section 52 Outturn Statements submitted to the DfES. Financial data used to determine budget is taken to the nearest pound.

  2. School level data has only been collected by the DfES since the inception of Section 52 in 1999–2000.

  3. For 1999–2000 to 2001–02 the data are taken from the Balance Carried Forward column. In 2002–03 data comes from Other Revenue Balance.

  4. 2002–03 data subject to changes by the LEA which may alter the results for that period.

  Student Assistance
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assistance his Department offers to students from low income backgrounds who are embarking on further or higher education before their 19th birthday; and if he will extend education maintenance allowances to such students. [174990]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Young people from lower income households who are aged 16 at the start of the 2004/05 academic year can apply to receive the education maintenance allowance. We are phasing in the scheme
  1535W
  nationally from September 2004 to successive 16 year-old year groups. By 2006 all young people aged 16 to 19 who meet the eligibility requirements will be able to receive EMA. In addition, the Learner Support Fund provides a safety net to students who experience financial hardship. For those students in higher education from lower income backgrounds the £1,000 higher education grant is available from September 2004. This will ensure a continuous system of non-repayable support for tuition for those most in need.

  Sure Start Unit
  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many people the Sure Start Unit employs; and what the Unit's expected budget is in(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [175375]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  As at 1 April 2004, the Sure Start Unit employed 299 permanent staff. The expected budget for 2004–05 will be £12.7 million. Budgets are set annually.

  University Fees
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from(a) Chorley and (b) Lancashire are attending university; and how many (i) pay no tuition fees and (ii) pay partial tuition fees. [173767]

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

  For entry in 2002, there were 6,792 applicants domiciled in Lancashire LEA who were accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HND courses at UK institutions. Data on the number of students from Chorley attending university are not available.

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

  England and Wales: Academic year 2002/03 (provisions)

  Student Support Scheme

  Student Support Scheme

  Student numbers (000s)1

  Students (Percentage)1

  Nil contribution towards the cost of tuition from student/parents/spouse/partner2

  330

  43

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

  116

  15

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

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

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 12/2004 for 2002/03).

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities

  1536W
  Data are collected from the local education authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow for the production of firm figures below this level. Therefore data by constituency or local education authority are not available.

  University Students (Huntingdon)
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many students from(a) Cambridgeshire and (b) the constituency of Huntingdon are attending university; and how many of these students pay (i) no tuition fee and (ii) a partial tuition fee. [175251]

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

  For entry in 2002, there were 3,025 applicants domiciled in Cambridgeshire LEA who were accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HMD courses at UK institutions. Data on the number of students from the constituency of Huntingdon attending university are not available.

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

  England and Wales: Academic year 2002/031

  Student Support Scheme

  Student Support Scheme

  Student numbers2 (Thousand)

  Students2 (Percentage)

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

  330

  43

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

  116

  15

  1 Provisional.

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

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

  Note:

  National level data are published annually in the Department's Statistical First Releases (SFRs) (SFR 12/2004 for 2002/03).

  Source:

  F503G survey of local education authorities

  Data are collected from the Local Education Authorities (LEAs) to produce national estimates and the data collection exercise does not allow for the production of firm figures below this level. Therefore data by Constituency or local education authority are not available.

  Vocational Qualifications
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cost of(a) a GCSE, (b) an intermediate GNVQ, (c) an AS-level and (d) an NVQ

  1537W
  level-2 or equivalent vocational qualification are; and how many people achieved each of these qualifications in 2003. [172978]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The cost of examination entry is set by the independent awarding bodies. The typical cost of entry and the number of people achieving (a) GCSEs, (b) GNVQs and (c) AS levels in 2003 is as follows:

  Qualification

  Typical cost of entry1 (£)

  Number of candidates achieving qualification2

  (a) GCSE

  Full

  21.00

  682,828

  Short Course

  14.50

  275,841

  (b) Intermediate GNVQ

  48,842

  Part 1

  Full

  79.00

  45,550

  (c) GCE AS level

  33 (11 per unit)

  315,357

  1 Typical cost of entry is based on entry through Edexcel. These figures have been taken from information provided on the Edexcel website.

  2 Information on candidates attempting GCSEs, GNVQs and AS levels in 2003 is taken from information collated for the 2003 Performance Tables.

  Using the most recent data available the number of level 2 NVQs (National Vocational Qualifications) and OVQs (Other Vocational Qualifications) achieved in 2002 are shown in the following table.

  Qualification

  Typical cost of entry1 (£)

  Number of qualifications achieved2

  (d) NVQ Level 2

  84.00

  177,115

  OVQ Level 2

  3—

  98,307

  1 Typical cost of entry is based on entry through Edexcel. These figures have been taken from information provided on the Edexcel website.

  2 Information on candidates attempting GCSEs, GNVQs and AS levels in 2003 is taken from information collated for the 2003 Performance Table

  3 For OVQs the cost is not shown as this would be dependant upon the exact qualification.

CABINET OFFICE

  Emergency Communications Network
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how it is planned that senior Government figures will remain in contact in the event of a terrorist attack that eliminated the London telephone network. [172751]

  Mr. Alexander
  A range of measures are available to maintain contact with senior Government Ministers and officials in the event of degradation of the telephone network. These include the use of managed call preference schemes, secure fixed and mobile facilities, the private Whitehall telephone service and the Government Secure Intranet.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how many non-departmental public bodies have been(a) created and (b) abolished since July 2003. [175451]
  1538W
  Mr. Alexander
  This information is not currently available centrally.

  I refer the hon. Member to my response to the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) on 4 May 2004, Official Report, column 1444W, when I indicated that later this year we would be launching a Public Bodies database on the internet. This will contain statistics as at 31 March 2004 which can then be compared with figures in the previous annual "Public Bodies" publications.

  Official Vehicles
  John Barrett
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what percentage of official vehicles used by the Department are run on(a) petrol, (b) diesel, (c) liquid petroleum gas and (d) compressed natural gas. [172770]

  Mr. Alexander
  The responsibility for the provision of ministerial cars and drivers has been delegated under the terms of the Framework Document to the Government Car and Despatch Agency. I have asked its Chief Executive Mr. Nick Matheson to write to the hon. Member. Copies of his letter will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many public bodies sponsored by other Departments have been(a) merged and (b) abolished since 1997 as a result of a quinquennial review by his Department; and if he will make a statement; [174709]

  (2) how many quinquennial reviews of public bodies have been carried out since 1997; on what dates; and for which Departments. [174710]

  Mr. Alexander
  It is the responsibility of the relevant parent Department to ensure its public bodies are kept under review. Cabinet Office does not carry out such reviews for other Departments. The rigid requirement to review public bodies in accordance with detailed guidelines at least every five years ceased in 2002. Sponsor Departments now have greater flexibility in determining the appropriate timing and format for reviewing a particular public body. Information about the number and timing of reviews of public bodies by Departments is not held centrally by the Cabinet Office.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Beef
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the amount of imported beef which is processed in local factories and sold in Northern Ireland with a produce of Northern Ireland label under the Farm Quality Assured Scheme. [175915]

  Mr. Pearson
  Only beef derived from animals from FQAS registered farms and slaughtered in an FQAS registered slaughterhouse may be labelled as FQAS under the Livestock and Meat Commission Assurance
  1539W
  Scheme. The rules pertaining to the FQAS and the EU Beef Labelling Scheme preclude imported beef being sold under a FQAS label.

  Broadband
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the percentage of households in Northern Ireland who have broadband access. [175863]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Based on analysis of information obtained from the public domain, industry sources and service providers, it can be estimated that broadband services aimed at residential users are available to approximately 70 per cent. of households across Northern Ireland.

  Business Tariffs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made in securing European Commission approval for a three year subsidy scheme to reduce tariffs for business customers at 10 per cent. below true costs. [175722]

  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.

  A meeting to discuss the matter with Commission officials will take place early next month.

  Creative Writing Funding
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money was granted by(a) the Arts Council of Northern Ireland, (b) the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure, (c) the Ultach Trust and (d) Foras na Gaeilge towards the publication of creative writing in the Irish language in Northern Ireland in each year since 1999. [168560]

  Angela Smith
  The Arts Council of Northern Ireland has not made funding available specifically for the publication of writing in the Irish language. However, the Arts Council have given £6,000 per annum to "An tUltach", an Irish language literary and cultural magazine, and in 2003–04, £27,200 to an arts supplement published by Lá, an Irish language newspaper. Both these publications include an element of creative writing in Irish.

  The Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure's funds in support of the arts in Northern Ireland is 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 Irish language.

  The Ultach Trust is a registered charitable trust. It is not directly funded by Northern Ireland Departments and the Government are not responsible for the Trust's expenditure.

  Foras na Gaeilge has not provided any funding for the publication of creative writing in the Irish language.

  Disabled Drivers
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many and what percentage of people in Northern Ireland are in receipt of a blue badge for disabled drivers. [175862]

  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. Gregory Campbell, dated 25 May 2004:
  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question about how many and what percentage of people in Northern Ireland are in receipt of a blue badge for disabled drivers. I have been asked to reply as the issue raised falls within my responsibility as Chief Executive of Roads Service.
  I can advise you that the number of persons currently holding a Blue Badge in Northern Ireland is 74,146. Based on the 2001 population census figure of 1,685,267, this represents 4.4% of the population.

  Heart Conditions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will estimate how many individuals in Northern Ireland have implantable defibrillators; and how many procedures to implant these devices were performed in the Province in each of the last five years. [175160]

  Angela Smith
  Procedures to perform the implantation of defibrillators are undertaken at the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust and the Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust. Each trust maintains records of their patients who have been fitted with the device. According to the two trusts there are 381 individuals in Northern Ireland who have been fitted with implantable defibrillators since the beginning of the financial year 1999–2000.

  The following table provides figures for the number of procedures that were performed to implant these devices over the last five years.

  Number of implantable defibrillators fitted

  1999–2000

  46

  2000–01

  66

  2001–02

  55

  2002–03

  81

  2003–04

  133

  Homeless Report
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the 21st Report of the Committee of Public Accounts, Session 2003–04, "Housing the Homeless". [175902]

  Mr. Spellar
  I welcome the report and will be making a formal response to the Public Accounts Committee in due course.

  Iraq (Public Sector Employees)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses,

  1541W
  (c) allied health professionals and (d) others employed in the NHS in Northern Ireland are providing assistance in Iraq. [175218]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Livestock Collection
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the national collection scheme to assist livestock farmers in disposing of fallen stock will apply to Northern Ireland. [175591]

  Mr. Pearson
  Yes.

  Local Government Finance
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will list by district council area the(a) total amount of debt owed by each of the 26 local authorities and (b) the amount of debt per elector in each district. [174379]

  Angela Smith
  The amount of debt owed by each of the 26 district councils and the amount per elector in each district, at 31 March 2003, is set out in following table.

  District council

  Debt (£)

  Number of electors

  Debt per elector (£)

  Antrim1

  5,924,159

  29,301

  202.18

  Ards1

  17,365,391

  48,962

  354.67

  Armagh

  23,116,660

  37,030

  624.27

  Ballymena1

  23,576,459

  40,836

  577.34

  Ballymoney

  5,006,373

  18,707

  267.62

  Banbridge

  13,327,993

  28,685

  464.63

  Belfast1

  23,601,119

  155,929

  151.36

  Carrickfergus1

  9,718,566

  24,470

  397.16

  Castlereagh

  19,030,679

  42,679

  445.90

  Coleraine1

  22,427,214

  35,155

  637.95

  Cookstown

  1,689,565

  22,087

  76.50

  Craigavon1

  8,614,863

  53,040

  162.42

  Derry

  20,256,762

  63,434

  319.34

  Down

  8,715,435

  41,863

  208.19

  Dungannon and South Tyrone

  1,766,842

  33,129

  53.33

  Fermanagh

  2,188,192

  40,742

  53.71

  Larne

  5,260,870

  20,434

  257.46

  Limavady

  8,999,312

  20,086

  448.04

  Lisburn1

  26,557,800

  66,498

  399.38

  Magherafelt

  78,117

  27,551

  2.84

  Moyle1

  7,004,403

  10,576

  662.29

  Newry and Mourne

  21,973,624

  57,365

  383.05

  Newtownabbey

  29,018,716

  51,613

  562.24

  North Down1

  15,551,195

  49,671

  313.08

  Omagh

  9,340,300

  31,709

  294.56

  Strabane

  2,725,066

  25,388

  107.34

  1 Includes borrowings raised for housing, prior to the establishment of the Northern Ireland Housing Executive.

  Love for Life Programme
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the reason is for the Department of Education's decision to refuse funding for the Love for Life programme in schools. [175692]

  Mr. Gardiner
  My Department does not directly fund or prescribe the use of any particular programmes or materials that schools should use. It is entirely a matter for individual schools to select the resources and materials they consider necessary to deliver the curriculum. The Chief Executive of Love for Life was advised of this reason in a letter dated 11 May.

  Professional Qualifications Directive
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the proposed European Directive on the mutual recognition of professional qualifications, with particular reference to the impact in Northern Ireland of free movement of health professionals. [175169]

  Angela Smith
  The proposed European Directive on mutual recognition of professional qualifications aims to consolidate and rationalise existing rules. The Government welcome the simplification of rules and particularly welcomes new provisions for temporary and occasional supply of services. However, free movement must be balanced by a due regard for public health and safety, especially in the field of health. The proposal as it now stands reflects the view, shared by the Commission and the Council, that prior checks are necessary for health professions, before services can be provided on a temporary basis. The rules for prior checking of credentials before permanent practice are unchanged.

  Queen's University Belfast
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the costs were of(a) setting up and (b) maintaining in each year since establishment the (i) Omagh and (ii) Armagh campuses of Queen's University Belfast. [175214]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Queen's University Belfast, like all other UK universities, is an autonomous institution entirely responsible for its own policies and procedures, including decisions relating to the establishment of outreach campuses in Northern Ireland. The costs of setting up and maintaining the campus at Armagh is a matter internal to Queen's University and I am not able to provide details of these costs.

  Queen's University does not have a physical campus at Omagh. However, Queen's and Omagh College have, for many years, collaborated to provide a range of joint academic awards in the Omagh region.

  Sean O'Cealleogh
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what representations he has made to the US Administration about the decision of a US court not to deport Sean O'Cealleogh. [169927]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information sought is not readily available, but is presently being collated, and will be provided as soon as possible.

  Smoking
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ban smoking in public places in Northern Ireland. [175213]

  Angela Smith
  Substantial progress on the provision of smoke-free facilities can be made through the "Five Year Tobacco Action Plan for Northern Ireland", which was published in June 2003. The plan, which was prepared by an inter-sectoral working group, does not propose an outright ban on smoking in public places;
  1543W
  rather it stresses the importance of building on changes in public attitudes towards tobacco use, if the overall aim of creating a tobacco-free society is to be met. With this in mind, the plan includes a series of actions designed to promote the provision of smoke-free premises and facilities.

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

  Number of live and still births to Northern Ireland resident mother, 2000 to 2002

  Age of mother

  Registration year

  (a) 14 years and under

  (b) 15 years

  (c) 16 years

  (d) 17 years

  (e) 18 years

  (f) 19 years

  2000

  11

  47

  165

  312

  484

  601

  2001

  5

  37

  129

  280

  493

  588

  2002

  5

  32

  113

  304

  494

  566

  Source:

  Northern Ireland Statistics and Research Agency.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many attendances at sexual health clinics there were by those aged 11 to 19 years in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000, broken down by(a) age and (b) sex. [175223]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the total number of attendances at sexual health clinics is not collected centrally according to age and gender. Information is, however, available on the number of initial contacts with Genito-Urinary Medicine clinics each year, broken down by age and gender, in respect of persons with various sexually transmitted infections. This information is shown for the financial years ending March 2000, March 2001, March 2002 and March 2003 in the following table.

  Initial contacts

  Under 15

  15

  16–19

  Total

  1 April 1999–31 March 2000

  Male

  1

  0

  169

  170

  Female

  9

  16

  397

  422

  Total

  10

  16

  566

  592

  1 April 2000–31 March 2001

  Male

  5

  2

  219

  226

  Female

  8

  15

  475

  498

  Total

  13

  17

  694

  724

  1 April 2001–31 March 2002

  Male

  1

  0

  201

  202

  Female

  6

  15

  440

  461

  Total

  7

  15

  641

  663

  1 April 2002–31 March 2003

  Male

  3

  3

  195

  201

  Female

  6

  21

  464

  491

  Total

  9

  24

  659

  692

  Note:

  Figures refer to the total number of initial contacts in respect of primary and secondary infectious syphilis, uncomplicated gonorrhoea, uncomplicated chlamydial infection, anogenital herpes simplex (first attack), anogenital warts (first attack), and HIV antibody counselling with testing.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many conceptions there were in females aged 11 to 19 years in Northern Ireland in each year since 2000, broken down by age. [175225]

  Angela Smith
  Information on the number of conceptions is not available. However, information on the number of registered live and still births to mothers in Northern Ireland, by age, for the years 2000–02, is available and is detailed in the table.

  Ulster Hospital (Shuttle Bus)
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the potential benefits of a shuttle bus service between the Ulster hospital and Belfast city centre. [175210]

  Mr. Spellar
  There has been no assessment made of the potential benefits of a shuttle bus service from Belfast city centre to the Ulster hospital.

  Unmanned Railway Crossings
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the safety risks associated with unmanned railway crossings in Northern Ireland since the accident at Woodtown Crossing, Co. Londonderry on 11 May. [175525]

  Mr. Spellar
  Safety on the Northern Ireland railway network is the responsibility of Northern Ireland Railways. Translink have advised that an inquiry is under way into the cause and circumstances surrounding the tragic accident at Woodtown crossing. Furthermore a review of all accommodation crossings by independent consultants is nearing completion and will result in a re-evaluation of the categorisation of over 200 user worked crossings throughout the network.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Free Television Licences
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many pensioner households in the Elmet constituency receive a free TV licence. [174874]

  Estelle Morris
  TV Licensing, who administer free television licences for people aged 75 or over as agents for the BBC, are not able to provide geographical breakdowns of the number of free licences issued. However, 2001 Census data for parliamentary constituencies identifies 7,131 people aged 75 or over living in the Elmet constituency.

  Audio-description Technology
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how she is working with interested parties to encourage the development of audio-description technology adapted for(a) museum and heritage collections and (b) visual arts work. [175016]

  Estelle Morris
  DCMS and its sponsored bodies have undertaken a range of initiatives aimed at increasing the use of audio description, which, through visual information and interpretive commentary, can greatly enhance appreciation of cultural exhibits and sites by visually-impaired people. Some of the key initiatives are as follows.

  Arts Council England (ACE) and the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (MLA), with support from English Heritage, funded the "Talking Images" project managed by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, which resulted in extensive guidance for museums, galleries and heritage sites on how to provide audio description and venue access, including a technical specification for user-friendly audio-guide equipment.

  MLA has produced further guidance on inclusive technology, distributed to more than 3,000 museums, libraries and archives, and is also promoting technical web-accessibility for online cultural collections, so that new services such as audio description can be easily accessed. An example of innovation in this area is the Tate Modern's imap website, which uses audio description and images adapted for the partially-sighted through heightened colour contrast.

  English Heritage has audio guides at over 50 of its properties and is looking to increase this number. Many sites also have set tours for the visually-impaired and interactive audio tours. English Heritage has also produced a guide on improving access for blind and partially-sighted people.

  Casinos
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the permitted areas where casinos may be established under the Gaming Act 1968; and in which of those areas casinos are not currently operating. [175819]

  Mr. Caborn
  The areas where casinos are allowed to operate under the Gaming Clubs (Permitted Areas) Regulations 1971 are as follows:

  London

  That area which is within the area specified in the licensing (Metropolitan Special Hours Area) Order 1961—plus the City of Westminster and the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea.

  The rest of England, Wales and Scotland

  The areas of the former county boroughs, non-county boroughs and urban districts of:

  Aberdeen

  Birkenhead

  Birmingham

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  1546W

  Bournemouth

  Bradford

  Brighton

  Bristol

  Cardiff

  Coventry

  Derby

  Dudley

  Dundee

  Edinburgh

  Glasgow

  Great Yarmouth

  Hove

  Huddersfield

  Kingston upon Hull

  Leeds

  Leicester

  Liverpool

  Luton

  Lytham St. Annes

  Manchester

  Margate

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  Northampton

  Nottingham

  Plymouth

  Portsmouth

  Ramsgate

  Reading

  Ryde

  Salford

  Sandown/Shanklin

  Scarborough

  Sheffield

  Southampton

  Southend-on-Sea

  Southport

  Stockport

  Stoke-on-Trent

  Sunderland

  Swansea

  Teesside/Middlesbrough

  Torbay

  Walsall

  Warley

  West Bromwich

  Wolverhampton.

  There are currently no casinos operating in Ryde, Sandown/Shanklin or Warley.

  Cricket Tours
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has had with the International Cricket Council regarding the rules operated by the ICC in respect of cricket tour cancellations. [175487]
  1547W
  Mr. Caborn
  The Government have not discussed the rules about cricket tour cancellations with the International Cricket Council. This is a matter between the ICC and the England and Wales Cricket Board.

  Departmental Buildings
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many buildings in England owned by her Department are used at less than 25 per cent. capacity for more than three months of the year. [175982]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport leases four buildings or part buildings in London, none of which, ever fall to an occupancy level as low as 25 per cent.

  Electronic Programme Guides
  Lembit Öpik
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) if she will request that Ofcom include a requirement for a periodic review of the ordering of channels on electronic programme guides (EPGs) in its new code of practice for EPG providers; and if she will make a statement; [174670]

  (2) what assessment she has made of the impact of television channels' positioning on the electronic programme guides on viewer choice; what steps she intends to take to ensure that EPG providers facilitate a reordering of channels disadvantaged by their EPG listing; and if she will make a statement; [174671]

  (3) what discussions she has had with Ofcom about the role of the electronic programme guide in promoting fair competition between the UK 24-hour news sources on digital television; and if she will make a statement; [174672]

  (4) what discussions she has had with Ofcom about whether the new electronic programme guide code will include a requirement for a review of channel ordering on the EPG; and if she will make a statement. [174673]

  Estelle Morris
  The regulation of electronic programme guides is a matter for Ofcom and therefore I have not had any detailed discussions with them on this matter.

  Under section 310 of the Communications Act 2003, Ofcom has to draw up a code giving guidance as to the practices to be followed in the provision of electronic programme guides. Ofcom must review and revise this code from time to time.

  In their consultation on this issue, Ofcom stated that they "intend to review the code at intervals of no more than two years, or more frequently if circumstances warrant it". They proposed that the code should require "all EPG providers to have an objectively justifiable method of allocating listings" and stressed that "this does not preclude different methods"—for example, objectively justifiable methods could include, "first come first served" listings, alphabetical listings and those based on audience shares.

  In their consultation on the regulation of electronic programme guides, Ofcom state that "discriminatory treatment of a channel in terms of listings or presentation would constrain its ability to compete
  1548W
  effectively with other channels for audience share and advertising revenue and would thus be prejudicial to fair and effective competition".

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Chris Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the members are of the forum on intellectual property rights being established jointly by her right hon. Friends the Minister for the Arts and the Minister for Science and Innovation; what sectors they represent; what the agenda will be for the forum's work; and what timetable it will be working to. [R] [175687]

  Estelle Morris
  This Department and the Department of Trade and Industry are currently finalising details of the forum. An announcement will be made as soon as possible.

  Sports Spectators
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people watched professional(a) rugby league, (b) football, (c) rugby union and (d) cricket in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [175480]

  Mr. Caborn
  In 2003, around 1.6 million people attended professional Rugby League matches: 1.4 million at Super League matches; 100,000 at Challenge Cup ties; 100,000 at National League matches.

  In the 2003–04 football season, 29 million people attended Premier League and Football League matches: 13.3 million at Premier League games; 16 million at Football League matches (Divisions 1, 2 and 3).

  In 2003, around 4.5 million people attended Rugby Union matches in Britain: 3.4 million attending international matches; 1.1 million at Zurich Premiership matches.

  In the May to September 2003 cricket season around 1.9 million people attended cricket matches in England: 630,000 attending international games; 1.3 million attending domestic cricket matches.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Speed Cameras (West Sussex)
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was raised in fines from speed cameras in the last year for which records are available in(a) West Sussex and (b) the East Worthing and Shoreham constituency. [175046]

  Caroline Flint
  Information on the revenue raised from speed offences detected by camera is not available.

  Available information on the number of fixed penalties and court fines ordered to be paid within the Sussex police force area for the offence of 'speeding detected by camera' in 2002 is shown in the table. It is not possible from the data collected centrally to identify the county of West Sussex and the constituency of East

  1549W
  Worthing and Shoreham within the geographical area of the Sussex police force.

  Not all fines and fixed penalties will have been paid.

  Fixed penalty and court proceedings data for speeding offences detected by cameras1 in the Sussex police force area, 2002

  Rounded

  2001

  Fixed penalties

  Number of tickets2

  19,000

  Estimated revenue (£)3

  1,141,000

  Court proceedings4

  Number of fines

  610

  Total amount of fine (£)

  54,700

  Average fine (£)

  90

  1 Offences under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 and The Motor Vehicles (Speed Limits on Motorways) Regulations 1973.

  2 Paid i.e. no further action.

  3 "Estimate" based on £60 penalty charge.

  4 Includes cases where fixed penalty notices were originally issued but not paid and subsequently referred to court.

  Correspondence
  Ian Lucas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he expects the Immigration and Nationality Directorate to reply to the letter from the hon. Member for Wrexham of 23 October 2003 in connection with Mr. Jama Ali Farah (ref. F1036752). [172199]

  Mr. Browne
  Officials at the Immigration and Nationality Directorate replied on 3 November 2003 to my hon. Friend's letter of 23 October 2003.

  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 7 April 2004, reference PO4301/4. [174749]

  Mr. Browne
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: I wrote to the hon. Member's letter on 25 May 2004.

  Criminal Justice
  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what discussions his Department has had with the Department for Transport on reform of the criminal justice system. [172844]

  Paul Goggins
  The Home Office is in regular contact with the Department for Transport on criminal justice issues, including sentencing, support for victims of road crash incidents and road traffic policing.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget is for each local criminal justice board in 2004–05; and what the proposed budget is for 2005–06. [172957]

  Paul Goggins
  The amount of funding from the centre to support the activities of each Local Criminal Justice Board in 2004–05 has yet to be agreed but it is hoped that it will be at least equal to the £40,000 that was provided to each Local Criminal Justice Board in 2003–04. The final sum provided in 2004–05 will be in addition to the salary cost paid by the centre for the support provided by the Performance Officer to each Local Criminal Justice Board area. The proposed 1550W
  budget for 2005–06 will not be known until after the outcome of the 2004 Spending Review has been considered.

  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the criminal justice boards where representatives of Victim Support are(a) full members of the Board and (b) attend board meetings. [172958]

  Paul Goggins
  The four Criminal Justice Boards where representatives of Victim Support are full members of the Board are Avon and Somerset, Greater Manchester, Lancashire and London.

  Attendance at Local Board meetings is a matter for each Board's discretion. However, Boards where the Victim Support representative may, on occasion, attend board meetings as a member of a Victim and Witness sub-group include Cambridgeshire, Cheshire, Cumbria, Devon and Cornwall, Durham, Dyfed Powys, Essex, Greater Manchester, Hampshire, Kent, Norfolk, North Yorkshire, Nottinghamshire, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Suffolk, Sussex, Thames Valley, Warwickshire and West Yorkshire. In addition to this, a Victim Support representative is a member of the Merseyside Advisory Group and therefore may possibly attend some of the Board meetings.

  Drugs Testing/Treatment
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many drugs testing and treatment orders were issued in(a) Greater London and (b) each London borough in each year since 1997. [163092]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 22 March 2004]: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders (DTTOs) have been available since October 2000 when they were rolled out nationally following an 18-month pilot period in three areas. The London Probation Area is required to submit monthly figures to the National Probation Directorate pertaining to the number of Orders made but is not required to break this down by boroughs. The breakdown by borough shown in Annexes A and B has been obtained from London Probation Area records.

  The number of orders made in each year from October 2000 to February 2004 is as follows:

  Number

  October 2000 to March 2001

  251

  (not available by borough)

  April 2001 to March 2002

  556

  (not available by borough)

  April 2002 to March 2003

  715

  (by borough at Annex A)

  April 2003 to February 2004

  941

  (by borough at Annex B)

  Annex A: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made in London between Apri1 2002 to March 2003 by borough

  Number

  Bexley

  11

  Greenwich

  32

  Brent

  23

  Harrow

  10

  Ealing

  33

  Hillingdon

  7

  Hounslow

  22

  Barnet

  16

  Enfield

  27

  1551W

  Annex A: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made in London between April 2002 to March 2003 by borough

  Number

  Haringey

  38

  Bromley

  18

  Croydon

  44

  Camden

  35

  Islington

  28

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  16

  Kensington and Chelsea

  12

  Westminster

  12

  City

  0

  Hackney

  43

  Newham

  21

  Tower Hamlets

  22

  Lambeth

  39

  Lewisham

  25

  Southwark

  45

  Barking and Dagenham

  15

  Havering

  9

  Redbridge

  21

  Waltham Forrest

  17

  Kingston

  7

  Merton

  10

  Richmond

  3

  Sutton

  12

  Wandsworth

  29

  Total

  702

  Note:

  In addition, 13 orders were made in London on offenders of No Fixed Abode in any borough.

  Annex B: Drug Treatment and Testing Orders made in London between April 2003—February 2004 by borough

  Number

  Bexley

  8

  Greenwich

  37

  Brent

  30

  Harrow

  14

  Eating

  37

  Hillingdon

  27

  Hounslow

  24

  Barnet

  22

  Enfield

  31

  Haringey

  41

  Bromley

  23

  Croydon

  35

  Camden

  47

  Islington

  35

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  24

  Kensington and Chelsea

  16

  Westminster

  34

  City

  0

  Hackney

  34

  Newham

  35

  Tower Hamlets

  44

  Lambeth

  53

  Lewisham

  47

  Southwark

  62

  Barking and Dagenham

  21

  Havering

  7

  Redbridge

  17

  Waltham Forrest

  30

  Kingston

  7

  Merton

  15

  Richmond

  6

  Sutton

  19

  Wandsworth

  53

  Total

  935

  Note:

  In addition, six orders were made in London on offenders of No Fixed Abode in any borough.

  Fines
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of fines was collected by each local criminal justice board in the last year for which figures are available. [173777]

  Paul Goggins
  Local Criminal Justice Boards (LCJBs) do not directly collect fines. Fine enforcement is the responsibility of local Magistrates' Courts Committees (MCCs). But, given the importance of fine enforcement to public confidence in the Criminal Justice System, LCJBs are encouraged to monitor and to work jointly to improve payment rates within their local areas.

  The table shows the payment rate for April 2003 to March 2004 for each of the 42 local MCCs. This represents the total value of fines (excluding confiscation orders) collected as a percentage of the total value of fines imposed over this period. The Department for Constitutional Affairs set MCCs a target of 75 per cent. for the year ending March 2004. Note that it is possible for an area's payment rate to exceed 100 per cent. if a sufficiently high value of fines imposed prior to April 2003 are collected.

  Payment rate (Percentage)

  Magistrates' Court Committee

  Q4 (January to Mar 2004)

  Year 2003–04

  Avon and Somerset

  77

  83

  Bedfordshire

  84

  80

  Cambridgeshire

  110

  100

  Cheshire

  78

  82

  Cleveland

  114

  91

  Cumbria

  91

  93

  Derbyshire

  89

  79

  Devon and Cornwall

  55

  68

  Dorset

  69

  72

  Durham

  93

  90

  Dyfed Powys

  102

  81

  Essex

  109

  94

  Gloucestershire

  61

  95

  Greater London

  82

  66

  Greater Manchester

  72

  64

  Gwent

  84

  85

  Hampshire and Isle of Wight

  68

  86

  Hertfordshire

  63

  68

  Humberside

  87

  96

  Kent

  78

  78

  Lancashire

  90

  86

  Leicestershire

  73

  69

  Lincolnshire

  75

  75

  Merseyside

  51

  59

  Norfolk

  85

  79

  North Wales

  75

  89

  North Yorkshire

  138

  98

  Northamptonshire

  81

  96

  Northumbria

  81

  82

  Nottinghamshire

  68

  72

  South Wales

  76

  76

  South Yorkshire

  101

  81

  Staffordshire

  67

  78

  Suffolk

  71

  80

  Surrey

  77

  74

  Sussex

  95

  100

  Thames Valley

  63

  65

  Warwickshire

  80

  94

  West Mercia

  74

  79

  West Midlands

  54

  53

  West Yorkshire

  69

  58

  Wiltshire

  92

  94

  England and Wales

  76

  74

  Gun Crime
  Ms Abbott
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what guidance has been issued to police regarding the use of informants in cases of gun crime. [175540]

  Caroline Flint
  The use of informants in cases of gun crime is subject to the standard police operating procedures, which apply generally in relation to the use of informants.

  Home Detention Curfew Scheme
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners were recalled for failing to adhere to home detention conditions during January and February in each prison region. [163270]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 23 March 2004]: The number of prisoners who were recalled for failing to adhere to the home detention curfew conditions during January and February 2004, by Prison Service management region, is given in the table.

  HOC recalls, by Prison Service management area from which the prisoner was discharged

  January 2004

  February 2004

  All Establishments

  220

  189

  North East

  5

  3

  Yorks and Humberside

  20

  18

  East Midlands (N)

  10

  9

  North West

  20

  19

  East Midlands (S)

  15

  14

  Eastern

  15

  19

  West Midlands

  31

  22

  Wales

  6

  4

  South West

  15

  16

  Thames Valley and Hants

  5

  7

  Kent Surrey and Sussex

  12

  6

  London

  8

  9

  Female Estate

  32

  20

  Juveniles Estate

  2

  2

  High Security Estate

  8

  8

  Contracted Out

  16

  13

  Illegal Arms Trade (Nuclear Weapons)
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether investigations by the police authorities have been undertaken in respect of individuals and companies for the offence of assisting or inducing weapons-related acts overseas, in particular for developing, producing or participating in the development or production of a nuclear weapon; and if he will make a statement. [174627]

  John Healey
  I have been asked to reply.

  Investigation and prosecution of offences involving assisting or inducing weapons-related acts overseas is the responsibility of HM Customs and Excise. However, Customs' cannot comment on whether a matter is under current investigation; Exemption 4 (Law enforcement and legal proceedings) of the Open Government Code applies.
  1554W
  Customs have an important role in countering the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. They work closely with other Government Departments and agencies, in the UK and overseas, to ensure that effective action is taken against proliferators.

  Any prosecution for such offences require the consent of the Attorney-General.

  Immigration Training
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what funding was provided to the Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner to provide immigration training for voluntary sector workers in(a) 2003 and (b) 2004.[171792]

  Mr. Browne
  The Office of the Immigration Services Commissioner (OISC), in its annual business plan, submits its budget proposals to the Home Office for approval. The total budget allocation is then paid, in monthly grant in aid payments, to the OISC, which then has authority to incur the expenditure approved without further reference to the Department.

  The OISC community training budgets for the relevant period, which have been approved by the Home Office, were:

  £

  2002–03

  200,000

  2003–04

  175,000

  2004–05

  170,000

  National Identity Register
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances the police would be authorised to access data stored on the National Identity Register. [170258]

  Mr. Browne
  It is incorrect to say that any body or person will have "access" to the register, rather the legislation will permit the Secretary of Sate to disclose information where a person consents or, where a person does not consent, only for specified purposes to specified persons.

  People will therefore be free to produce an identity card on a voluntary basis, including to a police officer, as a means of establishing their identity.

  There is an exception to the general bar on disclosing information from the register without consent where disclosure to the police is in the interests of national security and for the prevention and investigation of crime, as set out in Clause 20(3) of the draft Identity Cards Bill. Such disclosure may be authorised only where the Secretary of State is satisfied that it was not reasonably practicable for the police to have obtained the information by other means. For example, if fingerprint information is recorded on the register, the police would first have to search their own fingerprint records before resorting to the register. In addition, Clause 24(2) enables the Secretary of State to impose other requirements that must be satisfied before such a disclosure is made.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Steen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will publish the investigatory report referred to in the letter to the hon. Member for Totnes from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State dated 17 March 2004, regarding the treatment of Mr. Torben Vannan and Mr. Calvin John Vannan at Heathrow airport on 15 February 2004. [172761]

  Mr. Browne
  I apologise for the delay in providing a substantive response to the hon. Member's letter of 3 March.

  The investigating officer has now completed his report, and I wrote on 25 May detailing the outcome of the inquiries into the concerns he raised.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will answer the question from the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South of 29 January 2004, reference 152236. [165364]

  Paul Goggins
  I replied to the hon. Member on 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 759W.

  Police (Lancashire)
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether radios used by Lancashire police work in adjoining police areas; and whether they are compatible with radios used by(a) Cumbria, (b) Merseyside and (c) Greater Manchester police forces. [175495]

  Caroline Flint
  Operational arrangements are in place to ensure that Lancashire police can communicate with neighbouring forces.

  Lancashire police can already communicate seamlessly with Greater Manchester police using the new Airwave system. Airwave will be available in Merseyside and Cumbria by the end of March 2005.

  Probation Service
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what budget was set for the National Probation Directorate at the commencement of the financial year 2003–04; what the change in gross provision was; and if he will make a statement. [168464]

  Paul Goggins
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 18 May 2004,Official Report, column 860W.

  Racial Equality
  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the Commission for Racial Equality's section 44 funding is for 2004–05, broken down by region. [172830]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave on 14 May 2004,Official Report, column 862W.

  Dr. Iddon
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will list the panel members who decided Commission for Racial Equality section 44 funding for 2004–05. [172848]
  1556W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The members of the Communities and Partnerships Committee who made the decisions on Getting Results funding this year were as follows:

  Kay Hampton (Committee Chair)

  Trevor Phillips

  Gloria Mills

  Julia Chain

  Khurshid Ahmed

  Security Cameras
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much public funding has been spent on CCTV security cameras in Manchester, Central since 1997. [174280]

  Ms Blears
  Since 1997, the Home Office has provided £3,515,685 to Manchester City Council for Close Circuit Television schemes.

  Allocation of that funding locally is a matter for Manchester City Council and Greater Manchester Police. The information is not held centrally.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Illegal Websites
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many websites regulatory bodies have closed down because of the presence of illegal images and content in each of the last two years. [174833]

  Mr. Timms
  In the UK the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is charged with the responsibility of managing consumer complaints about potentially illegal content online.

  The IWF's Internet Hotline deals with reports of potentially illegal Internet content, such as websites, newsgroups and online groups that contain: images of child abuse anywhere in the world; adult material that potentially breaches the Obscene Publications Act in the UK; and criminally racist material in the UK. Statistics taken from the IWF's annual reports show that in 2002, 88 UK websites and in 2003, 34 UK websites were removed due to potentially illegal content. For images of child abuse hosted overseas the information is passed to IWF's counterparts and law enforcement agencies in those countries and there are no statistics on how many of these sites have been closed down.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many staff were employed in a press office or public relations capacity(a) by Advantage West Midlands and (b) by each regional development agency in (i) 1999, (ii) 2000, (iii) 2001, (iv) 2002 and (v) 2003. [172371]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 13 May 2004]: The information requested is set out in the following table.
  1557W
  Answers calculated as equivalent full-time posts:

  RDA

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Advantage West Midlands

  0

  0

  1

  3

  3

  East of England Development Agency

  2.5

  3

  3.25

  3.25

  3.5

  East Midlands Development Agency

  0

  0

  10

  2

  2

  London Development Agency

  0

  0

  0

  5

  5

  North West Development Agency

  0

  0

  4

  5

  7

  ONE North East

  6

  6

  6

  6

  7

  South East England Development Agency

  1.4

  2.25

  2.1

  3.7

  5.6

  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  1

  1

  3

  4

  5

  Yorkshire Forward

  2

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  3.5

  1 Between these years, emda outsourced to an agency.

  Beagle Project
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to publish the inquiry into the Beagle project. [174853]

  Ms Hewitt
  The recommendations from the Report of the Inquiry into the Beagle project will be published on 24 May 2004. The Inquiry covered a wide range of important issues of concern to the United Kingdom, the European Space Agency (ESA) and other member states in ESA. Some of these matters are necessarily confidential, or commercially sensitive to firms in the United Kingdom, so the full report cannot be published under Exemption 1—Defence Security and International Relations and Exemption 13 Third Party Commercial Confidence's of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Copies of the recommendations will be placed in the Libraries of House.

  Belize
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the value was of(a) imports and (b) exports to Belize in each of the past 25 years in real terms. [175242]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Information on the UK's trade with Belize in real terms is not available. Data on trade at current prices are given in the following table.

  UK trade in goods with Belize 1979–2003

  £ million, current prices

  UK Exports

  UK Imports

  1979

  10.4

  12.1

  1980

  9.4

  13.2

  1981

  10.0

  15.1

  1982

  10.4

  13.3

  1983

  8.7

  11.6

  1984

  11.5

  15.9

  1985

  8.3

  15.0

  1986

  8.2

  18.0

  1987

  7.5

  22.8

  1988

  12.1

  22.5

  1989

  11.8

  24.3

  1990

  12.4

  22.7

  1991

  14.6

  20.8

  1992

  11.1

  32.2

  1993

  16.6

  37.4

  1994

  12.8

  42.5

  1995

  14.3

  47.0

  1996

  10.2

  47.9

  1997

  13.6

  36.3

  1998

  11.6

  33.6

  1999

  11.7

  43.2

  1558W

  UK trade in goods with Belize 1979–2003

  £ million, current prices

  UK Exports

  UK Imports

  2000

  11.5

  39.6

  2001

  13.8

  34.9

  2002

  13.7

  31.6

  2003

  17.4

  42.0

  Source:

  Compiled by SU Statistics from HM Customs & Excise data.

  Competitiveness Council
  Mr. Hood
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Competitiveness Council of 17 to 18 May; what the Government's stance was on the issues discussed, including its voting record; and if she will make a statement. [174810]

  Jacqui Smith
  I represented the UK at the Competitiveness Council on 17–18 May 2004.

  The Council held a debate on better regulation and on competitiveness and innovation, based on a number of documents covering: industry policy; the strategy for life sciences and biotechnology; proactive competition policy; and the latest state aid scoreboard. Ministers emphasised the need for reduced, simpler regulation the importance of SMEs, innovation, the need for new policies to stimulate private investment in scientific research, and the development of close links between industry and universities. The UK drew attention to the need for economic reform and structural change, and called for the Council to match its broad aspirations with decisions on key dossiers.

  Two sets of Council Conclusions on Better Regulation, and on Competitiveness and Innovation were formally agreed.

  Ministers exchanged views on the proposed Chemicals Regulation (REACH). The discussion focused on three key areas: registration, manufacturers' duty of care, and the role of the EU Chemicals Agency. Ministers stressed the importance of striking the right balance between ensuring that the EU chemicals industry remains competitive and delivering benefits for human health and the environment.

  The UK advocated a system of "One substance-One registration". Most member states expressed support for the principle, but said that the proposal needed further development. The presidency invited the UK to bring forward its proposal as soon as possible, and asked the working group to do further work on the other aspects of registration and the role of the Chemicals Agency.
  1559W
  Commissioner Busquin gave a brief update on the negotiations on the International Thermonuclear Experimental reactor (ITER), with the aim of securing the ITER site in the EU.

  The Council discussed the Commission's proposals on the admission of third country nationals to carry out scientific research in the EU. The Council recognised that it was vital for the EU to have more researchers and largely welcomed the proposal.

  However, the Council noted that further work was needed to refine the proposal, in particular in relation to the role and responsibilities of the host organisation, whether to differentiate between public and private organisations, and the procedures for family reunification. These messages are to be passed to the President of the Justice and Home Affairs Council.

  In the absence of an expected Commission Communication, Commissioner Busquin gave a brief presentation on the Future of European research.

  The Council reached agreement on the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. The UK supported the Directive's aim of harmonising national consumer protection laws against unfair commercial marketing and advertising.

  The Presidency confirmed that a first reading agreement had been reached with the European Parliament on the Regulation on Consumer Protection Co-Operation. The aim of the Regulation is to promote co-operation between national authorities on the enforcement of consumer protection legislation.

  The Council was unable to reach agreement on a Regulation on Sales Promotion. The proposal aims to create a harmonised regime for sales promotions involving offers of discounts, free gifts, premiums, and promotional games and contests.

  Member states were unable to reach agreement on the "Country of Origin" principle, as well as a number of other issues, notably: promotional games, information requirements, and the application of the Regulation to pharmaceuticals.

  Discussion on the final outstanding points on the Regulation to establish a Community Patent continued at the Council. Member states could not agree on the legal effect of translations of a patent claim and the length of time for filing such translations. Germany, France, Spain and Portugal all indicated they could not support the Presidency compromise text. The Presidency stated it would bring the matter to the attention of the President of the European Council.

  The Council reached political agreement on a common position on a Directive on the Patentability of Computer-Implemented Inventions. The Directive contains provisions in accordance with the practice of the European Patent Organisation on the patentability of such inventions.

  The Council also reached political agreement on a common position on the Mutual Recognition of Professional Qualifications Directive. The Directive aims to create a clearer system for the recognition of
  1560W
  qualifications in the field of regulated professions by consolidating 15 Directives covering all professions into a single legislative text.

  Political agreement on a common position was reached on a Regulation to amend the Community Customs Code, which aims to improve security at EU external frontiers.

  The UK voted in favour of all of the legislative measures agreed at the Council.

  Computer File Formats
  Mr. Allan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is in respect of the computer file formats used for the(a) distribution and (b) archiving of publicly available documents. [173365]

  Ms Hewitt
  Publicly available documents are distributed through the DTI websites predominantly in HTML and PDF to ensure that the information is as widely accessible as possible. On the main DTI website formal publications are available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/publications/.

  We are proposing to archive and preserve electronic publications within the Department's electronic record and document management system in the format in which they were published. We will be reviewing this approach in discussion with the National Archives.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action she has taken in response to the report entitled Unanswered Questions, Companies, Conflict, and the Democratic Republic of Congo. [175552]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: This report, which poses questions primarily based on the published UN reports, is being studied with interest. We have contact with Rights and Accountability in Development, the authors of this report.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the reasons were for the increase in the total net administration costs of her Department between 2002–03 and 2003–04 as set out in the Departmental Report 2004, Cm 6216, page 161. [171612]

  Ms Hewitt
  As is the standard approach, the 2004 Departmental Report provides an-actual outturn figure for 2002–03 and an estimated outturn figure for 2003–04. These two figures are not equivalent and cannot be compared directly. The actual outturn figure for 2003–04 will be published in the 2005 Departmental Report.

  The actual outturn figure for 2003–04 was lower than estimated, mainly due to the generation of additional receipts, and some technical accounting adjustments. On an equivalent basis, the net administration cost for 2002–03, was £16 million higher than 2002–03, and this was awarded through Spending Review 2002. The reasons for this were an additional £8 million for front line services in the Employment Tribunals Service, ACAS and The Insolvency Service, £5 million for

  1561W
  electronic Government IT services and an additional £3 million covering a range of activities across the Department.

  Departmental Publications
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry pursuant to the answer of 10 May 2004.Official Report, column 79W, on departmental publications, if she will provide the information her Department holds centrally on the newspapers, magazines and periodicals for which it is responsible. [173962]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 18 May 2004]: I am enclosing a list of serial publications as notified to my Department's Publications Unit. The list is of serial publications (excluding annual publications) that were produced between 1 April 2003 and 31 March 2004 and contains a brief description of each publication's subject matter.

  Publication title

  Subject matter

  Automotive industries: driving towards a cleaner future. Issue 1

  Industry—Automotive

  Biotech advantage: making the best use of intellectual property from bioscience

  Industry—Biotechnology

  Biotechnology: the science of the 21st century. Issue 1

  Industry—Biotechnology

  Bio-wise newsletter

  Industry—Biotechnology

  Cleaner coal research matters

  Energy—Cleaner Coal Technology Programme

  Compensation for miners: coal health claims newsletter. Latest issue 8, spring 2004

  Mining

  East midlands news: the newsletter of export support activity in the East Midlands

  UK Trade and Investment

  ENERGIE focus

  Energy

  Energy trends

  Energy

  Environmental opportunities: the magazine for the environmental goods and services industry

  Environment

  Environmental technologies: UK greening up. Issue 1

  Environment

  e-sight. (Internet only)

  Science and Technology

  Food and drink. UK: an appetite for business. Issue 1

  Manufacturing

  Global Watch

  Science and Technology

  Hawliadaou Afiechydon Glo. Llythyr newyddion 8. Gwanwyn 2004

  Mining

  Information communications technologies: UK at the hub of the business network. Issue 1

  Information and Communication Technology

  Invest.UK: key facts

  Inward Investment

  Joint energy security of supply working group (JESS): third report.

  Energy

  Key facts

  UK Trade and Investment

  Korean advisers group newsletter

  UK Trade and Investment

  lawndal I Lowyr. Hawliadau Afiechydon Glo. Llythyr newyddion 7, hydref 2003

  Mining

  LBP news

  Business Support Services

  Machinery: independent sources of advice

  Standards

  Machinery: transposed harmonised standards

  Standards

  Machinery: UK approved bodies

  Standards

  Monthly bulletin of indices: price adjustment formulae for construction contracts

  Industry—Construction

  Monthly statement of bricks, blocks and cement

  Industry—Construction

  1562W

  Publication title

  Subject matter

  Monthly statistics of building materials and components

  Industry—Construction

  New review

  Energy—New and Renewable, General

  North America News

  UK Trade and Investment

  Objective: the UK structural funds newsletter

  European Union

  Overseas trade: the Trade Partners UK magazine for trade promotion and development

  UK Trade and Investment

  Pressure equipment: United Kingdom conformity assessment bodies. (Internet only)

  Standards

  Quality mark newsletter

  Industry—Construction

  Quarterly building price and cost indices: public sector construction works

  Industry—Construction

  Quarterly energy prices

  Energy

  Regional competitiveness and state of the regions

  Competitiveness

  Space UK: forum for space news

  Space

  Telecommunications: UK at the hub of the telecommunications revolution. Issue 1

  Telecommunications

  Telecom times. (Internet only)

  Telecommunications

  The manufacturing advisory service newsletter

  Manufacturing

  TPI news

  Environment

  UKTI Investment Bulletin

  UK Trade and Investment

  UK Watch: spotlight on British innovation

  UK Trade and Investment

  Updating percentages: adjustments for measured term contracts

  Industry—Construction

  Discrimination Law
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many proceedings were brought by employees under discrimination law in each year since 1997 concerning(a) sexual orientation and (b) religious belief; and what estimate she has made of the number of such proceedings in 2004 to 2006. [175149]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Employment Equality (Sexual Orientation) Regulations 2003 and the Employment Equality (Religion or Belief) Regulations 2003 came into force on 1 and 2 December 2003 respectively. These Regulations give all workers a right to bring Employment Tribunal proceedings about discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, or religion or belief, a right which did not in general exist before.

  In the period December 2003 to April 2004 there have been 30 Employment Tribunal applications registered by the Employment Tribunals Service relating to sexual orientation and 22 applications relating to religion or belief. These figures will be included with others in the Employment Tribunals Service's Annual Report, which is due to be published and laid before the House in mid-July.

  In the Regulatory Impact Assessments prepared for the above Regulations, the DTI estimated that there would be around 1,000 applications a year relating to

  1563W
  sexual orientation and around 1,000 applications a year relating to religion or belief.

  Domestic Heating
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what percentage of domestic

  Main form of heating in 2001 (percentage)

  Type of dwelling

  Number of homes

  Solid fuel heating

  Electric heating

  Gas heating

  Oil heating

  Other form of heating

  Centrally heated

  22,030,000

  3.02

  10.78

  79.79

  4.29

  2.12

  Non-centrally heated

  2,392,000

  12.76

  31.25

  53.35

  0.00

  2.64

  All

  24,422,000

  3.98

  12.78

  77.20

  3.87

  2.17

  ECGD
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will place research conducted on the competitive environment of the Export Credits Guarantee Department in the Library. [174828]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  In April 2004 ECGD published its International Comparison Report, which compares ECGD with other large export credit agencies. The report is already available on ECGD's website but a copy will be placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Mr. Arbuthnot
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assistance is given by the Export Credits Guarantee Department to UK companies wishing to trade with Russia. [174838]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Export Credits Guarantee Department can offer medium term cover on individual cases in Russia with a value of up to £80 million although much larger cases can be considered. ECGD is also able to offer Overseas Investment Insurance to protect UK direct investment in Russia against the risks of war, expropriation and restrictions on remittances.

  Equality and Human Rights Commission
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made of the costs that will be incurred by businesses in dealing with the guidance of the Equality and Human Rights Commission; and what assessment has been made of the costs that will be incurred by businesses in complying with its codes of practice. [174703]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government published the White Paper "Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights" on Wednesday 12 May 2003. The White Paper sets out our proposals for a new body to meet the challenges we must overcome if we are to end discrimination and promote respect for human rights. The establishment of a single organisation to champion equality, diversity and human rights meets the strong call from the business community for a more joined-up approach to these issues.

  An assessment of the costs to businesses due to the creation of the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) has been made in the Partial Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA), which forms part of the White Paper. As the establishment of the CEHR imposes no new regulatory burden on business there will be no costs associated with complying with guidance or codes of practice issued by the CEHR, other than where
  1564W
  properties in Great Britain are heated by (a) electricity, (b) solid fuel and (c) natural gas. [175857]

  Mr. Timms
  Information on the fuels used to heat domestic properties in Great Britain is published by BRE in its Domestic Energy Fact File. The latest available data relate to 2001, and are shown in the table.

  a business is currently in breach of existing legislation. Guidance and codes of practice issued by the CEHR will make businesses more aware of their legal responsibilities, thus reducing the risk of litigation.

  Nevertheless, there may be small costs associated with reading and understanding initial guidance issued by the CEHR, estimated to be around £39 per business. However as this guidance is likely to cover all areas of discrimination and human rights legislation it should offer an overall saving in time and cost spent in reading guidance related to each individual area, as is currently the case.

  EU Social Chapter
  Mrs. Humble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the effects of the EU Social Chapter on the residents of Blackpool North and Fleetwood. [175886]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The residents of Blackpool North and Fleetwood have benefited from the EU Social Chapter by having their employment rights extended to include:the right to Parental Leave which gives parents the right to 13 weeks unpaid leave at the birth or adoption of a child;
  the entitlement of part-time workers to the same pro-rata terms and conditions of employment as full time workers, thereby removing any discrimination and improving the quality of part-time jobs;
  the provision that once a prima facie case has been made in an employment tribunal claim, the burden of proof is placed on the defendant (usually the employer), who will need to demonstrate that sex discrimination has not occurred;
  rights under the Fixed Term Work Directive that provide equal treatment and prevent abuse of fixed term contracts;
  rights under the European Works Council Directive which requires companies with at least 1000 employees in total and at least 150 workers in each of the two Member States, to establish structures for consulting workers on issues that affect them and;
  In addition, the Information and Consultation of Employees Directive to be implemented in the UK by March 2005, establishes a right to new minimum standards for workforce communication and involvement in large firms.

  Fuel Crisis (Emergency Powers)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the legal basis is for the use of emergency powers to secure energy supplies during a fuel crisis; and what parliamentary scrutiny there has been of the emergency powers which would be used to secure energy supplies during a fuel crisis. [174637]
  1565W
  Mr. Timms
  The Energy Act 1976 allows the regulation or prohibition of the production, supply, acquisition or use of fuel where there is or is imminent an actual or threatened emergency in the UK affecting fuel or electricity supplies or to meet international obligations. The Act provides wide-ranging powers to make Orders of general application (subject to negative parliamentary procedure) and specific directions to particular persons (including companies). An Order would lapse after 28 sitting (parliamentary) days, unless it is revoked earlier or the Order is approved by affirmative resolution of both Houses and which then continues for the rest of the 12-month period, unless revoked earlier. The Act provides that the Order may be continued for 12-month periods more than once, each time after resolution of both Houses.

  Invest-UK Activities
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the numbers of jobs that were(a) created and (b) safeguarded as a result of Invest-UK activities in each year between 2000 and 2003. [174690]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following figures are UK Trade and Investment's assisted inward investors' estimates of job creation in the first three years of their investments:

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  2000–01

  15,857

  6,624

  2001–02

  4,299

  1,252

  2002–03

  5,669

  3,048

  In addition UKTI provides funding to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs), and publicises the UK generally as a good destination for inward investors. Inward investors' estimates of the total number of jobs created and safeguarded is as follows:

  Jobs created

  Jobs safeguarded

  2000–01

  71,168

  52,359

  2001–02

  35,362

  24,069

  2002–03

  34,850

  20,265

  Nuclear Industry
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is for retaining a skill base for the nuclear industry in the UK. [174809]

  Mr. Timms
  To fulfil the Government's policy commitment to develop and implement a nuclear work force development strategy the Department has been closely involved with the formation of a Sector Skills Council to represent the needs of the nuclear industry. Cogent Sector Skills Council was launched on 2 March, covering nuclear, chemical manufacturing and oil and gas industries. Cogent will take a strategic view of the nuclear sector to ensure that the education and training base can meet the nuclear employers current and future needs.
  1566W
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many instances of theft of(a) nuclear waste and (b) spent fuel rods from nuclear plants in the UK were reported to the police in (i) 2001, (ii) 2002 and (iii) 2003. [174611]

  Mr. Timms
  There were no reported thefts of nuclear waste or spent fuel rods from civil nuclear sites in the years specified.

  Petrol Prices
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what recent discussions the Government has had with oil producers on reducing the price of petrol. [174844]

  Mr. Timms
  International oil prices are one of a number of factors that influence the price of petrol.

  Other Ministers, officials and myself meet bilaterally and multilaterally with representatives of oil producing nations on a regular basis as part of our ongoing dialogue with oil and gas producing countries. For example, I led a UK delegation to the International Energy Forum in Amsterdam, 22–24 May 2004, for informal discussions between producing and consuming nations on a wide range of energy issues.

  At the recent IMF meeting we joined other countries in expressing our concern at the high level of the oil price as one of the risks to the world recovery. There are a number of factors underlying the current high price but we are urging oil producers to increase production to help reduce the price to a more sustainable level.

  Productivity
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her policy is for(a) increasing the productivity and (b) cutting the costs of (i) her Department and (ii) its agencies and non-departmental public bodies. [172189]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Financial Secretary to the Treasury on 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 148–49W.

  Remote Wind Generation
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government's energy policy takes account of the cost estimated by Ofgem of reinforcing the transmission grid in order to cope with the scale of wind farm development envisaged. [174804]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have already undertaken a significant amount of analysis both prior to and after the 2003 Energy White Paper on the costs associated with incorporating increasing amounts of renewable generation into the electricity network.

  We believe the right framework is in place to deliver the reinforcement of the transmission grid needed to support the Government's energy policy objectives. The transmission operators are responding to the increased level of demand for connections to the system from renewable energy generators. The market is regulated by Ofgem to ensure that investment in new transmission

  1567W
  infrastructure is cost efficient and the consumer is protected from the consequences of unnecessary transmission expenditure. In addition, the industry is working to ensure that wind and other renewable generation connection to the system in future will have the characteristics necessary to maintain the integrity of the electricity networks.

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government's energy policy for large-scale intermittent wind power generation addresses the diseconomy of part-time operation thereby forced upon the necessary conventional back-up; and how this deterrent to back-up generation will affect the risks to security and stability. [174807]

  Mr. Timms
  Although wind generation is undoubtedly less predictable and more intermittent than conventional generation, when aggregated nationally, the implications for the operation of the electricity system are significantly mitigated. Work by the National Grid Company indicates that it will be some years before the growth in wind generation has a noticeable impact on overall reserve plant requirements, although there will come a time when additional reserve will be required.

  The impact of this in reduced overall efficiency of generation and associated increase in emissions will be negligible compared with the savings in emissions realised by the operation of the wind generation itself. Nevertheless, the Government in conjunction with the electricity industry, is exploring possible means of further mitigating the effects of intermittency and unpredictability.

  Renewable Energy (Oldham, West and Royton)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of recent trends in investment in renewable energy on residents of Oldham West and Royton. [170879]

  Mr. Timms
  As I far as I am aware recent trends in investment have not led directly to new renewables capacity in Oldham West and Royton itself.

  However, there are a number of proposals for developments in the surrounding area. United Utilities have already submitted a section 36 application for a 26 turbine development at Scout Moor, and an application for a two turbine development at Uglow Moor has also been submitted. There are also a number of solar PV developments (both constructed and under assessment) in nearby Rochdale and Bury.

  Software Patents
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the Council of Ministers will next discuss the proposed European Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions; and if she will oppose any proposals during the discussions for the extension of software patents. [174744]

  Ms Hewitt
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The competitiveness council discussed the proposed Directive on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions at its meeting on 17 and 18 May 2004, which
  1568W
  my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions attended for the UK. The position of the UK Government has always been to clarify the law on the patentability of computer-implemented inventions, not to change the extent of patentability. Political agreement was reached on a revised text. The UK supported the Directive in the Council and we would oppose any proposal for the extension of software patents.

  Trade Shows
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the benefits provided by Government-selected sponsors to UK firms that receive grants to help co-ordinate trade shows abroad. [174706]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Accredited Trade Organisations (formerly known as Sponsors) add value to Government grants by providing support services to exhibitors before, during and after the event. The performance of each ATO is assessed by customer satisfaction scores, compliance with the terms and conditions of the support scheme and contribution to UK Trade and Investment targets on developing new and new-to-market exporters. All ATOs must maintain a basic level of performance to remain accredited, and future budget allocations to ATOs are linked to performance.

  Surveys carried out by the University of Reading estimate that 70 per cent. of companies receiving exhibition grants through ATOs register a sustainable improvement in their business performance.

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much money her Department has paid to small firms for help in co-ordinating trade fairs abroad in each of the last five years; and of that money, how much has then been paid to Government-selected sponsors. [174707]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Figures for grants to small and medium sized enterprises are available only for 2003–04, when 81 per cent. of company grants were given to firms in that category. The following table extrapolates that percentage to cover earlier years, showing total company grants and (in brackets) grants to SMEs. We do not routinely collect information on the total amounts SMEs pay to Accredited Trade Organisations (formerly known as Sponsors) for the services they provide and this could only be established at disproportionate cost.

  £ million

  Total company grants

  Grants to SMEs

  1999–2000

  14.2

  (11.5)

  2000–01

  16.8

  (13.6)

  2001–02

  16.6

  (13.4)

  2002–03

  18.2

  (14.7)

  2003–04

  16

  (14.6)

  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the
  1569W
  role of sponsors in helping UK firms co-ordinate trade shows abroad and their cost to (a) UK businesses and (b) UK public funds. [174858]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Accredited Trade Organisations (formerly known as Sponsors) provide a range of services, including assessing companies' suitability for specific events, negotiating deals with exhibition organisers on stand space and construction, promoting the UK group at the event, troubleshooting on exhibitors' behalf and processing grant claims. On the costs of this to UK businesses I refer the hon. Member to the PQ No. 174707 answered today. In 2003–04 UK Trade & Investment gave grants totalling £2 million to Accredited Trade Organisations for organising UK groups at 438 exhibitions.

  Wind Turbines
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many wind turbines in Wales have(a) been erected and (b) not been erected despite being given planning permission. [169755]

  Mr. Timms
  As far as we are aware, the total number of wind turbines within Wales and with UK grid connection is 394, 30 of these are offshore at North Hoyle.

  The total number of wind turbines to be erected for new projects within 2004, within Wales and with UK grid connection is 75.

  We have no records of the number of "off-grid" turbines, nor of wind turbines granted permission but not built.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the government of Israel over the effect of Israeli military action on(a) homes, (b) water supply systems and (c) other infrastructure funded by his Department in the territories governed by the Palestinian Authority. [175141]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Government are deeply concerned at recent Israeli demolition of Palestinian homes in Rafah. We recognise Israel's need to defend itself within international law, but these actions constituted a form of collective punishment and were contrary both to international law and to Israel's commitments under the Roadmap. The UK made representations to the Israeli Embassy and Prime Minister Sharon's office in Tel Aviv.

  We have made clear our concerns to the Government of Israel about damage to water sources and the destruction of Palestinian agricultural land caused by Israeli actions. In April we made representations to the Israeli authorities about the destruction of a HMG funded latrine near Hebron. We will continue to do so when such incidents occur.
  1570W
  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with his counterpart in the US on Israeli actions in the Gaza Strip. [175040]

  Mr. Rammell
  My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary speaks to his US counterpart frequently on a wide range of issues, including the Middle East Peace Process. It is the longstanding practice of successive Governments not to make public the details of discussions with foreign Governments, under exemption 1(b) of part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information.

  Dr. Tonge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Israeli Government concerning current activity in the Gaza Strip. [175042]

  Mr. Rammell
  Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials made representations to the Israeli Charge in London on 18 May and on 21 May and to the Israeli Prime Minister's Office in Tel Aviv on 18 May, about the impact of the Israel Defence Forces in operations in Rafah. In a press statement on 19 May, my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary expressed his profound concern about the deaths of Palestinian civilians demonstrating against house demolitions. Israel must act within international law and refrain from using excessive force and taking actions which amount to collective punishment.

  Chad
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Movement for Democracy and Justice in Chad's claim of having captured the Slafist Group for Preaching and Combat's second-in-command, Amari Saifi; and if he will make a statement. [175085]

  Mr. Mullin
  We are unable to confirm the capture of Amari Saifi.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he has had with(a) his counterpart in Chad, (b) other representatives of the Government of Chad and (c) United Kingdom representatives in Chad concerning the army mutiny of the night of 16th to 17th May; and if he will make a statement. [175110]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Government has had no discussions with the Government of Chad about the incidents in N'Djamena on 16, 17 and 18 May. The UK is not represented in Chad; it is covered as necessary by our High Commission in Yaounde, Cameroon.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the(a) national and (b) regional security impact of the army mutiny which took place in Chad on the night of 16 to 17May; and if he will make a statement. [175111]

  Mr. Mullin
  The facts and causes of the incident in N'Djamena on 16, 17 and 18 May remain unclear, and any assessment of the national and regional security impact would be speculative.
  1571W
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment of the security impact of the army mutiny which took place in Chad on the night of 16 to 17 May he has received from the United Kingdom representatives in(a) Niger, (b) Nigeria, (c) Cameroon, (d) Central African Republic and (e) Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [175112]

  Mr. Mullin
  UK representatives in Cameroon, where the UK's Ambassador to Chad resides, are monitoring the situation. The reasons for the incident in N'Djamena on 16, 17 and 18 May remain unclear. We have had no information from UK representatives in Nigeria and Sudan. The UK is not represented in Niger or the Central African Republic.

  Correspondence
  Sir Michael Spicer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the hon. Member for West Worcestershire will receive a response to his letter of 29 March, reference 175680/04. [174748]

  Mr. Straw
  [holding answer of 20 May 2004]: I apologise to the hon. Member for the late reply to his letter. This was the result of an administrative error within the department. I will ensure he receives a reply without further delay.

  Cuba
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the United Kingdom's(a) policy on and (b) relationship with Cuba. [175148]

  Mr. Rammell
  UK policy towards Cuba is one of constructive engagement and dialogue, as set out by the EU's Common Position on Cuba which was adopted in 1996. The Common Position states that, "The main objective of the European Union in its relations with Cuba is to encourage a process of peaceful transition to pluralistic democracy and respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms, as well as improvement in the living standards of the Cuban people." We do not favour isolating Cuba, and have consistently voted against the US Embargo at the United Nations General Assembly.

  Following a crackdown on the peaceful opposition in March 2003, the EU—in line with the Common Position—condemned Cuba's actions and adopted a series of measures that reflected our human rights concerns. The Cuban response to these measures was to reject all EU development aid, and to "freeze" contact with EU Embassies in Havana. Nevertheless the UK continues to maintain close co-operation with Cuba in areas as diverse as child protection, migration and law enforcement, and encourages trade, tourism, education, sport, science and cultural links between the two countries. We remain committed to dialogue.

  Darfur
  Clare Short
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the Government's policy is in relation to the crisis in Darfur; and if he will make a statement. [175841]
  1572W
  Mr. Mullin
  We are seriously concerned about the crisis in Darfur. The humanitarian needs are enormous, and civilian protection is a priority. The UN have reported disturbing patterns of massive human rights violations which may constitute war crimes and/or crimes against humanity. While the UN's report makes no conclusion as to ethnic cleansing, it does note that attacks by Government forces and Janjaweed militia appear to have been largely ethnically based. We, and our EU partners, have made clear that alleged abuses should be thoroughly investigated.

  My right hon. Friends, the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for International Development, and I registered strongly our concerns with the Sudanese Foreign Minister when he visited London on 11 May. We are calling on the Government of Sudan and the Darfur groups to implement fully the 8 April ceasefire agreement. In particular the Sudanese Government must act now to rein in the Janjaweed, and all parties should co-operate to enable quick deployment of the African Union-led ceasefire monitoring mission. We expect deployment of this mechanism to have a positive effect on civilian protection, and are currently considering a possible UK contribution to it. We hope that a fully-monitored ceasefire and improved humanitarian access will provide a conducive atmosphere for inclusive political talks on the future of Darfur to begin as soon as possible.

  On 20 May the Sudanese Foreign Minister announced new measures governing the issue of visas and travel permits to humanitarian workers wishing to travel to Darfur. We hope that these measures will facilitate the delivery of humanitarian assistance to a population in great need. The Department for International Development have already committed over £16.5 million to UN agencies, the Red Cross and operational NGOs in response to the crisis, making the UK the second biggest bilateral donor in Darfur. We have also provided key personnel to support the UN co-ordination effort.

  Eritrea
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Eritrean Government about the Christians imprisoned for their faith. [174553]

  Mr. Mullin
  I raised this issue with President Isaias on 15 January. Our Embassy in Asmara raises it regularly with the Eritrean Government, most recently on 18 May.

  Hutu Militia
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Government of Rwanda in connection with the gangs of Hutu militia operating in the Congo. [174988]

  Mr. Mullin
  The presence of armed Rwandan Hutu groups in the Democratic Republic of Congo, dating back to the Rwandan genocide of 1994, is one of the key barriers to lasting peace in the Great Lakes region because of the threat they pose to Rwandan stability.
  1573W
  The UK has consistently pressed all parties in the region, including the Government of Rwanda, to co-operate on disarming these groups and resettling them back in Rwanda.

  Iraq
  Mr. Kilfoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs with which private security companies the UK has contracts for services in Iraq; how much was paid to each in the financial year to 31 March; and what services they provide. [175094]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) employs private security companies to protect British civilian staff working at the British Office Baghdad or seconded to the FCO to work for the Coalition Provisional Authority. ArmorGroup Services Ltd. provide static guards at an approxmate cost of £1.1 million to 31 March 2004. Control Risks Group provide armed protection teams for mobile security at an approximate cost of £13.1 million to 31 March 2004.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the financial extent of the alleged corruption in the UN oil-for-food programme in Iraq. [175593]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is not possible to assess the financial extent of the alleged corruption in the UN oil-for-food programme in Iraq, pending completion of the independent UN and Iraqi investigations.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what fee income was earned by the UN Security Council for administering the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175594]

  Mr. Rammell
  The United Nations Security Council earned no fee income from the Oil for Food programme (OFF). Administration of the OFF programme was undertaken by the UN Secretariat's Office of the Iraq Programme. UN administrative and operational charges amounted to 2.2 per cent. of the programme's costs.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the amount of money made by Saddam Hussein's regime as a result of the alleged corruption in the UN Oil for Food programme. [175595]

  Mr. Rammell
  It is not possible to assess the financial extent of the alleged corruption in the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq, pending completion of the independent UN and Iraqi investigations.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which banks were used to administer the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175596]

  Mr. Rammell
  The UN Treasury administered the banking arrangements of the Oil for Food programme. BNP Paribas was the only bank to issue letters of credit under the programme, and collateral to back those letters of credit was held by BNP Paribas. Funds that 1574W
  were not required to be used as collateral for letters of credit were invested with multiple banks based on competitive bidding.

  Hugh Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the Coalition Provisional Authority's response to the Iraqi Governing Council's request for an independent investigation into the UN Oil for Food programme in Iraq. [175597]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA) has authorised the Iraqi Board of Supreme Audit (BSA) to pursue an independent investigation of the Oil for Food programme in Iraq. We welcome this investigation. Following an open tender process, Ernst & Young has won the contract to carry out the investigation on behalf of the BSA. We understand that the CPA will also co-operate fully with the UN's independent inquiry to ensure that investigators have access to the relevant information in Iraq.

  Kenya
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which Ministers of the present government have visited Kenya in an official capacity. [175163]

  Mr. Mullin
  Since the election of President Mwai Kibaki and the National Rainbow Coalition party in December 2002, the following Ministers have made official visits to Kenya:Right hon. Clare Short, then Secretary of State for International Development, January 2003:
  Right. hon. Baroness Amos, then FCO Minister of State, January 2003
  Right. hon. Baroness Amos, then Secretary of State for International Development, July 2003
  Hon. Elliott Morley, Minister of State for the Environment and Agri-Environment, September 2003.

  I made a four day-long visit to Kenya at the end of October 2003.

  Kosovo
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what travel advice his Department is issuing to NGOs and humanitarian organisations about the safety of travel to(a) Gmice and (b) elsewhere in the region of Kamenia in Kosovo. [175842]

  Mr. MacShane
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office travel advice for Kosovo, which applies to the entire province and is targeted at all British citizens, reads as follows:"Because of continuing tensions, you should avoid non-essential (including holiday) travel to Kosovo and travel within the Presevo and Bujanovac districts of Southern Serbia."

  Full travel advice can be found at www.fco.gov.uk and is updated regularly.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made of the current security situation(a) in Gmice and (b) elsewhere in the region of Kamenia in Kosovo; which cultural or ethnic group dominates the area; and if he will make a statement. [175843]
  1575W
  Mr. MacShane
  According to the information we have received the overall security situation in Gmice and the municipality of Kamenica is currently stable.

  The municipality of Kamencia is predominantly Albanian with several Serb villages.

  Liberia
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the(a) effectiveness and (b) efficiency of the UN disarmament programme in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [175185]

  Mr. Mullin
  We welcome the steps taken by the United Nations Mission in Liberia to restart the Disarmament, Demobilisation. Rehabilitation and Reintegration (DDRR) programme in April, and the improved arrangements put in place following the problems that arose in December. 16,981 ex-combatants have been disarmed since the restart of the programme.

  It was agreed, at the International Contact Group on Liberia meeting in London on 11 May, that there needed to be increased focus on the Rehabilitation and Reintegration aspects of DDRR and that there should be continuity in the process. We are concerned at the disturbances of 17 May. It is the responsibility of the factions represented in the National Transitional Government of Liberia to ensure there is full co-operation with the DDRR process.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what contributions the UK Government has(a) pledged and (b) delivered to the UN disarmament programme in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [175186]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK has pledged a total of £6 million to the Disarmament, Demobilisation, Rehabilitation and Reintegration (DDRR) process, £4 million in 2004–05 and £2 million in 2005–06. So far £1 million has been transferred to the UN DDRR fund. We plan soon to decide how we commit the balance of funds for this financial year.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) he and (b) members of his Department last met the UN Secretary-General's special representative for Liberia to discuss (i) the UN disarmament programme in Liberia and (ii) the security situation in Liberia; and if he will make a statement. [175187]

  Mr. Mullin
  I attended the International Contact Group on Liberia meeting in London on 11 May, which was also attended by the Special Representative of the Secretary-General (SRSG), Jaques Klein. SRSG Klein and I discussed a range of issues including the security situation and the disarmament programme.

  Nigeria
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what representations he has made to the Nigerian Government to curb the sectarian violence in(a) the city of Kano, (b) the town of Yelwa and (c) the state of Taraba; and if he will make a statement. [174557]
  1576W
  Mr. Mullin
  The British High Commission, together with the EU, has urged all parties to the disputes to exercise restraint, and has urged the Nigerian Government to exercise full respect for human rights and the rule of law in restoring order. The British High Commissioner travelled to Kano and his staff went to Plateau State to see the situation at first hand to make these points. We have offered humanitarian support to the relevant authorities.

  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the numbers of people killed in Nigeria as a result of(a) political, (b) religious and (c) ethnic violence in each year since 1999; and if he will make a statement. [175194]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Nigerian Institute for Peace and Conflict Resolution estimates that the total number of deaths from political, ethnic and religious violence between 1999–2003 is not less than 10,000.

  We have expressed concern at the recent conflict in Plateau State in our public statement of 7 May, a copy of which together with the EU's statement on violence in Kano of 13 May, has been placed in the Library of the House. The British High Commission in Nigeria is in close touch with Federal and State authorities to press for a peaceful resolution to existing conflicts and longer-term reconciliation.

  Organisation of American States
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment his Department has made of the(a) environmental and (b) economic impact of the proposed free trade pact between the United States of America and Nicaragua, Costa Rica, Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvador, to be signed at the Organisation of American States in Washington DC on 28 May; and if he will make a statement. [175113]

  Mr. Rammell
  No assessment has been made of the impact of this third-party agreement.

  Sri Lanka
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which areas of Sri Lanka(a) the British High Commissioner and (b) a member of his staff has visited during the last 12 months; and what action has been taken by his Department following receipt of the reports made by him or his staff. [175165]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The British High Commissioner has visited the districts of Kilinochchi, Kandy and the Vanni during the past 12 months. Members of the British High Commission have visited the districts of Nuwara Eliya, Badulla, Kegalle, Moneragala, Kandy, Trincomalee, Batticoloa, Ampara, Ratnapura, Kilinochchi, Anuradhapura, Vavuniya, Polonnaruwa. Jaffna. Sigiriya, Puttalam, Dambulla, Moratuwa, Hambantota, Galle, Matara and Diyatalawa. Their reports have been used to inform policy.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when he last discussed with the Government of Sri Lanka human rights issues within that country; and if he will make a statement. [175166]
  1577W
  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  I have not yet had the opportunity to discuss human rights issues with the new Sri Lankan Government. However I discussed the peace process, including the need to strengthen it with a credible and effective human rights enforcement machinery, last September with GL Peiris, then Minister for Constitutional Affairs, and government spokesman on the peace process. Officials at our High Commission in Colombo, including the High Commissioner, raise this issue with the Sri Lankan authorities on a regular basis.

  Sudan
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what role Libya has played in the situation in Darfur, Sudan; and if he will make a statement. [174837]

  Mr. Mullin
  We have no evidence of Libyan involvement in the situation in Darfur.

  Tibet
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the Government's policy on(a) Tibetan autonomy, (b) the level of recognition of Chinese suzerainty over Tibet and (c) the Tibetan people's right to independence. [175498]

  Mr. Rammell
  Successive British Governments have regarded Tibet as autonomous while recognising the special position of the Chinese authorities there. This remains our position.

  Turkey (EU Accession)
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the requirements placed upon Turkey for accession to the EU; and if he will make a statement on progress being made by Turkey in that regard. [175153]

  Mr. MacShane
  The requirements for Turkey's accession to the EU are set out in the Copenhagen criteria of 1993, and are the same as apply to all EU Candidates. To this end, the European Council decided in December 2002 that: "If the European Council in December 2004, on the basis of a report and a recommendation from the Commission, decides that Turkey fulfils the Copenhagen political criteria, the European Union will open accession negotiations with Turkey without delay."

  We welcome the adoption by Turkey of wide-ranging constitutional and legislative reforms to meet the Copenhagen political criteria. Seven Packages of Legislative Reform have been passed since 2002, overhauling Turkey's government, penal and legal system, and—in an iterative process with the EU (most
  1578W
  recently at the 18 May Association Council)—ensuring that Turkey's domestic reforms converge with EU norms. Eleven constitutional amendments are currently being finalised. These include abolition of the death penalty in all situations, abolition of State Security Courts, and establishment of supremacy of international law over domestic law.

  My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister stressed the importance of effective implementation of reforms at the first UK/Turkey Summit on 17 May in Ankara, underlining the UK's strong support for Turkey's EU candidature and our determination to help Turkey comply with the Copenhagen political criteria in advance of December's European Council decision.

  Visas
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications for visas have been refused at British High Commission offices in(a) Pakistan, (b) Sri Lanka and (c) India during the last 12 months. [175159]

  Mr. Mullin
  The UK visas Central Reference System reports the following statistics for visa applications between 1 May 2003 and 30 April 2004.

  Received

  Issued

  Refused

  Other1

  Refused (percentage)

  Pakistan

  131,987

  97,132

  25,725

  9,130

  19.5

  Sri Lanka

  30,453

  21,032

  8,518

  903

  28.0

  India

  315,439

  246,713

  58,479

  10,247

  18.5

  1 Other includes withdrawn, lapsed and pending applications

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Parliamentary Answers (Envelopes)
  Norman Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission if he will make it his policy to stop the practice of despatching one page parliamentary answers to hon. Members in large heavy-duty envelopes. [174767]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  During the present Parliament I have answered 244 parliamentary questions, 24 of which were tabled by my hon. Friend. A copy of each answer is sent to the Member who tabled the question in an A4 brown manila envelope (Banner product 901–5043). This envelope is 100 per cent. recyclable paper and is made from 80–100 per cent. recycled stock, with at least 60–85 per cent. being post-consumer waste. On one occasion, due to a lack of stock, a different A4 manila envelope (Banner product 901–5033), which is made to the same standards, was used to circulate an answer.

  I have given instructions that answers should in future be sent in white "wallet" envelopes (Banner product 900–0015), which are 100 per cent. recycled.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Age-Related Payments Bill
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Elmet constituency receive £100 help towards the payment of council tax. [174875]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available. The latest available data shows 8,270 households in the parliamentary constituency of Elmet with at least one resident aged 70 or over. We therefore expect a similar number to benefit from the one-off 70 plus payment announced by the Chancellor in his recent Budget.

  The intention is for the payments to be made automatically with the 2004–05 Winter Fuel Payment, to those who are eligible and who do not need to claim it, before the end of the year. People who do not get a Winter Fuel Payment will need to claim the one-off payment from the Department for Work and Pensions before 31 March 2005.

  Notes:

  1. Numbers are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Any residence found to have four or more occupants is not included in these figures as it is assumed to be a Residential Care Nursing Home.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. sample of Winter Fuel Payments data for Winter 2003–04.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what discussions he has had with his colleagues in the Northern Ireland Office in relation to the extension of the Age-Related Payments Bill to Northern Ireland. [175144]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Officials in the Department for Work and Pensions are working closely with officials in the Department for Social Development. The intention is to provide for age-related payments in Northern Ireland by Order in Council.

  Pension Credit
  Colin Burgon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Elmet constituency(a) have claimed the minimum income guarantee and (b) are claiming pension credit. [174873]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information available is given in the following table. The Minimum Income Guarantee (MIG) was replaced by Pension Credit on 6 October

  Pension credit awards of less than £1, London Government Office Region (GOR), 30 April 2004

  Less than 10p

  10p to 19p

  20p to 29p

  30p to 39p

  40p to 49p

  50p to 59p

  60p to 69p

  70p to 79p

  80p to 89p

  90p to 99p

  Total

  London GOR

  60

  85

  85

  75

  100

  115

  90

  105

  120

  125

  960

  Inner London-West

  5

  15

  5

  5

  15

  15

  10

  10

  10

  15

  105

  Inner London-East

  10

  15

  20

  15

  30

  30

  25

  30

  25

  30

  230

  Outer London-East and North East

  15

  20

  35

  25

  30

  20

  20

  25

  40

  30

  260

  Outer London-South

  15

  20

  15

  15

  10

  25

  20

  20

  25

  25

  190

  Outer London-West and North West

  15

  15

  15

  15

  20

  25

  20

  25

  20

  25

  195

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Columns might not sum correctly due to rounding.

  1580W
  2003. Those who were receiving MIG immediately prior to that date were transferred automatically to Pension Credit.

  Minimum Income Guarantee and Pension Credit recipients, Elmet, October 2003 and April 2004

  Number

  Minimum Income Guarantee (3 October 2003)

  Households

  2,330

  Individuals

  2,645

  Pension Credit (30 April 2004)

  Households

  3,255

  Individuals

  3,865

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Figures for individuals include a small number of partners under age 60

  Sarah Teather
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in(a) London and (b) Brent have claimed pension credit since it was introduced; and how many people in (i) London and (ii) Brent are entitled to claim pension credit. [172815]

  Malcolm Wicks
  At 30 April 2004 there were(a) 260,510 households (309,275 individuals) in London and (b) 10,565 households (12,775 individuals) in Brent receiving Pension Credit. Information on the number of people who are eligible for Pension Credit is not available in respect of individual local authority areas. However, we estimate that approximately 450,000 pensioner households in the London region 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 later this month.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest five.

  2. Individual recipients include a small number of partners under age 60.

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many recipients of pension credit are receiving(a) less than 10p per week, (b) 10p to 19p per week, (c) 20p to 29p per week, (d) 30p to 39p per week, (e) 40p to 49p per week, (f) 50p to 59p per week, (g) 60p to 69p per week, (h) 70p to 79p per week, (i) 80p to 89p per week and (j) 90p to 99p per week in each Greater London borough. [173334]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures in question for individual London boroughs are too small to be reliable. The information for inner and outer London areas is in the table. An award of pension credit of less than 10p per week is not payable unless the person is receiving another benefit payable with pension credit.

  Enhanced New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered the Enhanced New Deal 25 plus(a) once, (b) twice, (c) three times and (d) four or more times; and if he will make a statement. [175064]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The information requested is in the table:

  People Entering Enhanced New Deal 25 plus1

  Number of starts on the programme

  Number of people

  1

  157,110

  2

  35,150

  3

  18,170

  41 Or more

  7,820

  1 Or more

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database

  Through a combination of economic stability and radical labour market reforms, more than 1.9 million more people are in work now than in 1997 and unemployment at its lowest level for nearly 30 years.

  Active labour market policies ensure people can take advantage of the many job opportunities coming up all the time. With UK unemployment the lowest for a generation, partly due to programmes like New Deal, the Government is extending help and support to other jobless people, especially lone parents and those with disabilities.

  Claimant long term (one year plus) unemployment has been virtually eradicated for young people and has fallen by three-quarters for all adults since 1997. New Deal 25 plus has played an important role in this success, so far helping more than 173,000 people into work.

  Notes:

  1: Data relates to start of ND25 plus Enhanced Programme in April 2001 to December 2003

  Incapacity Benefit
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were receiving incapacity benefit in each of the last 25 years, broken down by constituency within each region. [175124]

  Maria Eagle
  The available information has been placed in the Library.

  Income Statistics
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement on the trend in(a) average and (b) pensioner incomes as compared with (i) average and (ii) medium earnings, over the last 10 years. [173933]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Such information as is available is in the following table.

  Percentage growth in net equivalised income, both before housing costs have been taken into account
  1582W
  (BHC) and after housing costs have been taken into account (AHC):

  Change between 1994–1995 and 2002–2003

  Percentage

  Whole population income BHC

  24

  Whole population income AHC

  31

  Pensioner income BHC

  22

  Pensioner income AHC

  30

  Pensioners' average income has increased at a rate similar to that of the population as a whole since 1994–95.

  The figures in the table allow a valid comparison between pensioners and the population as a whole. They relate to household disposable income and cannot be compared directly with average earnings. A closer comparison is given by the mean net Before Housing Costs income received by pensioner units in their own right, which increased by 25 per cent. between 1994–95 and 2002–03. Over the same period, average earnings have seen a growth of 13 per cent.

  Notes:

  (a) The income growth figures in the table are estimates taken from the Households Below Average Income (HBAI) series. Data is derived from the Family Resources Survey. The latest date for which data is available is 2002–03. The earliest date for which data is available from the Family Resources Survey is 1994–95. For this reason, it has only been possible to present nine years' worth of data.

  (b) The income measure used is mean weekly net (disposable) equivalised household income, consistent with HBAI conventions: income is adjusted to reflect the composition of the household, and is net of income tax, National Insurance contributions and Council Tax. Figures are quoted on both a Before Housing Costs and After Housing Costs basis, in line with HBAI conventions.

  (c) Income figures in the table show growth in real terms, deflating by the Retail Prices Index all items excluding Council tax. The earnings figure shows growth in real terms, deflating by the Retail Prices Index all items (RPI) series.

  (d) The source for earnings values is the Average Earnings Index, which is based on information obtained from the Office for National Statistics' Monthly Wages and Salary Survey. Average earnings are obtained by dividing the total amount paid by the total number of employees paid, including those employees on strike and temporarily absent. This information is then weighted and formed into an index.

  (e) Part (ii) of the question has been interpreted as asking for median earnings, which is a figure that is not available from the Average Earnings Index.

  (f) Both the Family Resources Survey and the Average Earnings Index cover Great Britain.

  Job Seekers
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions whether clients using Jobseeker Direct services when seeking job-broking advice and assistance by telephone will have access to Language Line if they do not speak English well; and if he will make a statement. [175034]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus, David Anderson. He will write to the hon. Member.
  1583W
  Letter from David Anderson to Andrew Dismore dated 25 May 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question, concerning clients of Jobseeker Direct having access to the telephone interpreter services provided by Language Line. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated tome as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  All customers who call Jobseeker Direct or any of our contact centres, and do not speak English, have unrestricted access to the telephone interpreter services provided by Language Line. In addition, Welsh language callers have a specific number to dial and they currently receive a full Welsh language Jobseeker Direct service.

  I hope this reply to your question is helpful.

  Lung Diseases
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people were diagnosed to be suffering from(a) asbestosis and (b) mesothelioma in the last year for which figures are available, broken down by (i) sex and (ii) age. [174796]

  Jane Kennedy
  Cases of asbestosis identified through the Department for Work and Pensions Industrial Injuries and Disablement Benefit Scheme provide the best indication of the number of asbestosis diagnoses. Provisional figures for Great Britain in 2003 are shown by sex and age group in Table 1.

  Table 1: Cases of asbestosis identified thought the industrial Injuries and disablement benefit scheme in Great Britain in 2003 by sex and age group1

  Age group

  Sex

  0–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65–74

  75+

  Total

  Males

  —

  20

  150

  260

  210

  635

  Females

  —

  —

  5

  5

  5

  15

  Total

  —

  20

  155

  265

  215

  650

  1 Provisional figures.

  Reliable figures for the number of diagnoses of mesothelioma are not available. The disease is rapidly fatal in nearly all cases, and a good indication of the number of diagnoses is given by the annual number of deaths. Numbers of deaths in Great Britain in 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) are given in table 2.

  Table 2: Mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain in 2001 by sex and age group

  Age group

  Sex

  0–44

  45–54

  55–64

  65–74

  75+

  Total

  Males

  9

  100

  365

  535

  570

  1,579

  Females

  5

  20

  54

  70

  120

  269

  Total

  14

  120

  419

  605

  690

  1,848

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many(a) teachers and (b) office workers were diagnosed to be suffering from (a) asbestosis and (b) mesothelioma in the last year for which figures are available. [174797]

  Jane Kennedy
  Substantial exposures to asbestos are required in order for asbestosis to be clinically manifested within the lifetime of an individual. Teachers and office workers are very unlikely to have had such 1584W
  exposures during the course of their work. In 2003, 10 cases of asbestosis were identified by the Department for Work and Pensions Industrial Injuries and Disablement Benefit Scheme among occupational groups most likely to be predominantly office based. The coding of occupations is not of sufficient detail to specifically identify teachers from this data source.

  Reliable figures for the number of diagnoses of mesothelioma are not available. The disease is rapidly fatal in nearly all cases, and a good indication of the number of diagnoses is given by the annual number of deaths. In 2001 (the latest year for which figures are available) there were 14 mesothelioma deaths among teachers and 24 among office workers. However, death certificates record only the last occupation of the deceased. The typically long time between asbestos exposure and the onset of mesothelioma means that the occupation recorded may not be the one in which exposure took place.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what forecast his Department has made for the diagnosis of cases of(a) asbestosis and (b) mesothelioma cases in (i) 2010 and (ii) 2015; and when they are expected to peak. [1747981

  Jane Kennedy
  Cases of asbestosis identified through the Department for Work and Pensions Industrial Injuries and Disablement Benefit Scheme provide the best indication of the number of asbestosis diagnoses. The number of cases in the year 2010 and 2015 is projected to be less than 1,000 in each year. No estimate of the peak number of cases is available.

  Reliable figures for the number of diagnoses of mesothelioma are not available. The disease is rapidly fatal in nearly all cases, and a good indication of the number of diagnoses is given by the annual number of deaths. The number of mesothelioma deaths in Great Britain is forecast to be between 1,950 and 2,025 in the year 2010 and to be between 1,900 and 2,450 in the year 2015. The annual total number of mesothelioma deaths is expected to peak at around 1,950 to 2,450 deaths some time between the years 2011 and 2015.

  New Deal
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost is of each stage of(a) the New Deal for Young People and (b) the New Deal 25 plus using the unit cost model operational from April; and if he will make a statement. [175190]

  Jane Kennedy
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The information requested is not available.

  A unit cost system has been in place from April 2004. This records information on staffing costs across a broad range of activities, including New Deal administrative costs at a summary level. However, this system does not capture the information requested.

  A more sophisticated model will be developed as part of the Department's Resource Management System. The Resource Management System project is currently moving into the design and development stage and will be looking at addressing this requirement.

  Online Pension Forecasts
  Steve Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects the online national insurance retirement pension forecast to be available. [173242]

  Malcolm Wicks
  It is intended to make the service available in a controlled go-live environment, following six months of intensive testing, in the fourth calendar quarter of 2004, initially to DWP staff. This will allow DWP to study the impact of the registration and enrolment function of the Government Gateway, which is a pre-requisite of using the service. Previous e-services have made this requirement optional. Access to citizens will be made available one month later incorporating the lessons learned.

  The service will be called the State Pension Forecast e-Service and will be primarily accessed via the Pensions Service Web site, but will have links from all DWP websites and the Government Gateway site.

  Pension Centre Offices
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what proposals he has for the future of pension centre offices; and if he will make a statement. [174042]

  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make a statement about the future of Burnley Pension Centre. [174159]

  Malcolm Wicks
  [holding answers 18 May 2004 and 20 May 2004]: The Pension Service structure, including pension centres, is being reviewed as part of a programme of efficiency measures. The next stage of planning is currently being developed and more information will be available within one month.

  The programme will allow us to complete the task we set out to achieve when we introduced The Pension Service and to meet the DWP budget challenge. It also supports our commitment to meeting targets and continuing to introduce new and better ways of working, supported by improved technology and smarter processes.

  This will enable us to deliver some very real improvements in our service to customers and in job satisfaction for our people.

  Pension Income (Over-50s)
  Paul Holmes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what proportion of people between the age of 50 and state pension age live in households without an occupational pension income; what proportion of these are in each decile of overall income distribution; and if he will make a statement. [172538]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There were 6.8 million people between the age of 50 and state pension age who lived in households without an occupational pension income in the financial year 2002–03. This equated to 73 per cent. of all individuals in this age group.
  1586W
  The proportion of this group located in each decile of the equivalised income distribution, both before and after housing costs have been taken into account, is presented in the table.

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  Decile 1

  11

  11

  Decile 2

  7

  8

  Decile 3

  8

  7

  Decile 4

  8

  9

  Decile 5

  9

  8

  Decile 6

  10

  10

  Decile 7

  11

  10

  Decile 8

  11

  12

  Decile 9

  12

  12

  Decile 10

  13

  14

  Notes:

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

  2. Estimates are for Great Britain.

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

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

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

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

  7. Occupational incomes include income from the following: pension from a previous employer, widow's employee pension and trade union or friendly society pension.

  Source:

  Family Resources Survey (FRS).

  Pensioner Benefits
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the estimated total income for pensioners from(a) benefits and (b) private sources is since 1992; and what this figure is as a percentage. [172494]

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the proportion of pensioners' income coming from(a) state and (b) private sources. [175069]

  Malcolm Wicks
  There is no single data source which covers pensioners' benefit and private incomes between 1992 and the present. The information provided is based on Family Expenditure Survey data between 1992 and 1996–97 and Family Resources Survey data between 1994–95 and 2002–03. Direct comparisons between information from the two surveys should not be made.

  The table shows the average weekly income for pensioner units (pensioner couples and single pensioners) in 2002–03 prices and rounded to the

  1587W
  nearest pound. Private sources of income include private pension income, investments, earnings and other types of income.

  Benefit income

  Private income

  Gross income

  £ per week

  Percentage of total

  £ per week

  Percentage of total

  Family Expenditure Survey data

  1992

  213

  107

  50

  106

  50

  1993

  212

  113

  53

  99

  47

  1994–95

  226

  118

  52

  109

  48

  1995–96

  232

  117

  51

  115

  49

  1996–97

  230

  122

  53

  108

  47

  Family Resources Survey data

  1994–95

  220

  117

  53

  103

  47

  1995–96

  216

  118

  55

  98

  45

  1996–97

  230

  121

  53

  108

  47

  1997–98

  234

  123

  52

  111

  48

  1998–99

  243

  124

  51

  118

  49

  1999–2000

  252

  130

  52

  121

  48

  2000–01

  265

  133

  50

  132

  50

  2001–02

  273

  138

  51

  133

  49

  2002–03

  277

  142

  51

  134

  48

  Notes:

  1. Private and benefit income may not sum to total gross income due to rounding, and because free TV licences for over 75s are included in total income but not in either benefit or private income.

  2. Percentages are calculated from unrounded cash figures.

  3. Analysis consistent with Pensioners' Incomes 2002–03.

  4. Family Expenditure Survey Figures are for the UK, Family Resources Survey Figures are for Great Britain.

  Pensioner Income
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average pensioner income was for the financial years(a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04. [172882]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on pensioners' incomes is available from the Family Resources Survey for 2002–3. Figures for 2003–4 are not yet available.

  Information on mean and median net income before housing costs for pensioner couples and single pensioners is in the table.

  Mean net income

  Median net income

  Pensioner couples

  327

  262

  Single pensioners

  177

  153

  Source:

  Pensioners' Incomes 2002–3

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain

  2. Figures are weekly income in 2002–3 prices

  3. Net income is net of income tax and National Insurance Contributions and, local taxes.

  Post Office Cards
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions why post office cards have been issued which are then replaced by new cards with identification strips; and how much it is estimated to have cost to issue the first set of cards. [175505]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]The operation of the Post Office card account is a
  1588W
  Both benefit income and private income have increased significantly between 1996–97 and 2002–03, with gross income rising by 20 per cent. in real terms.

  commercial and operational matter for Post Office Ltd and. I have asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Project Funding
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) how many(a) solely state-financed and (b) public-private partnership and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible have been launched in each region in each of the last 10 years; [160951]

  (2) how much was spent by (a) the Government on solely state-financed projects and (b) the (i) Government and (ii) private sector on public-private and private finance initiative projects for which his Department is responsible in each of the last 10 years, broken down by region. [160952]

  Maria Eagle
  The Department and its predecessor organisations, the former Department of Social Security and the Employment Service, launched no solely state-financed capital investment projects in the period 1993 to 2003.

  The Department and its predecessors initiated a very large number of projects between 1993 and 2003. In the main these were funded from running costs but many also have an element of capital spending. Available information on private sector capital investment in public-private partnership (PPP) and private finance initiative (PFI) projects launched during the period is in the tables. Information on the Department's capital spend by project is not held centrally and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost. All DWP PPP and PFI projects are national projects so regional information is not available.
  1589W

  Year launched

  Total Capital Value (£ million)

  Capital Spend 1998–99 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 1999–2000 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2000–01 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2001–02 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2002–03 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2003–40 (£ million)

  Project title

  No projects 1994 to 1996

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  ESCOM

  1997

  4

  1

  1

  1

  1

  —

  —

  PRIME

  1997

  959

  69

  26

  32

  15

  66

  9

  PRIME EXPANSION

  2003

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  10

  EDS/IT Partnership Agreement

  1998

  217

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  HR Partnership

  1999

  6

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Child Support Reforms

  2000

  3

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Strategic Outsourcing

  2000

  33

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Network and Office Services

  2000

  9

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  New Tax Credits

  2002

  11

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Pensions Forecasting System

  2002

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  n/a

  n/a

  Advanced Telephony

  2003

  10

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  Project title

  Year launched

  Capital Spend 2004–05 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2005–06 (£ million)

  Capital Spend 2006–07 (£ million)

  Is project operational

  Details

  ESCOM

  1997

  —

  —

  —

  Operational Contract ended 31 March 2002

  Computerised replacement for Employment Service paper based system, awarded to Siemens Business Services

  PRIME

  1997

  13

  18

  10

  Operational-Period Contract commenced 1 April 1998, ends 2018

  Transfer of the ownership and management of buildings on the former DSS part of estates, and all associated risk, to the private sector. Under a 20 yr contract, Land Securities Trillium now provides DWP with fully serviced office accommodation

  PRIME EXPANSION

  2003

  25

  22

  20

  EDS/IT Partnership Agreement

  1998

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Operational-Period of contract I August 1998 to 31 July 2008

  Provision of IT and telephony services to the Employment Service

  HR Partnership

  1999

  n/a

  —

  —

  Operational- Contract commenced 1 April 1999. Due to terminate on 31 March 2005

  Integrated Employment Service payroll and Human Resources service awarded to Rebus HR Services and Norwich Systems Accounting

  Child Support Reforms

  2000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Operational- Contract ends 2010

  Awarded under the DSS ACCORD framework for IS and IT services

  Strategic Outsourcing

  2000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Operational-Period of contract 1 September 2000 to 31 August 2010

  ITSA Outsourcing. Awarded under the DSS ACCORD framework for IS and IT services

  Network and Office Services

  2000

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  Operational-Period of contract 1 June 2001 to 31 May 2006

  Networks and Office Services Project (WAN). Awarded under the DSS ACCORD framework for IS and IT Services

  New Tax Credits

  2002

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  June 2002 to August2010

  DWP NTC project awarded to Affinity (EDS)

  Pensions Forecasting System

  2002

  0

  0

  0

  June 2002 to December 2006

  DWP PFS awarded to Affinity (EDS)

  Advanced Telephony

  2003

  3.4

  3.5

  3.5

  March 2003 to March 2008

  DWP Advanced Telephony Business Allocation (ATBA) with BT, signed 31 March 2003 to provide 5-year PFI route for Contact Centre Telephony. This is part on and part off balance sheet.

  n/a = indicates that a year on year breakdown of expenditure is not available.

  Notes:

  1. In addition to the above projects there are 3 PPPs, with Affinity (EDS), Arcway (BT) and Working Links, which are strategic partnerships and as such have not in themselves involved capital investment. Any such investment is covered by the specific PFI deals set out above.

  2. The PRIME capital spend by year figures do not total the total capital value of the project because the table does not cover the full 20 year period of the contract.

  1590W

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he expects to have prepared estimates for the number of people contracted out of second tier state pension provision in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [173241]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We hope to publish estimates of the number of people contracted out of the State Second Pension in the 2001–02 and 2002–03 tax years by the end of 2004. Estimates of the number of people contracted out in the 2003–04 tax year are expected to be published at the end of 2005.

  State Pension Statements
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will list each item of information which may be contained in a state pension statement. [170099]

  Malcolm Wicks
  State pension forecasts may contain the total weekly state pension earned to date and forecasted to state pension age based on today's rates. The total figure has a breakdown of the basic state pension, including the number of qualifying years, the percentage and amount of basic state pension.

  Where appropriate, the total figure will provide a breakdown of any additional state pension due, less any contracted-out deduction.

  The forecast may also show:
  the date of birth used to calculate the forecast;
  current employment status advised by the customer;
  the customer's national insurance contribution status;
  whether the customer is paying into another pension scheme.

  Where appropriate, the forecast will also provide the following:
  the number of years for which Home Responsibility Protection has been awarded;
  the date of divorce or widowhood.

  Where a former or late spouse's national insurance contribution has been used in the forecast calculation, the letter sent with the forecast explains the conditions attached.

  Additionally, where appropriate, the customer is advised of deficiencies in their national insurance contributions in the preceding six years and how payments of these may increase their state pension entitlement.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to his answer to the hon. Member for North Wiltshire of 30 April 2004,Official Report, columns 1370–71W, on winter fuel payments disallowed because of late application, if he will update the table to include late claim disallowances made in respect of winter 2003–04. [172961]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The figures for previous years given in the table have not changed. So far for this winter 2003–04 we have received 646 claims for a Winter Fuel Payment after the deadline for claiming of 30th March 2004.
  1592W
  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claims for winter fuel payments were disallowed because of late application in(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 in each Greater London borough. [173335]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information requested is not available as figures are not kept for individual constituencies or boroughs. Overall figures of late claim disallowances for Winter Fuel Payments in Great Britain are in the following table.

  Late Claim Disallowances Made

  2001–2002

  10,308 in respect of winter 2000–2001

  2002–2003

  1,745 in respect of winter 2000–2001

  4,564 in respect of winter 2001–2002

  2003–2004

  1,760 in respect of winter 2000–2001

  2,204 in respect of winter 2001–2002

  3,948 in respect of winter 2002–2003

  Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the deadlines for applications for winter fuel payments were in(a) 2001–02 and (b)2002–03. [173336]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The majority of payments were made automatically without the need to claim. The deadlines for Winter Fuel Payment applications to be received by the Department for winters 2001–02 and 2002–03 were 30 March 2002 and the 30 March 2003 respectively where claims were required.

  John Thurso
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many claimants for winter fuel payments in Scotland were disallowed because of late application in(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03 and (c) 2003–04. [174021]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Data about where unsuccessful claimants lived at the time has not been retained.

HEALTH

  Additives
  Mr. Roger Williams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what estimate he has made of the average(a) daily and (b) annual per capita consumption of cyclamates in each year since 1989; [175507]

  (2) what research was conducted into the safety of (a) aspartame, (b) monosodium glutamate and (c) cyclamates prior to their introduction onto the British market. [175508]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that surveys of additive intake are not conducted on an annual basis, however the following intake data for cyclamate are available from studies conducted in 1999 and 2003.
  1593W
  The mean intake of cyclamate by United Kingdom consumers was assessed in 1999 and 2003 to be:

  Milligrams per kilogram of body weight per day

  Adult

  Children

  1999

  0.77

  8.16

  2003

  —

  4.46

  The safety of aspartame, monosodium glutamate and cyclamate was assessed by the European Commission's Scientific Committee for Food (SCF) prior to their introduction onto the European Market. Details of the research conducted into their safety are contained in the SCF reports which are available at:

  Aspartame http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out155_en.pdf

  Monosodium glutamate http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/reports/scf_reports_25.pdf

  Cyclamate http://europa.eu.int/comm/food/fs/sc/scf/out53_en.pdf

  Air Weapons
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make it his policy to collect statistics on the number of patients treated each year in the NHS for injuries involving air weapons; [174829]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the (a) age profile of patients treated in hospital for injuries resulting from air guns, (b) type of injuries suffered and (c) the times of year when these injuries are most frequently suffered. [172445]

  Disposition of 2004–05 Hospital and Community Health Services Capital Resources—Extract from Figure 4.2 of the Department of Health Departmental Report 2004

  £ million

  HCHS capital available for allocation to NHS trusts and PCTs

  3,331

  To be allocated as follows:

  Central budgets

  82

  Direct allocations to strategic health authorities, NHS trusts and primary care trusts

  SHA strategic capital

  763

  Trust and PCT operational capital

  928

  Access fund

  100

  Total direct allocations for local prioritisation

  1,791

  Programme capital budgets

  Delivery of ICT strategy

  700

  Junior doctors' working hours

  2

  SIFT—Medical and dental undergraduate support

  35

  Improving the provision of decontamination services in the NHS

  13

  Modernising the hospital manufacture of medicines

  24

  Nursing home care strategy

  16

  Walk-in centres

  10

  Primary care facilities—including NHS LIFT

  110

  Audiology

  32

  Dangerous severe personality disorder (DSPD)

  20

  Other mental health, including TILT security, CAHMS, long-term low secure and womens

  40

  Renal

  9

  Diabetes

  10

  Coronary heart disease

  140

  Cancer equipment

  95

  1594W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It would be disproportionately costly to collect statistics on national health service patients treated for injuries specifically involving air weapons and the Department has no plans to do so.

  Capital Funds
  Mr. Andrew Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how much of the £145 million in 2004–05 of capital funds received for other uses is set aside to cover the borrowing freedoms of foundation trusts; [173847]

  (2) for what further purposes he has set aside capital funds in 2004–05 which are not allocated direct to NHS organisations. [173848]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table is an extract from figure 4.2 of the Department of Health Departmental Report 2004. This shows the opening disposition of 2004–05 hospital and community health services capital for allocation to the national health service.

  The £82 million for central budgets is for various arms length bodies. The £145 million within programme central budgets for other investments includes up to £104 million for estimated capital spending by national health service foundation trusts. The balance of £41 million is part of an opening unallocated provision set aside to cover in-year pressures and risks on the capital programme overall.

  The overall capital spending by NHS trusts and NHS foundation trusts is financed through a mixture of income generated internally, mainly depreciation, plus borrowing. It is not therefore possible to determine what borrowing will be required against one element of their total capital spending.
  1595W

  Disposition of 2004–05 Hospital and Community Health Services Capital Resources—Extract from Figure 4.2 of the Department of Health Departmental Report 2004

  £ million

  Expanding genetics

  9

  Dental modernisation fund

  20

  Pathology modernisation

  8

  PFI batching

  20

  Other investments

  145

  Total to NHS trusts/health authorities/primary care trusts

  1,458

  Children's Hospital (Manchester)
  Mr. Stringer
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his latest estimate is of the completion date of the new children's hospital in Manchester. [175403]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: It is estimated that the new children's hospital in Manchester will be completed in April 2009.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to reply to the hon. Member for Southend West's letters of 26 March and 19 April regarding the Human Tissue Bill. [173378]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  A reply was sent to the hon. Member for Southend West on 17 May 2004.

  Cross-border Hospital Treatments
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) English residents were referred for treatment in Welsh hospitals and (b) Welsh residents were referred for treatment in English hospitals in each year since 1999. [175535]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data are not collected centrally for English residents referred for treatment in Welsh hospitals. Available data on Welsh residents referred for treatment in hospitals in England are shown in the table.

  Welsh residents in England, count of in-year admission episodes NHS hospitals, England, 1999–2000 to 2002–03

  Number

  1999–2000

  41,508

  2000–01

  41,273

  2001–02

  40,626

  2002–03

  39,175

  Notes:

  Data was derived by selecting cases where the strategic health authority (SHA) of residence was given as Wales (that is a Welsh postcode).

  In-year admissions

  An in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data year. Periods of care on-going at the end of the data year (unfinished admission episodes) are included. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Grossing

  Figures are grossed for coverage, except for 2001–02 and 2002–03, which are not yet adjusted for shortfalls.

  Strategic Health Authority Data Quality

  These figures have been derived from the SHA of residence of the patient, which itself is derived from the postcode of the patient. SHA data were added to historic data-years in the HES database using 2002–03 boundaries, as a one-off exercise in 2004. There is
  1596W
  some change in completeness of residence-based fields over time, where the majority of unknown values are due to missing postcodes on birth episodes. Users of time series analysis need to be aware of this issue in their interpretation of the data.

  Data Quality

  HES are compiled from data sent by over 300 NHS trusts and primary care trusts in England. The Department of Health liaises closely with these organisations to encourage submission of complete and valid data and seeks to minimise inaccuracies and the effect of missing and invalid data via HES processes. While this brings about improvement over time, some shortcomings remain.

  Source:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Departmental Staff (Drugs)
  John Mann
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many shared care schemes for drug misuse include workplace occupational health specialists. [171628]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Information on the number of shared care schemes for drug misuse including occupational health specialists is not available.

  Dermatology
  Mr. Keith Bradley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether he has received reports of regional variations in the incidence of skin cancer in England. [175053]

  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.

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Keith Bradley dated 25 May 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question concerning reports of regional variations in the incidence of skin cancer in England. [175053].

  Information on newly diagnosed cases of cancer is collected by nine regional cancer registries in England, and a standard data set based on registrations for residents of their areas is submitted to the Office for National Statistics (ONS). Regional data on the incidence of skin and other cancers is published annually by ONS in the "Cancer Statistics Registrations" series (MB.1). The most recent data available are for the year 2000. Copies are available in the House of Commons Library and on the National Statistics website at: http://www.statistics.gov.uk/StatBase/Product.asp?vlnk=8843&Pos = &Co!Rank=1&Rank = 240

  Elective Admissions
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Chancellor of the Exchequer's oral statement of 17 March 2004,Official Report, column 332, on the Financial Statement, how many elective admissions there were for (a) MRI scans and (b) CT scans in each year since 1997. [174584]
  1597W
  Mr. Hutton
  Data outlining how many elective admissions there were for(a) magnetic resonance imaging scans and (b) computer tomography scans are not collected centrally.

  However, a count of imaging and radiodiagnostic examinations or tests by imaging modality is collected on the Department's KH1 2 return. Data on MRI and CT scans is shown in the table.

  Total number of imaging and radiodiagnostic examinations or tests, CT and MRI, England, 1995–96 to 2002–03

  1CT

  2MRI

  1995–96

  1,709,244

  347,817

  1996–97

  1,056,365

  394,940

  1997–98

  1,172,656

  473,074

  1998–99

  1,254,474

  522,138

  1999–00

  1,359,852

  585,797

  2000–01

  1,488,752

  632,594

  2001–02

  1,625,304

  705,706

  2002–03

  1,767,791

  786,646

  1 Computer tomography

  2 Magnetic resonance imaging:

  Source:

  Department of Health form KH12

  General Practitioners
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what monitoring is being undertaken by his Department to ensure that general practitioners continue to offer routine appointments beyond 48 hours if the patient chooses them, with particular reference to the GP access target. [174631]

  Mr. Hutton
  Patients should be able to see a general practitioner within 48 hours if they want. Equally, patients should be able to pre-book appointments further ahead if this suits them. The former does not exclude the other and both options must be features of a modernised and responsive National Health Service.

  Arrangements for monitoring progress towards the NHS Plan primary care access target require primary care trusts to check that practices are allowing patients to book ahead. Local centres of the national primary care development team continue to work with primary care trusts and practices to ensure that this is the case.

  Head Lice
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on guidelines regarding the control of head lice in schools. [175280]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Our policy, which is shared by the Department for Education and Skills, is to encourage a "whole school approach" to the detection and treatment of head lice. This entails encouraging parents to check their children and other family members for head lice as need arises, and arranging treatment—either through a combing regime or insecticides—where necessary with such advice and support from the local primary health care team (general practitioner, health visitor, school nurse or local pharmacist) as they may require. If this exercise is successfully undertaken at the same time by all parents of children within a school, then the spread of head lice can be controlled.

  Health Screening
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will estimate the cost of(a) an electro-cardiogram, (b) a blood pressure test, (c) an electron beam tomography scan, (d) a lung function test, (e) a blood test, (f) a mammogram, (g) bowel cancer screening, (h) an X-ray and (i) a cervical smear test. [174455]

  Mr. Hutton
  Current cost data, for the specified tests are detailed, where available. No data are available for blood pressure tests of lung function tests.

  (a) Electro-cardiogram or ECG.
  for tests undertaken as part of an out-patient consultation, the national average cost is £101.
  where the test is undertaken as a direct access test (general practitioner request), the national average cost is £29.48.

  (b) Electron beam tomography scan.

  No data are available centrally for this specific scan. Data are available for computer tomography scans, of which electron beam tomography is one type.

  CT scans, are undertaken in a wide range of specialties.
  the national average cost for CT scans undertaken in an outpatient setting range from £164–£209 depending on specialty;
  the national average cost of a CT scan undertaken as a direct access test (GP request) is £102.

  (c) Blood test.

  These are undertaken in a variety of pathology specialties, depending upon the reason for undertaking the test. The national average cost of a blood test undertaken as a direct access test (GP request) is detailed by specialty as follows:

  £

  Phlebotomy test

  10.63

  General pathology test

  1.72

  Chemical pathology test

  2.48

  Haematology test

  3.32

  Histology/Histopathology test

  17.87

  Immunology test

  7.45

  Microbiology/Bacteriology test

  7.09

  Neuropathology test

  14.00

  Virology test

  7.82

  Biochemistry test

  2.05

  Other test

  5.43

  (d) Mammogram

  The cost of a mammogram undertaken in a direct access setting is £31.67.

  (e) Bowel Cancer screening.

  A faecal occult blood test (FOB) test for bowel cancer costs £5.2 per cent. of all tests are positive and require a subsequent diagnostic colonoscopy, at a cost of £127.

  At present, the FOB test is being piloted with two sites.

  There is currently no national programme for bowel cancer screening.
  1599W
  (f) X-ray.

  The national average cost for a direct access test (GP request) is £14.97 for a standard (Band A) X-ray.

  (g) Cervical smear test.

  The cost of a cervical smear test is £37.50 (uplifted for inflation from data source).

  Data sources:
  Items (a, b, c, d, f): National Schedule of Reference Costs Appendix 1, Payment by Results Core Tools Publication. The information requested has been placed in the Library.
  Item (e): "The Evaluation of the UK Colorectal Cancer Screening Pilot—Final Report, revised May 2003"—a report undertaken for the national screening programme.
  Item (g): "The NAO report on the Performance of The NHS Cervical Screening Programme in England", published in 1998, and adjusted for inflation.

  Health Services (Nottinghamshire)
  Mr. Meale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS patients waited for more than 13 weeks for outpatient appointments within Nottinghamshire health authority areas in each year since 1997. [173526]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Number of outpatients waiting over 13 weeks from a general practitioner referral to consultant appointment, by provider, for the Nottinghamshire area

  National health service trust

  Number

  1996–97

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  757

  Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust

  0

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  7,939

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  0

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  401

  1997–98

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  969

  Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust

  325

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  10,063

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  2,672

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  88

  1998–99

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  1,613

  Central Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  104

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  12,361

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  2,986

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  3

  1999–2000

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  1,129

  Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust

  925

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  6,738

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  2,164

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  0

  2000–01

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  577

  Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust

  76

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  4,923

  King's Mill Centre for Health Care Services NHS Trust

  1,364

  Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust

  7

  2001–02

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  624

  Queens Medical Centre, Nottingham, University Hospital NHS Trust

  2,234

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust1

  23

  1600W

  Number of outpatients waiting over 13 weeks from a general practitioner referral to consultant appointment, by provider, for the Nottinghamshire area

  National health service trust

  Number

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust2

  1,232

  2002–03

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  211

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust

  928

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  7

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  896

  2003–04

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  106

  Queens Medical Centre Nottingham University Hospital NHS Trust

  284

  Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust

  1

  Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust

  346

  1 In April 2001 Nottingham Healthcare NHS Trust became Nottinghamshire Healthcare NHS Trust.

  2 In March 2001 the Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust was abolished, and Newark Hospital from the Central Nottinghamshire NHS Trust was combined with the King's Mill Centre for Healthcare Services NHS Trust to form Sherwood Forest Hospitals NHS Trust.

  Source:

  Department of Health QM08

  Health Services (Tamworth)
  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average waiting time for a hip replacement operation in the Tamworth constituency was in the most recent period for which figures are available. [174546]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data are not collected specifically for Tamworth,

  The table shows both the mean time waited and the median time waited for a hip operation for the population covered by Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth Primary Care Trust during 2002–03.

  Count of finished in-year admission episodes, mean and median time waited, national health service hospitals, England 2002–03

  Number

  Finished in-year admission episodes

  164

  Mean time waited

  199 days

  Median time waited

  180 days

  Notes:

  Main operation: hip replacement

  Method of admission: elective

  Finished In-Year Admissions

  A finished in-year admission is the first period of in-patient care under one consultant within one healthcare provider, excluding admissions beginning before 1 April at the start of the data-year. Admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

  Ungrossed Data

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

  Main Operation

  The main operation is the first recorded operation in the HES data set and is usually the most resource intensive procedure performed during the episode. It is appropriate to use main operation when looking at admission details, e.g. time waited, but the figures for "all operations count of episodes" give a more complete count of episodes with an operation.

  Time Waited

  Time waited statistics from Hospital Episode Statistics (HES) are not the same as the published waiting list statistics. HES provides counts and time waited for all patients admitted to hospital within a given period whereas the published waiting list statistics count those waiting for treatment on a specific date and how long they

  1601W
  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:

  Hospital Episode Statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) doctors and (b) nurses there were in the Tamworth constituency in each of the last 10 years. [174547]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Data are not collected specifically for Tamworth.

  The tables show the number of doctors and the number of nurses for the old South Staffordshire health authority, which covered the Tamworth constituency, from 1994 to 2001, and for Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth Primary Care Trust from 2001 to 2003.

  Hospitals, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS) doctors1 and general medical practitioners (excluding retainers)

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth Primary Care Trust

  1994

  642

  —

  1995

  653

  —

  1996

  681

  —

  1997

  709

  —

  1998

  731

  —

  1999

  759

  —

  2000

  713

  —

  2001

  762

  82

  2002

  —

  86

  2003

  —

  94

  1 Excludes hospital medical hospital practitioners and hospital medical clinical assistants, most of whom are general practitioners (GPs) working part time in hospitals.

  Note:

  Data as at 30 September every year except GP as at 1 October 1997–99.

  Primary care premises replaced and refurbished

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Third quarter 2003–04

  Number of premises replaced

  Number of premises refurbished

  Number of premises replaced

  Number of premises refurbished

  Number of premises replaced

  Number of premises refurbished

  Number of premises replaced

  Number of premises refurbished

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  1

  1

  1

  2

  —

  —

  —

  —

  North Staffordshire Health Authority

  0

  8

  0

  4

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire Health Authority

  4

  2

  4

  0

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4

  8

  2

  7

  Totals

  5

  11

  5

  6

  4

  8

  2

  7

  Source:

  Department of Health LDPR Quarterly Returns

  Mobile/Wireless Communications
  Mr. Flight
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether current research being carried out by the mobile telephone health research team at King's College London is examining mobile and wireless communications systems. [174394]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Link Mobile Telecommunications and Health Research programme is jointly funded by Government and industry. It currently supports about 20 projects under the management of an independent programme committee. One of these projects is being undertaken at the mobile
  1602W

  Qualified nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff and practice nurses employed by unrestricted principals and equivalents (UPEs)1

  South Staffordshire Health Authority

  Burntwood, Lichfield and Tamworth Primary Care Trust

  1994

  —

  —

  1995

  2,666

  —

  1996

  2,849

  —

  1997

  2,835

  —

  1998

  2,955

  —

  1999

  2,932

  —

  2000

  3,125

  —

  2001

  3,165

  171

  2002

  —

  345

  2003

  —

  376

  1 UPEs include general medical service unrestricted principals, personal medical services contracted GPs, and personal medical services salaried Gps.

  Notes:

  1. Headcount practice nurse figures are estimated for these years.

  2. Data as at 30 September every year except practice nurses as at 1 October 1997–99.

  Mr. Jenkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) general practitioners' surgeries and (b) health clinics have been (i) modernised and (ii) removed to other premises in the Tamworth constituency since 1997. [174548]

  Ladyman
  The data are not available in the format requested.

  The table shows the number of primary care premises replaced and the number refurbished in the following areas since 2000: South Staffordshire Health Authority; North Staffordshire Health Authority; Shropshire Health Authority.

  Tamworth was within the former South Staffordshire Health Authority.

  These three organisations were replaced by Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority in 2002.

  phone research unit at King's College London. It is a study designed to examine whether mobile phone signals cause unpleasant symptoms such as headaches, nausea, dizziness and fatigue. Details of the programme and each project currently funded can be found on the website www.mthr.org.uk

  NHS Facilities
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether new facilities monitored by NHS Estates conform to design guidance with respect to the numbers
  1603W
  of wash-hand basins; and what action his Department has taken to ensure compliance by new facilities that do not meet the requirements of the guidance. [174636]

  Mr. Hutton
  NHS Estates guidance sets out recommendations concerning the provision of wash hand-basins in a number of differing circumstances.

  The exact number of wash-hand basins required in any particular situation will vary according to a variety of factors including the design and configuration of the room.

  Trust chief executives are responsible for ensuring that there are effective arrangements in place for infection control.

  NHS Land
  Charles Hendry
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the last full inventory of land owned by(a) the NHS and (b) NHS trusts was carried out; and what steps he is taking to sell off unused excess land. [175838]

  Mr. Hutton
  An independent valuation of all national health service property assets is undertaken every five years with the 2005 exercise nearing completion. Registers of such assets, including land, are held and continually updated by individual NHS bodies.

  Land and property identified as surplus to requirements is sold in accordance with departmental guidance given in "Estatecode".

  headcount

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  5F8

  Bebington and West Wirral PCT

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  4

  60

  65

  QDC

  Wirral HA

  1—

  2

  6

  9

  1—

  1—

  RBL

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  497

  512

  530

  541

  540

  554

  570

  1 Not applicable.

  Source:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many and what percentage of patients with suspected cancer in Wirral, South saw an NHS consultant within two weeks in each of the last seven years. [172688]

  All cancer waiting times, selected NHS Trusts

  Urgent referrals received within 24 hours

  Quarter ended

  Name

  Total referrals seen during the quarter

  Number of patients seen during the quarter by a specialist within 14 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  Number of patients seen during the quarter by a specialist after 14 days of the decision to refer by their GP

  Percentage compliance with the two week standard

  December 1999

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  110

  74

  36

  67.3

  December 2000

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  138

  117

  21

  84.8

  December 2001

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  611

  608

  3

  99.5

  December 2002

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  696

  558

  138

  80.2

  December 2003

  Wirral Hospital NHS Trust

  810

  807

  3

  99.6

  June 2000

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust

  190

  176

  14

  92.6

  June 2001

  Royal Liverpool Children's NHS Trust Clatterbridge Centre for Oncology NHS

  1

  1

  0

  100.0

  December 2003

  Trust

  1

  I

  0

  100.0

  Source:

  Department of Health form QMCW

  1604W
  An agreement in principle has been reached to transfer surplus land in the ownership of the Secretary of State for Health to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  NHS Staff
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to his answer of 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1092W, on NHS staff, whether locums and those on temporary contracts are included in figures for NHS returnees. [175396]

  Mr. Hutton
  Locums and those on temporary contracts are not included in the figures for national health service returners.

  NHS Staff (Wirral, South)
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS(a) therapists and (b) scientists were located in Wirral South in each of the last seven years. [172686]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. The information available is shown in the table and relates to national health service organisations serving the South Wirral constituency.

  NHS hospital and community health services: Qualified scientific, therapeutic and technical staff in the specified organisations as at 30 September each specified year.

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The information requested is not collected on a constituency basis. The earliest information available is shown in the table and relates to national health service organisations serving the South Wirral constituency.

  Nurses Training
  Laura Moffatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans his Department has to ensure that nurse(a) training and (b) career pathways adequately reflect the need for specialist skills in care of the elderly. [175522]

  Mr. Hutton
  The curriculum for nurse training is decided by higher education institutions in line with guidance from the regulatory body, the Nursing and Midwifery Council.

  Within the adult/general branch of nursing, undergraduate and diploma courses cover the nursing skills needed in the care of the elderly. Once qualified, nurses can undertake further specialist skills training in this area.

  We are continuing to implement current policies that support specialist and advanced role in the care of older people. These include the development of nurse consultant posts, nurses with special interests, nurse prescribing and leadership programmes.

  Nutritional Supplements
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has made to EU officials on behalf of UK businesses in relation to plans for a draft Directive on nutritional supplements for sports competitors; and if he will make a statement. [175282]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 24 May 2004]: A working document for a Directive on foods intended to meet the expenditure of intense muscular effort, especially for sports people, was issued by the European Commission in April 2004 and an expert working group was held on the 10 May 2004. The Food Standards Agency (FSA) represents the United Kingdom for this work and its officials attended the expert working group.

  The FSA has already had discussions with the industry about the draft Directive and will continue to do so as the negotiations progress.

  Obese Children
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his policy is on promoting stomach stapling as a method for dealing with obesity problems in children. [172588]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 May 2004]: The National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on surgery for morbid obesity advises that surgery should only be considered when there is evidence that all appropriate and available non-surgical measures have been adequately tried but have failed to maintain weight loss. In July 2002, the NICE published guidance on surgery to aid weight reduction for people with morbid obesity. The guidance recommends that surgery is only performed on people aged 18 and over.

  Osteoporosis
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what advice and treatment is offered to those patients who are identified as being at high risk of developing osteoporosis. [173541]
  1606W
  Dr. Ladyman
  Patients identified as being at high risk of developing osteoporosis should be given advice on diet, exercise, avoiding excessive consumption of alcohol and reducing smoking. There are a range of treatment options which aim to provide pain relief, improve mobility and prevent further bone loss.

  Palliative Care
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans he has for progressing the partnership between his Department, Marie Curie Cancer Care and other voluntary organisations in the field of palliative care with particular reference to(a) improving services for people who choose to die at home and (b) increasing the number of people who are able to die at home; [174395]

  (2) what action he is taking to increase the number of terminally ill patients who are able to exercise their choice to die at home; [174396]

  (3) what further plans he has for supporting choice in palliative care for cancer patients to meet the commitment given in the recent document, Building the Best: Choice, Responsiveness and Equity in the NHS; [174397]

  (4) what assessment he has made of the potential savings to the NHS if more terminally ill people were given the choice of dying at home. [174621]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: Building on the Best commits the Department to improve care for people coming to the end of their lives by taking forward training programmes to ensure that all patients, regardless of their diagnosis, will have access to high quality palliative care.

  An additional total of £12 million investment over three years was announced by the Secretary of State on 26 December 2003. This additional money will widen the pool of staff who are trained in meeting the needs of people nearing the end of their lives. As a result more patients will be offered appropriate support in the setting of their choice.

  The cancer services collaborative is currently working in partnership with Macmillan Cancer Relief, Marie Curie Cancer Care and Lancashire and South Cumbria Cancer Network to support the implementation of specific end of life care tools. These tools, recommended in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance on supportive and palliative care for adults with cancer as examples of good practice, will be adapted to meet the needs of other patient groups.

  Over time this investment will result in greater choice for patients in where they wish to live and die and a decrease in the numbers of older people transferred from care homes to a district general hospital in the last week of life and emergency admissions of patients who expressly wish to die at home or care home.

  We are also currently identifying pilots to develop an integrated cancer care model for cancer patients shaped by users and involving health and social services and the voluntary sector. These pilots will specifically address issues about caring for patients at home and the possible reduction of costs of hospital services.

  Personal Health Care
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what arrangements are in place to review cases to ensure that individuals are not incorrectly charged for personal health care; [173912]

  (2) what the criteria are for initiating an investigation into cases of individuals incorrectly charged for personal health care; [173940]

  (3) how many cases are being investigated of individuals who may have been incorrectly charged for personal health care in each local authority in England in each of the last six years. [174036]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Continuing Care (National Health Service Responsibilities) Directions and the Delayed Discharges (Continuing Care) Directions, both published in February, should ensure appropriate assessments for fully funded national health service continuing care, whether it is prior to hospital discharge or in a community setting. All strategic health authorities have systems in place to review cases where individuals, or their families, feel they were inappropriately denied fully funded NHS continuing care and will investigate all cases brought to their attention. Information on the number of people who were wrongly denied NHS care since 1996 will be available once the data have been validated.

  Positron Emission Tomography Scanners
  Mr. Baron
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of the use of positron emission tomography scanners in the early diagnosis of lung cancer; and if he will make a statement; [175706]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the demand for positron emission tomography scans in the NHS: [175707]

  (3) what plans he has to increase the number of positron emission tomography scanners in the NHS. [175708]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Positron emission tomography (PET) is still a relatively new technology and there is evidence of its potential benefits in the diagnosis and treatment of a limited number of tumours, including lung cancer.

  The Department is currently working with the national health service, the clinical community and research stakeholders to develop a framework for the provision of PET scanners in England. This will set out, from the evidence, which tumour groups would benefit from PET scanning, likely future demand, and consider the optimal configuration and possible location of PET scanners in England. This will be sent out to stakeholders for consultation in early summer.

  It will be for local health communities to consider the framework when it is published and decide whether to adopt this technology based on local needs and circumstances.

  Primary Care Trusts (Non-Clinical Staff)
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many non-clinical staff were employed in each primary care trust in England at September 2003, broken down by grade. [173090]
  1608W
  Mr. Hutton
  Information on the number of staff employed by primary care trusts in non-clinical roles has been placed in the Library.

  Public Bodies
  Dr. Murrison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many times a year the board of the NHS Information Authority is scheduled to meet; and on what date it last met. [175393]

  Mr. Hutton
  The NHS Information Authority (NHSIA) is a National Health Service Special Health Authority. Its board meets monthly. The most recent meeting was on 6 May at the NHSIA offices in Birmingham. Board papers are published on the NHSIA website at www.nhsia.nhs.uk.

  The next meeting of the board will take place on 3 June 2004 at Grange Holborn Hotel, Southampton Row, London, at 2pm. In accordance with the NHS code of openness, board meetings are open to the public.

  Sexually Transmitted Infections
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people aged(a) under 12, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17 and (h) 18 years have suffered from each sexually transmitted infection in each of the last three years. [172865]

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many sexually transmitted infections were reported in young people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years in England in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; and if he will make a statement; [174501]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in young people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17,

  (h) 18 and (i) 19 in England was in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; and if he will make a statement; [174502]

  (3) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years there were in each year since 2000, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement; [174526]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (i) strategic health authority, (ii) disease and (iii) sex; and if he will make a statement. [174527]

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [174458]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 was in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [174483]
  1609W
  (3) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in the Essex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [174576]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were in the Essex Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [174586]

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people 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, broken down by (a) disease and (b) sex; [174507]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (a) disease and (b) sex; [174508]

  (3) ow many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in the Essex Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000, broken down by (a) disease and (b) sex; [174514]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [174515]

  Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [174954]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in the Cheshire and Merseyside Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [174955]

  Mr. Goodman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [175384]

  (2) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f)16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in the Thames Valley Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [175385]

  Mr. Flook
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16,
  1610W
  (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in the Dorset and Somerset Strategic Health Authority area in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [175626]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [175627]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 17 May 2004_1: I refer the hon. Members to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends, the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) today.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in West Cumbria Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [175424]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a)(b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were in the West Cumbria Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [175518]

  (3) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [175519]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 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, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [175520]

  Jim Dobbin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people of 19 years and under were reported in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by(a) disease, (b) sex and (c) age; [175764]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people of 19 years and under was in Greater Manchester Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (a) disease, (b) sex and (c) age; [175765]

  (3) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections were reported in people 19 years and under in each year since 2000, broken down by (a) disease, (b) sex and (c) age; [175789]

  (4) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people 19 years and under was in each year since 2000, broken down by (a) disease, (b) sex and (c) age. [175790]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The available information on rates of sexually transmitted infections in the age groups requested has been placed in the Library
  1611W
  The national strategy for sexual health and HIV (linking closely to the Government's teenage pregnancy strategy) identifies young people as a priority group for action to improve sexual health. The Government's 'Sex Lottery' and teenage pregnancy, 'Ruthinking' media campaigns are raising awareness among young people of sexually transmitted infections (STIs) and how to avoid them. The Department is also tackling the most common STI through the national chlamydia screening programme, which already covers a quarter, or 84, of primary care trusts in England and is being rolled-out across the rest of the country. Sexual health has also been highlighted as an important area in the "Choosing Health" public health White Paper consultation, launched on 3 March.

  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged(a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years were reported in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex; [174888]

  (2) what the prevalence rate of reported cases of sexually transmitted infections in people aged (a) 11, (b) 12, (c) 13, (d) 14, (e) 15, (f) 16, (g) 17, (h) 18 and (i) 19 years was in Bedfordshire and Hertfordshire Strategic Health Authority in each year since 2000, broken down by (i) disease and (ii) sex. [174889]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer the hon. Member to the reply I gave to my hon. Friends the Members for Workington (Tony Cunningham) and Heywood and Middleton (Jim Dobbin) today.

  Solvent Abuse
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff in the NHS specialise in solvent abuse among children. [169030]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The Department does not collect statistics on the number of staff in the national health service who specialise in solvent abuse among children.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Simmonds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the implementation of the Working Time Directive and its effect on(a) doctors' hours and (b) the availability of doctors within the NHS. [167877]

  Mr. Hutton
  The working time directive (WTD) is a legal requirement on which implementation is being taken forward locally. From 1 August, doctors in training will be required to work no more than 58 hours per week on average.

  Lessons from WTD pilot sites have demonstrated that compliance is best achieved through working differently using multi-disciplinary teams in line with the wider NHS modernisation agenda, rather than simply employing more doctors.

DEFENCE

  Emergency Planning
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what plans the Government have to provide training for(a) helicopter pilots in the armed forces and (b) civilian helicopter pilots to assist in an airlift operation in the event of a major emergency. [174675]

  Mr. Ingram
  In preparation for operational deployments, military helicopter aircrews, both regular and reserve, are fully trained and equipped to meet a wide variety of contingencies. Their skills could be used for airlift operations in the event of a major emergency. The Ministry of Defence has no current plans to train civilian helicopter pilots.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the Government expect to be able to guarantee that the Civil Contingency Reaction Force communications system is compatible with the communications system used by the emergency services. [174686]

  Mr. Ingram
  As part of the Government's wider strategy to improve communications in the event of an emergency or crisis, the armed forces have procured communications equipment that is compatible with that used by the emergency services. Use of the system is dependent on availability of the commercially provided network infrastructure. Initial capability is available now with full capability expected in April 2006.

  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether an Army standby unit is ready to help the emergency services immediately in the event of a serious national emergency. [174689]

  Mr. Ingram
  The armed forces do not maintain units on standby specifically to respond immediately to a national emergency. Nonetheless, in the event of an emergency or crisis, and assuming the civil authorities asked for it, the armed forces would be able to provide support drawing on the most appropriate resources available at the time, which could include regular and Civil Contingency Reaction Force assets.

  Iraq
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many scientists have come forward voluntarily since 16 July 2003 and approached the Iraq Survey Group with evidence of weapons of mass destruction and related programmes in Iraq; and when he next expects to present to Parliament an updated document of collated evidence. [175567]

  Mr. Hoon
  Some Iraqi civilians, including scientists, have approached the Iraq Survey Group with information. However, the Ministry of Defence does not hold exact figures.

  The Iraq Survey Group has produced two interim reports, in October 2003 and March 2004, and a further report is expected later this year.
  1613W
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 17 May 2004,Official Report, column 663W, on Iraq what the names are of the two individuals whose deaths have been the subject of reports to the Army Prosecuting Authority. [175751]

  Mr. Ingram
  Of the two cases in advanced stages of consideration only one relates to a death. The individual concerned is an Iraqi civilian named Hassan Abbad Saied.

  Air Near-hit Incident (Gloucestershire)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what disciplinary action has been taken in respect of the aircrew involved in the near-hit incident reported on 4 April 2002 concerning a helicopter and the nuclear installations at Berkeley, Gloucestershire, as recorded in the report of the defence flying complaints investigation team at Henlow, dated 30 May 2002. [174373]

  Mr. Caplin
  Because the information requested will take a little time to retrieve, I will write to my hon. Friend and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  Al Yamamah Contracts
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he was first informed of allegations of corruption involving BAE Systems in connection with the Al Yamamah arms contracts which were drawn to the attention of Sir Kevin Tebbit in 2001. [171750]

  Mr. Hoon
  I first became aware of allegations of fraud against BAE Systems when they were published in the press in September 2003.

  Army Barracks Death
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what date the Minister of State for the Armed Forces received the Amnesty International Report, "Army Barracks Death: Families Demand Justice" (EUR 45/004/2003); and what his response was. [174742]

  Mr. Ingram
  Amnesty International's Report, "Army Barracks Death: Families Demand Justice" was received on 18 June 2003. I replied to Halya Gowan of Amnesty International on 2 July 2003.

  Army Medal Office (Droitwich)
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what arrangements he has made to ensure the continued efficient operation of the Army Medal Office at Droitwich Spa in the period before its planned closure; [175005]

  (2) if he will ensure the Army Medal Office at Droitwich Spa is able to (a) purchase equipment and (b) recruit staff in the period before the planned closure. [175006]

  Mr. Caplin
  As I said in my answer of 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 556W, the phased closure of the Army Medal Office is part of a risk reduction strategy aimed at minimising disruption to medal service delivery. The work currently in hand to support that strategy includes an analysis of the benefits for service delivery of early equipment purchase and staff
  1614W
  recruitment either at Droitwich or at Innsworth. Where such action is cost-effective, to assist in the smooth transfer of responsibilities and reduce the impact on service delivery, it will be done.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will visit the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa to discuss its proposed closure with the staff. [175007]

  Mr. Caplin
  I have no plans to do so at the present time, but will consider the matter further later in the year.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 13 May 2004,Official Report, column 555W, on Defence Medal Offices, over what period the closure of the Army Medal Office will be phased. [175027]

  Mr. Caplin
  Detailed work on an implementation timetable cannot begin until the staff preference exercise has been concluded at the end of this month. That work will need to take into account the risk reduction strategies that are currently being developed.

  It is not expected that a detailed implementation plan will be available until early autumn.

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 12 May 2004,Official Report, column 328W, on the Defence Medal Office, when he will place in the Library a copy of the Investment Appraisal for the proposed closure of the Army Medal Office in Droitwich Spa. [175045]

  Mr. Caplin
  A copy of the Investment Appraisal was placed in the Library on 20 May 2004.

  Defence Bases
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence why his Department does not keep figures for the current number of(a) service and (b) civilian personnel based at (i) RAF Leeming, (ii) RAF Linton on Ouse, (iii) AAC Dishforth and (iv) Alanbrooke Barracks; and whether his Department has figures for the current number of (A) service and (B) civilian personnel at other defence establishments in the United Kingdom. [173935]

  Mr. Caplin
  Although individual Defence installations may hold some of this information at a local level, location statistics for Service Personnel are produced centrally by the Defence Analytical Services Agency (DASA). This is done by allocating individuals to a unit based on record of service data, and allocating the unit to a location based postal address. DASA are currently reviewing the source data and process by which these statistics are compiled. The target date for the completion of the review is December 2004. The most recently published location statistics are given in the July 2002 TSP10 publication, which is available in the House of Commons Library. New figures will not be available until the review is complete.

  Information on civilians is regularly published by DASA at Government Office Region level where it is believed the data are of sufficient quality. Individual defence installations may hold data at a local level, but centralised systems are not able to provide a reliable breakdown to this level of detail. Individual defence

  1615W
  installations do not routinely publish civilian data as different organisations and agencies are responsible for the same location or site.

  Emergency Evacuation (Greater London)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many helicopters are available in the Greater London area for use in emergency evacuation of people who may be injured in a terrorist attack in London. [175137]

  Mr. Ingram
  No military helicopters are dedicated to the task of evacuating people who might be injured in a terrorist attack in London. However, there are a number of military helicopters based in the vicinity of Greater London that could be made available to assist the civil authorities if necessary.

  Joint Strike Fighter
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the Joint Strike Fighter's ability to take off from warships, with particular reference to(a) its expected performance in combat, (b) the final cost, (c) who is liable for the cost of reconfiguring the aircraft, (d) the final in service date and (e) the reasons for not identifying the take off problems earlier. [174632]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave on 11 May 2004,Official Report, column 221W to the hon. Member for Hereford (Mr. Keetch). The weight issue impacts most significantly on the landing and take off characteristics of the aircraft, while its combat performance is currently predicted to meet the original requirements. The potential for weight growth was identified at the time of the decision to select the variant, and this, in conjunction with our intention to maximise the flexibility of use of the future carriers (CVF) over their life, influenced our decision to opt for an 'adaptable' design for CVF.

  I also refer the hon. Member to the answer given to him on 11 May 2004, Official Report, column 219W, regarding the projected final cost of the System Demonstration and Development phase of JSF. Under the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding, the non-US partners in the programme are not bound to contribute to cost increases.

  The Future Joint Aircraft in service date, based on current planning assumptions, is 2012.

  Medals
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when the case for awarding an Arctic medal was last reviewed; by whom it was done; at whose request; and if he will make a statement. [175062]

  Mr. Caplin
  A review of the case for the retrospective institution of a new medal specifically to recognise wartime service in Arctic waters was carried out by the Ministry of Defence earlier this year at the request of my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister.

  The conclusion of that review remained that there was no case that could or should be put to the HD Committee for an Arctic Convoy Medal and I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave in the House on
  1616W
  1 March 2004, Official Report, column 595W, to my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr Allen).

  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his answer of 26 April 2004,Official Report, column 728W, to the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler) on the Suez Medal, what practical constraints limit the issuing of the Suez Canal Zone General Service Medal; and if he will establish a timetable for the completion of distribution to current applicants. [175422]

  Mr. Caplin
  The constraints are numbers of trained personnel, availability of machinery and funding. It is not practical to establish a timetable for Canal Zone medal applications as each case is unique and it is not possible to say in advance how long it will take to determine each applicant's eligibility for the medal.

  Merlin Helicopters
  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Merlin helicopters have been(a) ordered, (b) purchased, (c) delivered and (d) brought into full service for the Royal Navy since the decision was first made to purchase the Merlin. [174882]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: A total of 44 Merlin Mk1 aircraft have been ordered, purchased and delivered to the Ministry of Defence. 39 helicopters have entered service with the Royal Navy, of which two have been subsequently lost as a result of accidents. The remaining five helicopters are currently being used as trials and development aircraft.

  Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) original budget was and (b) the total cost has been of purchasing and fully commissioning the Merlin helicopter for the Royal Navy, both as (i) a total amount and (ii) an amount per aircraft in service. [174884]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 21 May 2004]: The original budget allocated to the Merlin Mk1 programme was £1.1 billion (VAT inclusive) at 1982 prices. Since that time our requirement has matured and as a result the programme has changed considerably. The final cost of purchasing and commissioning the Merlin Mk1 fleet of 44 aircraft was just over £4.6 billion (VAT inclusive), which equates to approximately £105 million per helicopter.

  Missile Defence Interceptor Sites
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions he has had with the US authorities about basing missile defence interceptor sites in the UK. [174567]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence continues to discuss with the United States a wide range of ballistic missile defence issues. The Government have not yet decided whether the United Kingdom requires its own missile defence, and these discussions do not therefore involve specific architectures or basing assumptions.

  Nuclear Power Stations
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what rules govern the rights of(a) RAF and

  1617W
  (b) US Air Force aircraft to fly over (i) nuclear power stations and (ii) residential areas; and what breaches of such rules there have been in the past six months in (A) the United Kingdom and (B) Gloucestershire. [173199]

  Mr. Ingram
  Both Royal Air Force and United States Air Force aircraft operate with the same restrictions in respect of overflights of nuclear installations and residential areas. Nuclear installations are to be avoided by a radius of two nautical miles from a fixed centre-point or a height of 2,000 ft, by all types of aircraft. In respect of "residential areas" we grant avoidances in the United Kingdom military low-flying system to towns with a population of 10,000 or more, as well as everything within certain major avoidance areas. Towns granted avoidances are to be overflown at not less than 1,000 ft by helicopters, and not less than 2,000 ft by fixed wing aircraft. Since the beginning of November 2003 the following breaches of regulations have been established.

  Date

  Place

  Nuclear

  Town

  UK

  Gloucestershire

  17 November 2003

  Dungeness, Kent

  1—

  1—

  26 November 2003

  Berkeley, Gloucestershire

  1—

  1—

  8 January 2004

  Bath

  1—

  1—

  1 Breach

  In addition, the following alleged breaches are still under investigation.

  Date

  Place

  Nuclear

  Town

  UK

  Gloucestershire

  21 January 2004

  Holmfirth, Lancashire

  1—

  1—

  10 February 2004

  Swansea

  1—

  1—

  18 February 2004

  Teignmouth, Devon

  1—

  1—

  1 Alleged breach

  Offshore Wind Farms
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make it his policy to reduce the proportion of applications for planning permission for offshore wind farms to which his Department lodges objections. [174589]

  Mr. Caplin
  Departmental policy must be to maintain the integrity of operations, safety and the nation's defence systems. Objections are only raised when any proposed development would affect these key criteria. It is the Department's stated aim, wherever possible, to assist developers of wind farms, both on-shore and off-shore, to find solutions that will enable a development to proceed to the satisfaction of all parties.

  Operation Telic
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what improvements have been made to systems for combat identification in the light of experience gained from Operation Telic. [1746031

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence remains committed to improving combat effectiveness and minimising casualties by improving Combat Identification (ID). We already have a continuing programme to support our Armed Forces' Combat ID 1618W
  capability through investment in equipment, training and the continuous review of tactics, techniques and procedures. Following warfighting operations in Iraq the Department undertook a comprehensive review of Combat ID to identify the scope for improvements that could be made. As they become available, lessons from operations in Iraq will inform our approach to all elements of Combat ID capability.

  In addition to our programme of continuous improvement and as a direct result of United Kingdom experience during the warfighting phase of Op. Telic, we have continued to deploy in theatre the United States Blue Force Tracking equipment. We have also provided air and ground platforms with systems that support identification in theatre. In addition, we are working on an agreement with the US for the exchange of information on situational awareness systems. Combat Identification devices for vehicles procured under Urgent Operational Requirement arrangements are also being used in routine training.

  Radar Reflection (Aircraft)
  Mr. Tam Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assistance he is offering to manufacturers of windmill blades in overcoming problems of radar reflection on military aircraft. [166940]

  Mr. Caplin
  [holding answer 20 May 2004]: The Department of Trade and Industry in association with the Ministry of Defence, the Civil Aviation Authority and British Wind Energy Association, through the Wind Energy, Defence and Civil Aviation Interests Working Group have commissioned Qinetiq to investigate the feasibility of developing wind turbine blades that would be invisible to radar. The Department is also aware, through the same Group, that Sheffield University is investigating the technology for development of similar wind turbine blades. Additionally, the working group hopes to test software technology that can be applied to radar to mitigate some of the effects that are caused by wind turbine blades. MOD expects, in due course, to take a major role in testing this technology. MOD officials are available to meet with any manufacturers of wind turbine blades to discuss radar issues.

  Rifleman Miller
  Mr. Kevin McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what measures have been taken against those responsible for the attack upon Rifleman Miller of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Green Jackets in Ballykinler Barracks, County Down on 10 April. [175196]

  Mr. Ingram
  The alleged attack upon Rifleman Miller of the 2nd Battalion the Royal Green Jackets at Ballykinler, County Down on 10 April 2004 is still under investigation by the Royal Military Police. Until this investigation is completed and its recommendations considered it would be inappropriate for me to comment on this matter.

  Royal Military Police
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the internal process is for the Royal Military Police Special Investigations Branch to
  1619W
  evaluate the investigation of cases in order to improve efficiency and effectiveness; and what computer records are kept of conclusions drawn from internal evaluation. [174741]

  Mr. Ingram
  Headquarters Provost Marshal (Army) (HQ PM (A)) audits investigations to identify lessons learnt to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of investigations, and to improve the awareness of those who conduct, manage or supervise Royal Military Police investigations.

  Additionally, Technical Evaluation Inspections are routinely conducted by the HQ PM (A) Inspectorate, to examine investigative processes and procedures and to conduct quality control audits of investigations conducted.

  All Audit and Technical Evaluation Inspection reports are held on file at HQ PM (A), some electronically.

  Support Vehicles
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what representations his Department has received from the United States embassy on behalf of US companies for the support vehicles contract; and if he will make a statement. [171576]

  Mr. Ingram
  We are support vehicle not aware of any representations from the United States embassy regarding the contract.

  Typhoon Programme
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much he estimates it will cost the United Kingdom to convert the Typhoon for a ground attack role. [175343]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Eurofighter Typhoon was planned from the outset to be a multi-role aircraft with an initial ground attack capability, progressively benefiting from enhancement to this and other capabilities as part of an 1620W
  incremental acquisition programme. The cost of these enhancements is currently being discussed as part of the wider, ongoing Tranche 2 negotiations. These negotiations could be prejudiced by the disclosure of cost estimates.

  UN Operations
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British Forces will be subject to Iraqi law following the handover of power on 30 June 2004. [169385]

  Mr. Hoon
  Following the assumption of authority by the Iraqi Interim Government on 30 June, the intention is that the Multi-National Force including United Kingdom forces will continue to be granted immunity from prosecution under local law. The precise means of achieving this are still under consideration. Members of the Multi-National Force will continue to be subject to the jurisdiction of their sending states.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence which branch of the UK military are responsible for the running of prisons in Iraq; who is the head of this branch; and to whom he is responsible for making reports. [174356]

  Mr. Ingram
  The United Kingdom's only detention facility in Shaibah is currently being run by 1st Regiment Royal Highland Fusiliers, with members of the Military Provost, who report to the Commander Multi-National Division (South East).

  Young Service Personnel
  Mr. Hoyle
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many 16 to 18-year-olds are serving in the(a) Army, (b) Royal Air Force and (c) Royal Navy, broken down by sex. [173773]

  Mr. Caplin
  I refer my hon. Friend to TSP (Tri Service Publication) 8: Age Distribution of UK Regular Forces at 1 April 2004.

  This was published on 19 May 2004 and copies are available in the Library of the House.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFAIRS

  Pesticides Safety Directorate
  The Minister for Rural Affairs and Local Environmental Quality (Alun Michael)
  I have set the Pesticides Safety Directorate the following performance targets for 2004–05.To evaluate pesticide approval applications and contribute to the EU review programme.
  To develop policy initiatives to reduce the negative impact of pesticides and to encourage alternative control measures.
  To ensure UK objectives are reflected in EU legislation and regulation.
  >To monitor actively pesticide use and limit illegal use by taking appropriate enforcement action.
  To increase public awareness and understanding of safe use and regulation of pesticides.
  To recover the full cost of our operations from the industry and DEFRA, and achieve efficiency savings.

  Further details are given in the business plan, a copy of which has been provided to the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Vietnam Programme
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)
  The Department for International Development (DFID) will be increasing its support to Vietnam to £40 million in 2004–05 and to £60 million in 2005–06 to help Vietnam meet its challenges. Our new Country Assistance Plan for Vietnam (copies of which I have placed in the Library) will support the Government of Vietnam's own strategies for growth and poverty reduction. It sets out three key objectives for our contribution to the collective development effort. First, we will promote fair, efficient and effective use of public financial resources. Second, we will seek to strengthen the Government of Vietnam's efforts to achieve social and economic development that includes all groups of society. Third, we will support Vietnam in its transition to market-based economy. A fourth pillar of our programme in Vietnam will be to help improve the effectiveness of the international development effort.
  76WS
  DFID intends to provide £20 million a year over the next three years in the form of poverty reduction budget support. This commitment will constitute the single largest element of our programme in Vietnam and will provide a significant boost to Vietnam's overall reform programme. I can also announce today a £500,000 project to help improve the quality of public investment in Vietnam by supporting the introduction of a modern and efficient inspection system in the Ministry of Planning and Investment.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  Local Government Reviews (Boundary Committee's Final Recommendations
  The Minister for Local and Regional Government (Mr. Nick Raynsford)
  I have today received the independent boundary committee's final reports and recommendations on options for unitary local government for each of the existing two-tier county areas in the three northern regions. We welcome the completion of this significant step towards the holding of referendums for elected regional assemblies in the autumn.

  We will now carefully consider the recommended options and any representations about them that are made to us before taking decisions about the options that will be included in a draft order. We do not intend to take decisions about the options until 6 July.

  In the meantime, those who wish to make representations to us may do so. We will have regard to those before deciding what options we propose to put to electors. These options, together with the date of the referendums, will be contained in an order to be made following parliamentary approval.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iran (Export Licence Application)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  The Government have recently issued a licence for the BBC to export to Iran up to three civilian armoured vehicles which are of military specification. Although military rated, these vehicles are manufactured for civilian use and would provide essential protection for journalists working for the BBC. Her Majesty's Government believed that an exception to the UK unilateral arms embargo should be made to allow the free and secure movement of journalists throughout the region and that approval of the application was otherwise consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Specific provisos about usage and disposal are attached and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is minimal risk of diversion to a military end-use or for use in internal repression.

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.

Higher Education Funding Councils
Lord Walton of Detchant Lord Walton of Detchant asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will take steps to restore to the higher education funding councils the research infrastructure funding which was transferred to the research councils.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland): My Lords, the Government are committed to ensuring sustainability in research throughout the dual support system. By 2006, HEFCE research funding will increase by almost 24 per cent over 2003, and the research councils will receive an extra £120 million within the £2.9 billion science budget to contribute more towards the full costs of research. Additionally, £1 billion is committed, through the science research investment fund, to continue addressing the backlog of investment in the UK research base.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, in thanking the Minister for that reply, may I make it clear, as a former member of the Medical Research Council, that I do not in any way suggest that research council funding should he reduced? Indeed, it should he increased, as the noble Baroness has suggested. But under the dual support system, the universities are required to provide, through infrastructure funding, well equipped laboratories and facilities in which research can be carried out with direct funding from the research councils and charities. Many years ago, when the binary line was abolished and the polytechnics became universities, the then advisory board for the research councils, believing that the infrastructure money would be spread too thinly, arranged for the University Grants Committee to transfer that funding to the research councils. This has resulted in the long-term imbalance between the infrastructure funding and the actual research funding by the councils. Is it not time that that particular balance was restored?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, as a result of the 1998 and 2002 spending reviews and the joint infrastructure fund, which has now translated into the science research investment fund, that is precisely what
1188
we are trying to do. We are working to bring the dual support system together in order to address the very particular issues that the noble Lord has raised.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, following on from the noble Lord's Question, could the Minister tell us what provision is being made for research in emerging areas, such as nursing?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, we have made it clear in our documentation, as the right reverend Prelate will have seen, that it is important in all our research programmes to look at emerging research— nursing is a very good example— to ensure that we are able to support those universities and institutions in developing research in new areas which are particularly relevant.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, the Minister will know that various reviews have suggested from time to time that it would be a good idea if the research councils were funded to the full cost of the overheads that they have to meet. Is there any hope that the research councils will get funding that meets the full overhead costs of the projects undertaken?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the Government are supporting institutions with regard to a transparent approach to costing to ensure that institutions cost, charge and recover the full economic costs of their research. I think that that is the way of addressing the issue.
Baroness Finlay of Llandaff: My Lords, can the Minister tell us whether there is any monitoring by the Government of the amount of time that researchers waste when they have inconsistent decisions from different local research ethics committees? The protocol can be passed by one but turned down by others, and the researchers have to go back to the drawing board to satisfy perhaps one out of several LREC decisions.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not sure that I can answer that specifically. However, we are very concerned in terms of economic recovery in particular to have a very light-touch approach towards bureaucracy, which I think was, at least in part, what the noble Baroness was referring to. Ensuring that we have little of it is a critical part of that.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, is my noble friend aware that even with all that the Government are doing to try and bring universities together, there is still quite a lot of duplication in research in various universities? Could this not be looked at with a view to encouraging universities to work closer together?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, there is good evidence of institutions working very collaboratively. With respect to the White Paper, we are keen to encourage universities to be able to work together, in the best sense

1189
of the term, to pool their ability in order to get the best out of research. I think that that is happening in good measure.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what is the Government's system for evaluating this research?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, the research assessment exercise, as the noble Lord will know, carried out by Sir Gareth Roberts, has looked extensively at research for the next review in 2008. As we develop from that exercise, with the support of the institutions involved, I think it will become clear exactly how that will be carried forward. I am very happy to write to the noble Lord and give him further details about Sir Gareth Roberts's work in this context.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, could the Minister tell us whether there is any move afoot to regularise and bring together the work of various ethics committees? I am going back to the question of my noble friend Lady Finlay. It seems to me that the decisions of one ethics committee should sometimes be allowed to permit another ethics committee to pass a project for research without further investigation. Is there any move in this direction?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I am not aware of any move in that direction, but I shall of course write to the noble Baroness if I discover that there is.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, when the Minister writes to the noble Baronesses who questioned her, will she say whether the system that was in place when I was chairman of a research ethics committee still operates? When research was being carried out in a number of different places in the United Kingdom, there was a mechanism whereby the research ethics committees tried to co-ordinate their responses so that such a problem could not arise. If such a system no longer exists, perhaps the Government could consider that.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, my understanding is that what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, says is still the case. However, I will investigate further because these are important issues. Indeed, I will ensure that a copy of the reply is placed in the Library.

UK Airports: Export and Passenger Checks
2.43 p.m.
Lord Ahmed Lord Ahmed asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the searching of goods for export and travellers at United Kingdom airports is targeted at those destined for particular destinations.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey): My Lords, Her Majesty's Customs and Excise has the prime responsibility for control of goods leaving the United Kingdom. Export checks are carried out for prohibited goods such as illicit drugs, to check export licensing requirements, to enforce international sanctions, and for fiscal purposes checking goods to export manifests. Passengers are subject to checks to ensure that export restrictions are enforced and to detect crime-related cash. All checks are informed by risk assessments which may include the destination country as one indicator—for example, when the country of destination is subject to international sanctions or other export licensing requirements.
Lord Ahmed: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Is he aware that, on a recent visit to the United States, when I was among 65 other passengers at Heathrow Airport, I was taken out of the queue with another colleague for a random check of our luggage? On my travels to Saudi Arabia, I was searched and so were my bags to see whether I was carrying any cash. Is this rule applied to all passengers, whatever their colour or nationality? There were only two Asian-looking men in my queue and we were both taken out for a random check. What criteria do the police apply on the streets of London when they use stop-and-search powers under Section 44 of the Terrorism Act 2000?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in answer to my noble friend's first question, I was not aware of the circumstances of his visits to the United States or Saudi Arabia. When I was being briefed for this Question, I said that I had never been stopped leaving the country. However, both the head of frontier security and his colleague in frontier security told me that they had both been stopped leaving the country. My noble friend Lady Symons says that she, as a Minister, has also been stopped.
I do not want to talk about risk assessments because, clearly, once we start talking about the details of risk assessment profiles people can get some idea of how to avoid them. It is fair to say that the profiles are strictly adhered to.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that, given the unavoidably limited resources to protect this country from both organised crime and terrorism, the most sophisticated profiling and targeting that can be achieved is fully desirable? If, for example, it was concluded that those born on 11 September—as I was—were of special interest, I would be delighted to be targeted and pulled out of a queue at any time.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that would seem to be a waste of Customs' resources.

European Union: Corruption Investigation
2.46 p.m.
Lord Tebbit Lord Tebbit asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will make representations to the European Commission concerning the case of Mr Hans-Martin Tillack, a journalist investigating corruption in the European Union.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the case of Mr Tillack, a German journalist working in Belgium, is in the hands of Belgian prosecutors and no decision has been taken yet on whether there is any evidence on which to base a prosecution. In those circumstances, it would not be appropriate for the British Government to intervene or comment.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, I am sorry to hear that. Is the Minister aware that, according to all the press accounts, this German journalist, who is favourable towards the European Union, was publishing articles about the scandals of corruption within the Commission? He was detained—and none too gently—by the Belgian police at the request of the Commission. His computer and records, which could give the Commission access to the names of the whistleblowers, were handed to the Commission. That is hardly a step towards dealing with the corruption that we know exists in the Commission. Is it not the duty of Her Majesty's Government to tell the Commission that it should welcome the work of investigative journalists, not try to obstruct them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, Her Majesty's Government have always welcomed the work of investigative journalists and have always supported all measures to eliminate fraud and corruption in the European Union and elsewhere—it is not simply a problem within the European Union. However, the particular case to which the Question refers is of a German journalist arrested in Belgium. If that indicates that there are tensions between OLAF and its supervisory committee, that is a bad thing.
I read the same press reports. In particular, I read Private Eye, to which the noble Lord, Lord Tebbit, is no doubt referring. However, unless there is evidence of human rights abuse—and this case is still sub judice—there is no basis on which Her Majesty's Government can intervene or comment.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, is the Minister aware that this gentleman's article, which is quite long and detailed with graphs and names in quotes and interviews, appeared in yesterday's New York Herald Tribune? Does he not agree that it is a good idea for Members of this House who have the opportunity to see a copy of it in the Library? It is fascinating to see what we are paying for.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I did not see yesterday's Herald Tribune but the article was originally in Stern and has appeared in English before.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, does the Minister recognise that the issue of press freedom in the European
1192
Union is extremely important? In this instance, the Belgian police seem to have been extremely heavy-handed. Does he also recognise that press comments on the question of fraud and the role of OLAF have suggested that one of the reasons why the Commission has made only limited progress in reform is that member states have not given enough support to reforms in the Commission? One would have thought that it would have been possible for Her Majesty's Government to work with other like-minded governments to give much more active support to efforts at Commission reform.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I agree that press freedom is an important matter both in the United Kingdom and elsewhere in Europe but I wish that the undoubted progress that is being made in combating fraud and corruption in the European Union were not attacked on the basis of press reports. Press reports, particularly those in this case, which is still before the Belgian courts, are not a basis for Her Majesty's Government to intervene. We are actively intervening on the substantive issue, which is fraud.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, does the Minister agree that we are told all the time by Ministers that such and such a matter has a cross-border dimension, is a matter of common interest and it is therefore legitimate for people to take an interest in other countries' internal affairs? Does he not agree that if there were any suggestion that the Belgian police or OLAF were in any way more interested in the suppression of evidence about fraud, rather than in combating fraud, that would be a matter about which we should be concerned?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is a hypothetical question. I wonder whether the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, would say the same if the parliament of another member state were to start to intervene in the activities of a British court.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, as my noble friend has given a rather broad welcome to the fight against fraud, does he now regret the decision that he announced in response to a Question I asked him about a year ago? The British Government refused to join in the action against Phillip Morris and Reynolds in the United States courts. It has now resulted in a very substantial payment by those cigarette manufacturers, which will be shared by the 10 member states of the European Union that did join in the action, but unfortunately we were not among them.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, however hard I try, I cannot relate that to the Question on the Order Paper.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, returning to the question of Hans-Martin Tillack, can the Minister confirm that, under Belgian law, all journalists are required to reveal their sources to the authorities?

1193
Since Brussels is the heart of the European Union, to which we belong, is that a very good example for us to follow in promoting open democracy in Europe?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not believe that I stand at this Dispatch Box to display an understanding of Belgian law. The fact that the European Commission is based in Brussels does not really affect the issue.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, I am rather puzzled by the reply that was given to the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. The reply was that would we not, in this country, take offence at the interference of another country in somebody we had arrested. But I understood that Mr Tillack was arrested at the request of the European Commission. If that is so, as a member of the European Union should we not at least be making some inquiries to see why this man was arrested and with what he is charged?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, this case is before the Belgian prosecutors. Until there is some resolution or a decision to charge him, which has not yet taken place, it would be wise for us to hold our fire.
Lord Pearson of Rannoch: My Lords, does the Minister agree that despite billions of our money being spent by Brussels to create it, there is really no prospect of a European demos and therefore no prospect of a genuine European democracy, which might hold the endemic corruption of the European Union to account? Is not that part of the underlying problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I assume that the noble Lord, Lord Pearson, is speaking not about a think tank but about Athenian democracy. I fear that we are a very long way from Athenian democracy everywhere except, possibly, in Rutland.
Lord Tebbit: My Lords, is the Minister aware that I have some sympathy for him for the difficulty he has in answering this Question? Is he aware that the Dutroux case is still wandering its way through Belgian justice?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: No, my Lords, and the sympathy is misplaced. I have no difficulty in saying that it is not the role of this Government to intervene in matters before the Belgian courts.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Commission is the body on which all the trumpeted national powers being concentrated by the new constitution are to be focused. Surely, the matter is of great interest to us as we will also be ruled by the Commission. We should be very careful of what the Commission does with the liberty of the subject and the freedom of the press. Does that not make this a matter for which the Minister should answer?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, we are not ruled by the Commission and, as far as I know, this case is not being brought by the Commission. All that is
1194
public knowledge, other than press reports, is that the Belgian police arrested Mr Tillack and that no decision has yet been taken on whether there is any evidence on which to base a prosecution. In those circumstances, the speculations of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, are not appropriate.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that some 90 per cent of the so-called fraud within the European Union is directly attributable to individual member states and not to the European Commission?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, it is certainly true that 90 per cent of irregularities are due to individual states and not to the European Commission. Unfortunately, it is not entirely clear what proportion of irregularities are actually fraud, rather than mistakes of various kinds. However, the thrust behind the question of the noble Lord, Lord Harrison, is right.

Home Office Website
2.57 p.m.
The Earl of Caithness The Earl of Caithness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they are satisfied with the quality of the Home Office website.
The Minister of State, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister (Lord Rooker): My Lords, the answer is "Yes". However, across all of our public-facing communications, we constantly look at ways to improve users' experiences. In the current year, we are redeveloping the Home Office website to make it even more user-focused and to enhance its accessibility.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, I applaud the fact that an immigrant who wishes to become a British citizen will have to take the oath of allegiance to Her Majesty, her heirs and successors, but can the Minister explain what are the "aires", mentioned on the website, to which an immigrant is swearing allegiance?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I have missed the point of the noble Lord's question. Is it a spelling error?
Noble Lords: Yes!
Lord Rooker: My Lords, they didn't use the spellchecker, did they?
Lord Avebury: My Lords, has any progress been made on the aim of giving government websites a common look and feel? In the case of the Home Office, will that principle be extended to the subsidiary sites, such as those of the IND and the Prison Service, so that people can find their way around more easily?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a valid point. As I have said, the main Home Office website is being refocused this year. On 30 June, just a few weeks away, a new IND site will be published and I understand there will be common accessibility. I had not looked at the Home Office website for more than two years but I did so early this morning. I found it much easier to get around than in the past but the idea of a common page for the various subsidiary sites is useful for the users.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, is the Minister aware that some of us who regularly use the Home Office website are quite impressed by the great improvement in how frequently it is updated? Two years ago, those updating it were so far behind that it was hard to believe. Now, it seems much more current, and many people find that helpful.
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am sure that those who have been responsible for vastly improving the website in the two years since I left the Home Office will—like those who are currently working on the site and those auditing it to increase its accessibility—justifiably take great comfort from the noble Baroness's comments.
The Earl of Caithness: My Lords, as the Minister has said that there will be a revamp of the website, will he take this opportunity to ensure that all the other, rather less insulting spelling mistakes are also checked? The Home Office is not particularly good at having checked what it has put under the press.
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords; needless to say, in view of the way in which the noble Earl has raised the issue, we will certainly look into it. However, he has defeated us all in trying to work out what on earth his Question was about.
Lord Glenarthur: My Lords, I support everything to do with open government and the virtue of websites. However, can the noble Lord tell us the cost of the Home Office website and the number of "hits"—I believe that that is the technical term—it has had and how that has grown in comparison with other departments of state over the past couple of years?
Lord Rooker: My Lords, I am told that it was "hits"; these days, the phrase is "page impressions".
Noble Lords: Oh!
Lord Rooker: Yes, my Lords; I had to look through the jargon myself. That is a difficult question. The Home Office has a main website and a huge number of subsidiary sites. I believe that the latest figures available to me are being given today in the other place in Answer to a Parliamentary Question. In 2002–03, the cost of running the site for a full year was just over £1.6 million. The number of page impressions was about 6 million, although I am told that the total number of "hits"—as in the jargon of all the other sites—was well over 30 million.
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, can the Minister tell us what conformance level is achieved by the
1196
Home Office website and those of other government departments in respect of the web accessibility initiative of the World Wide Web Consortium?
Lord Rooker: No, my Lords. But the Home Office website did come fifth in an independent check of website user-friendliness published by an independent company, the name of which I cannot remember. I have it. The Home Office website was rated fifth overall in the second annual report on key government websites published by Porter Research. Having seen that, needless to say, I asked, "That's all very well for the Home Office. Where did the ODPM come in?". As copies of that report are apparently very expensive, we do not own one. However, I am told that we are not in the top five or the bottom five.

Zimbabwe
3.3 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool Lord Alton of Liverpool asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they intend to raise the recent closure of church schools in Zimbabwe, the arrest of teaching staff and warnings of forthcoming famine in the country at the United Nations.
The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos): My Lords, Zimbabwe's schools have now reopened and the teachers have been released without charge. The continuing humanitarian crisis in Zimbabwe is a topic of constant discussion among the donor community, including the United Nations. The UN will continue to monitor the humanitarian situation as closely as it can, but the Zimbabwe Government's recent decision to cancel the joint crop assessment could delay the international community's response if food aid is needed.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am grateful to the Leader of the House for that reply. Did she see the disturbing comments at the weekend of the Archbishop of Bulawayo, Archbishop Ncube, who said that he believed that the Mugabe regime,
"is planning to starve the people in order to get votes"?
Does she not agree that the deliberate targeting of food against opponents of the regime is a very sinister development, and that the eviction of the United Nations crop assessors whom she just mentioned also will ensure that the situation in the country becomes ever worse? What has to happen in Zimbabwe before Her Majesty's Government believe it right to raise this matter in the Security Council?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I did see those comments. The noble Lord will know that the Archbishop of Bulawayo stated that he thought that some 10,000 people in western Zimbabwe had died as a result of lack of access to food in the past year.

1197
On the issue of the Security Council, we have been round this ground a number of times. The UN Security Council will look at issues only in relation to peace and security in the world. When the situation was dire, we managed through the World Food Programme to have the issue of Zimbabwe raised at the Security Council. However, without the support of the African nations that have consistently voted a no-action motion in the Commission on Human Rights—so that the concerns of the European Union and others about human rights are not considered on an annual basis—this issue will not be raised at the Security Council.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness the Leader of the House aware that because parents are being charged a levy at Zimbabwean schools for the cost of chalk, paper and other consumables, which is continually being increased to match the 600 per cent inflation, many parents have withdrawn their children from schools, so that enrolment is now at only 59 per cent? Is she further aware that Mr Gideon Gono, the governor of the Reserve Bank of Zimbabwe, is here, apparently to make arrangements to ensure that all remittances by exiles are sent through the Reserve Bank so that he can cream off a fee and exchange it at the official exchange rate, making it even more difficult for parents who depend on these remittances to continue to keep their children at school? Will she not withdraw the visa that has been granted to Mr Gono? How does he come not to be on the exclusion list?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, on the number of children withdrawn from schools, I was not aware of the figures mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Avebury. I am aware of the fact that the fees have had to be raised and that inflation in Zimbabwe is running at more than 500 per cent, which is causing a great many problems not only for parents with children but for every ordinary Zimbabwean citizen in accessing food and other daily essentials.
As I understand it. the governor of the Reserve Bank is not on the list because he is not playing a leading role in the ZANU/PF politburo or in the government. However, I will go back and check on that and write to the noble Lord if my information on that has changed. I am aware that the Government of Zimbabwe are seeking to reach out to the diaspora and seeking to get them to send remittances back to the country through formal channels. I cannot comment on the use that they will make of that.
The Lord Bishop of Manchester: My Lords, is the Minister aware that half an hour ago I was speaking to the diocesan secretary in Matabeleland, who informed me that although things have improved as the Minister indicates in education, the fact remains that the three heads of the Anglican schools in Matabeleland remain suspended? The issue of fees being raised to match the 600 per cent inflation to which the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, referred, remains a continuing problem. I
1198
wonder whether the noble Baroness can reassure the House that her very optimistic response really does have sufficient background to it.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I certainly do not feel that I gave an optimistic response. I think that the situation in Zimbabwe is dire. On the issue of the Anglican school heads, I was not aware that they remained suspended. I was asked the specific question of whether there were any remaining concerns with respect to church schools in Zimbabwe. I will go back and check on that matter again. The information I have indicates that six head teachers were briefly arrested but were released. However, the issue of suspension was not brought to my attention.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, the noble Baroness—I think with the full understanding of the House, which knows of her concern in this matter—pointed out the difficulty of getting any reaction from the African states. Can she confirm that there is a very serious situation in Botswana because of the number of Zimbabwean refugees flowing into that country looking for some sort of food and some sort of work? Can she say whether the same crisis is occurring among other neighbours of Zimbabwe, with the possibility that minds might be altered by that?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I shall try to explain to the House that it is very difficult to get a collective response from African countries when these issues are raised in public. In our discussions with individual heads of state of African countries they will express concern about the situation. Noble Lords will understand that I cannot go into the detail of those private discussions.
Botswana is facing a difficult situation. Some 127,000 Zimbabweans are trying to get into Botswana each month. The noble Baroness will know that Botswana has had a long history as a stable economy, which has recently been undermined because of the high level of HIV/AIDS. Botswana has erected a security fence on the pretext that it is to keep out wandering cattle. Many people feel that it is to deal with illegal immigration. It is impacting on other countries, who have expressed concern.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, the Minister has told us many times that it is effectively impossible for us to raise the issue of Zimbabwe in the UN Security Council for the reasons that she has given. What effort has been made to get the Commonwealth, which, after all, includes a number of African and Caribbean countries, to make representations as one body in the United Nations? As it is, we are allowing the African Union to dictate what happens in an organisation that is supposed to be there to protect the humanitarian rights of the world, among other things. Can we not have a Commonwealth-organised demonstration of sympathy and solidarity? Let the Commonwealth or the Commonwealth countries table the resolutions that we are unable to do, apparently.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, the noble Baroness knows as well as I do the difficulties that the Commonwealth has faced at recent Commonwealth Heads of Government Meetings—the most recent in Abuja and the one before that—in reaching a consensus on Zimbabwe. She will also know that Mr Mugabe actually took Zimbabwe out of the Commonwealth as a result of the decision that was taken at Abuja—a decision which, I have to say, was fought hard over. I met with some individuals from the Commonwealth Secretariat this morning. Their feeling is that they are only just beginning to repair some of the damage that was caused at that meeting as a result of the discussion about Zimbabwe. So, while I understand what the noble Baroness is trying to say, I do not think that it is something that the Commonwealth would be able to do collectively, with respect to the UN Security Council.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I think that we all agree that Mr Thabo Mbeki, the President of South Africa, is a central figure in trying to resolve this terrible situation. Now that the poison is spreading out of Zimbabwe into Botswana, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has reminded us, and into South Africa, can the Minister say when Her Majesty's Government last made representations to Mr Mbeke or last talked to him about action that is desperately needed to stop this issue poisoning the whole of the southern African development plan?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I have said many times in this House, as has my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, that we have an ongoing dialogue with South Africa about this issue at ministerial and official level. My honourable friend, the Minister responsible for African affairs, was in South Africa last week and of course these issues came up as part of that discussion. South Africa is playing a very important role behind the scenes in seeking to bring the opposition parties and the government together with respect to looking at the future of Zimbabwe. However, we all know that it is not an easy task and some noble Lords will have seen the interview on Sky and the comments which were being made by Mugabe about the state of that country. It is absolutely clear that lie puts being in power above all else and cares little for what is happening to the people of Zimbabwe.
Lord Acton: My Lords, last week in answer to my supplementary question on a Starred Question put by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, the Minister gave a figure of 2 million Zimbabwean refugees in South Africa. Today she has given a figure of the number of Zimbabweans seeking to enter Botswana. Does she have a figure for how many Zimbabwean refugees there are in Botswana and how many there are in Mozambique?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I do not have that figure, partly because the figures I have are from the Botswana immigration authorities and relate to people trying to get into the country. They have concerns that a number of people manage to enter illegally, but I do not have those figures. I shall seek to find them, write to my noble friend and put a copy in the Library.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, does the Minister not understand that what so concerns the House and public opinion is that diplomacy seems to be producing a conspiracy of silence combined with ineffectiveness?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I well understand the concern being expressed in the House, but we also need to understand that the people of Zimbabwe and people in other African countries feel that Britain let them down. I have travelled to many of those countries and have been on national radio taking questions from people about the situation between Britain and Zimbabwe. They feel that at the point when black Zimbabweans needed help this country preferred to support white Zimbabweans who had stolen their land. That runs very, very deep. If we do not understand that, we fail to understand the power that Mugabe has in raising the temperature and portraying Britain always as a colonial power looking backwards rather than forwards.
Lord Elton: My Lords, the Minister has illustrated clearly the difficulties that we have as the principal actors against that regime. Is it not therefore relevant that the Question refers to church schools? There are many churches and many black churches in Africa which do not have that handicap. Will the Government facilitate in any way that they can the transfer of information and views between black African churches so that they come to bear on black African governments?
Baroness Amos: My Lords, of course we have worked with the Churches and other NGOs. We have sought to support the Solidarity Peace Trust, for example, and other NGOs working in this area, to bring the situation to the attention of African governments. But I have to say that the bulk of the black population in African countries fails to see the logic of what we are trying to do now. That is why it is so difficult for South African leaders to come out and speak more passionately in public in the way that they do in private about what is going on in Zimbabwe.

Civil Contingencies Bill
Brought from the Commons; read a first time, and ordered to be printed.
Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the Second Reading of the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill, perhaps I may remind the House about timings. We have the Second Reading debate, followed by continuation of the Committee stage of the Higher Education Bill and then an Unstarred Question. If we are to complete our business by the target time of 10 p.m., it would be very helpful if all Back-Bench contributions to the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill were timed at around 10 minutes.

Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill
3.18 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Constitutional Affairs (Lord Filkin): My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time.
The Bill is a short and specific measure. It will keep the size of the Scottish Parliament at 129 MSPs, by removing the link in the Scotland Act 1998 which makes the Scottish Parliament's constituencies the same as those for Westminster. The Bill also provides for the separate review of the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions by the Electoral Commission, which shall take over the responsibilities of the Boundary Commission for Scotland after the completion of its current review.
The Government accepted from the outset that devolution removed the need for special consideration for Scotland in terms of representation in the House of Commons and, therefore, that the electoral quotas for Scotland and England should be the same. That was an integral part of the devolution agreement.
The Scotland Act 1998 provided for this reduction in MP numbers and made the constituencies of the Scottish Parliament the same as those for Westminster—except for Orkney and Shetland. The Boundary Commission for Scotland has recently concluded its review of the Scottish Westminster constituencies. Its recommendations would reduce the number of these from 72 to 59.
The next stage in the review process is for the commission to consider the boundaries of the regions which return additional list Members to the Scottish Parliament. This work has to be concluded—or made unnecessary by the Bill—before the commission can report to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland. The commission is required to report by December 2006, but in light of its progress so far, it is likely that its review will be finished much sooner. I can assure the House that there will be no delay in implementing the commission's recommendations once it has submitted its report.
As a consequence of the present linking of the Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies in the Scotland Act, there would be an automatic reduction in the size of the Scottish Parliament—from 129 to just over 100 MSPs. However, it was made clear by my noble friend Lord Sewel during the passage of the Scotland Act that the Government would keep under review the issue of the size of the Scottish Parliament, taking account of its operation in practice.
The Scotland Office's public consultation at the beginning of 2002, which sought views on the case for retaining or ending the linking of Westminster and Holyrood boundaries, showed an overwhelming body of opinion in favour of maintaining 129 MSPs, in the interests of the Parliament's stability. Following this consultation, it was announced in this House on 18 December 2002 that the Government intended to bring forward legislation to retain the existing number of MSPs. The Bill delivers that commitment.
1202
Let me turn to each part of the Bill. Clause 1 replaces Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act—which makes provision for constituencies, regions and regional Members in relation to the Scottish Parliament—with a new schedule that retains the number of constituencies in the Scottish Parliament at 73, with eight regions continuing to return seven regional list Members, thereby preserving the size of the Parliament at 129 Members. This clause also introduces Schedule 2, which makes provision to deal, if necessary, with the period before the functions of the Boundary Commission for Scotland are transferred to the Electoral Commission.
Clause 2 gives effect to the provisions in Schedule 3 concerning the current statutory review of Westminster constituencies and Scottish Parliament regions which is being carried out by the Boundary Commission for Scotland.
The Boundary Commission is required to submit to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland a report on Scottish Westminster constituencies, which must also include recommendations for consequential alterations to the regions for the purposes of Scottish Parliament elections. However, this latter part of the commission's report will not be relevant once the Scottish Parliament constituencies and regions have been decoupled from the Westminster constituencies through the Bill. Any changes concerning these regional boundaries therefore need to be disapplied.
Schedule 1 is linked to Sections 1 to 12 of the Scotland Act concerning elections. It replaces the present Schedule 1 to the Scotland Act, specifies the constituencies and regions for purposes of the Scottish Parliament, provides for the Electoral Commission to review the boundaries of the constituencies and regions, and provides for the holding of local inquiries following any objections in relation to proposed changes.
Schedule 2 makes transitional provisions to deal, if necessary, with the position before the Electoral Commission takes over the functions of the Boundary Commission for Scotland. Schedule 3 ensures that any recommendations on changes to the regional boundaries included in the report of the Boundary Commission following its current review will not be acted upon, as these will no longer be relevant.
It will be seen from this description that the focus and scope of the Bill are narrow. Its purpose is to retain the current size and structure of the Scottish Parliament. It is not the Government's intention to introduce through this measure more radical changes. The purpose at this time is to provide the Scottish Parliament, so soon after its establishment, with a period of stability. The Bill therefore simply makes the technical changes to the Scotland Act required to keep the number of MSPs at its current level.
Nevertheless, the Government are aware of concerns about the operation in future of different boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood constituencies. In the light of these concerns, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland announced during the Second Reading of the Bill in another place, on 9 February, that the work of the independent commission to look at issues arising from having different Holyrood and Westminster

1203
boundaries—which was announced at the same time as the decision to retain the present number of MSPs—will be brought forward. The Government now intend to take this matter forward more quickly, as some significant changes have occurred since the end of 2002.
Following the Scottish Executive's intention to introduce the single transferable vote for local government elections in Scotland by 2007, it is now proposed that the commission—as well as looking at any problems arising from different Westminster and Holy rood boundaries—should also take a fresh look at the arrangements for elections to the Scottish Parliament and for relationships between MPs and MSPs and their constituents and public bodies in Scotland.
The commission will be independent and will consider the case for change and make recommendations to my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and to the First Minister. The commission will start work as soon as possible, and will be expected to complete its work in around 18 months. It will be expected to carry out its remit through wide-ranging consultation designed to achieve a consensus for any change.
I am pleased to tell the House that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has today announced that Professor Sir John Arbuthnott has agreed to be chairman of the commission. Sir John is a renowned academic and was principal and vice-chancellor of the University of' Strathclyde for nine years until 2000, and is currently chairman of the Greater Glasgow NHS Board. Membership of the commission will be announced shortly. The members will be individuals who are well respected in their fields.
The commission's remit will reflect the fact that since the May election last year a substantial debate has developed in Scotland on the subject of the electoral arrangements for the Scottish Parliament. Scotland now faces the prospect of four different voting systems: UK general elections on a first-past-the-post basis; European elections on the list systems of PR; the additional member system for Holyrood; and STV for local government. There is, clearly, potential for confusion on the part of voters. The Scottish Executive shares these concerns and welcomes taking this debate forward.
Any future decision to change the present arrangements will need to reflect a consensus of view within Scotland. The Government believe that an open, independent and transparent review by the commission of the effectiveness of the current system and the possibilities for change is now necessary. The announcement of this measure has already attracted broad support. It is, however, important that this issue is not pre-judged—although of course any outcome would need to respect the basic principles of the devolution settlement.
In particular, the commission will examine the consequences of having four different voting systems in Scotland, and different boundaries between Westminster and Scottish Parliament constituencies, for the following: voter participation; the relationship between public bodies
1204
and authorities in Scotland and MPs and MSPs; and the effectiveness of representation of constituents by elected members.
The commission will be asked to make recommendations on whether these consequences require action to be taken in respect of: arrangements between elected representatives, to ensure that their constituents and organisations receive the best possible service; the method of voting in Scottish Parliament elections; the pattern of electoral boundaries in Scotland; and the relationship with other public bodies and authorities in Scotland.
I wish to make it clear that this proposal does not affect in any way the process for reducing the number of Scottish constituencies for Westminster which is well under way, nor the number of MEPs elected for Scotland; nor will it affect the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Bill itself, which is the subject of our discussions today.
With this exposition of our future plans, I hope that it has been helpful to set the context for the Bill. I am pleased to say that I have concluded within my 10 minutes. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Lord Filkin.)
3.28 p.m.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, first, I must congratulate the Government on producing such succinct legislation that the main body of the Bill takes up only one page. Recently, when we hear of a Bill coming to this House, we are usually lucky if it works out at fewer than 200 pages. I know that that has been done not for our convenience, but in order to limit the scope for any of us to propose amendments. However, perhaps one should be thankful for small mercies.
Like many noble Lords, I sat through the various stages of the Scotland Bill, so I find it quite extraordinary that the Government should be bringing back legislation on this topic which we debated at such length in 1998. At that point, various elements of the Opposition explored a great many of the options that could be considered in arranging a legislature for Scotland. The Government disagreed, and the elected Chamber got its way.
We now have the Scotland Act, and politicians have had time to digest its meaning. Those of your Lordships who were in this House then will hardly need reminding of the replies that the Government gave when we were debating the Bill. In Committee, the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, said:
"the Government have concluded that the balance of advantage lies with maintaining the link between Westminster and the Scottish parliament constituencies".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1336.]
He went on to explain in some detail how this view was the one contained in the White Paper, and he quoted paragraph 8.7 of that document, which was of course the document used as the basis for the referendum in September 1997. This was the document crafted by the constitutional convention which we were for ever after asked to consider as if it were almost holy writ and, "the settled will of the Scottish people".

1205
The noble Lord further said that,
"a constituency link will be the essential foundation of the new Scottish Parliament… when the parliament does reduce in size, it will still be able to function effectively and efficiently".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; cols. 1338–39.]
The Government have tried to make the argument that—the Minister reminded us of this a few moments ago—they always thought they would come back to consider the structure of the Scottish Parliament. On 9 February this year the Minister in another place said that,
"my noble Friend Lord Sewel made it clear that the Government would keep the matter under review".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/04; col. 1147.]
This has been a puzzle to me as I have scoured the debates that were held in this Chamber and the best I can come up with is a remark by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, at Report, which is tucked into the closing stages of his reply, that if the Scottish Parliament thought that a reduction in numbers would put at risk the way it functioned, it could ask,
"this Parliament and the United Kingdom Government to reach a balanced view".—[Official Report, 22/10/98; col. 1606.]
To me that is far from making clear that the Government were committed to unpicking the Scotland Act. One would like to think that the Government's words in this Chamber mean a little more than what one would expect from exchanges over a pint of beer in a local pub.
I wonder how the Government rate their grasp of constitutional proposals when they consider this against the first major Act in this sphere which was the Act of Union. My ancestor seven generations ago was President of the Privy Council in Scotland when the Act of Union was signed—a much more complicated document, which over time has attracted a few critics. That was signed in January 1707 and first altered in 1832 when the number of Scots representatives in the other place was increased. That was a gap of 125 years.
If the Government wish to go down this route, we need to try to have some understanding of how things are working at present. If I am not mistaken, there was a great sense of euphoria about the setting up of the Scottish Parliament. The Chamber was to be filled with a raft of fair-minded people who would not need any checks and balances such as a second chamber to second-guess the wording of their legislation. They would be imbued with the wisdom of the pre-legislative scrutiny committees and the correct legislation would immediately follow.
The public perception of what actually happens has fallen rather short of that rosy concept. The Members themselves seem quite happy with the arrangement that if they have fixed opinions, they can ignore the views of the committees.
The present Parliament likes to argue that it is stretched to the limit. Those who have watched the legislative process have been awed by the spate of legislation and the radical new ideas and proposals that the legislation has introduced. Perhaps it is worth reminding ourselves that due to the timetable at Westminster, there was a ready-made backlog of
1206
Scottish measures awaiting the new Parliament, let alone the opportunity to try out the latest in political theories. It does not take much experience of institutions to know that the introduction of a new broom heralds a spate of increased activity. This does not prove that it will be necessary for this to continue.
An easy way of criticising the way the Parliament has operated is to highlight the escalating cost of the new Parliament building. Everyone in Scotland is acutely aware of the saga. Most of this centres on the way that decisions were taken or simply never addressed. My noble and learned friend Lord Fraser of Carmyllie is just today rounding off his inquiry into all aspects of that episode and we will hear a great deal more when his findings are published.
But we should not lose sight of the fact that the money, however hard come by, is part of a capital spend, the significance of whose monetary cost will depreciate over the years, particularly if the building is found to add to the respect and significance of the Parliament.
Perhaps a more worrying element is that this is only one example of how the Scottish Executive has had a bit of difficulty with its budgeting. It is getting a reputation for serious underspending each year. Noble Lords may have noticed yesterday the estimate by Professor Midwinter, one of their financial advisers, that the Scottish Executive's underspend in the year 2002–03 was £408 million.
A serious element that is in equal need of responsible analysis is the cost of running the Parliament year by year. This is the area which concerns us today and is of great significance to the Scottish voters. Many sections are beginning to feel that there are too many politicians in Scotland. On a quick look at comparable legislative systems only Sweden has fewer constituents per elected politician.
The cost of running the Parliament is booming, as is the cost of the executive. Administration costs have risen by £95 million in the past seven years. Ministerial cars have increased from eight to 14 in the same period. Staff numbers in the press office have increased from 60 to 90 and by more than 1,000 in the executive office. This is becoming increasingly hard to justify. If voters again feel let down by the lack of reliable budgeting, they will feel not just let down by Labour but that there is a wish to add insult to injury.
An additional effect of a reduction in the number of MSPs would be a reduction in all that administrative tail that goes with them—the researchers, the press officers, the secretaries and the constituency organisations. The figures that the Scottish Parliament gives for the cost of each MSP, not including his travel allowances, is £104,660 per annum. A reduction of 21 in number would represent quite a tidy sum, let alone what more could be saved if it meant fewer Ministers.
Taking that on board, the proposal put forward by the Conservative Party in Scotland is that in implementing the terms of the 1998 Act, a reduction in the number of MSPs should be accompanied by a streamlining of the committees from 17 to 13 with a reduction in the number of Ministers from the present number of 20. This would

1207
produce a more efficient Parliament which would give Back-Bench MPs more time to hold the Government to account.
Perhaps I am not the only one to give a wry smile when reading the Explanatory Notes to the Bill when I came to paragraph 25, entitled the "financial effects". The only thing mentioned as being of concern is the cost of an additional periodic boundary review. Can the Minister tell us what savings would be forgone by the implementation of this Bill? This is the figure that the Scottish voters would really like to know, and I am sure it would be of great interest to your Lordships' House.
Earlier the Minister mentioned introducing a period of stability. I would like to ask him whether this Bill is in any way seen as a temporary measure to tide the Scottish Parliament over its first years. Surely if the interests of the public are concerned, the need for these cuts is bound to come.
I go back to our discussions on the 1998 Bill and the words of the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in Committee about the constituency link which is to be the,
"foundation of the new Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, 8/7/98; col. 1338.]
The idea was to enable the Members of the various Parliaments to share out the work on the basis of recognised responsibilities. This was going to be a wonderful thing for the satisfaction of constituents. Do the Government feel that anything like this has been achieved?
Looking at the situation in my home constituency and the remarks made by Members of the other place in their debate on this Bill, it would appear that even with the current coterminosity, there is plenty of scope for hot-headed competition between the elected and the proportional list MSPs, let alone others, as each tries to advance his influence with the voters in the hope of greater favour at the next election. Add to that the proposal for non-coterminosity that is now before us and the scope for confusion escalates. Even the Scottish Affairs Select Committee in another place is clear that the boundaries should be coterminous.
The adjustment needed to the working of the Scottish Parliament to comply with the Scotland Act and the reduced number of Members is not all that hard to comprehend but the confusion that this Bill will sow in the mind of the ordinary voter is.
3.38 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, the manner in which Scotland's constitutional changes have been made in the past decade in some ways are a model for the rest of the United Kingdom. In particular the proceeding on the basis of the constitutional convention that preceded the 1997 general election sought the common ground between the parties and laid the foundation for reform upon a broad consensus. In that I believe the Government were singularly successful. In so far as they strayed from that path, they made an error. I see the Bill as the correction of an error made when the Scotland Bill was introduced, with respect to the automaticity of the reduction of Members of the Scottish Parliament in
1208
the expected event of their representation in Westminster being reduced. I do not wish to linger on that. There has been a good deal of historical discussion in another place as to whether it was the preferred course of the then Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar. I was not privy to those discussions, although his smiles were sometimes quite revealing.
What the Government are proposing is entirely welcome, as far as it goes. It is clearly right to build upon the experience of how the Scottish Parliament has worked in judging whether it makes sense to reduce its membership. Objective observers of the workings of the Scottish Parliament have been impressed by the operation of the Scottish committee system. I cannot share the view expressed by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, that it would make sense to reduce the number of committees in the Scottish Parliament on the hypothesis that there would be some reduction in legislative activity, as there has been a catching-up operation.
I do not believe that a legislature as empowered to act across a broad range of government responsibilities as the Scottish legislature would wish to have its role confined by the monetary considerations adduced by the noble Duke. One of the grievances—which I certainly felt as a Member of Parliament representing a Scottish constituency in Westminster during 35 years of service—was that many Scottish matters were artificially held up because of the different mode and origination of legislation. We enacted desirable legislation less frequently than south of the Border. That wrong has been put right.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Could he give us three examples of legislation which was held up and could not be implemented under the previous system? Could he also give us three examples of legislation which the Scottish Parliament has been responsible for which have benefited Scotland and would not otherwise has happened?
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I will not answer in precisely the terms I am invited to by the former Secretary of State for Scotland—to whose considerable knowledge I pay tribute—although I could. I give one example of a speedy enactment of legislation in Scotland since the devolution package: university fees. That measure has rested on a consensus found in Scotland, and puts students in Scotland in a more advantageous position than those south of the Border. Other matters could also be adduced in support of the same case—perhaps the treatment of the elderly. The Scottish Parliament has much to be proud of in its short existence, and the teething troubles—which there have undoubtedly been—are not of the kind to cause us fundamentally to rethink the settlement, which has worked very much to the advantage of the Scottish people.
I welcome the Bill so far as it goes, although there are loose ends. They are recognised by the Government's decision to appoint an electoral commission chaired by Sir John Arbuthnott. On behalf of my noble friends

1209
here today, I welcome the announcement of his appointment. We look forward to submitting the evidence of our party, not least on the electoral systems. Four different systems look to be capable of some amendment to meet the desirable objective of clarity. Although I have not noticed any great confusion flowing from the existing systems of election in Scotland—lower turnouts, discrepant results, a lack of understanding—I hope that further changes will be contemplated and the detail advanced during and following the report of the commission.
The issue that has been raised as pointing to some inherent defect in the settlement is the failure to prescribe coterminous boundaries for the parliamentary constituencies of the two Parliaments. That is, from a public point of view, not entirely desirable. However, again I would resist the argument that it is not entirely comprehensible. There has long been uncertainty among the public at large, particularly in cities, about where the boundaries of parliamentary constituencies run. It has rarely been my experience that the parliamentary commissioners, in recommending changes, had in mind what might be perceived as the natural boundaries.
None the less, in seeking coterminosity—to use that ugly word that has emerged in the past couple of years—it is a goal worth reaching for, without distorting other factors such as the desirable proportionality of the system which is designed to ensure that members of the public have a truly fair voting system.
I am pleased that we have not heard from the noble Duke today a serious argument against the proposed fundamental change in the law. Some of his colleagues in another place resisted the measure in principle. It seems to me that the Government are right—it is a belated conversion—to recognise that Parliament got it about right in the Scotland Act. I hope that this Bill has a speedy and easy passage through your Lordships' House.
3.48 p.m.
Lord Palmer: My Lords, I declare an interest. I have spent more than half my life as a resident of Scotland where I try to run two small businesses.
I oppose this Bill because I believe it will damage the constitutional cohesion of the United Kingdom. It will further erode the relationship between Westminster and the Scottish Parliament; and it will feather-bed the Members of the Scottish Parliament, at the expense of the taxpayer and of local accountability.
The last time we had a proper debate on Scotland was over two years ago and there is a temptation to use this Second Reading debate to discuss Scotland in general. I shall do my best to resist that temptation. However, the devolved institution on the Mound now employs more staff per head of population than any other country in the world.
The Scottish Parliament could easily have started out as a new, trim, high-tech operation. After all, the organisers started out with a completely blank piece of paper back in 1998.
1210
The first intentions were indeed good. The plan was for 240 parliamentary staff, and a total of fewer than 400 in the Parliament as a whole—including MSPs, researchers and journalists. Somehow, between then and now, that number has mushroomed to 460 staff to run the Parliament, with a total of 1,180 people.
Your Lordships will be aware that I am a longstanding critic of the devolved Parliament. Two years ago I unsuccessfully attempted to promote a Bill providing for a fresh referendum on Scottish devolution. Since then, Scottish voters have indeed had a referendum of sorts—I refer to last year's Scottish elections. Less than half of the electorate bothered to turn out to vote. The majority of the electorate refused to endorse with their suffrage a Parliament that was only four years old. How can anyone then describe devolution as "the settled will of the Scottish people"? However, this Bill rewards the Members of a Parliament that has forfeited the support of its own people. This Bill revisits the Scotland Act 1998 in every other context, supporters of devolution having chosen to regard it as written on tablets of stone for time immemorial. When exactly will the orders be laid for the new Westminster constituencies?
The reduction in the number of Scottish constituencies in this Parliament from 72 to 59 is a welcome reform, ending over-representation that has long been a scandal and a bone of contention with many English MPs. However, the Government's refusal to implement the same reform in the Scottish Parliament is a blatant and outrageous act of patronage—perpetuating jobs for the political third XI to strut and preen themselves. It is shocking that between 25 and 30 per cent of the Scottish population is now employed in the public sector. The headline figures for the Scottish Executive tell a similar story. The number of Scottish Executive civil servants has increased by 1,700 since 1997, with 1,000 of this increase in the Executive office staff. The number of ministerial special advisers has risen from two to 11 over the same period, while the number of media and communications staff has gone up by 60—from 30 to 90.
I accept there was always going to be an increase in staff as a result of devolution, but these figures are ridiculous. The rise in media coverage and the creation of new Ministers and departments necessitated a press office, but what is alarming is the apparent overstaffing. For example, do we actually need 44 people compiling an official report of the Parliament for an institution that sits three days a week, seven hours a day when the other place has 80 people putting together three times as much information? Here in your Lordships' House, we have 30 members of Hansard staff. Do we need 460 people to run a Parliament for 129 MSPs and a population of 5 million? I suggest we do not. This Bill will sadly perpetuate all these deficiencies.
The uncoupling of Westminster and the Scottish Parliament constituencies will create an incoherent Balkanisation of the Scottish electoral map, with potentially separatist implications. It will make politics even more confusing and anonymous—and I believe, therefore, less democratic. It is the more indefensible in that 56 of the 129 seats in the Scottish Parliament are

1211
awarded by party leaders to their supporters, on the so-called regional list system, without those MSPs being directly elected by the voters. If Scotland, prior to devolution, was over-represented at Westminster by 72 MPs with responsibility for every area of government—including five Ministers at the Scottish Office—how can it possibly need 129 MSPs, 22 Ministers and all the back-up that they require, in a devolved Parliament with fewer responsibilities?
I believe this Bill is a shameless attempt to provide sinecures for people who have demonstrably failed to retain the confidence of their own electorate, and are shortly, we are told, to be housed in a controversial building whose cost cannot now fail to pass the £0.5 billion mark—as I suggested two years ago. This constitutes an excessive burden on Scottish taxpayers at nearly £100 per elector. It must not be forgotten that a £40 million building, fully equipped, was turned down by the Scottish Executive at the outset because it was thought not to be sufficiently prestigious. This situation and this Bill represent a sad tale for the people of Scotland.
I deeply regret that Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish is no longer with us, as I feel certain that he would feel even more strongly about this Bill. I also regret that the original First Minister, Donald Dewar, is no longer with us either. I believe that he would have been horrified at what is going on at the moment. He so eloquently set out the aims of the Scottish Parliament in his opening address on 1 July 1999:
"We will make mistakes. But we will never lose sight of what brought us here: the striving to do right by the people of Scotland; to respect their priorities; to better their lot; and to contribute to the commonweal".
This Bill is one such mistake and I hope it flounders at every hurdle.
3.56 p.m.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I welcome this short Bill, which, as we have heard this afternoon, is designed to maintain the present number of Members of the Scottish Parliament at 129. The Bill will accomplish that end by removing the link between the constituencies for the Scottish Parliament and those of the House of Commons.
There are two issues which seem to be perfectly plain. First, there is no longer a case for a higher representation of MPs from Scotland in the UK Parliament. That is now accepted by almost everyone, and this Bill will not alter that reduction to 59 MPs. Secondly, there is a strong case to retain 129 MSPs at Holyrood. That was the view of by far the majority—some 184 out of the 237 responses to the consultations initiated by my right honourable friend, the then Secretary of State for Scotland, Helen Liddell. That 184 included inter alia the Scottish Parliament, the Executive, the Electoral Commission, 13 councils in Scotland, the Confederation of Scottish Local Authorities and every political party except for the Scottish Conservatives.
Not many noble Lords participated in that consultation, but none supported the cutting of the number of MSPs in line with the provisions of the
1212
Scotland Act 1998. I am surprised—to say the least—at the views now being put forward by the Conservative Party, as I think they are out of step with other parties and with their own position in 1998. The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, has just referred to the late and much-missed Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish. However, he said in this House:
"I cannot think of anything dafter for the Government to do than say to this Parliament, 'You can start off with 129 members, but when the House of Commons reduces to about 58 Scottish members… your numbers will be reduced in a similar manner'"—[Official Report, 22 October 1998; col. 1600.]
That was what the late Lord Mackay said, and similar things were said in another place at the same time by the Member for Devizes, Michael Ancram, and the Member for Woodspring, Dr Liam Fox—both of whom are still official spokespeople for the Conservative Party. I shall not quote them now because I know noble Lords are familiar with the then views of the Official Opposition.
I was not a Member of your Lordship's House when the Bill that became the Scotland Act 1998 was debated.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord. He is quite right in what he says about the opposition position, but surely he recalls that the Government's position, and Donald Dewar's response, was that it was essential to maintain the link between Members of the Westminster Parliament and Members of the Scottish Parliament. That was why that view was rejected, and why they took on the political difficulty of telling MSPs that they would lose their position—something which they have flinched from at the last moment, it seems.
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein: My Lords, I shall come to that point. As I said, I was not a Member of this House when that Bill was discussed. To take up the matter raised by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, I do not know why the Government did not accept the point of view articulated by the late Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on not reducing the number of MSPs.
But it is clear that they did take on board the second point made in the same debate by Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish—that was, to listen. I believe that that is precisely what the Government have done. They have listened. They listened to the views of the Scottish people and to the views that came out during the consultation process. As I understand it, that commitment was given to this House by my noble friend Lord Sewel, who unfortunately is not able to be with us this afternoon. It is right that weight was given to that commitment, and it was right that weight was given to the outcomes of the consultation. In my view, it is too late to cry if one does not participate in the consultation process and does not like the outcome. The effect of silence or abstention is often to give assent by default.
I have only recently returned to live in Scotland after many years away and I have not been immersed in Scottish politics for a very long time. Therefore, I hope that I can be a little more dispassionate. Clearly, there is an argument for stability in a young Parliament, which has been the subject of quite a lot of criticism,

1213
much of it led by the Scottish media. I believe that expectations for that Parliament may have been set too high, and no doubt some of the criticisms are valid. There is an old saying which goes:
"The only people who do not make any mistakes are the people who do not do anything".
But, as with any new institution—not least one which is the product of major change and still less than five years old—it will take time to bed in. I firmly believe that a little patience will bring its own reward in a Parliament of which Scots can be justly proud.
If there were a bicameral Parliament in Edinburgh, I should be taking a different view of this matter. Not surprisingly, I prefer a bicameral system. However, that is not the case here, and it is essential that the committee system works. Most informed opinion is that it could not be effective if the number of MSPs were reduced, as anticipated in the Scotland Act 1998.
It is argued that the decoupling of the Scottish Parliament and Westminster parliamentary constituencies will give rise to confusion. Some suggest that those difficulties are more apparent than real, but I rather think that the changes could militate against effective working.
However, I suspect that there is a recipe for even more difficulties with the three, and potentially four, different voting systems—systems which were set up in isolation from each other. In addition, politicians in most Scottish parties complain about the alleged activities of list MSPs. Despite the rules laid down for their conduct, there appears to be a continuing difficulty.
It does not make any sense to leave these matters as they are. Therefore, I very much welcome the announcement made in another place by my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland, Alistair Darling, that the setting up of the independent commission to inquire into the impact of non-coterminous boundaries would be brought forward from a date post the 2007 Holyrood elections.
I understand that, as well as the non-coterminous constituencies, the commission will look at matters such as electoral systems and whether there is a better way of achieving proportional representation. I should be grateful if the Minister could confirm that.
I hope that all political parties will participate in the work of the commission, and I hope that that will include the Scottish Conservatives. It appears from what was said in another place that they are holding fire on that. I hope, too, that all of civic Scotland, including Churches and trade unions, will respond to calls for evidence.
Having worked for a very long time with organisations where the concepts of proportionality and fair representation were very much to the fore, I hope that the commission will have regard to the principles of the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention, which was put to the Scottish people in the referendum and gave rise to the setting up of the Scottish Parliament.
I hope, too, that the commission can be set up and that it can start work as soon as is practicable. I hope that it can make its recommendations in sufficient time
1214
to allow for changes to be introduced by the 2007 elections in Scotland. Again, I should be grateful if the Minister could assure the House that there will be no delay in the commission starting its work.
4.4 p.m.
Lord Monro of Langholm: My Lords, it is a great pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie, who has done so much in the western highlands and knows Scotland so well.
After we decided to have a Scottish Parliament, I was totally in favour of it and was keen that it should be made to work. I have always believed in devolution, which we started in the 1980s and continued thereafter. Therefore, I have to be disappointed in our progress so far and I wish that the Scottish Parliament had a higher reputation than it has at present. The blame must be laid at the door of the present Government and the Liberal Democrats, who supported them through thick and thin. Of course, the reputation of the Scottish Parliament has been bedevilled by the cost of the parliamentary building. However, we shall leave that to my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser. The committee members who were in place throughout the construction period must feel very ashamed about what has taken place.
This Bill is naturally a piece of political legislation. If it was not to help the present Government, I am certain that it would not have been introduced. But it is our duty as parliamentarians to question the Government on their U-turn in respect of the 1998 Act and to ask why they have changed their minds about the decisions taken during the passage of that legislation. The Government resisted amendments to retain 129 MSPs and made it clear that they believed that there should be a ratio between the number of Scottish Westminster seats and those in the Scottish Parliament.
However, we must ask ourselves why the figure of 129 has been chosen. Noble Lords such as the noble Lord, Lord Steel, may be able to explain why that number is so essential. We may say, "Of course, they want them to man the committees". But why should there be so many committees—and so many Ministers, which reduces the number of MSPs who can work on the committees? My noble friend the Duke of Montrose explained the high cost of the additional staff required to man the committees and the Parliament.
However, if much of the work done by the Scottish Parliament could be carried out by Scottish Westminster MPs for 100 years or more with seven Ministers, why do we need such a dramatic increase in the number in the Scottish Parliament? That is particularly the case when the Sewel Motions mean that the Scottish Parliament is excused from dealing with a certain amount of legislation. Again, one asks: why do they work such a short week? After all, when we were all Scottish Westminster MPs, we had no problem in attending Westminster from Monday to Friday. Why is it so difficult to attend Edinburgh from any part of Scotland? We want to see some streamlining and activity on that front.

1215
The issue of the reduction in the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament received irresistible lobbying by Labour MSPs directed at the previous Secretary of State for Scotland. She held consultations and, ultimately, we knew that the outcome would be that she would agree with the MSPs.
I quote the right honourable Member for Cunninghame North, Brian Wilson, who was a Minister of State in the present Government. In the Second Reading debate on the Bill on 9 February, he said:
"I cannot find any conceivable public interest that will be served by [the Bill]. On the contrary, it is, as we all know, simply the legislative follow-up to a political fix".—[Official Report, Commons, 9/2/04; col. 1180.]
That is what many people think about this legislation—it has been introduced so that many Socialists and Liberal Democrats can save their seats in Edinburgh. It is directly opposed to the views of the late Donald Dewar.
The Second Reading debate in the Commons was most disjointed, with Labour Members of Parliament interjecting throughout the speeches and appearing particularly unhappy about many of the provisions. It was lucky, indeed, for the Government that there was strong whipping in support of the Bill. Again, Brian Wilson said that the Bill has no regard for consumers. That is true. How does a resident track down his representative? There are four constituencies—that is, four representatives plus the list Members, all keen for action.
It is particularly difficult to know where to turn under present or future circumstances. Take for example my former constituency of Dumfries, where we had one member for one constituency. Now we may have a new constituency called Annandale, Lanark and Peebles and Dumfries Town itself will not even be in the constituency. Yet the MSP will be the Member for Dumfries and we have a Euro MP and local government. Altogether it will be difficult to know in which constituency one is living.
I am afraid that the matter will not be resolved until at least 2010 when all the commissions have decided on the future of Scotland. I would like some answers from the Minister. When will the Boundary Commission submit its decision on the new constituency boundaries for Westminster? That question has been raised on all sides of the House. It has made the decision, which has been announced and published. Why is it holding back and refusing to submit it to the Government so that the Government can then lay an order?
I do not think that the excuse of holding back because it wants to consider the regional aspect holds water relative to a parliamentary election in Westminster. One has to ask the Government when the cut-off date is going to be. The Secretary of State said in the Scotsman in July 2003 that there were no plans to delay the laying of the order. Suppose the election was going to be in autumn this year: when would the order have to be laid so that the administrative work of creating the new constituencies could take place?
The new constituencies have already selected candidates, and everyone seems to think that everything is cut and dried and that we will fight the
1216
next election on those boundaries, but we have to lay the orders first. If the election is next spring, when will the Boundary Commission have to submit the orders to the Government in order to lay them before Parliament?
This is a key point, and I think the Government have to give a decision tonight as to when the issues are going to be determined. They will say that it is up to the Boundary Commission, but surely there is a telephone in Whitehall. Can they ring up the Boundary Commission and ask when it is going to lay its decision and say that if it does not lay it soon it will have almighty problems over the next general election?
We want to know when the Boundary Commission is going to take action and how soon after that the Government will lay the order. Will the Minister give some of guarantee as to whether the orders will be laid before the next general election, anticipating it will not be before September or October?
Will he tell me also about the Electoral Commission? We currently have an Electoral Commission under Mr Sam Younger. I have the list of members with me. Are we going to have a new electoral commission for Scotland made up entirely of Scots, as there is only one on the present Electoral Commission? I presume that the Government are going to choose who they are going to have. The Minister announced the chairman earlier this afternoon.
When the Boundary Commission has worked extremely well and been entirely non-political, why do we need to have a new Electoral Commission, bearing in mind that the Boundary Commission under the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986 can do virtually everything that the new Electoral Commission intends to do? I would like to think that we are going to try to remove the anomaly of so many constituencies and non-coterminous boundaries by going back to having 59 seats and two Members per seat, which would make it 118, and make up the difference with list Members. Then people would know what they were doing and where they were going to be.
All this has to be speeded up and streamlined if the public are going to have confidence in what the Government are doing. They are not particularly confident about postal votes, bearing in mind the shambles that the postal service seems to be in at present. I fear that we are going to have a long period of uncertainty. I hope that while the Bill goes through the House we can remove some of the problems and have action as soon as possible.
4.15 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I welcome the chance to speak about issues that have arisen since the passage of the Scotland Act 1998. Perhaps the most noteworthy features of the deliberately tightly drawn Bill are the issues that it does not deal with. I will say more about some of them later.
I am content with the aim of reducing the number of UK MPs to 59 and of retaining the 129 MSPs. I have long believed that the committee system of the Scottish Parliament needs plenty of Back-Benchers if it is to be

1217
the calm and thorough alternative to a second chamber that I want it to be. No doubt some noble Lords will remark that a reduction in Ministers could create Back-Benchers, but I doubt that there is much room for that in a coalition executive.
I recognise that there is a potential problem with the loss of coterminosity in the constituencies, particularly between elections. I suspect that there are two views on the matter: either that Scottish voters are easily confused or that they are an intelligent and inquiring lot. I prefer the latter. I am sure that should someone contact the wrong MP or MSP they will be steered in the right direction.
I support the transition from the Boundary Commission for Scotland to the Electoral Commission and its future boundary committee for Scotland. However, I recognise that the Bill will double its work as it must keep in review at separate times the 59 United Kingdom constituencies, the 73 Scottish Parliament constituencies and the eight regions.
My one complaint about the Bill lies in Rule 2 of Schedule 1. I believe that the sacrosanct nature of the Orkney and Shetland constituencies should be extended to the Western Isles. The EU grants a special islands group status to such places. The Bill should also do so on account of the peripheral nature of the Outer Hebrides.
The Bill can have an almost fair wind from me for its limited purpose, the Minister will be pleased to hear. Now I can mention—after only two minutes—those issues that need addressing that are not tackled by the Bill. I accept that they will not be, but they probably should be.
First, for the clarification of constituency and regional list MSPs, there is no attempt to define the work and responsibilities of the regional members. There seems to be considerable conflict in certain constituencies. Secondly—this point has already been mentioned—Scotland is about to have four voting systems. There is no attempt to update the United Kingdom voting system to match at least one of the other Scottish systems. In the unlikely but possible event of United Kingdom, Scottish Parliament and local authority elections occurring on the same day, the instructions on the top of each ballot paper will need to be very clear.
Thirdly, there is no attempt to remedy the situation by which the Scottish Parliament does not decide on its own voting system. As a national parliament it should do so. How much longer will Westminster seek to retain that power? Fourthly—here I am extremely pleased to balance the views of the noble Lord, Lord Palmer—I know that the answer to the previous question is: how soon will the Scots demand to move on from our present situation to our real destiny?
Since 1999 Scotland has moved from being a British backwater to a cosy political backwater able to legislate on lesser domestic issues but not on the real issues such as the economy. The remedies for this are all dramatic. Some will call for the return of direct rule; others, such as my noble friends, call for a proper federal
1218
constitution, and still more, myself included, look forward to what amounts to the end of the political United Kingdom. I seek dominion status, a British solution and EU member status. The recent accession of 10 new member countries changes everything for me. Dominion status retains the social union but a republic would not.
The Bill does not deal with the raging Scottish problem of the fishery. I accept that the fishery is not a big issue in the United Kingdom but it is a big issue in Scotland. It is a pity that the Bill does not seek to devolve direct negotiation with the EU to the Scottish Parliament. Having to go through Westminster is a clumsy way of getting to grips with the necessary reduction in fishery activity needed for conservation purposes and to better manage the fishery.
That load off my chest, I am content with the Bill, recognising that a few problems will occur around non-coterminosity.
4.21 p.m.
Lord Elder: My Lords, I wish to speak very strongly in support of the Bill, which is very much in line with what was envisaged as likely to happen under the Scotland Act. In doing so I have little time for those who claim that somehow a promise to reduce the number of MSPs has been reneged on, and I have absolutely no time for those who, having argued at the time of the passage of that Act that it was necessary to write the figure of 129 into the Bill, are now saying that it is a constitutional outrage that the Government are doing what they asked for.
To look at what happened in 1997—a number of people expressed surprise as to what was happening in this House and what was said about 129—it is necessary to go back to the original White Paper. It was the White Paper which was put to the Scottish people, not the constitutional convention scheme that preceded it.
That White Paper was produced in a remarkably short period of time after the general election. It was published to general acclaim in Scotland and those of us who worked on the White Paper felt that we got what we wanted: a very substantial and real shift in power from London to Scotland.
As a constitutional matter, the question of boundaries was a reserved matter for Westminster, and to give reassurance to those who were worried as to where devolution might lead, it was considered important to keep the boundaries for Westminster and Holyrood the same. It was therefore decided that the White Paper would say that, and when Scotland then voted on it in the referendum and the White Paper received the overwhelming support of the Scottish people, that is what they had voted for.
When the time came to change the White Paper proposals into a Bill, it was decided that to avoid further discussion on the extent of powers of the Parliament—there was always the possibility that there would be further discussion of the powers that had been agreed and set out in the White Paper—we should simply stick to the line that the White Paper was agreed, had been endorsed in a referendum and that the Bill should simply give effect to that. We did

1219
not want the whole question of the debate on powers reopened. The Scottish Office view—no doubt it was cynical but there was some basis for it; they certainly claimed it was from bitter experience—was that the longer a proposal to move powers from Whitehall lay about in a Whitehall basement, the more likely it was that it would emerge weakened and diminished. There was therefore a premium on acting on what had been in the White Paper and for doing so expeditiously.
When the Bill was in its final stages in this House and the final matter over which there was disagreement was on the figure of 129 with both the Liberal Democrats and the official Opposition calling for that figure to be written into the Bill, there was an impasse. The Government did not wish to reopen any of the agreed powers that were in the White Paper. On the other hand, there was an understanding that a point was being made that was worth looking at.
To overcome that, Donald Dewar and the Minister in this place, my noble friend Lord Sewel—he must be the most quoted Member of this House not to be here except for someone having a tribute paid to him—agreed a line which was designed to convince this House that the passage of the Bill as it stood was the best way forward. He has been quoted before and I will not quote him at length, but at the end of his remarks he said:
"if the [Scottish] Parliament took the view that its workings would be seriously undermined by a reduction in numbers—then it is open to the [Scottish] Parliament to… say to the Government of the day, 'Look, we think we have got a system that works well and effectively. It is in danger of being disturbed in a very deleterious way if this reduction takes place'".
He concluded by saying:
"The Government are a listening government and are prepared to enter into discussion and debate and to formulate policies on the basis of experience."—[Official Report, 17/11/98; col. 1195.]
In a sense, that resolved a situation in which we did not want to move from a White Paper but were prepared to make quite clear that as a listening government this would be listened to.
It was very much in Donald Dewar's character to take that view. Throughout the devolution process he showed a formidable ability not to be tempted into crossing bridges before he had to. He certainly did not wish to get bogged down on the question of the 129 before the Scotland Bill was through Westminster and the Scottish Parliament established. He rightly believed that once the Scottish Parliament was up and running it would be very much easier to make the arguments on the numbers of MSPs.
There was also at that time an underlying assumption that the next Boundary Commission report was unlikely to be implemented before 2006, the date by which it had to be put before Parliament. Indeed, there may have been an expectation in some quarters that the issue of numbers and boundaries would become an issue only after an election in 2005. That we now know is not to be the case. I say to people who are worried about whether this is going to be put down that although I do not know about any other
1220
party, the Labour Party will be in complete chaos if we have to go back and reselect everyone on the basis of the old boundaries. That just will not happen.
Therefore, the issue is before us slightly earlier than some might have envisaged but that does not change the principle at stake. A listening government were always going to respond to a view from the Scottish Parliament that if 129 was necessary for good working arrangements of that Parliament, then that should go ahead, and I deplore some of the very dismissive remarks which have been made about, among other things, the work of the Holyrood committees. The work done by Holyrood committees in the scrutiny of legislation is widely regarded as one of the major successes of the Scottish Parliament. W hen the Scottish Parliament takes the view that 129 is necessary to make that committee system work properly, it is very hard for us here to contradict that view. The position the Government took in 1998 allowed for just that eventuality.
No one looking at the position that my noble friend Lord Sewel set out at the end of the debate can doubt that this response to the issue was exactly allowed for at the time. That is where we find ourselves, legislating to ensure that what the Scottish Parliament and the majority of those consulted want to do to preserve the 129, and indeed what the opposition parties wanted at the time, now goes ahead.
One final point: I very much welcome the statement by the Minister about the new commission. There is a bit of a mess with boundaries in Scotland. As I think his remarks made clear, it goes far wider than just parliamentary, Holyrood and Westminster, boundaries. Health boards, tourist boards, local enterprise companies, local government and the two parliamentary systems are all over the place. If the commission can deal with that and really grasp it, it will be an excellent opportunity to confront and resolve some of those issues. Whether it will want to consider the great burgeoning variety of electoral systems is another matter. I think we all have favourites. I will not say what mine is, but certainly I would say that my least favourite system is the present one for Europe. Of course, it has no problem with boundaries, but a closed list system has remarkably little to recommend it.
The work of the commission will be very important. I hope that it proceeds quickly. In the mean time we should go ahead as quickly as possible with the Bill.
4.28 p.m.
Lord Gray of Contin: My Lords, I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Elder. It will be no surprise to him that I take a slightly different view of the Bill to that which he outlined.
Glancing through the Hansard reports of the Second Reading debate of this Bill in another place and trying to relate them to speeches and policy statements made during the progress of the Scotland Bill—now the Scotland Act—it is difficult to believe that they are the creation of the same government. I say at the outset that I believe that the Government got it right in the Scotland Act. Quotations have been produced during our debate by the noble Lord,

1221
Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, from Conservative spokesmen supporting what the Government seek to do now. Frankly, I think we were wrong then and that the Government are wrong now.
No real or convincing case has been made for the amendment to the Scotland Act. The Bill is by no means wholly acceptable in another place—not even on the Government Benches, where I found only one Back-Bench speech which could be described as supportive. Many were highly critical, and, indeed, the Government had to be content with some helpful comments from the Liberal Democrat Benches, which probably caused as much embarrassment as joy.
I admit that the contribution of Mr Brian Wilson MP came closest to my own views. My noble friend Lord Monro has referred to some of his remarks, but he made one or two other points which I think are extremely valid. Mr Wilson described how the Government had made two relevant commitments, both of which he accepted and to which he subscribed. First, to cut the number of Scottish MPs being returned to Westminster; and, secondly, to amend the number of MSPs sitting in the Scottish Parliament in the same proportion.
However, going ahead with the first while abandoning the second is not a solution he explained. Those two commitments were interdependent in logic and in symmetry—if one were to be abandoned, the other made no sense, or at least it would have to be paid for in some other way; and of course he is absolutely right.
Several members expressed concern about the confusion which already exists in Scotland over reserved and devolved powers, the role of list MSPs and the various methods of voting in four different sets of elections—local government, Scottish Parliament, Westminster and European. Add to those the proposed changes in constituency boundaries whereby many people will vote in different constituencies for different elections, and it is little wonder that concern is voiced.
I believe that the Scottish Parliament would increase its popularity at a stroke if its numbers were reduced and if the corresponding economies were effected. Governments can always find economies when the chips are down. I have great sympathy with Members of the Scottish Parliament. It must have been an extra strain to work under the shadow of constant dissatisfaction with the new parliament building.
It is right that the Scottish press has focused on the mismanagement and waste involved in that exercise, and the steady flow of errors, misunderstandings and general cock-ups revealed by the Fraser inquiry must add to the stress under which the Parliament has to operate. MSPs successes have been diluted and their weaknesses emphasised, despite the fact that the majority of them have been innocent bystanders who may well be as incensed as the rest of us at the fiasco and financial vandalism which is being exposed.
1222
It seems to me that, however the Government try to explain their motives, many people will see the amendment to the Scotland Act to retain the 129 MSPs as a capitulation by the then Secretary of State for Scotland to the Labour political power base in Scotland—in other words, a cynical political move for short-term gain.
One of the weaknesses which this Government have displayed in many of their proposals, and particularly in their constitutional reforms, has been that they do not appear to think through the consequences of their actions; and yet again this Bill is no exception.
4.34 p.m.
Baroness Michie of Gallanach: My Lords. I am happy to follow the noble Lord, Lord Gray. if for no other reason than to let your Lordships know that I take an absolutely opposite view to everything he has said.
I very much welcome the Bill, which is brief and to the point. I commend the Government for sticking to their guns and bringing it forward despite the siren voices and noises off. After wide consultation, the Government are honouring their promise, given by the then Secretary of State for Scotland, the right honourable Helen Liddell, to bring forward legislation to maintain the present 129 MSPs.
There were 237 responses to that consultation, with 28 from a range of civic bodies, including voluntary organisations, the Churches, CoSLA, the Scottish Trades Union Congress and many others. Perhaps I may single out the support of the STUC because I remember the sterling work done by that organisation in the constitutional convention and the wise leadership of Campbell Christie. Whatever one might think of trade unions, his was a voice of sanity and of quiet diplomacy with an ability to defuse contentious argument in order to reach a consensus.
There is widespread support for maintaining the 129 MSPs. That was made clear in the recent report by the Scottish Affairs Select Committee. The number of 129, as we have heard already, is essential for the proper function of the Parliament in order to sustain the committee system, which works well. These committees are all-purpose, combining the role of Westminster Select and Standing Committees and much more besides—all essential in a unicameral system which seeks to be open and transparent and near to the people. What a difference being near to the people has made, instead of being 400 miles down the road, as was the case in coming to Westminster? The committees also allow members to develop an expertise in particular areas and to bring an informed view to the consideration of legislation and scrutiny of the Government.
I also welcome the fact that the Secretary of State will set up an independent commission—with the emphasis on "independent"—to consider the question of, this great word, "coterminosity" and that Scotland will face four different voting systems, following the introduction of the single transferable vote for council elections.

1223
I do not believe that the former is a great problem. We lived in the days of Strathclyde Regional Council with district and regional boundaries. The situation in Scotland today is not unprecedented either in the UK or elsewhere—for example, in Australia. My former constituency of Argyll and Bute has at the moment the first-past-the-post MSP. He does not represent the whole council area, but from next year, if there is a general election, the Westminster MP will do so. It is simply not always possible to achieve coterminosity because of the requirement for electoral equality, and with of course some very necessary safeguards for remote and island areas.
So I do not believe that the lack of coterminous boundaries is a fundamental problem, but I can see the point in trying to get them aligned with each other as much as possible. Electors are not stupid. Certainly in Scotland, where they have long accepted that constituencies and elections vary, they have become remarkably adept at understanding the differences, often using their additional member vote to achieve a variety of political outcomes.
The Secretary of State also indicated that 'the commission will take into account the relationship between boundary changes and other public bodies and authorities—the Minister referred to that in his opening remarks. That will be crucial, for example, in the case of Highlands and Islands Enterprise, for it is important that it continues to support and encourage socio-economic development on a pan-Highland basis. The value of that was demonstrated clearly when we in the Highlands gained Objective 1 status.
In considering the electoral systems, I hope that the independent commission will adhere to the principle of proportionality. If that principle had not been incorporated in the White Paper, many would not have voted yes in the referendum. That was one of the great failings of the 1978 referendum. Especially in the light of the Scottish Government's intention to introduce the single transferable vote for council elections, it would be sensible to recommend the same for the Scottish Parliament. At least there would then be similar systems, which would be helpful if the elections are to be held on the same day.
As your Lordships know, we on these Benches have long advocated the merits of the single transferable vote. It is a fair and a proportional system that reflects the votes of the electorate. Many accuse the Liberal Democrats of advocating such a fair voting system for our own benefit. That cannot be the case. The great strides forward that we have made during the past 20 years have been achieved under first-past-the-post. All our Highland seats in the Scottish Parliament are held by Members elected on the first-past-the-post system. It is the principle that matters most.
To briefly refer to what the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, said about his ancestors, he is absolutely right to say that they were involved when the treaty of Union was signed and sealed. I think he said that there was some little dissension at the time. There was a great deal of dissension, with riots in the streets of Edinburgh. If we had had a referendum then, there would have been no treaty of Union.
1224
The noble Lord, Lord Palmer, maintained that the poor turnout at the Scottish elections was due to apathy because voters did not like the Scottish Parliament. I wonder whether he has read the report in the Scotsman today, which is headlined,
"Public trust in politicians hit by sleaze claims".
It states:
"Research funded by Abe Economic and Social Research Council… found that allegations of sleaze against individual politicians were responsible for the decline in trust in government over the past 30 years"—
not since the Scottish Parliament was set up—
"rather than any other factor".
The research goes on to state that,
"growing perceptions of sleaze have had a direct impact on turnouts in elections, rather than stemming from a decline in interest in politics".
That report is very relevant.
Finally, the Bill effects a minor change to the Scotland Act. No one should be afraid of change in the light of experience. However, I find it extraordinary—as I said during our discussion of the Communications Bill—that Westminster, rather than the Scottish Parliament, decides how many MSPs there should be and how they should be elected.
We have heard about the settled will of the Scottish people—words oft used by the late, lamented and much respected John Smith—but I do not believe that he would have viewed the Scotland Act as set in tablets of stone never to be altered. What is the settled will of the Scottish people is couched in the ringing words of the first section of the Scotland Act:
"There shall be a Scottish Parliament".
I remember the late Donald Dewar saying, "I like that". So do I. Devolution is an evolving process and, as many know, I want to see more powers to be handed over to the Scottish Parliament so that it can be even more accountable and responsible to the country that it serves.
4.45 p.m.
Lord Hughes of Woodside: My Lords, I fear that I cannot follow the general tone of those who welcome the Bill. I recall that the genesis of the White Paper and of the Scottish Parliament was the Scottish Constitutional Convention, where every aspect of Scottish life, apart from the Scottish Conservative Party, took part in considerable discussion on broad principle and in detail. That is what brought about the Scottish Parliament. During all those discussions, it became clear from the beginning that once there was a separation of the amount of work to be done by MPs at Westminster and MSPs in Edinburgh, the quota for electing Members of Parliament from Scotland to Westminster could not be sustained. That became common ground.
What was also common ground was that, when the reduction of Scottish MPs at Westminster took place, there would be an automatic reduction in the number of seats in the Scottish Parliament. That was not a secret; it was known from the very beginning. In my view, a bargain was struck on that. When my noble friend Lord Evans of Temple Guiting told the House

1225
that only one part of the bargain was to be carried forward, I must confess that I was rather angry. I take this opportunity to apologise to him for my rather hectoring and rude questioning of him at the time. I assure my noble friend Lord Filkin that I have calmed down a bit since then.
The issue revolves around, first, the size of the Scottish Parliament and, secondly, the number of 129. That is not a magic number; it is a pragmatic number predicated on the fact that it would be based on the same constituencies as for Westminster. I shall return to the number of 129 later.
I very much regret that the Government have not taken the opportunity radically to consider the list system in the Scottish Parliament. There is a huge amount of anger and controversy about the way in which the list MSPs operate. They cherry-pick the good ideas and boast about how they have won this, that and the other. I do not know if you can cherry-pick a bad idea, but your Lordships get the drift of my meaning. They pick out the difficult areas and hammer away at local, directly elected MSPs for party political advantage. One should not complain about arguing for party political advantage; I have done it all my life. But I find it curious and ironic that the two parties that have gained most from the list system and from the method of voting are the two extremes of the Scottish Conservative Party and the Scottish Socialist Party, neither of which would be able to set foot within a mile of the Scottish Parliament relying on first past the post. We must bear that in mind.
Returning to the number of 129, we could arrive at that figure in a number of different ways—although not exactly. If we took the 59 new Scottish constituencies and multiplied them by two, that gives us 118. If we add only one list Member per region, that brings us to 126. That is not far from 129. I cannot believe that the Scottish Parliament would cease to function if it had 126 Members instead of 129. If we were worried about the reduction, we could add two Members per region; that would give us 134—five more Members to do the work better. The Government have missed a great opportunity by not considering the matter in a pragmatic way.
I feel especially sorry for the Scottish MPs. As has been mentioned several times, the Boundary Commission review will take place. It had better, because, although I cannot speak for any other party, in the city of Aberdeen, we expect to undergo a reduction from three seats to two. Anne Begg, MP for Aberdeen South, was chosen unanimously for that constituency. There have been months of the run-off between Frank Doran and Malcolm Savidge, which was decided last Thursday. I wish Frank Doran, the winner, well in the future. He will represent what is basically my old constituency. But I am sorry to lose a good Labour MP in Malcolm Savidge.
I hope that we have not gone through all that, to be told suddenly, "Well, we are not going to do that after all". One is almost tempted to say that one should keep to the bargain: if we are to keep those at Edinburgh, we should also keep those at Westminster. That is not a tenable option.
1226
I am unhappy about the Bill. Having kept the promise of the relationship between the two and having agreed that one part of the promise would continue—reducing the Scottish MPs at Westminster—we should have carried on. However, I understand the realities of the situation. Although my views on devolution are pretty well known, nevertheless, I accept that devolution is there. There has been a whiff of anti-devolution speeches today. Naturally, the cost of the Scottish Parliament has been trailed again, as well as some hopes that the report by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will reveal all.
Perhaps I may say in passing that over the years I have become disenchanted with public inquiries. All that happens is that there is a feeding frenzy about what the outcome might be. Then the results do not match and the committee of inquiry is damned out of hand. I suspect that the noble and learned Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, will regret the opprobrium that is heaped on him when he produces his report and does not find a scapegoat or someone to blame.
I do not welcome this Bill. We need a more radical approach. I hope that my noble friend will say that the new commission, in looking at the future, will look especially at the list MP system and whether we should not go back to look at the basics of coterminosity, although I think that too much is made of it. The public do not have a settled view on that. They do not know who is their local councillor or MP; they probably do not know who is their MSP. Nor do they know the relationship between each of them. We must not make too much of that.
I ask my noble friend to be a bit more radical in looking at this issue in future. If I can get that guarantee, he can be assured that I will not cause trouble in the weeks and months ahead.
4.52 p.m.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, although I thought that for bare-faced cheek his attacking the Conservative Party for opposing a Bill that would he to its disbenefit was difficult to take. The Conservative Party is the only party that is arguing against its interests. The whole Bill has been brought before this House because it is in the narrow political interests of the Labour Party.
I cite as my supporter for that no less a person than the honourable Member for Clydesdale, Jimmy Hood. In the House of Commons, he said:
"what public interest the Bill serves when we seek to gerrymander a constitutional agreement made in Scotland, by Scotland, for Scotland?…It is not a tidying-up exercise of some constitutional arrangement. It destroys fundamentally the consensus achieved…in support of the Scottish Parliament".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/04; col. 1225.]
He went on to say:
"Those who thought of this fix to save the 129 MSP jobs were not looking after the real interest of MSPs".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/04; col. 1226.]
In 20 years, that is the first time that I have ever found anything on which I could agree with Jimmy Hood.

1227
If the Bill is meant as some kind of measure to deal with the problems that have arisen since the Scotland Act, it is sorely inadequate. One has to look only at the glittering array of talent on the Labour Benches who have come forward to speak in support of a flagship policy—the devolution policy—to see how much enthusiasm there is now among the protagonists of the Scottish Parliament. Indeed, if one scours the columns of the Scottish media, it is hard to find too many people who are standing up and expounding on what a wonderful success the Scottish Parliament has been.
The Bill is inadequate, first, in so far as it seeks to preserve the jobs of 129 MSPs at a time when every person one meets and talks to in Scotland is affronted by the waste of public money and the obscene expense that has occurred on the building and the other activities of that Parliament. How can we complain that the numbers of people turning out to vote are in decline? As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, less than half of the voters bothered to vote in the second parliamentary election for the Scottish Parliament. How can we complain about voters' behaviour when the system responds to their anxieties about cost, waste and bureaucracy by deciding that what is really needed is to have more MSPs than they were promised in the Scotland Act in the first place?
I must say to the Minister that it is an absolute disgrace that paragraph 25 of the Explanatory Notes—as my noble friend the Duke of Montrose pointed out—under the financial effects of the Bill, tells us that the only financial effects are an additional £300.000 per annum, which is required for reviews by the Electoral Commission and the Boundary Committee for Scotland. What about the fact that if this Bill does not reach the statute book, there will be a reduction in the number of MSPs? Before the Bill proceeds much further, I hope that the Minister will undertake to tell this House what are the exact extra costs of the additional MSPs that we are being required to sanction in the Bill.
It is well known that I did not support devolution. Everything that has happened with the Scottish Parliament has exceeded my expectations. I see that the noble Baroness, Lady Michie, is chuckling. I very much enjoyed her speech. She said that one of the reasons why people are concerned about politics and the standing of politics is sleaze. I do not think that we have ever had a Prime Minister have to resign in a farrago of expenses and other accusations, which is what happened to the second First Minister of the Scottish Parliament. That has added greatly to the concerns that have been expressed.
I was opposed to devolution. The voters voted for it, although I find it increasingly difficult to find people who will acknowledge that they voted for it in Scotland. We had to accept that that was the democratic wish of the people of Scotland. But have the Government not noticed the consequences? When I was first elected as a Scottish Member of Parliament in 1983, one-third of my constituency had never had a
1228
Tory represent them; another third had last had a Tory in the 1920s. My constituents were as surprised as I was to find themselves with a Tory MP. But in those days Members of Parliament were respected as Members of Parliament. They acted in the interests of all their constituents regardless of whether they voted for them. Constituents came to them with problems knowing exactly where to go.
Now we have Scottish Members of Parliament without much of a role at Westminster. They are ignored by the media in Scotland. There are list MSPs and MSPs of different parties in their constituencies. They spend public money, argue their political corners and compete for their parties' interests. The voters are not only confused, they are disgusted by it. We had a system of Members who represented their areas' interests and who were respected by Ministers. When I was a Minister, if a constituency MP wanted to come to see me I treated him or her with respect. I remember Tam Dalyell coming to see me about an asbestos problem in Linlithgow. We treated MPs with respect. We did everything that we could in order to advance their constituency interests.
The Bill takes us one step further down a road that I believe has been disastrous by breaking the link with constituencies and by creating MSPs who overlap Westminster constituencies and the rest. In all honesty, I say to the Government that they have embarked on this programme of constitutional reform and they are destroying our political processes. That is why we are seeing people not turning out to vote. It is an affront to Parliament that, faced with the evidence all around them, they come up with this Bill with its narrow self-interest.
A number of speakers, including the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie—who was in danger of becoming the first Scottish Nationalist Member of this House when he started talking about dominion status for Scotland—said that other issues should be addressed. I agree. What are we to make of Brian Wilson's speech in the other place? This is a former Scottish Office Minister, who was responsible for implementing the devolution policy. And what are we to make of a former Secretary of State for Scotland, whose idea the whole Bill was? Helen Liddell attacked the Scottish Parliament's proportional representation system, saying it was,
"a life-support system for rejects and retreads who could not get elected first past the post".—[Official Report, Commons, 4/5/04; col. 1260.]
At first sight, I thought she might have been talking about another Chamber, but she was talking about the Scottish Parliament, which she stood on a platform to create.
Surely the Minister and his colleagues should be addressing the real problems which have been created by the Scottish Parliament. Spending more money and having more Members of the Scottish Parliament is certainly not going in the right direction; it will not meet the wishes of the Scottish people and the concerns which have been expressed.

1229
There are now four different electoral systems in Scotland. The Minister gave us the impression that it was nothing to do with him. There are four electoral systems in Scotland because of initiatives taken by this Government. In the face of real public concern about the cost of the Parliament, what have we seen? We have seen the BBC refusing to provide the film, for which the people paid through their licence fee, of the late Donald Dewar and others talking about the Scottish Parliament in order for the inquiry led by my noble and learned friend Lord Fraser to come to its conclusion. Again, that is something which stands against the public interest and causes disillusion.
I believe that the most corrosive aspect of this devolution exercise has been the marginalisation of Scotland. I live in Scotland and I am here during the week. If I want to know what is going on in Scotland, I have to go to the Library and read the Scottish papers. The papers that are published down here no longer report what is going on in Scotland. If I am in Scotland at the weekend, I have to look on the Internet to find out what is going on down here, because the activities of even Scottish Members of Parliament in the other place are not reported.
The office of the Secretary of State for Scotland has been diminished, although the number of people serving him has gone up inexorably. The Scottish Office, which once held sway, and had real power and influence in Whitehall, has so no longer. So Scotland's voice, where the key decisions are taken in Whitehall, has been all but snuffed out. The people have been left with an ineffective organisation that is costing more and more. Nowhere is that better illustrated than in the Government's failure to deliver, for example, for the interests of the fishing communities in the north-east of Scotland and elsewhere.
I challenged the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan, to give me three examples of legislation which had been brought about which would not otherwise have happened. He could not. He gave me one example—tuition fees. It was an odd example, for the policy on tuition fees, which he says that the Scottish Parliament has done so much for the Scottish people by implementing, is exactly the same policy as is being implemented here, which noble Lords on the Liberal Democrat Benches oppose on the grounds that it is unfair to introduce tuition fees which are paid for post-graduation.
The noble Lord's second example was care for the elderly. Care for the elderly is not legislation—it is extra expenditure paid by English taxpayers who are spending more per head through the Barnett formula and the additional sums than is being spent in England.
The basic instabilities of the system in terms of the Barnett formula and the failure to address the West Lothian question remain. This Bill does not address these. The Government have been irresponsible in their constitutional reform, and this Bill is one further step down a road which is not in the interests of the peoples of the United Kingdom.
5.4 p.m.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I cannot compete with my noble friend Lord Forsyth on this subject. He has put many points of view, as have other noble Lords. It has all been said.
I should like to make just one point about the Bill. It cannot be said that the Bill is unexpected, and it is not a permanent solution to anything. It has come about by yet another input of the Government's lightweight approach to important constitutional change. From the moment the Scotland Act 1998 began its passage through Westminster, it was obvious that the proposed method of determining the membership and number of members of the Scots Parliament was likely to prove unstable. There was a fundamental flaw in the Bill, and many MPs and Peers pointed this out. The Government insisted that they were right, and the noble Lord, Lord Elder, who is not in his place at the moment, told us why. They did not want to open the question of the number of MPs at that point, between the referendum and the passage of the Act. Now here we are, only six years later, being asked to change the Act as, evidently, was anticipated and planned.
The idea seemed reasonable to me, as it did to my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin, that if one were to have a devolved Parliament, to keep the electorate's confusion to a minimum and to control the size of the Parliament, the constituency boundaries in Scotland were the right common basis for the membership of both Westminster and Holyrood. The Government's original White Paper, endorsed in the referendum. recommended that, the Act provided for it and. recently, the House of Commons Select Committee on Scottish Affairs has agreed, after taking a good deal of evidence, that that remains the right way.
The problem was that in drafting the 1998 Act, the Government implemented the right idea in the wrong way. The Act links the membership of MPs at Holyrood and at Westminster too strongly. As somebody said, it is set in concrete. Therefore, the Bill is unavoidable. It was never going to be acceptable; it was crystal clear in 1998 that by now the number of Scots at Westminster would be for the chop, and it was unlikely that some 20 MSPs would want, as a result, to lose their seats. Of course they would not. It was unlikely that the Scots Parliament would want to reduce its committees by four or five to match or, indeed, that it would want fewer Ministers than it has at the moment. That was not going to happen; what has happened was inevitable.
As a number of noble Lords have said, the public are increasingly disillusioned and disappointed with the Scots Parliament but there seems no way of avoiding the Bill. I do not believe that it will help—it is a sticking plaster, a temporary measure, and it will cause a lot of argument, uncertainty and cost as people are consulted by the commission about what should happen. I believe that it will mean further disillusionment in Scotland. It seems a great pity that the Electoral Commission has to solve a problem which should have been dealt with by the Government in the first place. It is a great pity that it must look at four voting systems, which need not have been so multifarious.

1231
I believe that the Bill will do little good and a good deal of harm, but I do not see how it can be avoided.
5.9 p.m.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I find it strange to speak on this Bill, because on 8 July 1998 I moved an amendment during the passage of the Committee stage of the Scotland Act 1998 to do precisely what the Bill does today. If my amendment had been accepted, we would not be sitting here today passing a complete piece of legislation. One is never allowed to say "I told you so" in politics, but on this occasion I cannot resist it, even with the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, looking at me in that mysterious way. I still maintain that, given the support I had at the time from Lord Mackay of Ardbrecknish on the Conservative Front Bench and Michael Ancram in the Commons, we were right to say that it would be a mistake to set out in the Scotland Act a diminution of Members of the Scottish Parliament so soon after it had got going.
I will resist the temptation to look back at Hansard and simply repeat the speech that I made on that occasion, because that would be tedious repetition. This debate is not about devolution as a whole, but still less is it about the expenditure and policies of the Scottish Executive. In their speeches, the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, managed to muddle up both the expenditure of the Parliament and the Executive and the number of people employed by the Parliament and the Executive in ways that drew no distinction between the two at all. This is a very limited Bill dealing precisely with the constitution of the Scottish Parliament—as it should have been in the Scotland Act in the first place.
I am very suspicious when I hear Conservatives say, "This is all costing too much. If we had a hand in it we would not have so many people". One of the disadvantages of being in this place for such a long time is that I remember in my very early days as a junior MP being put on the House of Commons committee dealing with services, which was chaired by Richard Crossman. We were discussing the building of new committee rooms within the Palace of Westminster because we needed more space for more committees. I remember the Conservatives saying, "Oh no we don't; it's all to do with the Wilson government. When we come to power, there won't be so much legislation. We won't have so many committees and we won't need more committee rooms". We had a Conservative government later, and we did need the committee rooms and we did have the legislation. So I take all these protestations with a large pinch of salt.
There is also a danger of the Conservative Party in Scotland becoming known as the "abominable no party". Conservatives did not take part in the constitutional convention or the Holyrood progress group and they are threatening not to take part in this new commission that has been set up. By the way, I thoroughly welcome the appointment of Professor Sir
1232
John Arbuthnott as chairman. He is a very distinguished and independent public servant in Scotland.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, our party has said that it will take part in the commission once the Bill is passed.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I am delighted to hear that. I had heard that the Conservatives would not take part. However, if they will take part once the Bill is passed, that is better late than never. However, up till now, Conservatives have tended to shirk what J K Galbraith memorably called the "pain of thought". Certainly, the contribution of the Conservative Party is essential to this commission if we are to attempt to get a consensus on the muddle to which the noble Lord. Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Mackenzie, rightly drew attention—not just over constituency boundaries, but involving health boards and local enterprise companies. At the moment, the whole boundary issue of the responsible authority being responsible to the people is in a complete mess and needs the commission, with every party assisting it, to reach a solution.
In a moment, I shall say something about the workings of the Scottish Parliament, but I do not accept the proposition that, because only 50 per cent of people turned out at the second election, the Scottish Parliament is a failure. That turnout is about the same as for the presidential elections in the United States of America. If only 50 per cent turned out for arguably the most important election in the world, it cannot be argued that there is therefore something fundamentally flawed if only 50 per cent turn out in Scotland.
I also clearly remember my experience of being in South Africa at the time of the first election there. I must admit that there was something of the same hype and overblown rhetoric about what would happen at the end of apartheid as with the creation of the Scottish Parliament. There was huge enthusiasm and there were enormous queues of people to vote. However, it was not quite the same for the second election or the third. The same has happened in Scotland. There is nothing intrinsically to be ashamed of in that respect.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, surely the point is that we used to have turnouts in excess of 75 per cent. They have now plummeted to less than 50 per cent. This was supposed to be the great experiment and the great new adventure that would bring politics to the people, and it has flopped.
Lord Steel of Aikwood: My Lords, I certainly dispute the sentiment that it has flopped. A noble Lord remarked in this debate that the Scottish Parliament works only part time. That is a misunderstanding. The Parliament works in plenary session two days a week, but the other two days are given over to committees that do not meet, unlike committees in this place and the other place here at Westminster, at the same time as the Chamber. They have a far greater status and authority than committees at Westminster. They combine the attributes of both Standing and Select

1233
Committees and are part of the full workings of the Parliament. The Parliament is working a full week. It is a total misrepresentation to suggest that it is not.
I will concede straightaway the point made by the noble Lords, Lord Monro and Lord Gray. There is no question that the cost of the new parliamentary building has soured public opinion about the whole parliamentary project. There is no doubt about that. Whatever view one takes about that or whatever the noble Lord, Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, may come up with, that is an undeniable fact. However, it is nothing new. If Members look back at the building of this place, they will find precisely the same. There was such unpopularity at the time of the opening of the rebuilt Palace of Westminster, that Mr Disraeli, true to the Conservative tradition, suggested that all the architects involved should be hanged as a good example to others. Let us not pretend that there is something unique about what has happened with the Scottish Parliament or that we can all sit here in the glorious Palace of Westminster and pretend that it all has always been wonderful. I can assure you that, at the time, it certainly was not.
I now turn to the narrow point of the Bill and I have a confession to make. During all my time as leader of the Liberal Party, I never made a single speech in favour of the single transferable vote because I did not support it. I used to get very angry letters from the late Enid Lakeman telling me how wicked I was because I did not agree with party policy. Therefore, when the constitutional convention came up with the additional member system, I did not regard it as a compromise: I thought that it was greatly to be welcomed. I now think that I was completely wrong. I echo sentiments expressed from both these Benches and the Labour Benches about the list system as it is. That is why I welcome the fact that the new commission has been appointed with a wide remit to examine what will happen once the coterminous principle, which this Bill enshrines, comes into effect.
I will give some reasons why the system must change in common with speeches made from other Benches. First, there are no such regions. The regions of Scotland are totally artificially drawn. They were based on Euro-constituencies that no longer exist. Let no one try to tell me that the South of Scotland region in which I live, which extends from North Berwick to Stranraer, is a homogeneous unit. It is not. Therefore, the regions are nonsense and not real at all.
Secondly, no one foresaw—at least, I did not, and I do not remember anyone else foreseeing—that, once the elections were held—I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Hughes, referred to this point—one major party would have the bulk of its Members based on the list system while another major party would have the bulk of its Members based on first past the post. Therefore, when it came to a discussion of appropriate allowances between the two, a whole party-political element entered into the debate that was profoundly unhelpful.
One of the biggest extravagances in Scotland, post devolution, is the multiplication of so-called constituency and regional offices throughout the land. I could take you to one town that has at least four of them supposedly serving the electorate. In fact, they serve the political
1234
parties at public expense. That cannot be justified. However, the most damning thing about the list system is how it has operated—that is why the opportunity should be taken to clear it up. Some Members sit in the Scottish Parliament using their position to further their own electoral prospects against a sitting Member in the same Parliament in a constituency next time round. That is intolerable. As Presiding Officer, it made my life very difficult because I often had to rule on the arguments.
A further argument has been touched on, obliquely, by the noble Lord, Lord Elder; that the list system as operated by the different political parties in different ways in Scotland means that a relatively small number of people are presently involved in the selection of large numbers of Members of the Scottish Parliament. For all those reasons, I hope that the commission will come up with some solution other than the continuation of the present system. In fact, the present system cannot continue, because I do not believe that having different constituency boundaries for different purposes makes any sense at all. I therefore very much hope that the commission will have the full support of all the political parties and that a big effort will be made to change the present system.
Two simple methods have already been put forward. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, suggested simply doubling up the existing first past the post system. The problem with that is that one so diminishes the proportional element that the proportional principle of the Parliament, for which people voted in the referendum, is almost destroyed. 1t was the crucial difference between the 1970 proposals and the 1990 proposals and we should not lose sight of that.
The other proposal is the opposite: to take the first past the post in the constituencies and increase the number of regional members. That would exacerbate all the problems that I have just described and I do not think we could have a Parliament where the majority of members were non-consistency. Another solution will have to be considered. Much as I am sorry to say it, against all my previous principles, it may be that multimember constituencies, alongside the local government changes, will be the right way forward for the Scottish Parliament.
In my final point, I agree with my noble friend Lady Michie. I think that when we have now added "coterminosity" to "subsidiarity" in the new language of politics, we must hope that in future we can repatriate these issues to the people of Scotland and the Scottish Parliament and not have any more tinkering with the Scotland Act here at Westminster.
5.21 p.m.
Baroness Hanham: My Lords, the Minister and I are almost alone today in speaking without a Scottish accent. Indeed, we may be almost alone in having little connection with Scotland, except a deep interest in what is going on—I waited for the Minister to shake his head.
However, I am taking part in the Second Reading debate on this Scottish Bill with enormous interest. The Minister and I have recently had a number of

1235
exchanges across the Dispatch Box on legislation, elections and electoral systems and this is another of those forays that seem destined to take place.
It seems axiomatic that the shorter a Bill, the greater the complexities it throws up. The debate today has been no exception. There are two clauses and five schedules in the Bill but an enormous number of questions and points relating to the activities and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament as it stands at the moment have been raised.
As my noble friend the Duke of Montrose said at the beginning of the debate, we are not at all convinced that there is any need for the Scotland Act to be changed so soon after it was passed. As my noble friend Lord Gray of Contin pointed out, there were twin poles to that legislation: that the number of Scottish Members of this Parliament should be reduced in line with the English electoral quotas because of the overrepresentation of Scotland; and that the consequence should be that the number of Members of the Scottish Parliament should also gradually be reduced in line with that. As both he and my noble friend Lady Carnegy pointed out, the connection was argued and disputed during discussions in Parliament on what is now the Scotland Act but that was the result.
Of course, it is that Act that the Government are now seeking to change. It was brought about because the then Secretary of State, Helen Liddell, was persuaded to change the second of the two pillars; namely, the reduction of the numbers of Members of the Scottish Parliament. We have heard today about the concerns raised by this decision: the Scottish Parliament has too many Members and, despite what has been said, the costs of that Parliament have escalated. The question was raised—not in this House, but elsewhere—whether, if the Parliament had been set at 250 Members, that would have become the number that nobody would want to see altered. The fact is that nobody wants to see the number as it is now altered either.
As the noble Lord, Lord Palmer, pointed out, the Scottish Parliament employs more members of staff than any other Parliament and a reduction in the number of Members would bring about a reduction in that cost. Looking from the London viewpoint, as I do so frequently, it seems to be something that comes with devolution of power. Where an initial stage is set for an administration, somehow or other not only the numbers of administrators increase by leaps and bounds but so do the costs of the devolved authority. Where this happens in Scotland, it also happens in London. The examples that we have do not seem to set good precedents for other regional developments. We may live to regret it, if the Government ever win on any of the regional assemblies.
One of the other arguments that has been put forward is that if there is a reduction in the number of Scottish Members of Parliament then there would be a reduction in the number of committees. I am not certain of the number of Members who sit on those committees but the value of any committee is not
1236
always related to the number of people on it. More often than not, it is the calibre of the people who sit on those committees and make the decisions that come from it. I can understand that those committees probably have a representational base but there still seems to be at least some room for a reduction in the number of Members.
As has also been pointed out, the Bill would bring about a dislocation between the Westminster and Holyrood systems. That point may have escaped the noble Lord, Lord Steel. That was also accepted by Helen Liddell and it was a point raised by the Scottish Select Committee. It is something that we need to be very clear about as we go forward and discuss the Bill.
There is to be a new Boundary Commission to deal with these matters. However, the review of parliamentary boundaries for the reduced number of seats has already been undertaken. I hope that the Minister will answer the question asked by my noble friend Lord Monro on when the order will be laid to implement that review. Will it be done in time for the next election, whenever that may be, or is it likely that it will not affect the next parliamentary election? Sir John Arbuthnott's commission may have its work cut out to achieve the ministerial consensus that the Minister suggested would have to come about as a result of that review. I very much hope that there will be consensus but I think that we have probably opened yet another can of worms, or will do so, if the Bill is passed in the next few weeks.
Scotland beats London by a short head in the number of different elections that take place under different voting systems. On 10 June, London will have three different forms of electoral system and, as has been mentioned, Scotland will have four. Many noble Lords have drawn attention to the need to think about this further. Indeed, it may be something that the commission is asked to do. I sometimes wonder whether in the future we may not rue the day when we ditched first-past-the-post for elections throughout the United Kingdom.
We can debate interminably the reasons for the reduction in the turnout of voters. But it is obvious that, if the Scottish Parliament were perceived to be doing its job in the way that we hoped, there would perhaps have been a larger turnout than less than 50 per cent. My noble friend Lord Forsyth pointed out that there has been too much messing about with the constitution. It is clear from the Bill that one great idea is now going to be propped up by another.
Members have also drawn attention to the cost of the Parliament building. I readily accept that that has little to do with a terms of office Bill—but since everyone else has joined in, I do not see why I should not add to the general excitement about it. I think it is true that where you get devolved government and the need for new buildings, the costs tend to run away with themselves. I very much hope that that will not happen again if we get regional government elsewhere.
My noble friend Lord Forsyth referred also to the Barnett formula. I think that that is a gleam in the eye of the north-east, which hopes that it too will

1237
benefit from the Barnett formula if it gets regional government. However, I think it might need to hold its breath in that respect.
There are debates to be had as the Bill goes through its various stages. It is clear that it does not have a fair wind, and it is very clear that there are concerns about what is happening as a result of the Bill and also about the fact that legislation so recently entered into is being revisited at such an early age. My noble friend the Duke of Montrose and I will look forward to those stages and to the debates and discussions that will take place.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Filkin: My Lords, it is a pleasure to respond to this debate. It would be even more of a pleasure if I were responding to an Unstarred Question as the debate has had something of that characteristic. If I have learnt anything from the debate, it is perhaps that the House needs to reflect on the need for more opportunities to debate Scottish and Scotland issues if they are of interest to the House, rather than using any passing legislative coat hanger as an opportunity for doing so.
In truth we are debating a significant but relatively narrow issue. The issue before us is the Second Reading of a Bill that basically says that we will retain the existing number of MSPs in the Scottish Parliament. That is the long and the short of it. I could if I was being provocative suggest that that was a deeply conservative measure because it is a no-change option rather than a radical-change option. But I do not wish to excite undue attention by what I am saying.
Perhaps I can turn to a more contentious issue, which is that we should do this because it saves money. That was, I think, one of the points advanced by the noble Duke, the Duke of Montrose, and by others. It was certainly referred to by a number of noble Lords in the debate. It was particularly challenged, I think, by saying that the Explanatory Notes gave only a figure for the additional costs of the Bill, not—as I think some noble Lords would have wished—the net effect of the Bill. I shall look at parliamentary processes on that, but I am sure that they are right in that narrow sense. Nevertheless I am not going to waste time on obfuscation now on this point. I shall put before Members of the House the best estimate of what would have been the cost if those changes had been made. But of course noble Lords will get the full picture with that, rather than a crude picture.
One would expect that the cost of reducing the numbers will not affect the fixed costs in any significant way. It will affect the variable costs, but the variable costs will be reduced by the cost of change. I therefore ask noble Lords not to get overexcited by expecting that this will transform public expenditure at a stroke. Perhaps one should not be looking at cost without looking at benefit. Clearly, that is the central issue before us—the benefit of maintaining the 129. It is that debate between cost and benefit that we should be having, rather than a crude debate about whether we can save seven shillings
1238
and sixpence as a consequence of not changing the Scotland Act and thereby reducing the number of MSPs. I will put that in a note to the House rather than spend any more time on it now.
The noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, and a number of other noble Lords welcomed what we are doing, because it is essentially saying that we are building on experience. We are actually saying that while a view was taken when the Scotland Act 1998 was passed, it is a foolish government and a foolish party that do not signal that they should reflect on and learn from experience and see whether they have held exactly to what they said.
We have come to the conclusion not to reduce the number of MSPs, not simply because that might be popular with a number of Scottish MSPs, but as the product of a process of consultation. The argument was made in this debate a number of times that the things that Scottish people would most wish for would be sudden death for the political class in Scotland. I am sure that that is true at times; I am sure it is true at times in pubs on a Friday or Saturday night. However, when the public were asked, "Do you wish to have fewer MSPs?", they did not say that that was what they wanted. I am not going to weary the House with the evidence from the consultation—but the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, is looking dubious. I shall write to him with the exact data on the product of the consultation that took place over a carefully considered period of time. There was an overwhelming support for no change to the number of MSPs.
This is not a devolved issue. It is an issue for this House and this Parliament, and it is rightly so. So we should not be governed simply by doing what has been indicated in a consultation process, even one that so overwhelmingly indicates that there should be no change. Nevertheless, the reverse is not true, either.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: My Lords, I apologise for interrupting the Minister. Is he seriously arguing that a response to a consultation process in which hardly a couple of hundred people bothered to take part represents the views of 5 million people in Scotland? That is a pretty desperate argument.
Lord Filkins: My Lords, I am seeking in the limited time available to try to do a little unpacking of some of the generalisations that we have had in this debate. I am saying that the consultation process, which was a genuine and open process, led to the results that I will put before the noble Lord. The vast majority of those who responded—and that included civil society and private individuals as well as the usual suspects in the political classes—said that they did not want change. However, that is not to argue for a second that everyone thinks that everything in Scottish politics is perfect, as I shall come to later. I was simply touching on the fact that although the consultation said that, that does not mean that this Parliament is governed by that, nor should it be. However, it does mean that we want to reflect on whether the benefits of change are sufficient to go forward with it, as the Scotland Act has said.

1239
The central issue is that the Scottish Parliament is certainly a new institution. Certainly, it has operated for a relatively short period. Certainly, there are strong arguments for a period of stability. Certainly, there is an argument for a period of stability, and that will become more apparent when I come to the discussion about the significantly wide terms of reference for the independent commission which we are about to set up, we hope with cross-party support. That very independent commission will be charged with looking widely at boundaries, electoral systems and representation in ways that I think are, in terms of a holistic remit, entirely intelligent and sensible. Distancing that process from politicians has its benefits, as I am sure all noble Lords will agree.
I turn more specifically to the narrowness of one of the arguments as to why the number of MSPs should not be reduced now, based on the Scottish committee system. Those of us with some local government background shudder at those words because we know what they can mean. However, what is different about the Scottish committee system is that it is a unicameral system under which it has been clear from the outset that, if it was going to make unicameralism work, it would have to try to involve civil society more actively in the process of policy making and legislation. Although I would not say that the process has been perfect for one second, there is evidence that Scottish civil society has become much more involved in the process of making policy and legislation. That is certainly the case in Scotland and it is certainly often the case at Westminster itself. I think there are lessons there for us in how we can involve civil society in all its variety in the processes of policy making and legislation.
In passing, I should touch on the question from the noble Lord, Lord MacKenzie of Culkein, on whether the independent commission will look at boundaries and electoral systems. The answer is yes. Will it start soon? Yes, it will.
The noble Lord, Lord Monro of Langholm, essentially said that if the proposals did not help the Government, they would not be introduced. I would make the point, to which I shall return, that this Government have taken action to reduce by 13 the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster, as a consequence of the wider discussions we are having. It is quite probable that, of those, 10 will be Labour MPs. So I find that argument hard to square with the argument that we only ever do things for narrow party political self interest. However, I shall return to the question of whether the changes will happen and whether they will be made in time for the general election. We have touched on those points in previous questions across the Chamber.
I turn to the question of whether there is enough for MSPs to do, which touches on the issue of how the committee system operates. The Scottish Parliament made the good decision—or one that I can at least understand—that it did not wish to have a conflict between operations in the Chamber and people working in the committees. Therefore, committees usually meet all day on Tuesdays and on Wednesday mornings, Parliament sits on Wednesday afternoons and all day on Thursdays, while MSPs carry out constituency business
1240
on Monday mornings and Fridays. I can see no great sin in that, although I can see sin in the argument that they could, at some stage, collapse the lot into one, as has been argued with wit and style by the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth. I shall not go into the reason why that is not the most wonderful idea, but, no doubt, there will be a chance later in Committee.
I welcome the support of the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, who identified a range of issues that the Bill does not address. He is absolutely correct. It does not and it should not. There are other forums for doing so, one of which is the independent commission. If only I had a Scottish accent, I would have been able to say in a proper tone, "Is loss of coterminosity a problem for you, Jimmy?", as a quote from a Glasgow pub. One can imagine the sort of reaction that one would get if that question was asked. I shall pass on that.
The speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Elder, was one of the most interesting because, as someone who was there at the time and was at the heart of the process, he spoke with power and authority regarding what happened. He said openly, honestly and wisely that, having had a consultation and referendum on a White Paper, the merits of not changing from that position were good, both in terms of principle and political pragmatism that we all have to bear in mind.
I turn to what was said by the noble Lord, Lord Sewel, in debate. I am sorry to weary the House but I must touch on it. He said:
"The Government are a listening government and are prepared to enter into discussions and debate and to formulate policies on the basis of experience".
He said that if the Scottish Parliament,
"took the view that its workings would be seriously undermined by a reduction in numbers—then it is open to the parliament to make representation to the Government of the day".—[Official Report, 17/11/98; col. 1195.]
In other words, if it thought that this was an issue, our mind was not set in concrete, nor should it have been. It is the job of government to listen as well.
I was impressed by the honesty of the noble Lord, Lord Gray of Contin. Many Members of this House had some difficulty squaring what they wanted to say now with what they said in 1997 or 1998. The noble Lord spoke with elegance by saying, "We were wrong then; so that allows us at least to say that the Government are wrong now". That seems to have intellectual clarity and honesty. Those are rarely combined.
The noble Baroness, Lady Michie, talked about coterminosity. She was right—it is nice if one can get it, but is not an over-riding objective of policy, as my noble friend Lord Hughes also said. That positions the matter correctly. The noble Lord, Lord Hughes, and the noble Lord, Lord Steel, said that a fairly vigorous beating up of list MSPs took place this afternoon. I shudder to think what they would think about that if they were listening—no doubt they are not. Nevertheless, these are issues that will be put before the independent commission—and so they should be.

1241
The independent commission has options for a more radical approach, but those are not matters which the Government can or should determine. All we will do is give the commission the remit to look at those issues and hope that it looks at them with vigour and a long-term perspective.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for giving way. Will he clarify what he said about a period of stability in the way that the commission is expected to view its task? Is it open to the commission to recommend in the end that a radical alternative would be acceptable and displace the onus of proof that the status quo is what the Government would prefer?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, the commission can be as radical as it wants to be within its terms of reference. It can look at electoral systems, boundaries and representation as radically as it wants to.
The Duke of Montrose: My Lords, is the Minister confirming what I asked him—that the Bill is in many ways seen as a temporary measure?
Lord Filkin: My Lords, that is not so, because I cannot second-guess what the commission will do. It would be foolish to have the commission if that were the case. We will have to wait and see what it says in some 18 months' time.
I hope that I have met my side of the bargain, on which the noble Lord, Lord Hughes of Woodside, was keen, and that he will not cause trouble later in the Bill.
The speech of the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, was powerful, as we would expect; it was passionately felt, strongly articulated and he touched on what he believed was public confusion over elected representation in Scotland, the breaking of the link with constituencies and real issues of representation, boundaries and electoral systems. All I would say is that this is not the Bill or the process for looking at those issues. Those matters are for the independent commission that will be established; that is right and proper. I felt for the noble Lord when he said that he had to read the Scottish papers to find out what was going on in Scotland. People would certainly not read the English papers to find out what was going on in Westminster, would they?
I have suffered from and been glad of the contributions by the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegie of Lour, to previous Bills in terms of the vigilance with which she addresses Scottish issues on UK-wide legislation. She has made stalwart contributions to a number of Bills in ways that have brought out the issues significantly in Committee. It is not a cheap point to say that I also welcome her view that there is no way of avoiding this Bill. I genuinely mean my comment and I appreciate her acceptance of that reality.
The welcome given by the noble Lord, Lord Steel, to the appointment of Sir John Arbuthnott is appreciated. The noble Lord talked about list systems and the
1242
multiplicity of party political offices. Those are also issues that he will, no doubt, put before the independent commission.
The final issue is tangential to the Bill, but is obviously of interest to it—when the order will be laid to give effect to the reduction in the number of Scottish MPs who are elected to Westminster. I shall articulate the linkage between this Bill and that matter. The noble Lord, Lord Monro, asked why the Boundary Commission was not putting its proposals to the Secretary of State for Scotland. That is because the Boundary Commission is statutorily obliged, after its review of constituencies, to carry out a review of the regional list boundaries. The linkage between the Bill and that process is that if Parliament legislated to lock the number of MSPs at 129, it would strike out the second element of the Boundary Commission's work. Consequently, it would not have to carry out a review of the boundaries and would then be in a position to report rapidly, one would expect, to the Secretary of State for Scotland. When the commission has done that—as I have told the noble Lord, Lord Forsyth, before—the Secretary of State for Scotland will be statutorily obliged to put before Parliament a statutory instrument giving effect to an Order in Council which would carry forward the recommendations of the Boundary Commission, with or without modifications. Therefore, I am in no sense trying to say to the Scottish Parliament that we should hurry because of that, but that is the linkage between that matter and the Bill.
Regarding the answer to the question of when that will be done—and I shall talk informally, because I am sure that no one is listening—if the Bill is passed before the Summer Recess, I would be confident that that process could be done in time. If there was a general election in the early summer of next year that change would have taken place. If the election took place in October 2004, it is self-evident that it could not have been done. That is the relation between these issues. However, they are in the hands of the Boundary Commission and the Secretary of State for Scotland is statutorily obliged to bring forward his view on the recommendations as soon as he can after the commission has made them. The only linkage is that if we decide to pass the Bill—as I trust we will—the commission will not be carrying out an otiose second process of reviewing the boundaries for the regional list MSPs. I am sorry that I have wearied the House with that issue, but it is important that it is put on the public record so that the linkage is clear, although it is not a relevant consideration for us.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: With regard to that link, are the Government making sure that the Committee stage of the Bill will be at the earliest possible opportunity?
Lord Filkin: That is an issue for the usual channels, but my representations will be that there is benefit in doing so. I will pursue that with the usual channels.
On Question, Bill read a second time and committed to a Committee of the Whole House.

Higher Education Bill
5.50 p.m.
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 DEPUTY CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES (Lord Haskel) in the Chair.]
Clause 31 [Contents of plans]:
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 14, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) No part of any plan shall be required to be framed by reference to particular courses of study, save as provided for in subsection (1)."
The noble Baroness said: I have discussed this amendment at length with Ministers and officials. Initially, my objection was to the phrase "each qualifying course" in Clause 31(1). I could not see why that was necessary. Institutions will already be restricted in what they can charge—first, by the requirements to reach an access agreement, and secondly, by the statutory limits. I am not convinced that that third restriction is necessary. After all, universities will have to tell their students what they are to be charged for the entire duration of their courses, and will also, presumably, have to give the Student Loans Company the same information.
Nevertheless, my principle objection to the phrase "each qualifying course" is the implication that OFFA will involve itself in institutions' widening participation activities at the level of each individual course. That could lead to an unacceptable level of micro-management and, potentially, could have a destructive effect on individual courses. My understanding is that OFFA will be interested in widening participation efforts generally, and not at the level of each individual course. My amendment would ensure that OFFA cannot require institutions to frame their plans by reference to particular courses of study.
I can think of examples where institutions run excellent programmes to promote access which are subject specific. Many will want to draw attention to these programmes in their plans. However, should OFFA be able to require an institution with an excellent summer school that focuses on sciences to include details of how it will attract a wide range of students to study art history as well?
I remind the Committee that there are about 42,000 higher education courses, plus an even greater number of modules. Micro-management of the type that I have outlined could unleash a monster of bureaucracy. Perhaps more worryingly, it could distort efforts to widen participation. It could be highly counterproductive if certain courses or subjects were to be
1244
singled out over other courses or subjects. Given the scope for influence by the Secretary of State, it could also open the way to political interference in higher education.
I end by reminding the Committee that there are many other factors affecting widening participation which are outside a university's control. There may be subjects where, for a variety of reasons, applications are more common from one group in society than another. Where those reasons are to do with finance, there is much the Government—together with the universities—might be able to do. But where the reasons are cultural or historical, it would be wrong to assume that universities can necessarily change that, although there may indeed be innovative ways to encourage a broader range of applications. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, for moving this amendment. It is not necessary to have the amendment on the face of the Bill—for reasons that I will outline—but it raises an important subject. I am glad of the opportunity to put the Government's position on record.
As the noble Baroness indicated, her concern is that regulations might force the director to require plans to include measures for particular courses. The noble Baroness gave the example of art history. It could be that it might have to provide bursaries specifically for courses in law. I assure the Committee that it is absolutely not our intention to require plans to operate in this way.
Your Lordships will have seen from the draft regulations which we have made available that nothing in these regulations or in the Bill requires institutions to frame their access plans by reference to individual courses. However, institutions are free, as the noble Baroness indicated, to do so if they wish. I remind the Committee that, as a result of the government Amendments Nos. 110 and 111, these amendments will be made through an affirmative resolution procedure, offering the Committee a chance for detailed scrutiny of any changes.
I assure noble Lords that our intention is not for the director or the regulations to require plans to set out access arrangements for each course. The plan will cover the whole institution; institutions will set their own milestones of progress. Some institutions may wish to draw the director's attention to access for a particular course or group of courses—that is up to the institution; it will not be a requirement.
I entirely understand why the noble Baroness has tabled this amendment. I agree wholeheartedly that the director should not micro-manage—I think that was the noble Baroness's word—and that will certainly not be part of his remit. Having given that reassurance that we do not intend to require institutions to specify the access measures in their plans on a course-by-course basis, I hope that the noble Baroness will withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: It has been quite difficult during the Committee stage to know when Universities UK is asking the Government to change something, and when it is simply supporting the Government. The problem is in not understanding the nature of its arrangement—this rather cosy relationship—with the Government. I do not know whether there was a deal or not about the Bill; it has been very difficult for Members of the Committee to read the tea leaves.
The amendment is very important. I am amazed that the Government are not accepting it. We talked about how OFFA will gradually see its role extending. It would be very easy to begin to argue that courses attract certain types of students and that if you want to widen access you design courses to attract them. Then OFFA might begin saying to universities, "You should do this, that and the other". It is essential that OFFA has absolutely nothing to do with the nature of courses. I am very surprised that the Government find the amendment completely unnecessary. Have they got no fear that OFFA will try to extend its remit?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I hoped that I had made the Government's position perfectly clear. I am sorry that the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, has not understood that. We are debating the issue raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I do not know what the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is referring to by "cosy relationship". It is the job of all governments to talk to the organisations which represent the institutions most affected by any legislation. I am quite sure that if the noble Baroness's party were in government it would be doing exactly the same—that is well and truly understood as a procedure. There is nothing cosy about that.
I assure noble Lords that I understand from my right honourable friend Alan Johnson that conversations have been tough and, as one would expect, extremely important in their deliberations. There is nothing that we have put forward—neither in the Bill nor in the regulations—that would attempt to micro-manage in the way that my noble friend indicated; nor do we intend to. It is a question of how best we can recognise that fact. We have made it plain that it will not be in the regulations.
In our view, not everything is appropriate to be on the face of the Bill that requires strong commitments from government. Any changes that are brought forward on any aspect would be by affirmative resolution in your Lordships' House and in another place. We believe that that is the best way to approach this subject. Our commitment is absolute. I hope that the noble Baroness will reflect and understand that I say that wholeheartedly. Our commitment is absolute to what my noble friend Lady Warwick indicated should be the case.
6 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: I support what the Minister said. She has given the Committee a very firm reassurance about the Government's intentions. It is a very good
1246
thing that the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, representing Universities UK, tabled this amendment as we now have the reassurance that is needed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: We do not always have to accept the assurances of government. The Minister is absolutely straightforward with the Committee and I am a deep admirer of hers. I believe what she says. However, it is a question of what should be in the Bill for the future. I am very surprised as I thought that the Government would accept the amendment, but, evidently, that is not the case and we have to leave it there.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I am grateful to the Minister for the way in which she responded to the amendment and to the concerns that have been expressed on behalf of universities. It is something about which we have been enormously concerned. The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, reinforced that although I hope she will not mind if I say that the strong arguments that we have had with the Government have been extremely robust. I certainly did not feel that they were cosy. We pressed the Government extremely hard on behalf of universities, as I hope noble Lords would expect. I shall read very carefully what the Minister said. I am grateful to her; her response certainly sounded very reassuring. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 86 not moved.]
Lord Puttnam Lord Puttnam moved Amendment No. 86A:
Page 14, line 38, after "assistance" insert "and advice"
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 86A, I wish to speak also to Amendment No. 87A. both of which are probing amendments designed to allow the Government time to reflect and bring forward their own proposals for ensuring the availability of high-quality debt management advice for students. This should apply not only to those taking the decision to incur the debt involved in pursuing university education, but also during their university years and, almost more importantly, after they have graduated and are confronting the issue of repayment.
This issue was raised by a number of noble Lords during the Bill's Second Reading, most particularly by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth, under the broad rubric of debt education. The basic premise of these two amendments is simple. The Government are requiring young and, indeed, not so young people to incur debt in exchange for an adequate level of further and higher education. This principle would appear to have been accepted, albeit reluctantly and with many caveats. However, it remains profoundly true that many young people and their parents are extremely wary of the concept. and somewhat confused about what the debts might involve. To that end, in my judgment and that of others, the Government owe an inescapable duty of care in doing all they can to alleviate that problem.
While it may prove possible to pass this duty of care on to the relevant education institutions, I believe the Government should accept that they must remain the default provider of such quality advice. For that reason it seems to me there is an overwhelming argument in favour of a national helpline as well as advice that is always available on a web based resource. In the best of all possible worlds the high street banks might get together to provide such a service through the British Bankers' Association or some similar body, but it would require a real commitment for that to happen—a commitment from the Government and an acknowledgement that this is not a trivial issue. It may well be that 10 years from now people will become adjusted to the idea of managing their tuition fees, but certainly during the coming few years many students and their families will need all the help that the Government and, indeed, the institutions can provide. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I should like from these Benches to give our support to the amendment. It is extremely important that students are well provided with financial advice. As we know, many of them will take on very substantial debts as a result of the new arrangements. I am always surprised at how ignorant very many people are about financial arrangements and what they are letting themselves in for. It is important that they are able to get hold of independent advice which is not tied up with anyone's particular interest. There is a great danger that a number of financial advisers will get in on the act and may not provide advice that is necessarily in the best interests of students. It is therefore very important that there is some kind of independent advice line.
Baroness Seccombe: The idea of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, of involving banks—after all, they are usually the main lenders of money—seems to be excellent. However, at this stage I do not see why it is important to have the measure on the face of the Bill. It is up to the individual student to ensure that they manage their finances accordingly. They should do so perhaps by getting advice from the National Union of Students that has bodies which advise on these matters, but certainly the student advisers in the banks must be a real resource upon which they can call.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I should like very much to support the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, in what he said in addressing the amendment. I believe that most universities provide financial advice to students, and so they should. In my relatively small Cambridge college of fewer than 300 students one member of the finance department held a clinic for four hours every week. It usually ran to six or seven hours. Students got into frightful messes.
Young people get into terrible miseries with their financial affairs and need help not only on how to manage their affairs but also on the various ways of finding additional funding; many such ways do exist.
1248
Having a measure on the face of the Bill that encourages universities to do what I believe the majority already do would be a major step forward.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I support the amendment. My experience of student life is that very often when academic problems present themselves behind them lie financial problems. That certainly is the case for some of the poorer students but not only those students. It makes good sense to tackle the matter as early in the system as possible.
Lord Dearing: I do not know whether it is necessary or desirable to include the measure on the face of the Bill, but I am clear that students will benefit from this kind of advice. I think particularly in terms of retention rates. One of the reasons for early drop out is financial problems. If that can be spotted early and the student knows that someone can help, we shall have higher retention.
Baroness Blackstone: I, too, support the amendment. I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that she is being a little unrealistic about the behaviour of many 18 year-olds. Many of them are not terribly experienced in handling money or, indeed, in understanding the nature of the debt that they are taking on. The advice that we are discussing should be provided by all universities. I would hope that they would all do so on a voluntary basis, but I suspect that there may he cases where that is not necessarily happening. I believe that the vast majority of universities would accept that the requirement that they should provide this advice is very reasonable.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am grateful to all noble Lords who have spoken on this very important issue. It is considered important not only in your Lordships' House but more generally. I am grateful to my noble friend for raising it. It gives us the opportunity to reflect on what is already being provided in terms of support for students, as my noble friend Lady Blackstone and other noble Lords have indicated is the case, and to consider what further support might appropriately be given.
I agree with the concept of the importance of financial information. That is why we have said that access plans should cover financial assistance and financial information. We believe that those go hand in hand and in a sense complement each other. The amendment refers to financial "advice" whereas the Bill refers to "information".
As noble Lords have indicated, there is concern that students should be given financial advice, particularly in the light of what the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, said about financial problems, particularly debt, lying behind academic problems. However, the noble Lord will not be surprised to hear me say that what we are proposing within our changes for student support is not traditional debt but contingent repayments. That is a very different proposition to the credit card debt that young people often appear to be invited to take out through a loan or whatever.

1249
However, the term "advice" inevitably suggests something much wider than we have in mind. I want to explain what we envisage by financial information. We want to ensure that students receive information and support from a variety of sources. Rather than thinking that they cannot go to university—that is in a sense where we began our discussions about addressing students' needs—they need to understand what is available to them—support through education authorities, institutional financial support and so on. Students with a disability, and those with children, need to understand that additional support is available. Of course, we need to make sure that those who have already started their course also know about it. It is about demystifying student finance and understanding the difference between the perception and reality of the proposals before your Lordships' House, and of understanding what is available. That is a critical part of it.
I say to my noble friend Lord Puttnam that the Government are already helping students in this area. I accept that the Government have a role to play in this. We have a website which gives information to parents, students, advisers and administrators on the range of support available. The "Aim Higher" portal provides information about what and where to study, how to apply, what it will cost and so forth. As has already been indicated, the National Union of Students is developing an easy-to-use guide on higher education, which helps people navigate their way to the wide range of information available, prompting students to ask the right questions.
Some institutions, as my noble friend said, have already developed quite innovative ways of ensuring that students find out about support. I can think of one that was brought to my attention, Edge Hill College of Higher Education, which has a computer-based interactive budget sheet that helps students understand and get an image of their finances, so they can see what position they are actually in. There are lots of good ideas, and this is really important.
Many institutions provide debt advice, ensuring that vulnerable students are given thorough, targeted advice by trained individuals. Many of these are members of the National Association of Student Money Advisors, an important body. This is especially important in terms of credit card advice, or other financial complications. The advice is highly valuable. It is good practice, and we hope that institutions will learn from each other in carrying it out. There is nothing in the Bill which discourages that activity, and neither would we want there to be.
Debt advisers have to be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading, as must institutions which offer these services to their students, and I hesitate to place a regulatory burden on institutions in respect of this. There is nothing to stop an institution from including debt advice as part of its access plan, but I do not think it right to force that upon institutions. I think that is too great a burden, although I accept this work is important.
1250
There are technical difficulties with my noble friend's Amendment No. 87A. I am not going to go into those. I think the noble Lord is probing to see where we want to go. I am concerned that we are not unreasonable in the demands we make on institutions. Some may well provide services to their graduates, but to place a legal obligation on them seems onerous. There is no cut off point when their obligations to graduates cease, and it could be indefinite, which I am sure is not my noble friend's intention.
I am interested in what my noble friend Lord Puttnam has said about the role of other institutions, not least the banks. What feels like a very long time ago, I was working with the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux in developing the debt cancellation by, I think, the National Westminster Bank, and I helped to broker the work that they did. I understand the relevance and importance of this, and many banks provide support and advice in any event. I am sure that they will continue to deliberate on how best we might add to what we already provide, and talk to business and others about what more we can do.
I am not sure a national helpline is within my gift to offer my noble friend at this stage, but the point he makes about the responsibility of government, continually to look at the support we give on the websites and elsewhere, is absolutely right. But I hope—on the basis of understanding that we do not want to make this a burden on institutions, while recognising good practice and wishing to promote it—he will be able to withdraw his amendment.
6.15 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: Can my noble friend confirm that bursaries provided by institutions to their students—including those which OFFA will require them to provide—will not be taken into account when those students apply for means-tested benefits? Could the Minister further confirm that the combined higher education grant, totalling £2,700, will also be disregarded by the Department for Work and Pensions in assessing eligibility for benefits?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall respond to that point, which is tangential. My noble friend gave me notice that she planned to raise the point so that I could have the relevant information before me. We are looking actively at this with the Department for Work and Pensions. Members of the Committee will know that only a small proportion of students receive benefits, but they are the most vulnerable groups—lone parents and those with disabilities.
Fees support and targeted support are not set against benefits, but support for living costs could be taken into account. We have reached an understanding for new students in 2004–05 that the higher education grant will not be taken into account in assessing entitlement to means-tested benefits. We are working closely with the Department for Work and Pensions to ensure that

1251
students receive real benefit from the grant and bursary and to reach agreement about the arrangements in a similar way.
The Lord Bishop of St Albans: I apologise to the Committee for being absent at the beginning of the debate. I want to speak in support of the amendment. At Second Reading, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, spoke of the important role that the House has in highlighting the possible unintended consequences of the legislation before it. He referred to the Secretary of State's clear statement that social equity lies at the heart of the proposals for change. Yet we cannot deny the historic aversion to debt among many people. That aversion may have a negative effect on entry levels, particularly in economically vulnerable areas.
As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth and others on these Benches have made clear, we share the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, about debt aversion and I am pleased to support his amendment. In the Second Reading debate, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth said that people might well be put off by the prospect of finding themselves at graduation owing substantial amounts of money. He said,
"perhaps people need to be educated for debt".—[Official Report, 19/4/04; col. 42.]
Vital though financial assistance is for everyone to participate fully in higher education in the future, there is a need for a kind of support which goes well beyond pounds and pence. The amendment underlines that. We are calling not simply for assistance, but also for advice.
The point is well made that our students will not incur a debt in the traditional sense of the word because, if necessary, after 25 years that "debt" will be written off while the benefit of receiving higher education will remain. The fact remains that many people will perceive it as a debt being incurred and some may not enter or remain in higher education for that reason.
Therefore, in stressing the need for personal support that includes advice as well as money or information, the amendment draws attention to two important issues. First, the work already carried out by many universities in offering financial advice and support to their students. That clearly needs to be available to everyone. Secondly, the important truth that the purposes of higher education are far more than economic ones. They go beyond individual personal fulfilment in serving the needs of the economy, important though those are, and they extend to promoting the common good.
The right reverend Prelates the Bishop of Portsmouth and the Bishop of Manchester and others have suggested that the purposes of higher education must include promoting the spiritual, moral and cultural well-being of individuals and society. And so, too, the issue here is not just about money but about the well-being of the community of students—and, indeed, graduates, as the noble Lord's next amendment makes clear.
1252
The Minister, in responding to comments made at Second Reading by several noble Lords about values and purposes, made clear that people should read the UNESCO normative statement on higher education, which the Government signed in 1998. Our attention having been drawn to it in Article 1—which concerns the mission to educate, to train and to undertake research—we were pleased to discover that the very first core mission and value is:
"to educate highly-qualified graduates and responsible citizens able to meet the needs of all sectors of human society".
Citizenship, as many young people in our schools are learning, is about responsibility, community and the common good. If we as a nation are to expect our students to be responsible citizens, able to meet the needs of all sectors of human society, then we must make certain that we take our responsibilities seriously in meeting their needs as best we can during their progress through higher education. Surely that should include offering not just money and information about financial assistance, but actually advice on how to cope with the new financial realities that face students in higher education in our country today.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: I refer to the answer that the Minister gave to the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam. She made the distinction between advice and financial assistance. As I understand it, the argument she was making was that there is no need to add advice to the words already in the Bill because to do so would involve the complication that it would mean advice regulated under the DTI—official debt advice that would have to be regulated. I find this slightly surprising because the citizens advice bureaux do provide, as she rightly pointed out, extensive debt advice. I did not think they came under the DTI's regulatory scheme—but I may be wrong here. Can the Minister advise on this? There does seem to be a distinction between advice and just assistance. Therefore, the noble Lord, Lord Puttnam, and the right reverend Prelate are right to ask that there should be advice as well as just assistance.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will attempt to answer, but not surprisingly I do not know about the citizens advice bureaux. I will find out and of course make sure that I pass that to the noble Baroness. I was saying that we have lots of institutions who already provide advice, and many of them are members of the National Association of Student Money Advisors. My understanding is that if we were to move forward in the way proposed in this amendment we would be requiring those who offer advice to be licensed by the Office of Fair Trading. I am sure that is the result of the way in which this is framed, but again I shall make sure that I give chapter and verse on that to the noble Baroness.
These are important issues. The question is whether the amendment represents the most appropriate way to proceed, and I remain unconvinced that we should

1253
regulate in this way. I have already said that universities can put forward what they wish in terms of access plans.
I say to the right reverend Prelate that I have responded at length to the amendment. I will not go over it all again, for the benefit of other noble Lords. I have made clear what the Government are already doing. We have discussed some of the good practice followed by institutions. I have already said that we will continue to look at what more the Government might be able to do, and I am grateful for the right reverend Prelate's comments.
Lord Puttnam: I thank all those Members of your Lordship's House who have supported this amendment. I picked up three or four words that I would like to stress once more. The underlying purpose of this Bill is social equity, to get people into universities who in the past, for one reason or another, may have been able in terms of their intellectual capacity but have not made the move. That includes their parents. I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Seccombe, that we are talking about a sum of money which for many people in this country is the equivalent of the cost of their parents' house. These are not small sums—for many people these are terrifying sums.
I will of course listen to what the Government come back with, and I am sure they will come back with something. However, the words I want to stress are "high quality". I want the bar high, not a situation where there is a race to the bottom by the institutions and the Government because of cost. I want very high quality advice, however the Government wish to define advice. Also, the Government must acknowledge that they must be the default provider. It is the Government who have brought tuition fees into being, therefore the Government must be the default provider in ensuring the social equity they seek is arrived at as a result of the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 87 to 91 not moved.]
Clause 31 agreed to.
Clause 32 [Approval of plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 92 and 92A not moved.]
Clause 32 agreed to.
Clause 33 [Duration of plans]:
[Amendments Nos. 93 and 93A not moved.]
Clause 33 agreed to.
Clause 34 [Variation of plans]:
[Amendment No. 93B not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 34 shall stand part of the Bill?
Baroness Perry of Southwark: My Lords, I wish to object to Clauses 34 to 36 standing part of the Bill. These three clauses together go to the very heart of what we mean by interference by the Secretary of State
1254
in academic freedom. The Secretary of State is taking powers in this Bill to concern himself or herself with the details of the existing plans and with the enforcement of those plans by various kinds of penalties. It becomes quite clear in Section 35(2) that the Secretary of State is going to be pulling the strings in terms of the way in which the Director of Fair Access performs her or his job and exercises her or his powers.
I should make it clear that we have no objection whatever to the Secretary of State taking powers in relation to the requirements under Clause 23(1)(a). Quite clearly, where universities are setting their fees within financial restrictions, it is right and proper for the Government to be involved. We object to the involvement of the Secretary of State in the plans, the way plans are treated, the way regulations for making the plans are made and the way penalties for departing from the plans are also made by regulations. Although we have been told many times by the Minister that the Director of Fair Access will be at arm's length from the Secretary of State, it is quite impossible to believe that in the terms of these clauses. Clause 36 deals with Wales of course, in which it is not the Secretary of State who is named but the Welsh Assembly.
In none of these clauses is there any hope of preserving the academic freedom of universities. As I have said, this House has a very proud tradition of protecting academic freedom, of laying the boundaries to it. I do not believe that the amendments which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, put forward—and the Government accepted—go nearly far enough. As long as these clauses are on the face of the Bill. I believe academic freedom is under genuine threat. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I am always sorry when I find myself in disagreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, for whom I have enormous respect, not least for her work in the field of education, which is ongoing and ever-continuing. However, I disagree with her fundamentally about the role of the Director of Fair Access, and it is where we part company.
I pay tribute to the excellent work carried out by many of our higher education institutions and to much of the work that goes on outside the higher education sector in promoting and supporting the best and brightest of our students, wherever they come from. That work enables students to achieve the kind of high-quality university education from which many of your Lordships have benefited and which we all recognise to be an important part of the development of individuals and of our economy. It also enables this nation to develop its work within the wider world. It is within that context that we look to what this office can contribute.
We have taken a step towards what I think many institutions consider to be the right direction in terms of the variability of fees so that institutions feel able, to a large extent, to control the financing that comes from that. We believe that that is right, but we also consider

1255
it to be right and responsible for government to ensure that, along the way, there are no unintended consequences, about which noble Lords other than the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, are concerned, as well as those in another place and organisations and individuals outside Westminster.
The clause is about putting together a framework that we believe will do the very best by our institutions and will also help and support our students. We believe that the critical independence of the Director of Fair Access will enable those institutions to work closely with HEFCE, as we have outlined. As I know the noble Baroness has sought through some of her amendments, the director will be as much an adviser as anything else. He will develop that relationship and help to support more work so that students from whatever background, as I said, can benefit from university education if they are able to achieve the right levels of academic ability.
I believe that the clause is an important part of the Bill. The Bill cannot continue on its way if the clause is taken out of it. The clause is part and parcel of what the Government believe must happen in order to combine what we offer our institutions with what we offer our students.
I shall not go through all the different parts of the clause because, as the noble Baroness said, I think that this is an issue of principle. If I can persuade her of the importance of the clause between now and other stages of the Bill, I shall certainly endeavour to do so. I value her opinions greatly and I shall want to try to persuade her that what we have done in respect of the issue of independence and also by accepting the amendments—not only of my noble friend but also of the noble Lord, Lord Dearing—relating to admissions and academic freedom is critical. I want to make her as comfortable as I possibly can about the role and independence of the office. We consider that to be important and that is why the clause should remain part of the Bill.
Baroness Seccombe: My noble friend Lady Perry has expressed very strongly her views on the amendments. We support her wholeheartedly and want to express our grave concerns about the powers of the Director of Fair Access.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: Can the noble Baroness tell someone like me, who is outside the system but who is very concerned about the academic freedom of the universities and about the powers of OFFA, how she can say that OFFA is independent in view of Clause 35(2)? That subsection states that the Secretary of State may, by regulations, lay down the matters to which the director must have regard in exercising his powers, the procedure to be followed, and the financial requirements that may be specified in the sanctions.
It seems to me that—in this respect, at least—it is wrong to stand up and say that OFFA is independent: OFFA is the creature of the Secretary of State. I think that the Government should admit that and be honest with the universities, the public and the students. OFFA is not independent; there is no question about
1256
that. That is at the heart of the Bill. The noble Baroness is right: this is what the Bill seems to be all about. But it concerns me very much and I know that it concerns many universities, although, apart from my noble friend, at present they find it difficult to say so.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I have not previously cast the Minister in the role of Sisyphus but, not only in the debates that we had a day or so ago but also on this occasion, I have found her seeking to push a substantial mound of stone uphill only for those of us who are watching to see it roll back again. I remember a debate that we had at an earlier stage in which I said that I was more than partially reassured by the words which the Minister had uttered. I do not think that on that occasion she had cast her eyes forward to the clauses that we are now considering. However, having been partially reassured, I then become more than partially unreassured by the clauses that we have in front of us today.
Twenty years ago, I sat in a quite exceptionally lengthy conclave with the late, great Sir Keith Joseph. My noble friend Lady Perry was present at those meetings in another capacity. We spent hours and hours, as anyone would have expected the late, great Sir Keith Joseph to do, discussing the independence of universities in the context of the issue of tenure, which we were addressing. I should like to feel that, within the Department for Education and Skills, the same kind of concern about the independence of universities had been exercised in debates which were just as long before those in the department came forward with this clause. I certainly join my noble friend Lady Perry in saying that all my anxieties have been re-aroused by the way in which these clauses are phrased.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches also have some sympathy with the views expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry. It seems to me that the Minister was saying that there was no dispute about there being a Director of Fair Access, about the fact that the director should have plans or that plans should be submitted. Within the context of the series of amendments put forward by the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, which frequently had the names of the noble Lords, Lord Forsyth and Lord Sutherland, attached to them, there is no dispute about the fact that there should be access plans and that universities should prepare those plans and submit them to the director. Rather sensibly, the suggestion is that they should form part of the universities' overall strategic planning provisions.
Clause 35 is far more primitive. Admittedly, that is perhaps the stick with which the Government seek to make effective what they want to do, but it seems to me to be an unnecessarily strong stick and subsection (2) gives very wide powers to the Secretary of State to act as he sees fit. As I said, I share some of the doubts that have been cast about whether that is really necessary.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I support the point made by my noble friend Lady Perry and other noble Lords who have spoken. I remember debates in this

1257
House a decade ago when matters of academic freedom were hotly contested. A number of us who were then supporters of the government of the day found it necessary to oppose that government on one or two matters when it seemed that academic freedom was being infringed.
I shall be very interested to hear what the Minister says in reply to the question posed by my noble friend Lady Carnegy. It is very difficult to see this provision in Clause 35(2) as other than interventionist. It states:
"The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision…as to the matters to which the Director must, or may not, have regard in exercising his powers".
Nor is there any safeguard with regard to timing. If, at some moment, the Secretary of State finds that he is dissatisfied by a specific decision of the director, it seems to me that he may at once impose regulations, which may well be of a general nature but could apply in a specific case and could be brought to bear in a specific case.
So it is difficult to see how the clause is other than one that invites intervention by the Secretary of State in the working of the director and therefore virtually invites him to intervene in specific matters in specific universities and thereby clearly to undermine academic freedom. I shall be most interested to hear the Minister's reply to my noble friend's question.
Lord Dearing: If the requirements are to have substance then there must be some consequence if they are not met. I should think that that is what Clause 35(1) is about. If we have the one then it is arguable there should be the other. As to the regulating power, as one who sat in desks where the telephone was in contact with the department, I would much rather see what was coming my way in public in a regulation than via a word over the phone or a letter and persuasion. Then it is in the open and the Secretary of State can be held accountable for his doings.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Lord, Lord Dearing, may be content with the whole thing, but does he agree that OFFA is independent?
Lord Dearing: It is essentially independent but that does not mean that the Secretary of State should not be able to pronounce in a public way—for example, when the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, proposed that OFFA should have a role in training, I suggested that it might be desirable for the Secretary of State to cool the ardour of an over-zealous trainer.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I shall try to address a couple of the important points raised. I would say to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, that there is nothing dishonest in anything that I say in Committee or indeed in the Government's intentions. The noble Baroness may disagree with me, which is completely acceptable—I regard her very warmly—but it is not dishonesty, which is a different proposition.
1258
We say that the director is independent and rightly so. There is a regulatory framework. We think it is important, when we set up anything, that it is clear what the office we are describing is meant to do and that, as the noble Lord, Lord Dearing said, we set out clearly the consequences.
We expect that the relationship between the Director of Fair Access and the institutions will be a positive experience for everyone. We recognise, as I said in my opening remarks, the invaluable work that institutions are doing to ensure that students who have the abilities apply to them. I pay tribute to them as I have already done. But we think it is important to set it up in this way and that the way we have created it—particularly with the amendments that we have accepted—has expressed even more firmly in the Bill our commitment to independence and academic freedom.
We want to make sure, as I have repeatedly said—and I hope that the matter has been put to rest by our acceptance of the amendment—that this is about applications and not admissions. If I had the classical education that I clearly should have done to deal with the always wonderful literary allusions that begin the contributions of the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, perhaps I would have been able to come up with something wittier than I am able to at this point. It is sad but true that my education does not run to that extent.
We have tried to be clear about the independent role. It is not about the Secretary of State dictating. It is about affirmative resolutions, which are a critical part of ensuring transparency and clarity of view. Although the noble Baroness, Lady Perry, may disagree with us, which is her prerogative from her experience, we believe that this is a critical part of making sure that we can move forward in a positive way in our desire to develop our higher education sector and support it as best we can.
Baroness Perry of Southwark: I am grateful to the many noble Lords who have supported the thought behind the clause stand part debate. I am sorry that the Minister and I seem bound to disagree over this part of the Bill. We have no disagreement on variable fees and over the importance of OFFA. I have never moved any amendment that suggested that OFFA should disappear, much though it might be nice if it did.
6.45 p.m.
I recognise that it is important to have some guarantee that the hugely increased burden on students is not used as a way of keeping students from poorer families out of higher education. I am most sorry about the tone of the Bill, which is encapsulated in these and earlier clauses, that the universities are simply not to be trusted and OFFA has to be given punitive powers in order to make them comply. I do not see things that way and I do not believe that that is the way universities behave.
There is undoubtedly a great deal to be learned about the best way to go about increasing applications from under-represented groups and so on, and I would

1259
like to see OFFA engaging with that. I do not like the interference and the encroachment on academic freedom that runs throughout the Bill and we shall have to continue to disagree.
Clause 34 agreed to.
Clause 35 [Enforcement of plans: England]
[Amendments Nos. 94 to 99 not moved.]
Lord Butler of Brockwell Lord Butler of Brockwell moved Amendment No. 99A:
Page 16, line 19, at end insert—
"provided that an institution shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement if it has taken all reasonable steps to comply."
The noble Lord said: The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment I declare an interest as head of a college at Oxford University. This is the only amendment to the Bill with which I have troubled your Lordships and the Government. I hope that on those grounds alone it may attract some sympathy and support. Its purpose is to write into the Bill an assurance that has been offered both by the Minister in earlier debates and by the Minister for higher education in another place.
It says that when the Director of Fair Access is considering whether to penalise an institution for failing to comply, the institution should not be regarded as failing to comply if it has taken all reasonable steps to do so. The purpose is to remove a fear on the part of institutions that in a situation when they have done everything that they promised to do in the plan agreed with the director to provide fair access, nevertheless they could be penalised because the social mix of the students they admit comes out in a particular way.
Assurances have been given by the Government that that is not their intention. In the debate on not constraining the freedom of universities over admissions, the Minister said:
"In talking to the universities, in particular, we have been very clear that this is about inputs and not outputs… We recognise that some of the work that they do may have no impact on what happens in an individual institution, but it might have a broader impact on a group of universities as the university sector works with students… That is why we are very clear that the director should recognise that this is about inputs and not about outputs". —[Official Report, 17/5/04, col. 617.]
The Minister for Higher Education for another place was even more explicit in Committee. He said:
"It is not a matter of the access regulator saying, 'Well, you've done everything you said you would do, but your social class mix has not changed, therefore you will be punished"'.—[Official Report, Commons Standing Committee H, 2/5/04; col. 384.]
These are the most explicit assurances that have been given by Ministers. They are extremely welcome, but I think it would greatly improve the Bill and certainly reduce anxieties on this account if they could be written on to the face of the Bill as a constraint on the director to penalise institutions of higher education in these circumstances. That is the purpose of the amendment. I beg to move.
Baroness O'Neill of Bengarve: This is ultimately a very simple point about OFFA and I hope very much
1260
that it may be one that the Minister is able to support. We have been assured, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, reminded us, that the task of OFFA is access not admissions. However, "access" is a word not without ambiguities. Those of us who support the amendment believe that without it, it remains unclear whether fines can be levied on institutions that do not succeed in increasing the proportions of under-represented groups despite their best efforts on access activities.
We have to acknowledge that the social composition of the student body of a university is a function of many things other than the admissions process and admissions policies. In particular, it is a function of student choice and student preparation as well as institutional policy.
Students may choose where they go to study because they want to live at home or because they want to live not at home; because they want to live in a big city with all its excitement or because they want to live in a more remote area of the country which perhaps they never enjoyed before; because they want a large, international research institution as the atmosphere in which they do their undergraduate work or because they want somewhere smaller, cosier and more intimate; because they want a place that has a high proportion of vocational courses and a certain atmosphere of vocational seriousness or because they want a place that is steeped in scientific work. All those are very reasonable things for students to want, but given the diversity of preparation of different groups of students, they are not all matters that can be simply adjusted by a given university.
I believe that certain subjects in higher education institutions may have great difficulty in increasing the proportion of their students that come from underrepresented groups. More generally, because this is the way the Bill is framed, certain subjects will have a very hard time increasing their proportion of underrepresented groups. It is not the number of people who universities can recruit—particularly into the physical sciences, engineering and mathematics, and there may be rather fewer mature students who have had the preparation, as just an example, that makes it possible for them to do those degrees—it is simply a question of the combination of preparation and student choice and its impact on institutional success.
We do not want to repeat the weary road of the United States when it engaged in affirmative action and matters ended up before the courts because it was interpreted by some institutions as requiring them to admit in a way that was not solely dependent on the qualification, merit, aspiration and potential of the young person. I believe that universities should not he liable to sanctions for matters that are beyond their control.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I very much hope that the Minister will be able to accept the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, which seems to me eminently sensible. Also, it has the merit of enshrining on the face of the Bill commitments that were made in the other place. I also think—I was a little disappointed by the Minister's response to the

1261
previous debate—that the amendment guides the Bill in the right direction on the role that OFFA should play, if we have to have it. It should not be a kind of authoritarian organisation taking a view but an organisation which encourages best practice and encourages people to do their best. The amendment would provide a welcome balance, which I would have thought would place the role of OFFA on a much better basis with the institutions. If OFFA is not able to establish a good relationship with those institutions, both will fail in their purpose.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: I speak in support of the amendment but note that Amendment No. 103, tabled in my name, has been grouped with this one and I am quite content to speak to that too.
I support Amendment No. 99A for two reasons, which have been clearly articulated. First, as has been said many times in the debate on the Bill in both places, not all is in the control of universities. That principle being accepted, we must assume that universities will take all reasonable steps. Secondly, sometimes reasonable steps are not simply taken by one university for the benefit of that university, but by a group of universities in a particular location—a city, for example. To my knowledge it is quite a regular event that a group of universities will together put on access courses and early courses in the summer. Students will be attracted to those courses in the hope that they will go to one of the universities sponsoring a course but not necessarily any particular one. In that case, one has half a dozen universities taking very reasonable steps. The beneficiary may be one or two universities. That is an additional reason for focusing on the quality of the steps taken rather than hinting at the outcomes.
Amendment No. 103, grouped with this amendment, calls for an appeal mechanism. The Minister has assured us today that she wants to make us as comfortable as she possibly can with Clauses 34, 35 and 36. An appropriate appeal mechanism would make me much more comfortable, though I still have some questions on Clause 35.
When I first read the Bill I assumed that the absence of an appeal procedure against the decisions of the director of OFFA was an oversight, caused by so much excitement being created about other aspects of the Bill. However, I suspect not. The principle for an appeal mechanism is very clear. It is a matter of justice being done and being seen to be done. If there is no appeal mechanism against the judgment of what may be effectively one individual which could cause serious financial difficulties for universities—I shall comment on those shortly—we are failing to ensure that justice is being done and being seen to be done.
The detailed specifications in the amendment for illustrative purposes clearly would need further discussion and consideration if the principle of the amendment were accepted. Not least, for example, we would have to consider how it applied in Wales, to which the amendment does not refer. However, I
1262
should be happy to have comment and advice on the nature of the appeal mechanism and, indeed, on the way it might best be carried out and by whom.
It might be argued—indeed, I have heard hints of both in the course of our discussions over the past week and a half—that there is always the option for judicial review. That is one possibility. Often it is hinted that we, whoever "we" are, are really quite gentle and kind in our intentions and that we do not want to legislate for possible failure on the part of universities and therefore for all the panoply and traditional burdens of appeal mechanisms, that is to say not always assuming the worst. But today we have heard talk of the importance of there being consequences, and consequences being seen to be real consequences. Indeed, I am sure that if we look at last Thursday's Hansard, the Minister used those words in a very specific and clearly directed way; that is, that universities must be aware that there will be consequences of this whole process.
If there are to be consequences, clearly, having reassurances that an appeal mechanism is not necessary is inadequate. There is a stick here, and if there is one, we want to be sure that it is used only and properly according to the rules that everyone understands, which surely include the right of appeal.
7 p.m.
There is the power to fine universities substantial sums of money and a power to prevent universities levying any additional or top-up fees. The whole point of the Bill is that the universities need that money. So I believe that there is significant power in the Bill requiring a proper mechanism to ensure that any judgments exercising that power are legitimate and well framed.
Judicial review is a backstop. But we all know that it is expensive and time-consuming. The costs involved for institutions putting something through judicial review will be very high indeed. In every way it is burdensome—except perhaps for those who are professionally employed to put cases.
There is an issue here. I do not think that judicial review is adequate. For example, in the RAE where judicial review is available, and where issues are taken very seriously, to my knowledge it has been used once in 18 years. That is not an endorsement of the correctness of every judgment made by RAE panels over those 18 years, it is simply that the candle is not worth the effort that would be involved. The difference between the regulator for OFFA and the RAE is that the director of OFFA can fine universities for money which they have otherwise legitimately earned, and in the case of the RAE it is a question of additional money being allocated. So I put the case as fundamentally an expression of what natural justice requires, that there be some form of appeal against the decisions of potentially one individual.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I wish to speak particularly to Amendment No. 103, to which I have attached my name, but I also support Amendment No. 99A. Indeed, in our debate immediately after

1263
dinner on the last occasion when we debated these matters, I expressed some concern that the amendment the Government put forward, and which was agreed, did not go far enough. It is a thin dividing line between access and admissions. I can well see that a regulator or a government that does not think that the admissions process is delivering what they hope from the access arrangements might cross that dividing line. So I support Amendment No. 99A.
However, I want particularly to talk to Amendment No. 103 and from the point of view of being a member of your Lordships' Select Committee on the Constitution, which recently produced a report—The Regulatory State: Ensuring its Accountability. That is very relevant to our debate on Amendment No. 103. My noble friend Lord Norton of Louth, who was present earlier, as chairman of that committee I am sure would wish to have spoken—and I hope would speak in the same vein, but he had to chair another committee.
The point is that the director is a regulator. The committee spent many months looking at the major regulators and listening to the providers, those regulated, consumer groups and so on. Our report is based on a huge amount of detailed evidence of the experience of regulators. The focus of that evidence was exactly this issue; that strong complaints were being made where a regulator was in existence and an appeal system was not available. The Government accept that because increasingly when regulators are established, or there are changes made to regulators, an appeal system of some sort is put in place.
It was also very clear that it was not considered fair or appropriate that the appeal process should be within the organisation itself. It is vital that it is independent and external.
I very much agree with the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that judicial review is not sufficient and is not a response to this amendment. Let us be frank; judicial review is fundamentally about process and not about substance or the merits of the case. The issue that may well appear here is that it will be an issue of substance or merits and not process. That, too, came out very clearly from the evidence we took.
Much of what I would wish to say is in Chapter 11 of our report. In view of the hour, I shall not read it. But there is no doubt that it was regarded as one of the most important chapters in our report and is why I feel so strongly on this.
In the clause stand part debate, the Minister said that she hoped and believed that the experience will be a positive one. What if it is not? Suppose some universities believe they have been unfairly treated? As the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, pointed out, the penalties and sanctions in the Bill may be rarely applied, but where they are they could be very formidable—and formidable in their effect on the individual institution. It is therefore important that there is an external appeal system. Let us face it, a great deal of power will exist in the hands of the director. That is why the independent appeal system is so important.
1264
We recommended in our report a regulation appeal tribunal for all those regulated areas that do not yet have an appeal system. I do not think that that would be appropriate in this case, and, indeed, one is not in existence. One will have to await the Government's response on that recommendation. In this case it is a specific area; it is a specialist, non-economic, non-competition area and therefore a different type of appeal system needs to be established.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, referred to the costs to universities. I think it is very important that any appeal process should avoid heavy costs. I believe that is why he inserted a 12-week timetable within the appeal process, which I think is entirely right. The details, as he said, may not be exactly right. I am concerned about the membership of whatever appeal process is set up because it is vital that that appeal system is seen to be totally independent. But these are details which can be sorted out between now and Report. I believe the principle is very important, and I hope that the Government will accept it.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I should like to ask the Minister a question in supporting these very necessary amendments, which I hope we shall see on the face of the Bill, whether or not we do so this evening. I am a little pessimistic about the work of the Director of Fair Access. I see that he can work with university departments to encourage them to produce plans with which he is content.
I do not understand how the director will form a judgment at the end of the day on whether the plans have been successful. What criteria does the director employ in judging whether his project is successful? I am extremely pessimistic about the whole enterprise. I do not want to go too far off the point, but if we are to have these top-up fees, which many of us warmly support, essentially they are to be paid by loans, which, as we heard in the earlier debate, is debt that students may be very concerned about. It seems to me that it will be a difficult project for the Director of Fair Access to encourage a more favourable social class mix—to use the phrase which the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, quoted from the Minister for Higher Education.
So I think it is very possible that there will be cases where the Director of Fair Access will find that his project is not succeeding. In fact I predict that there will be many such cases. I fear that there will also be cases where he does not realise or is not willing to accept that that is a product of the Sisyphean quality of the enterprise, but when he may feel it must he a defect in the plans. So I am very concerned that the director may feel that sometimes the problem lies in the plan rather than in the project—about which l am pessimistic. That is why I find these very necessary safeguards. I shall certainly be very interested to hear from the Minister how she imagines the Director of Fair Access is going to evaluate the suitability of plans and whether the plans are in fact working.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I support the amendments. In view of the lateness of the hour I shall be extremely brief. As the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said, the Minister for Higher Education when pressed on this matter in Standing Committee in another place said that in such a situation no institution would be penalised. I cannot think of any reason why the Government should not accept that.
The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, also has my support. I hope that in practice institutions and OFFA will be able to negotiate together and settle their differences. However, we must be ready for a worst-case scenario in which an institution and OFFA are not able to agree. I do not want to rehearse the arguments that have been made particularly about judicial review. An independent appeal mechanism, like the one that is proposed in the amendment, would be a valuable addition to the system.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: We on these Benches also support the two amendments. In relation to the first amendment, in our earlier debate on the clause as a whole, we talked about how punitive Clause 35 is. To some extent, the amendment proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, helps to ameliorate the punitive nature of the clause. I endorse the arguments put forward by noble Lords about the need for an independent appeal mechanism. It seems absurd that we should have to go to judicial review on such issues. An appeal mechanism within the framework of the system is far more satisfactory.
Baroness Blackstone: I am afraid that I shall add a little note of dissent to the debate. I am reluctant to do so because I understand the motives behind both of the amendments. However, I shall focus on the amendment that relates to appeals. I assume that my noble friend will support or accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, but I do not know that she will. If she does, that will be a very substantial concession and it will lead to questions that were put very pertinently by the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew.
I am at a loss to understand quite how the Director of Fair Access will decide whether the plans that a university has made to promote access are working if he or she is not allowed to look at the outcome. If a university provides all kind of access arrangements, runs summer schools and gets more applications from a wider range of students, that is all well and good. But if it does not accept a wider range of students, that is a problem.
However, if the Government accept the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, I cannot see how the Director of Fair Access can then pursue a situation where, in spite of all the different attempts to comply with the "reasonable steps" that have been made, there is still no change in behaviour when it comes to looking more favourably at applicants from state schools or social classes that are currently under-represented.
Let us suppose that a university is looking at a state school student who has three A grades at A-level and that student is still not accepted because there is
1266
another student from an independent school who has also got three A grades but appears to be much more fluent and articulate at interview. We know that that sort of thing happens. We have all been involved in making those kinds of difficult decisions.
However, my real concern is the proposal for an appeal system that was made by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, which has been widely supported. If we are to go down that road, we must be very much clearer than we have been so far in this debate about the grounds of appeal. Otherwise, why should not any university automatically appeal if it gets a judgment that goes against it? As a vice-chancellor, I would certainly do that. We must be much clearer about the processes and the costs.
I am not very happy about the proposal in the amendment that there should be a panel of three people; that is, one person proposed by the Secretary of State, one proposed by Universities UK and a senior judge. If I were to be proposed by Universities UK—heaven forbid, I am sure that I never will be—I would feel, in a sense of tribal loyalty, that I would have to support my colleagues who were appealing. As currently proposed, the whole mechanism is flawed. We should not go down this road without a lot more thought about the costs and effects and what the actual sensible process of introducing an appeals procedure should involve.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I was very much encouraged by what the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, said earlier when she indicated that perhaps the amendment moved by my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell would be accepted. I certainly want to support that amendment for all the eminently sensible reasons that have been given, which merely make it clear that all reasonable steps had been complied with, the penalty would not be enforced.
I see the point about appeals. Perhaps that amendment will have to be redrawn. I was extremely surprised to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, make those comments. Surely, the judgment will have already been accepted by the director of OFFA. If the outcome is not quite what is expected, there should be some method by which a test of reasonableness is employed.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, seemed to think that if the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, was accepted, that would make everything all right. But, again, it is a subjective judgment whether "all reasonable steps to comply" have been taken. It is wrong that a university might lose the ability to raise its fees, which are so crucial, or be fined £500,000 on a subjective judgment, even if the amendment put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is in place.
The noble Baroness thinks that everyone will appeal. I expect that would be true if the amendment is as simple as Amendment No. 103A tabled by my noble friend. But if the amendment is more precise, it would be quite possible to put that in. I cannot see how the system can operate without some sort of appeals

1267
system. If the Government are not prepared to accept this, I hope that the Committee will make that decision and that it will stand. Otherwise, the system will be grossly unfair. I should have thought that the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, would be feeling herself suffering already for the lack of appeal.
Baroness Blackstone: I should like to respond to the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. I very much hope that if we have OFFA, it will not be just subjective and will make its judgments on the basis of all the objective evidence that the Director of Fair Access will be collecting.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: If we suppose that the director feels that the institution has not "taken all reasonable steps" and the institution feels that it has, is it not right to have a right of appeal on that point and have an independent judgment, which is not one made within the organisation itself?
Baroness Blackstone: I like to think that if the Director of Fair Access is doing his or her job properly, he or she will make only very considered judgments. I hope that universities will not be over-defensive about the work of OFFA and will try to respond in a positive way in the spirit of being given a view about an objective outside organisation about what that university is doing. We should not be over-defensive about this.
Perhaps I may come back to the issue of the RAE, which was appropriately mentioned by the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland. There is not an appeal mechanism there. Judgments are made as far as possible on an objective basis. Those judgments may sometimes involve some subjectivity. Certainly, very often universities are extremely disappointed with those judgments and they do not agree with them. But they accept them.
The universities lose a great deal of money if they have a big department in, say, the sciences which moves down a grade. They lose even more money if they move down two grades. So the same principle operates there. It has been operating for a very long time. It is widely accepted by the universities, although individual decisions are taken that they may not like. They do not resort to an appeal system. If they did, we would never have a system of selectivity in allocating research funding that would work. It would be clogged up with endless appeals. That is my slight concern about moving down this route in relation to the work of OFFA.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: The difference between the RAE and the office and director of OFFA is that the director of OFFA has the capacity to take money from universities already legitimately earned or received by them through the process approved by the funding council. The RAE allocates additional cash on a basis that even its most ardent supporters—and, on the whole, I support it—would not say was objectively right in every case. It is additional cash, not the basic cash from which a deduction is made.
1268
Secondly, I should like to pose a question to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone—still, I hope, my noble friend. If the Minister will allow another classical allusion, even Homer nodded. Is it not possible that the director of OFFA might impose a very serious sanction—no top-up fees for you?
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I intervene very briefly. I did not speak to Amendment No. 103, which I support, although I have some concerns about the composition of the appeal panel. However, that is a detail—the issues of the appeal itself and the right of appeal are fundamental, for the reasons that my noble friend Lord MacGregor has spelt out. For those noble Lords who have not read the report of the Select Committee on the Constitution, the appeal to the regulator's decision is a very important question.
We owe the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, a great debt. Her speech has been very revealing, because it shows what the agenda is. As I listened to her speak, it seemed imperative that the Government accept both these amendments. She highlighted the dangers inherent in the role of OFFA in moving from requiring universities to do everything in their power to encourage wider access to looking at the outcome and then penalising them for not achieving that result. The effect of that would be to interfere in the university's admissions decisions. The noble Baroness shakes her head, but she asked why the director should not be able to look at the outcome. The outcome is not in the hands of the universities unless the director requires that they alter their admissions arrangements in order to get the director's pre-ordained view of what the admissions should be.
There should be a right of appeal on the grounds of natural justice and of ensuring that the Government's assurances that the director of OFFA will not seek to target individual institutions in respect of their admissions policy but will instead seek to encourage good practice in achieving wider access. For both these reasons, it becomes even more important that the Government accede to a right of appeal in this way. The noble Baroness—whether intentionally or not, I do not Know—has, in arguing the contrary case, underlined the reasons why it is imperative that this is done.
Baroness Blackstone: I do not want to prolong the debate for too long but I was trying to respond to the very pertinent question of the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew. Perhaps my noble friend the Minister will respond to this point, because I am not absolutely clear about exactly how OFFA will judge what is working. Presumably there is an expectation that OFFA should be able to do that. I am unclear about how that will work, particularly if the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is accepted. I am not opposed to his amendment, but I am puzzled as to how we will make the system operate effectively.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: When, some time ago, by a gesture of the hand, I indicated to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, that I hoped that she would speak rather than myself, I did not realise that

1269
I would be letting in another seven speeches after hers. I do not begrudge it for a moment—it was quite clearly the right thing to do because her speech occasioned a whole series of subsequent sallies. I am happy for another reason that that should have occurred and that I should find myself, even now, following after her directly.
If I am right in recalling that the definition of an act of God in Blackstone's law dictionary—and I bow to the noble Baroness—is an act which no reasonable man would expect God to commit, then by an inverse logic it seems that the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is an act of God condition, which is good for everybody.
I understand what underlies the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, on Amendment No. 103. The amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, supported by my noble friend Lord MacGregor, with a powerful argument in terms of the examination of the regulator by the Constitution Committee, is freestanding. It is not conditional upon the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I would regard it as an aid to the Sisyphean task to which I referred earlier.
I apologise to the Minister for having used an allusion with which she was not familiar. Fifteen years ago, when I was on the budget council of the European Union, I worked out that classical literature was the only thing which the 12 countries had in common and therefore I could use it throughout. I apologise if, 15 years later, the habit is still with me. However, I can explain, in a very brief parenthesis, that it is a classical version of snakes and ladders.
My final point goes back to what my noble friend Lord Forsyth said on the last amendment, which relates to trust. I have said before in your Lordships' House that it is my experience that people behave in the way they are treated. The Government are running a risk, if they demonstrate overtly that they do not trust the universities, that the universities might start behaving in a less trustworthy way. Frankly, just as the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is good for everybody, any development of untrustworthiness would be bad for everybody.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: This has been a long and very interesting debate and I am grateful to all Members of the Committee who have spoken. I shall try to keep my comments as brief and pertinent as possible.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, has raised a very important question. In principle, I am wholly in agreement with him and therefore with all other Members of the Committee who have spoken on this. We have made it clear that we want institutions to include their own milestones for widening access in their plans. We want them to be ambitious in that, for their own institutions, but we cannot have a situation in which the director might impose a sanction on an institution for failing to meet a milestone due to circumstances beyond its control.
1270
The noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, in particular, was interested to know how the director would examine whether institutions had been successful. I refer back to what my right honourable friend Alan Johnson said about inputs, not outputs. In the access plans, we know that institutions have very clear and well worked out propositions for their outreach activities, the kind of financial information they are offering and the bursary schemes that some universities have already proposed. It will be about a recognition that they have done what they said they would.
If the institutions said that they would run summer schools, they will have run them. If they said that they would run outreach programmes, they will be able to show that they have. If they are offering bursaries, they will be able to demonstrate that they have done so. It is a question of input, not output. It is very important to understand that that is what the Director of Fair Access will be looking for.
We have said in our draft guidance that an institution's failure to meet milestones should not, in itself, be grounds for any sanction. It is right that the director must make fair and reasonable decisions and must justify them. This is a general point of law and whether or not we write the amendment into the Bill, these are basic principles that cover any administrative decision. Were the director to ignore these wilfully, I believe that any application for judicial review of his decision would be bound to succeed.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I am most grateful to the Minister. Surely she is not arguing that it would be a legitimate use of scarce funds which are provided for an educational purpose to embark upon a judicial review in order to resolve these matters. Would it not be more sensible to protect the interest by having an appeal procedure?
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I will come to the appeal process, but I will first finish my remarks about the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
I am keen to offer further assurances to your Lordships, but I am sorry to tell the noble Lord that there is a technical problem with the amendment. For example, it says that,
"an institution shall not be regarded as failing to comply with the requirement",
placed on it when, under the Bill, a sanction could be deployed only if it had already failed. With his long experience, the noble Lord will know that I cannot accept the amendment as it currently stands if there is a technical problem. I am sorry about that—actually, I am not sorry because that is just the way it is. However, I will discuss the matter with the noble Lord, take this away and look further into what I can do at Report. As I said to the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, I will make a Peer happy—perhaps a different Peer in this context.

1271
I will not go into any more detail on the matter. I hope that I have answered most of the queries about specifics. On that basis, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
On the issue of appeal, I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, for his comments on chapter 11 of the Constitution Committee's report. We thought very hard about whether to introduce an appeals process for decisions. On reflection, we decided that it would be counter-productive to introduce a procedure that was potentially costly, lengthy, complex and of doubtful value.
I want to set out some of the problems that we identified so that noble Lords can reflect on what I have said in this extremely helpful debate. I was genuinely grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, for tabling this amendment, which raises many questions that we pondered. As my noble friend said, we began by determining the grounds on which an appeal could be made and whether the panel suggested by the noble Lord—I appreciate that that is one idea, which I shall use as an example—should meet on an ad hoc basis or be a permanent body. We are not sure that we can be clear how the representatives would be chosen to ensure that they had the full support of those involved in the process—whether they can compel witnesses or produce documents or what evidence would be admissible in an appeal of this type.
There is also the question of who would pay the costs of establishing and running the body. It is certainly tempting to believe that a representative of the Secretary of State, a representative of Universities UK and a senior judge could make such important judgments. But again, I fear that the devil is in the detail. As my noble friend Lady Blackstone said, if she were the representative of Universities UK, even if she felt that she had to be collegiate in that sense, there are issues about whether that representative would be seen to be representing the institution's interests. I am not confident, especially in the light of comments made by noble Lords not only in debates on this Bill but more generally, that a nominee of the Secretary of' State would always be seen as wholly impartial. It would therefore be possible that the decision could come down to the voice of the senior judge. Were that the case, no real advantage seems to remain over the established process of judicial review.
Neither am I clear that the proposal would be any more economical or efficient than judicial review. I suspect, from the discussions we have had with institutions, that they would be as likely to hire legal representation before dealing with the appeals panel as they would for an application for judicial review. The cost may not be any less for an appeals procedure.
The question of who should pay for the services of the appeals panel or the administrative support that would inevitably underpin it would be identified in funding. It is possible that institutions would have to bear the cost. Again, that is the type of detail that we tried to wrestle with before we reached our conclusion.
The noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, mentioned a length of time judicial review would take. I appreciate that it is not easy to predict how long it might take.
1272
However, I am not sure that it is so easy to predict how long an appeals process would take. It is possible that it may not be either quicker or easier to convene such a panel than it would be to go through the judicial review process. We expect the occasions on which it would be convened would be few and far between, if it was ever called upon at all. Therefore, arranging such panels could take considerable time.
Independent appeals procedures are generally set up if the cases heard are likely to be very technical, or if a very large volume of cases is expected. Decisions of the director are extremely unlikely to be contested on technical grounds. As I said, we expect that if there were any at all, the volume would be minimal. If every higher education institution had an access plan, the total would be fewer than 150, and given the commitment—that we fully recognize—of most institutions to widening access, we do not expect the question of sanctions to arise in many cases. We believe that it is not the best use of resources to set up a bureaucratic structure to oversee such a potentially small number of cases. We went through all the practicalities. Judicial review is a well known, appropriate route of challenge. It could examine whether a director had correctly followed or abused procedure, whether the decision was irrational or unreasonable, or whether the director exceeded his power.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean: I apologise for interrupting the Minister again, but I would like her to help me. She is arguing that judicial review would not be more costly. How much would a judicial review of a decision by the regulator cost a higher education institution?
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I apologise to the noble Lord because that figure is usually in my head and it has gone completely. There are well known figures. It may appear as if by magic hut, if it does not, I will certainly write to the noble Lord. However, I asked the same question when I was briefed for this and I know that there is a figure for average costs, but it has gone—too many late nights. If the figure does not appear by magic, it will appear in the noble Lord's hand in some other way. The noble Lord's point is important. We looked at the comparative costing for setting up this procedure, on a regular basis or infrequently, and the cost of judicial review. We have considered the matter very carefully.
We also recognise that the decision of the appeal panel would be final, which would mean that the matter could not be taken to court. Therefore we also have to think about whether that is a challenge under the Human Rights Act or an infringement of Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which guarantees the right to a fair trial. We grappled with those issues and it may be that the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, in what I hope will be a conversation post-Report can help us with the thinking of the Constitution Committee because I am sure that it considered these issues.

1273
Those were the types of issue that we looked at. A balance was involved and we felt that judicial review was a better approach for all the reasons I have given. That is the basis on which the Government stand at the moment. However, I am interested in what has been said and conscious that I am not as familiar with what the Constitution Committee said, especially chapter 11, as I would like to be. I will not make any commitment, because I am not in a position to do so, but I want to reflect on this debate. I will read chapter 11 with care and make sure that we have fed that information into our deliberations. I hope that I have given a flavour of the considerations that we had given and that noble Lords will feel reassured that we thought about the matter carefully. We believe that judicial review is the correct response.
I will obtain a figure for average costs. Quite rightly, I have been told that there are a variety of different answers to the noble Lord's question. I will try to do better and I apologise again. Those are our considerations and deliberations in thinking the matter through. On the basis that I would think about what we have said, I hope that noble Lords will feel able to withdraw their amendment and that we can continue the conversation both in and outside your Lordships' House.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: I thank the Minister for that reply. She has indeed made me a happy Peer. I am shamefaced that an amendment that was the product of two heads of the Civil Service and a professor of moral and political philosophy at the University of Cambridge did not pass technical muster. However, I know that parliamentary counsel trumps everything. I will be glad to discuss the matter further with the Minister. I am also extremely grateful to all the noble Lords who have taken part and supported the amendment, especially the noble Lord, Lord Brooke, for the divine benediction that he conferred upon it. I had hoped for the support of the Government but I had not hoped for the support of an even higher authority.
The only thing that makes me unhappy is that I have not been able to be entirely in agreement with the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I really do not think that it is true, certainly speaking for my university and other universities that I know, that universities are approaching this subject in a defensive spirit. On the contrary, everybody I know is very anxious that we should make progress in drawing in youngsters of ability from every background and getting a wider range of applications. I do not think that the noble Baroness need fear on those grounds.
When she asks what the director is to look at, the answer is that director will look at those matters that the universities are required to include in their agreement. The agreement is about the steps that they will take to provide fair access and that is what the director can look at. It really cannot be the case that the director should look at outputs because one cannot say, in the same breath, that universities will have academic freedom about admissions processes
1274
but that they will be acceptable only if they have a pre-ordained result. I cannot be so. It would be entirely inconsistent with the assurances that the Government have given if the power to penalise turned on whether a particular pre-ordained result had been achieved.
The noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy, is quite right that even with the director looking at input, he reaches a subjective judgment. That may well be an objection to the position of the director at all. The debate has shown that, if the director is to make a subjective judgment that can involve substantial penalties for universities, that should be constrained on the face of the Bill in the way that my amendment is designed to do. I also support the amendment in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Sutherland, that there should also be a proper appeals machinery. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood: My Lords—
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Turner of Camden): The amendments are called in seriatim.
[Amendments Nos. 100 to 102 not moved.].
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe moved Amendment No. 102A:
Page 16, line 27, at end insert—
"( ) No plan is to be enforced against the relevant institution except as provided for in this section."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 102A I should make it clear that it, and Amendment No. 103A, are probing amendments at this stage. My concern is that institutions ought not to be exposed to additional litigation because of the existence of plans. I am concerned that individual litigants may challenge institutions' compliance with their plans. It seems clear that plans are intended to deal with the efforts of an institution to widen participation generally and are not intended to apply to individual cases.
Noble Lords will be aware that every year there are stories in the press about individual candidates who have not received an offer of a place from his or her first choice of institution. Often these individuals are highly qualified. Often the press stories focus on the background of the individual in question, whether because his background is relatively deprived, or because, for example, he was educated at public school. The cry of "foul" is raised because it seems to the commentators that the student has been discriminated against because of his background. Of course, newspaper journalists are not admissions tutors and we all know that some institutions have to reject literally thousands of highly qualified candidates because places are in such demand.
I am seeking to avoid a situation whereby a student or a potential student could challenge an institution's compliance with its plan on the basis of his or her individual experience. The Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education, Alan Johnson,

1275
was helpful on this point in another place, but I hope the Minister can confirm that individuals, whether students, prospective students or persons entirely unconnected with the university, will not be able to take that university to court for failing to comply with the terms of its plan. I beg to move.
7.45 p.m.
Lord Triesman: The noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, raises an interesting issue. I share the concern that she has expressed that the creation of a regulator might generate lawsuits against institutions perceived to have breached their plans. However, I hope that she will feel that she does not need to worry. Some reassurances can be offered.
I know that most institutions are firmly committed to widening participation and expect that they will implement their plans in a very positive way—noble Lords on all sides of the House have made this point. As the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, reminded us, quite rightly, when we last debated the Bill, vice chancellors are a law-abiding group of people. Indeed, in my experience, they are probably peerless in their willingness to abide by the law. Let me remind your Lordships that these plans are the institution's own, containing the measures that it feels is right for it, within the framework provided by regulations.
If the terms of a plan were breached, the director would be obliged by our regulations to allow an institution the opportunity to put its case before any sanction might be imposed. The Bill provides that, if there were a breach of the plan, access plans in England may be enforced by the director instructing the Higher Education Funding Council for England and/or the Teacher Training Agency to impose a financial sanction on an institution and/or by the director refusing to renew an institution's access plan. These are the only sanctions that the director can apply if institutions breach their access plans. The director will have to comply with provisions contained in regulations about enforcing plans.
Let us focus on the point raised by my noble friend Lady Warwick about students taking action against institutions. Let me make clear, as my right honourable friend the Minister for Lifelong Learning, Further and Higher Education made clear in another place, that the access plan itself, while considerably beneficial to students and being a public document, does not give students, or prospective students, additional legal rights. Enforcing the plan is a matter between the director and the institutions themselves. For those reasons, I confirm my right honourable friend Alan Johnson's position, as I have been asked to do.
I want to reassure noble Lords that the Bill does not disadvantage institutions compared to the current system. Institutions will not be sanctioned twice for the same offence, which I know is a concern for some noble Lords. If, for example, an institution stated in its plan that it would charge £2,000 for a particular course, and then charged £3,000, the director could sanction the institution, resulting in the institution paying back to the students the £1,000 they had each been overcharged. If a student then
1276
took the institution to court, the court could not make the institution pay the student again because restitution would already have occurred and the institution could not be penalised twice.
I very much appreciate and understand the need for clarity and transparency in describing how plans will be enforced by the Director of Fair Access in England and by the designated authority in Wales. I believe that the clarity that my noble friend is seeking is provided by the Bill and by the draft regulations, which make it clear that the that process that would be applied if sanctions were ever to be needed will be precisely as I have described it.
I hope that that reassures the Committee and my noble friend Lady Warwick that no sanctions are provided by the Bill and no additional rights arc created by it, except those that it explicitly sets out. I hope that, on that basis, she will feel that she can confidently withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: I thank my noble friend for that helpful and comprehensive reply. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 35 agreed to.
Lord Sutherland of Houndwood Lord Sutherland of Houndwood had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 103:
After Clause 35, insert the following new clause—
"RIGHT OF APPEAL.
(1) There will be a right of appeal against the decision of the Director of Fair Access to Higher Education.
(2) The appeal and any supporting evidence must be submitted within twelve weeks of notification of the governing body.
(3) The appeal will be heard by a panel of three, one nominated by the Secretary of State, one by Universities UK. and the, third will be a senior judge.
(4) The decision of the panel, which may be by majority, and which should be delivered within twelve weeks of the receipt of the appeal, will be final."
The noble Lord said: The matter has clearly been debated fully. I appreciate the comments of noble Lords who spoke in the debate, and I appreciate their interest in the issues, which I still think are fundamental, and particularly the points raised by my noble friend Lord MacGregor.
I thank the Minister for her detailed account of the difficulties. I realised that there were practical problems, which is why I started by saying that there is an issue here of principle. There are a whole series of practical issues about how one might implement that principle. I do not think I have yet been persuaded that the principle is wrong, which means that one begins to look further at the practicalities of how one might deal with the quite legitimate questions put to the House by the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton.
I think, however, that we need to remember why amendments like this are here. They are here because there is a real concern about the powers of the director of OFFA; that is not necessarily to imply a maliciousness or impropriety, but Homer did nod. In that situation, room to come back and ask the question again is very

1277
important. Concerns have grown and have been shown in Amendments Nos. 99A and 103; but they have also been shown in the rather more nuclear option, which may well come back, to ask about the overall powers of the director of OFFA, particularly in relation to Clause 34 and thereafter.
I listened with great interest to the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I am well aware that she is a former Minister of higher education. It strengthened my wish to reconsider and perhaps come back with a redrafted amendment.
[Amendment No. 103 not moved.]
Clause 36 [Enforcement of plans: Wales]:
[Amendment No. 103A not moved.]
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 [Provision of information]:
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn moved Amendment No. 103B:
Page 17, line 15, at end insert—
"(3) The Director shall publish electronically and make available to the Head Teacher or Principal of every secondary school and sixth form college in the United Kingdom information concerning any plan as specified in section 31 which has been approved by the relevant authority in relation to each qualifying course at every higher education institution in England and Wales.
(4) The Director shall ensure that the information published electronically and made available to Head Teachers under subsection (3) above pertaining to each such qualifying course is accompanied by supplementary information concerning the number of students currently undertaking undergraduate or postgraduate instruction or research in the department or school where the qualifying course is taught, as well as details of any recent Teaching Quality Assessment of the undergraduate teaching provided in that department or school and of the most recent grading assigned to that department or school in the Research Assessment Exercise.
(5) The Director shall seek information from the Head Teacher or Principal of every secondary school and sixth form college in the United Kingdom concerning the number of students in the school or college who have made application for admission to undergraduate courses to one or more higher education institutions in England or Wales, and concerning the number of such applications made by prospective students in the school who are members of groups which are currently under represented in higher education.
(6) The Director shall include in a report published annually as prescribed in Schedule 5 a section which indicates the extent to which secondary schools and sixth form colleges in the United Kingdom have furthered the promotion of higher education and the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access by encouraging prospective students including those who are members of groups currently under represented in higher education to make application for admission to institutions of higher education, and specifically in encouraging such prospective students to make application for courses for which qualifying fees as defined in section 23 are payable."
The noble Lord said: As I have listened to the Committee stage of the Bill, and as I read in Hansard the report of last Monday's debates, which I could not attend, I have come to feel that the provisions for access in the Bill, complex and extensive though they are, lack a key ingredient. They give no explicit attention to the situation in the schools and the sixth form colleges from which prospective students apply to the universities of their choice. Indeed, they give no
1278
coherent attention to the factors which guide those prospective students in their choice of university—nor, crucially, to the factors which lead pupils in those schools to choose whether to apply for university at all.
Through what seems a kind of myopia of the Government, the question of access is considered only in terms of university departments and courses. Yet every admissions officer in a university or college knows that what counts are the applications. You can admit only those who choose to apply. Most of the imbalances in the intake to our higher education system derive from this factor. Yet it is one which the Bill does little to address. Although it was discussed last Monday, there was a newspaper heading, "Universities snub students", where the discussion revealed that it was the students, by their choice of university in some cases, that were snubbing the universities.
These amendments seek, in a rather minimal way, to embrace the schools and sixth form colleges within the admissions process, where they clearly belong. Indeed, the underlying intention is to involve the pupils themselves in that process. Why are the Director of Fair Access and the universities in this Bill spending all their time in discussion together about "plans" when they should be seeking different ways of encouraging applications from under-represented groups, among others? Why are university departments being judged on their plans and application record when the application record of the schools is being overlooked?
These amendments are very simple in their intention. In essence they require the director to do two things. The first is to set up a good website which will be available to schools. I refer in the amendment to head teachers, but I have in mind also teachers encouraging applications to university, and careers mistresses and masters, and the pupils themselves and their families. That is where all these plans and inducements should be made known, not in some subsequent report to Parliament which the director may be required to offer.
Secondly, I address the question of statistics, which was indeed briefly discussed last week in your Lordships' House. If the director is interested in the success of his access initiatives, he must find out about their reception in the schools. I would like to see schools judged not only on the number of university admissions they achieve, but also on the number of applications they achieve. If we begin to measure the success of the enterprise by the increase in applications made by pupils at schools to the universities, then we are measuring something not adequately addressed in the Bill.
In subsection (4), I suggest that in addition to putting forth the fruits of his labours on the website—that is, the plans—the director should also include the only criteria that we have that really give information about the departments and courses and their qualities in a meaningful way. First we need to see the number of undergraduates and graduate students in the department, since in general there is a correlation between departments which are good at research and those which are good at teaching. Then we need to see the teaching quality assessments, so laboriously gathered, and the research assessment gradings. Those

1279
are data which prospective students need to encourage them to think about prospective departments in an informed way.
Let no one suggest to me that this represents any significant expense. A single competent webmaster could set this information on to the website. As soon as plans are agreed, they can go on the site. Where plans are under discussion, the webmaster can look up the TQAs and the RAEs which are already publicly available. We are talking here about one member of the director's staff.
However, subsection (5) is the more important. It will entail a member of the director's staff sending out a questionnaire to schools to seek information about their applications. Subsection (6) requires the director to publish the information gathered. In this subsection I use the Government's own terminology in the Bill—prospective students who are members of groups which arc currently under-represented in higher education. I think that it is up to the Government to clarify what they might mean by that.
One clement is clearly parental income. No doubt, as indicated earlier and last Monday, there are privacy and data protection issues to be addressed here. But if they have not been fully thought out by now, they should have been. For how can universities give consideration to these concepts, with which I am broadly in sympathy, if they do not know exactly what concepts are intended? That may be for the director to define; it is certainly not my responsibility in tabling an amendment. But I do draw attention to the circumstance that we need to see how many school pupils in these groups and what proportion are making application to university. I do not think that there is any way of knowing that unless the information is gathered. That is why, in subsection (6), I use the terminology of the Bill to speak of,
"the promotion of higher education and the promotion of equality of opportunity in connection with access".
This amendment is intended as a suggestion. I hope that the Minister will see the force of the point being made. I should be very happy to revise the amendment in the light of the Minister's advice. But many noble Lords who have spoken have recognised that the key to access lies in the schools, and not only in the application process and the process of choice, but in the teaching itself.
I think we owe it to the potential success of this Bill to ensure that access questions are not left to the universities and to the director. They belong also in the schools, and in the guidance offered by teachers—who need to be fully informed—and above all in the sentiments and developing choices of the prospective students themselves; that is to say, the pupils in school. I beg to move.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: The noble Lord will not be surprised to hear that I recognise how important it is that schools and colleges have access to the information their students will need in order to make the right choices in higher education, and that schools and colleges need to play their part in raising the aspirations of their
1280
students so that they might make the most of their potential. As the noble Lord, Lord Renfrew, said, we had a good discussion on this. I remember the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, who is not in his place, talking specifically about the role of aspirational head teachers and teachers in ensuring that students prepare themselves for university life. This is not a case of "either/or" but of "both/and". I will go through the noble Lord's proposals to demonstrate what we are already doing in terms of the role of schools and explain why I do not believe that this amendment is the right way forward.
We have always said that the key to raising participation is raising aspirations and attainment. The 14–19 strategy, which is familiar to your Lordships, through the gifted and talented programme, the Connexions service and Aimhigher, is concerned with forging partnerships between schools, colleges and universities to raise the aspirations of young people.
I accept that the Government need to play a role, and schools and colleges must do so too. Universities also have a role to play. That is what the Bill is about. It is always difficult, when we focus on legislation, not to think that it covers everything that we are trying to do. Of course it is not, and beyond the scope of the Bill there is much work going on regarding schools and sixth-form colleges. I do not think that it would be right for the director to become additionally responsible for what schools and sixth-form colleges do or do not do.
8 p.m.
Turning to the specifics of the amendment, the noble Lord wants the director to make available the plans that have been approved by the relevant authority. I assure noble Lords that all plans will be published. We want institutions to publish their plans in a manner that makes them accessible to students and prospective students; and, therefore, they will be available to head teachers and principles and—I agree with the noble Lord—lmost certainly on a website.
We expect that the director will publish the plans that have been approved, and, although it is early days, we imagine that the director would put that information on a website. I do not believe that it is necessary to legislate for that, but we see a website as being an obvious way for people to gain information.
Subsection (4) of the amendment seeks to ensure that those details are accompanied by supplementary information on student numbers, undergraduates and post-graduates being taught and undertaking research. I agree that prospective students, and the schools and colleges they attend, should have access to information about higher education providers so that they can make those choices. It is important for them to see, if they wish, what assessment has been made of teaching or research at an institution. I assure the noble Lord that measures are already being taken to make information available to prospective students and their schools and colleges.
For example, UCAST mails every school with sixth-forms, or equivalent students with information about the application process, open days and so on. UCAST has

1281
decided in principle to have a web-based information service for schools—UCAST Plus—which will provide all kinds of information tailored for schools about higher education and the applications process. Furthermore, Aimhigher provides information about what and where to study, how to apply, what it will cost and so on. And the National Union of Students is developing an easy to use guide about higher education for prospective students to help them navigate their way through the information available.
Regarding information on teaching quality—we, HEFC and the higher education sector are moving towards the quality assurance framework and by the end of this year the first full set of information should be available on the teaching quality information website. That will include information on entry qualifications, progression, completion and employment after graduation, as well as teaching and learning methods and intended learning outcomes. Information on the outcome of the research assessment exercise is available on the HEFC website.
I agree wholeheartedly with the noble Lord that information should be available. However, I believe, from that foray into the different kinds of information available, that we are taking the right steps—and that the information is available in the way that the noble Lord requires. I am very reluctant to place a duty on the director to provide that information. It is important to keep his role focused and clear. Others are able to take on the role of providing information; they are doing so and will do so in future.
Subsection (5) would require the director to seek information from head teachers and principles of secondary schools and sixth-form colleges about the number of students applying for higher education courses, I would urge great caution in this matter. We are seeking to keep bureaucracy in higher education to a minimum and also seeking to reduce it for schools. That is a matter on which the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, has taken me to task many times. It is important that we are careful about what we ask of schools, not least in the area of data collection. Therefore, I do not think that we should include this duty for the director in the Bill. Schools would not want that.
I note that the amendment places a requirement on the director to seek information but does not place a corresponding requirement to provide it on head teachers and principals. Information on the numbers applying to higher education is already collected by UCAST, broken down by school and education authority. That information would be available to the director.
Subsection (6) puts a requirement to include in the annual report an assessment of the performance of schools and colleges in encouraging applications. Again, it is not appropriate for the director to have a role in assessing the school's performance. There is an inspection framework for schools that is known well to noble Lords through Ofsted. Inspectors are required to report on a range of matters and raising aspirations generally is an integral element of the framework. I
1282
doubt very much that schools, or, indeed, Ofsted, would welcome the director taking on a specific role regarding school performance.
I agree that supportive, inspirational teaching is integral to raising aspirations. The Aimhigher road show, which has teachers' packs, has been widely used and highly regarded. Teachers also play a role in the joint planning of aspiration-raising activities, such as study days and visits to institutions, working with universities. We have piloted the Excellent Fellowship Awards, where teachers from schools and colleges have been given the opportunity to spend time in an institution to increase their knowledge and awareness of higher education, which is also important if they are to pass on those messages to students.
I understand this undoubtedly well-intentioned amendment. Schools and colleges are important, but, in the context of the Bill, the director's role is in respect of higher education institutions, which can play their role, as we have discussed in Committee, to ensure that they work with sixth-form colleges and schools. It would not be appropriate to extend to role of the director to schools.
There is much work currently being carried out. The amount of information that is available largely addresses the concerns that the noble Lord has expressed. I do not wish to place additional burdens either on the director or on schools and colleges. I hope that, with the reassurances that I have given the noble Lord, he will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the Minister for her careful reply, although in one part of it she rather misrepresented my amendment, when she said that she did not feel that the director should,
"become additionally responsible for what schools and sixth-form colleges do or do not do".
That was never my suggestion.
Regarding the first part of the amendment and the suggestion that information on plans should be made available to the schools by the director on a website, the Minister has very much reassured me by saying that that is likely to happen.
It seems to me that, as the Minister described the richesse of websites available to schools—they will need to look at the UCAS website, the NUS guide, the TQA information website and the HEFCE website to get the research assessment information—I wonder if there is not a case for making this information available to schools in a more coherent and simple way. It may be that the director is not the best person to do so, but should students have to hunt up five websites—the ones which the Minister iterated—to get rather basic information?
On the other much more substantial point, I realise that it may be an onerous obligation on the director to communicate with all schools, and for the schools to be expected to communicate with him or her. That may indeed not be the best way to do it, but, as far as I can see, no attention has been given in the Bill to monitoring the success of the enterprise. Earlier we discussed monitoring the success of whether individual

1283
university courses are succeeding in attracting applications of a particular mix or not—that was very fully discussed in the context of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. But we have given very little consideration to monitoring the success of the enterprise in encouraging more applications from schools.
The noble Baroness said, no doubt rightly, that UCAS has some record of that, but that leads us to the very delicate question of monitoring applications from groups under-represented in higher education. Is there any provision for monitoring applications specifically from such pupils? I realise how difficult that is—as was discussed last Monday. How do you manage to get that information without breaking through the privacy which students and their families may reasonably require? But if you are not monitoring the success of encouraging applications to specific courses under the plans, you are not getting the necessary information. I would be grateful if the Minister would say a word about that before I withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I was trying to indicate that UCAS does have information on, for example, individual schools in applications. That will give us some information on areas where there is a change in the number of students who apply, and areas, for example, where traditionally students have not applied to institutions. Looking at under-representation is an imperfect science. We have overall figures and some details of the number applying to universities. I will set that out properly for the noble Lord to show the different ways we are able to look at that.
Institutions themselves also have information. As the noble Lord, Lord Wilson of Dinton, said, applications to Cambridge were 1 per cent in the north-east. Institutions are well aware geographically and otherwise, but I will set that out properly in order to address the noble Lord's concerns.
Lord Renfrew of Kaimsthorn: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I look forward to that further information.
In finishing, I would like to emphasise that the Bill explicitly requires university departments to get a better mix of groups which are under-represented in higher education. That is a very worthy objective, but, as far as I can see—and the Minister when she writes to me will perhaps be able to set my mind at rest—there is no initiative to see how that is working in schools. The Minister said that one can see whether an individual school is making more applications—that will come up. There may be some individual schools with a very high frequency of students who are from low-income family backgrounds, or even from a particular ethnic group which might also be a group under-represented in higher education. But unless that is effectively monitored—and I am not sure that it is something that the universities themselves can monitor—I have no idea how at the end of the day we
1284
shall have any clear indication of the success or failure of the enterprise in encouraging applications in schools.
In withdrawing my amendment, I highlight a problem that has not been addressed adequately in our debates on the Bill. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 36 agreed to.
Clause 37 agreed to.
Clause 38 [Interpretation of Part 3]:
[Amendments Nos. 104 to 106 not moved.]
Clause 38 agreed to.
Clause 39 agreed to.
8.15 p.m.
Clause 40 [Other amendments of section 22 of Teaching and Higher Education Act 1998]:
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market moved Amendment No. 106A:
Page 18, line 45, at end insert—
"(1) In subsection (1) after "eligible students" insert "(including British citizens resident in other EU member states)"."
The noble Lord said: The issue I wish to raise in this amendment was last raised in this House by the late Lady Young on 15 November 1999, but things have moved on a bit since then and I want to press the case again. I am glad that Clause 40 gives me the opportunity to do so.
I say straight away that the amendment may be technically defective. In fact, given that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, with all his experience, discovered that his amendment was technically defective, I am absolutely certain that this one is. However, it is the substance that I want to probe. I realise that the hour is late but I must make the case properly.
I speak as an honorary vice-president of COBISEC; a position that I took on recently. COBISEC is the organisation that brings together the 40 British schools in the European Union as well as schools outside the EU, but it is schools in the EU with which I am concerned tonight. In those 40 schools there are more than 12,000 pupils. They feel very strongly on this issue, as has been made clear to me on various occasions since I have taken an interest in the organisation. All these British schools follow the British curriculum. That curriculum is taught in English by appropriately qualified teachers. The COBISEC schools may join the UK teachers' pension scheme. COBISEC teachers are eligible to qualify as Ofsted inspectors.
The Independent Schools Inspectorate, which is recognised by the Department for Education and Skills and Ofsted as operating in independent schools in the UK, operates also in the COBISEC schools. So in many ways they are British schools in all but location. A large number of parents and pupils are British citizens for obvious reasons but there are many other nationalities as well because of the high regard in which British education is held.
I would have talked about the valuable contribution that these schools make both in propagating British education in the EU and in providing an educational service for parents with families who have to work in the EU, but in view of the hour I shall not develop that and come straight to the substance of the issues.
Clearly, a significant number of the British citizen pupils in these schools want to go on to higher education and naturally many of them wish to go to British universities. The problem is that many find that, unlike all other British pupils, they are ineligible for student loans. I want to take the arguments for and against very quickly. I could go on at length but I shall speak very briefly as I am particularly interested in the Minister's response.
The first point I want to make is that all successful EU applicants to British universities from the EU—both British citizens and others—are now eligible for tuition fees. Indeed, we debated that aspect earlier in Committee. However, student maintenance is regarded as a matter for each individual country. This leads to what to me seems to be a highly anomalous situation—that British citizens are liable for all the tuition fee elements that we are discussing in this Bill but cannot apply for student loans. That is the position in general. It seems to me now, with the further progress on tuition fees, that that situation is anomalous.
Secondly, one of the reasons that they so often cannot get student loans is the application of the three-year residency rule, which has applied to student loans for a considerable period. It always has therefore been the case that a student wanting to take out a student loan and applying to a British university has had to be resident in the UK for the previous three years. But now in this age of high international job mobility, which is regarded by so many as a good thing, is it any longer appropriate to apply that very tight three-year residency rule? I rather doubt it.
That leads me to my third point. Local education authorities may now decide whether individual applicants are eligible under the three-year residency rule for student loans. I am sure that the Minister will say that the department now gives guidance on the three-year residency rule. I am sure that will be part of her answer. But it is still at the discretion of the local education authority. I am told that the regulations are applied haphazardly and inconsistently by local education authorities. Is it fair that even where they come within the application of the three-year residency rule some may be eligible for student loans but others not?
The fourth point is that from the year 2000–01 Armed Forces parents and pupils are exempted from the residency rule because, so it is argued, they are obliged to take up overseas posts. The noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone, who responded as Minister to the relevant debate in 1999, said that,
"the families of the vast majority of British students being educated abroad choose to live and work abroad".—[Official Report, 15/12/99; col. 298.]
I believe that is no longer correct, but I do not think that it is relevant because the real point is that, given career patterns nowadays, many people who want to play a significant part in their companies find it advantageous—indeed, they may often be required—to work abroad for a considerable period. Given that British companies have to compete globally, and that multinational companies are increasing that pattern for so many people who go into business, commerce or finance, it seems to me that from the point of view of the British economy it is highly desirable that they should do so. It is just as desirable in many cases as people in the Armed Forces operating in overseas posts. I do not see that distinction in the black and white way in which it was put by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. Frankly, it does not seem to be a good reason for excluding the children of British citizens who are working in multinational or American companies abroad. It is no longer possible for many people going into overseas positions to confine themselves to two or three years there. I have, in the last few weeks, met a number of American and British executives who thought they were going abroad for only two to three years, and have stayed there for eight years because their companies wanted them to. So it is an artificial rule to apply.
The fourth point is that it will no doubt be argued that so many of the people who work in the companies are reasonably well paid that their children do not need the student loans. I do not think that is true for so many of the pupils we are talking about.
I take two cases. The teachers in the British schools, who may well have children and are obviously going to be there for more than three years and who want their children to go to university, are not often highly paid. Student loans would be very attractive to their sons and daughters. A particular case was put to me about two weeks ago from the diocese in Europe of the Church of England—I am making this case to show that there arc many people on comparatively low incomes who are caught by this. The diocese in Europe would like to appoint chaplains with families to a number of their chaplaincies within the EU, but educational issues are one of the factors which inhibit the chaplains with school-age children from applying, given that the standard chaplain's stipend is comparatively low. Within this general problem, I understand, there is the specific one that when those chaplains find that their children are coming to the age of university entrance, they discover that they are ineligible for the student loans. This obviously works back through the grapevine, and everyone knows that this is a disadvantage in taking up a job as a chaplain. The bishop who drew this to my attention concluded that, although this is numerically a very small number of people, it certainly affects the ability of the diocese to appoint younger chaplains and those whose families can be a real enhancement to the life of the chaplaincy. It is an issue which is comparatively small, but it seems unfair and is inhibiting people from taking up these jobs.
The fifth argument is one of cost. I speak, as the Minister knows, as a former Chief Secretary. I am sure there is something in the brief—if there has been time to

1287
put it together—that says, "The cost is going to be such and-such, and we cannot really afford it". Well, I have been trying to find out how many pupils are likely to be involved in this each year. The British School in the Netherlands is by far the largest, and almost certainly sends the largest number of British students to UK universities. In 2003, it sent 57 students. The guess is that we are talking of between 600 and 700 students—it may even be fewer than that—in any given year. It is not a huge number, and therefore the costs cannot be particularly high. It seems unfair to exclude them, for all the reasons I have given.
The final argument is the legal argument that we are inhibited by EU legislation. On this point, I am advised that there is no requirement to be nondiscriminatory in regard to educational facilities which the British Government might choose to provide to UK nationals residing in other EU countries. I do not want to get into the legal argument tonight, because it is very detailed and technical, but I would certainly be happy to talk to the Minister about this further if that is regarded as one of the biggest obstacles to accepting this amendment.
For all these reasons, I conclude that it is now unfair to exclude British pupils from these British schools from eligibility for student loans; that it is unfair to depend on the whims of local education authorities; and that they should be eligible to apply for student loans through a central unit. I beg to move.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: I shall seek to be as telegraphic as my noble friend. For 15 years I was a director of a British school in Switzerland called Ecole St George, founded in 1927 by my godmother, for British families of the League of Nations. We lived through exactly the sort of problems my noble friend Lord MacGregor has been describing, even in those days. I lived in Brussels for two years in the early 70s. I can again comment, even back then, in terms of what my noble friend has said. The staff of the continental headquarters of multinational companies were either from small countries—they all spoke a multitude of languages—or, among those from the larger countries, the only executives who were brought in tended to be from this country. I suppose this is because of our maritime and imperial past, and the habit of living and working outside our own country.
I was not the Minister for Higher Education who introduced full-cost fees for overseas students, but I was effectively the Minister who had to cope with the fallout. I mention in passing that the Commonwealth Education Ministers' conference, which lasted a week, was a rerun of the Battle of Rorke's Drift. I warn the Minister, as the person who had to cope with the consequences, that any Higher Education Minister in a Government that does not pay attention to what my noble friend has said will find themselves having to cope with an enormous amount of subsequent correspondence from families through their Member of Parliament in the United Kingdom. That is exactly what I went through myself.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: In this amendment, the noble Lord, Lord MacGregor, has clearly raised an
1288
important point, and I have done my best to be well briefed. I think the most helpful thing I can do is to go through, with relative speed in view of the hour, the critical points that I have here, and then the noble Lord and I can perhaps have a conversation when he has had a chance to reflect on them. I may be able to address quite a number of the points that he has raised. It is, as the noble Lord has indicated, quite complex and I do not want to do him an injustice. I shall do this briefly.
The noble Lord made the point that it is about residence rather than nationality, which has been the principle of successive governments. Where citizens with settled status meet the residence requirements for the UK, and are on a designated course, they are eligible for a full student support package including maintenance. This is a consequence, as the noble Lord will know, of the 1958 Anderson report, which gave the foundation enshrined in three principles. First, a student should be ordinarily resident. Secondly, they should not have been ordinarily resident solely for the purposes of receiving education. Thirdly, there should be some provision to cover temporary absence from the country. The same principles apply today.
We think the three-year residence requirement introduced in the 1962 Act is a fair minimum requirement, with an exception made where the condition cannot be satisfied because the applicant, or their parents, has been temporarily absent or employed abroad. British nationals may meet the temporary absence provisions dependent on their individual circumstances. EU nationals, including British citizens living in the EU and studying in the UK, are entitled to the same level of support towards their tuition fees as UK residents, provided they have resided in the European economic area or Switzerland throughout the relevant three-year period. Students anywhere in the EU are entitled to this tuition fee support in the country in which they live, but not—as the noble Lord indicated—to support for living costs. As he also indicated, there are exceptions for Armed Forces personnel and their families serving abroad. They are bound by military law to accept overseas postings, and so rightly receive
the full package.
The vast majority of British nationals who choose to live and work abroad do so of their own volition, and the noble Lord talked about the issues around that. Where this is short-term, the temporary absence provision will meet their needs and they will be eligible for student support. Where they have effectively emigrated to other countries within the EU, it is right to treat them in the same way as we treat other EU nationals. The current rules are long-standing and clear cut. Where a British national can show their absence abroad has been temporary, they will be entitled to maintenance support under current arrangements. I think that covers the point the noble Lord made about those who go away for a particular time and it is extended. That could still be argued as temporary, as I understand it. The difference is for those who have moved on a clearly permanent basis.
I want to read into the record a particular point about the status of migrant workers because, as I said, it is complex. There are a number of carefully defined

1289
exceptions where a student may receive support without satisfying the normal UK residence requirements. In order to comply with European Union legislation to ensure the free movement of workers, European economic area and Swiss nationals who are migrant workers in the UK are generally eligible for support on the same basis as UK students. They are required to have been ordinarily resident in the European economic area or Switzerland for the three years immediately preceding the start of their course. Their spouses, children and stepchildren are also eligible for support if they live with the migrant worker in the UK. This provision also applies to UK nationals and their spouses, children and stepchildren who have been working elsewhere in the European economic area or Switzerland and have returned to take up employment in the UK.
These issues require further discussion with the noble Lord. I have more briefing, which I am inclined to give to the noble Lord rather than spend another 20 minutes reading it out on the Floor of the House, which I do not believe would achieve very much. As I indicated, we stick with the principle concerning residency. But, in view of what I have said already and what I shall write to the noble Lord, I hope that he will be able to withdraw the amendment and continue the discussion.
8.30 p.m.
Lord MacGregor of Pulham Market: I recognise that this is a truncated debate because of the lateness of the hour, and I understand why the Minister did not feel that she could respond to all the points that I made. However, I look forward to discussing them with her because I think that very legitimate issues are involved here. Given how much conditions of employment have changed around the world, there are relevant issues here to explore. I am grateful to the noble Baroness for the way in which she set out her response. I look forward to discussing these issues with her and, on that basis, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 40 agreed to.
Baroness Greengross Baroness Greengross moved Amendment No. 107:
After Clause 40. insert the following new clause—
"ACCESS TO STUDENT LOANS
The age of a student may not be included in regulations as an eligibility criterion for access to student loans."
The noble Baroness said: With this amendment, our debate focuses on older people. The new clause has a very simple aim: to stop age being a criterion for access to student loans.
As the Minister knows, the amendment is designed to see whether she can make any further improvements to the Bill to benefit the more mature student. She has been very gracious in discussing with me the difficulties of achieving genuine lifelong training and education, but my view remains that those difficulties are not nearly as great as those faced by the older students themselves.
We touched on some of the issues affecting older learners in our debate on part-time students, and I very much welcome the improvements which benefit them. However, my view is that it would be better to put part-time students, many of whom are older, on a simple pro rata basis for all terms, conditions and benefits associated with education. Equal treatment should also apply to older students. Indeed, the Economic Affairs Select Committee of your Lordships' House, chaired by the noble Lord. Lord Peston, recently concluded that student loans are "blatantly ageist", and I have to say that I agree.
While the focus of the Bill is rightly on younger people's access to education, we must not forget older people altogether. The target to achieve by 2010 a 50 per cent participation level in higher education for people under the age of 30 may mean that wider access to higher education for older people will be neglected. The negative impact of what NIACE called a "Club 18–30" education policy is very marked—indeed, most marked—for people who just happen to be 54 or over. Despite years of paying taxes, they are the ones who are denied access to student loans. That is what the amendment is designed to tackle.
We live—noble Lords are probably tired of my saying this—in a changing society because of rising longevity and falling birth rates, and our education system needs to recognise that. Already almost 1 million people in the UK need, or choose, to work beyond the traditional retirement age and their numbers will increase further. In an ageing society where older people continue to contribute their skills and knowledge to their communities long after retirement, the current position is not only unjust but it is very hard to justify in economic terms.
The Minister deserves credit for proposing age-blind support systems for part-time students, but why cannot those be extended to older learners who wish to study full-time? Older learners are not a tiny minority, but I think that the number who might seek state support to study is likely to be relatively small. NIACE, to which I am very grateful for the information it has given me, tells me that in 2001–02 more than 125,000 full-time students were over the age of 21. That is 29 per cent of all full-time higher education students. Unsurprisingly, 90 per cent of part-time students are over 21. That is a reflection of how education is not any longer the completion of a young person's initial education at the age of 21.
My new clause relates specifically to student loans. As your Lordships will know, the availability of loans was extended in 1999–2000 to students aged between 50 and 54, provided that they could satisfy local officials in writing that their intention was to seek paid employment after graduation. People of 55 and over remain ineligible.
The interpretation of the ruling is left to local authorities and there are no national data available on how uniformly it is interpreted, nor the number of applications that are received, accepted or rejected at this point. It is clear to me that such a rule is arbitrary, unenforceable, unworkable and above all ageist. Why aged 54? A person aged 55 today will on average live more than 25 years longer. That is plenty of time for them to repay a loan and indeed to embark on a new career.
I have to say that the DfES has been fixated on the age of 65 as the age at which a loan must be repaid. I hope that the Minister can explain that to the Committee. I can understand her concerns if the age constraints are removed: the fairness to other borrowers if funds are available to students who are not likely to be able to repay a significant part of the loan; or placing a financial burden on older students who are likely to have lower levels of income once they have retired.
But surely we can allow such older students to judge their own ability to repay a loan. At the end of the day, or even at the end of the student's life, could that loan he repaid from their estate as any other debt would be? NIACE states,
"Government arguments are circular. It does not have to write-off student loan debt at the age of 65. Relaxing the write-off makes economic sense for the state. If former students earned above the agreed income threshold, they would continue making payments. Those on low incomes would not pay anyway—regardless of their age".
Should we not also seek policy consistency? It is extraordinary that we talk about joined-up government when one department, the DWP, encourages older people of 65 and over to stay longer in the workforce while another, the DfES, says that anyone over 55 cannot access student loans because they will be retired at 65.
Despite what the Minister told me when I raised the issue at starred Questions on 1 March, I believe that the impact of the EU employment directive when it becomes law in this country will force a change. The Government will be challenged in court. It must be better for them to act now than to wait for that.
I conclude by quoting:
"We want to safeguard a wide range of learning opportunities for pensioners…While strengthening support for skills, training and qualifications which will support our wider economic goals, we want at the same time to ensure the continued availability of learning opportunities for pensioners which give so much benefit and pleasure".
Your Lordships may be surprised to learn that that comes from the DfES's 2003 skills strategy paper, 21st Century Skills: Realising our Potential. I hope that it means what it says. I beg to move.
Baroness Howe of Idlicote: I would very much like to support my noble friend's amendment. I will do so as briefly as possible, but I want to underline two or three points. We are an increasingly active ageing society in the best sense of the word. We have heard that 1 million people work beyond what is regarded as the current retirement age—which is disappearing rapidly—and that number is growing. It is obvious too that we shall have many problems with the EU directive on ageing. The report of the noble Lord, Lord Peston, has been mentioned. Sadly, we have not yet even debated it although it was published months ago.
We then come to the natural justice point. To exclude people on the basis of age from the benefits of a student loan is contrary to natural justice and to the concepts of lifelong learning. We simply cannot have a cut-off in that respect. Frankly, whether the individuals want to
1292
re-equip themselves for another career, take further employment or keep their own brains active for as long as possible, there are surely bottom line benefits for the Government. There will be more tax if such individuals return to work after a course. For those who take the route of enjoying a course just for their own benefits to fulfil their ambitions, that is likely to keep them out of hospital and therefore would save costs for the Government and the country as a whole.
For all those reasons, I hope that the Government will rethink the policy. It really does not make sense.
Lord Freyberg: I, too, support the amendment. In my view, lifelong learning should be upheld in practice as well as in principle. As with the youngest students, there are many of more mature years who would not be able to afford university study without the assistance of a preferential rate loan. However, people of more advanced age who put themselves forward and are accepted for a testing academic course are more than likely to be of unusual commitment and vigour. I know from my own experience that the advice and examples of mature students are a great asset to younger students who inevitably have a more limited outlook.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My name is attached to the amendment and I should like briefly to support those who have spoken in its favour. Some Members of the Committee may have received recently a pamphlet from an organisation which describes itself as LEAD, Lobby to End Age Discrimination. The pamphlet states that age is not a basis on which to judge a person's worth. It seems to me that that is true both of a person's intrinsic worth to society and of the assets that person may hold.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: I begin by paying tribute to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her incredible work, not least in promoting a culture of lifelong learning. I would be worried if noble Lords gained the impression from the contributions to the debate that somehow the Government are opposed to such learning opportunities. I could, but I will not, spend several minutes going through a range of ways in which the Government are keen to support all students of all ages.
We have referred to the fact that mature students are the main beneficiaries of the adult dependants' grant worth £2,280 and to the additional financial assistance that older students are able to get. I do not want noble Lords to go away thinking that there is not a raft of measures we have put in place to try to support students of all ages. I am happy to set those out but feel that time is not on my side.
I want to address the critical question, which is the opportunity to obtain student loans. When we considered whether there should be a cut-off age, we were very aware that 65 is still the age at which the majority of people retire. Ten per cent continue beyond that. We do not want to change that having made the commitment to all of the students who will and do receive student loans that that will be the case. It is important to have a cut-off point.

1293
Equally, for people who sadly die, we have made it clear that there will be no carry forward of loans. I think we should continue with that commitment.
It is also worth reminding the Committee that the age limit on the first day of the first academic year of the course is 54. Therefore, students on a typical three-year course will be 57 or 58 when they become liable to repay their loans.
8.45 p.m.
The provision involves significant costs. I understand what noble Lords have said about the noble Lord, Lord Peston, and his committee's report. I understand what the noble Baroness has said about European law. The matter has been tested in the courts. It was determined that as higher education and its funding is a scarce resource it is appropriate for the Secretary of State to be able to make the decisions—albeit in areas where noble Lords do not agree.
The reality is that we rely on our loan system repaying a large proportion of the funding. There are issues around older students being able to repay those loans. I would also say to the noble Baroness, because I understand the issues, that we do not need primary legislation to achieve what she seeks. I am sure she will continue to press the Government and we are very keen to continue that dialogue. It is not that we are unsympathetic, but we are yet again in the art of the possible.
We believe that the package we have created provides a huge amount of support to all our students. We have to make a decision on this aspect, with which I know the noble Baroness will not agree. I ask her to continue that dialogue and we shall continue to listen. Primary legislation is not necessary to achieve what she wants in any event. We are not unsympathetic, and I hope that we can continue to discuss the matter. For the moment, I hope she will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
Baroness Greengross: I thank the Minister. She has given us bad news but also a bit of good news. I am grateful to her for that. I also thank other noble Lords who have supported my amendment.
The disappointment I obviously feel is tempered by the thought that I, with other noble Lords, can return and pursue these ideas and points later. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Freyberg Lord Freyberg moved Amendment No. 108:
After Clause 40, insert the following new clause—
"STUDENT LOANS: POSTGRADUATE COURSES
The Secretary of State shall by regulations extend the student loan scheme to postgraduate courses, including part-time courses."
The noble Lord said: This probing amendment concerns a subject which has had little attention in the current education debate, but which I believe should be considered as part of the rethink of further
1294
education. It should also feature in the two reviews announced by the Secretary of State. I refer to the general non-availability of postgraduate loans, a situation which should be addressed now that students are to assume greater responsibility for their university funding. If this is not thought through in the next few years, there is likely to be reduced access to postgraduate study for financial rather than academic reasons, and the calibre of academic research in this country is likely to suffer as a result.
Before exploring the matter further, I should like to declare an interest in the subject as I am planning to take up a place on a postgraduate course at University College London. When I went for an interview there, I was surprised to meet a fellow applicant who had been offered a place on the same course for the previous year, but who had been unable to take it up once his application for a research council award had been turned down. He could not tap into any other form of financial support and could not afford to take out a standard bank loan. A career development loan might have been an option—and a helpful one—had he been studying a vocational course, but as a fine arts graduate he would not have been eligible.
Although the number of UK postgraduates has increased impressively in the past few years, and now stands at almost 500,000, according to figures from the Higher Education Statistics Agency, there is no question that the lack of access to funding prevents many people taking up hard-won places. For example, at University College London, around 950 offers of places for postgraduate research are made each year. Yet only about 400 will be taken up. Of those, between 180 and 200 receive research council funding. Of course, not all those who decide not to take up a place do so because of failure to acquire funding, but, equally, a substantial number—probably between 100 and 400—do. Similarly, for taught postgraduate courses at UCL, about 100 to 250 applicants who are turned down for research council awards decide not to take up a postgraduate place for that reason.
That is just one example among many universities at a time when graduates have far lower debts than will be the case in a few years' time. At present, all UK-domiciled undergraduates who meet the residency rules have access to student loans, with preferential rates and deferred payments. But there is no such facility for postgraduates. That will become an increasingly necessary option as the new funding system is implemented because most postgraduates will be considerably more indebted when they start their courses than has previously been the case. That will mean that the only way that many can afford to continue their studies is if they get a preferential loan rate.
It is also worth mentioning that, although the majority of undergraduate courses are for three years in total, the majority of postgraduate courses are for only one or two years. I do not suggest that extending loans to postgraduates will solve funding difficulties for all contemplating a postgraduate course, but the possibility of resorting to one will be a great boon to those with few

1295
funding options. I was interested to discover that such an option exists for both undergraduates and postgraduates alike in Sweden.
That is not to say that there are not some helpful funding schemes already available for postgraduates. Those include the research council awards already mentioned, which cover some tuition fees along with a decent-sized maintenance grant. There are other initiatives, such as career development loans, support for those wishing to become teachers, hardship schemes, assessed bursaries for courses in social work, help from the Access to Learning Fund and new academic fellowships for scientists. However, those are chiefly available for those with clear career paths and leave numerous students desperately trying to fund further study.
The statistics bear that out. Research council grants help nearly 13 per cent of postgraduates and the other awards reach a far smaller percentage. One can therefore be extremely able and yet not qualify for funding. That is one reason that such a large proportion of postgraduates are part time, because students are obliged to earn a living to pay the course fees and living costs.
Another point worth mentioning is the fact that, unlike undergraduate courses, there is no cap on postgraduate fees. When fees are high, it is all the more imperative for students to have access to funding at affordable rates. I am aware that what I suggest is not without considerable cost implications, although I would add that, despite my Written Question on the matter, the Government have been unable to put any figure on it, other than saying that it would be hugely expensive. So it would be helpful if the Minister could set the figures before us in due course. I am also aware that the Government already have the power to implement that by regulation.
In conclusion, there are already 1.5 million undergraduates whose loans are being processed by government offices. The number of postgraduates who would seek a loan if it were made available would be far smaller. The apparatus for processing them is already in place. I beg to move.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My name is also attached to the amendment, and I should like to speak briefly in its favour. Those of us who have worked in universities are concerned about what some might regard as being one of the unintended consequences of the introduction of fees, which is a reduction in the number of students going on to postgraduate work. One way in which they might be helped is by the introduction of access to preferential loans, as are available to undergraduate students.
As the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, said, many postgraduate students, especially those at the Masters level, are not funded through research council studentships. For those students, bank and commercial loans are the only available sources of funding. Although one recognises that there should be limits on the availability of such loans, it might be useful for students
1296
to have access to loans at a preferential rate up to a certain limit in order to help them through their studies, as the noble Lord indicated.
Lord Triesman: I start by wishing the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, every success in his new course at University College, London. Perhaps he could tell his new acquaintance, the fine arts graduate, that the establishment of the Arts and Humanities Research Council should be quite a useful adjunct to some of the awards that will be available should this legislation be passed.
I wish to make it clear from the outset that we recognise and value the contribution that postgraduates make to our economy and wider society, and, indeed, to the life of universities. Study at postgraduate level underpins our research base and nurtures the highly skilled workforce that is increasingly in demand if we are to compete internationally.
Postgraduate study can take a variety of forms, including taught higher degrees, research and, increasingly, professional qualifications, and other advanced learning. Perhaps I may make the observation to the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, that when he asked his Question in this House recently, my noble friend Lady Ashton made the point that it is very hard to estimate the cost of extending student support to postgraduate students. It would depend on the level of support that would be made available. I have just made the point that there is a vast variety of courses with a vast variety of charges. In a sense, there would be a very big element of guesswork, other than to say that the costs would be very substantial.
Learning at this level pays off for the student as well as for society. Research indicates that in the same way that graduates' earnings are on average a good deal higher than those people who are qualified to A-level, workers with higher degrees attract on average a further 17 per cent over the earnings of graduates at first degree level.
The Government's commitment to learning at that level, despite the points that I make about the higher levels of earnings, is evident in the investment that we make in the research base and in the teaching of postgraduate students. Members of the Committee are aware that there have been substantial increases in the science and research budgets for 2005–06 compared with three years previously. We provide around £300 million a year, through the HEFCE block grant, for the teaching and supervision of postgraduates and researchers. Postgraduates can apply, in competition, for awards from research councils and the Arts and Humanities Research Board. The Government are investing additional funds to raise the minimum PhD stipend to £12,000 a year by 2005–06. That is a significant investment in the best postgraduate students.
There is a partnership with high street banks through the career development loans scheme. Seventeen thousand people are approved for loans each year. We estimate that about 5,000 of them are for postgraduate studies. There is further targeted support available to postgraduate students with disabilities through the

1297
disabled student's allowance. Currently, more than 1,300 postgraduates receive that statutory support. Postgraduates are also eligible for consideration to the Access to Learning fund, as the noble Lord, Lord Freyberg, indicated. The Government have allocated £7.6 million to institutions from that fund.
Of course, ultimately, some people are turned down. That must be the case because, regretfully, as Ministers are often forced to say, our resources are not limitless. The Government have a responsibility to decide on priorities. The amendment would require us to make postgraduate students eligible for loans with a considerable increase in costs to the public.
If we had Swedish tax levels, perhaps we would match some of the other achievements of Sweden. We might still choose to prioritise other things because there are always other priorities. This can be achieved by regulation but it does not seem to us to be the right balance and does not focus on the right groups at present in higher education, important as postgraduates are.
Bearing all this in mind, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Freyberg: I thank the Minister for his very helpful reply. He gave a full account of the many different funding options available for a selection of postgraduates. However, as he knows, such schemes, admirable though they are, do not reach a huge number of the many postgraduate students who are not caught by those schemes and who deserve support from the Government. In the light of what the Minister has said and what I am sure will be a continuing debate on this matter, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clauses 41 and 42 agreed to.
Clause 43 [Orders and regulations]:
[Amendments Nos. 109 to 109A not moved.]
Baroness Ashton of Upholland Baroness Ashton of Upholland moved Amendments Nos. 110 and 111:
Page 21, line 16, leave out third "or"
Page 21, line 17, at end insert "or
(c) regulations to which subsection (3A) applies.
(3A) A statutory instrument which contains (whether alone or with other provisions) regulations made by the Secretary of State by virtue of section 31(2) or 35(2)(c) may not be made unless a draft of the instrument has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of. each House of Parliament."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 111A not moved.]
Clause 43, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 44 and 45 agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 46 agreed to.
Schedule 7 agreed to.
Clause 47 agreed to.
Clause 48 [Commencement]:
[Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
Clause 48 agreed to.
Clauses 49 and 50 agreed to.
House resumed: Bill reported with amendments.

Burma
9.3 p.m.
Baroness Cox Baroness Cox asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have received any reports on discussions between the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC) and leaders of ethnic national groups within Burma.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I am very grateful to noble Lords contributing to this debate, especially at such short notice. However, it is important to take this opportunity as the situation in Burma remains very grave.
The State Peace and Development Council is continuing to oppress all who promote democratic reform. The Nobel Laureate democracy leader, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, remains under house arrest, although her eloquent voice is heard. Less often heard are the voices of the ethnic national groups, many of whom are suffering and dying at the hands of Burma's military regime. It therefore seems appropriate to focus tonight on their plight and their relations with the SPDC.
Four weeks ago, I visited the Karen and Karenni peoples of eastern Burma, with John Bercow, shadow Secretary of State for International Development. Just prior to that, I visited the Chin and Kachin people of north-western Burma. I shall focus on the evidence obtained from those visits. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, has also visited the Karen people frequently and recently, and I think he may give some indication of their plight this evening.
There is also abundant evidence from many reputable organisations of the systematic violations of human rights of the national groups. Examples include Shattering Silences from the Karen Women's Organization in 2004, Licence to Rape, brought out by the Shan Human Rights Foundation and No Safe Place by Refugees International in 2003.
I shall first consider the Chin and Kachin people. Forced labour is widespread in Chin state. Civilians are regularly forced to leave their homes to work as porters for SPDC troops, carrying loads of ammunition or rice weighing as much as 30 kilograms—over 60 pounds. Such an imposition occurs so frequently that many cannot tend their own crops, and flee to neighbouring India to survive. As porters, they have to carry such massive loads from dawn to dusk, with virtually no food, water or rest. Elderly people who fall by the wayside are beaten and may be killed or left to die.
The SPDC denies that it is using forced labour, but we were given copies of official letters, such as one from an SPDC company commander to village leaders in southern Chin state issued on 13 December 2003, demanding 40 porters from the village and 30 from another village nearby to report to the nearby SPDC

1299
camp to carry rations for the military. The SPDC maintains 10 battalions in Chin state, amounting to more than 7,000 soldiers. They frequently supplement their inadequate pay and meagre rations by attacking villages, stealing food and maltreating civilians.
As in the rest of Burma, the SPDC does not tolerate any political opposition in Chin state. Involvement in pro-democracy or pro-federalist activities can result in arrest, imprisonment and torture. A former teacher in Chin state described how he was arrested and tortured for holding classes for students in Chin language and culture. He was told that it was forbidden to teach Chin language and culture in schools. He was detained for a week. He was punched and kicked and his captors rolled a stick along his shins until the skin came off.
On the subject of religious persecution, it is estimated that 90 per cent of the Chin people are Christians. However, SPDC forces offer incentives to impoverished villagers to convert from Christianity to Buddhism. Children from Christian families, often between the ages of five and 10, are lured from their homes with the promise of education. They are placed in Buddhist monasteries, where their heads are shaved, they are trained as novice monks and they never see their families again. Crosses have been destroyed and villagers forced to build pagodas in their place, contributing finances and labour. Christians are required to obtain permits for renovation or construction work, but no permission for new church buildings has been given since 1994.
The Chin do not traditionally permit alcohol in their society, but since 1992, in an attempt to disrupt Chin traditions, the SPDC has brought in large quantities of an alcohol known as "OB", a mix of methylated spirit and industrial spirit. It is highly addictive and extremely toxic. It is sold on streets, especially on Sundays, to young people. Boys and girls as young as 12 years old have been sold the alcohol by the army and police. Addiction leads to crime and possibly death. The medical effects include toxic liver failure and damage to brain cells. Last year in one town of 5,000 people, there were at least 10 deaths as a result of that alcohol consumption.
Since 2000, the SPDC military presence in Kachin state has doubled despite a ceasefire agreement. We were told that,
"forced labour for roads and pagodas occurs on a daily basis".
Like the Chin, the Kachin are also estimated to be 90 per cent Christian and they suffer policies of oppression and religious persecution similar to those inflicted on the Chin people.
I turn briefly to the Karenni, Karen and Shan people in eastern Burma whom I also visited recently. Despite its rhetoric about implementing a road map to democracy and its ceasefire talks with the Karen leadership, the SPDC continues military offences against civilians, extrajudicial killings, rape, torture, forced labour, use of porters as human minesweepers, forced relocations and the use of child soldiers.
We interviewed many people who had had to flee from their homes and villages because they could not endure the repeated ordeal of being forced to work as porters, undertake other forms of forced labour for SPDC troops or being forced to serve as human minesweepers. Many have had to hide in the jungle as IDPs where they suffer multiple deprivations, lack of food, medical care and shelter. There is a high toll of suffering and death. It is cold at night, but they dare not light fires for fear of detection and subsequent capture by SPDC troops, with torture and the possibility of being killed. Lack of healthcare results in high rates of deaths from avoidable or treatable disease, as in the case of a mother who told me that five of her seven children had died of malaria. I heard of many similar cases.
The SPDC is exploiting its vaunted ceasefire with the Karen to escalate its military offensives against the Karenni people, moving troops to the Karenni border with relatively little resistance through Karen state, because of the ceasefire. From December last year to April this year, the SPDC mounted many severe military offensives in Karenni state and as recently as April 19, SPDC troops crossed into Thailand to attack Karenni targets with RPGs and rifles.
Overall, since 1996, over 2,500 villages in eastern Burma have been destroyed, at least 1 million people have been displaced, 365,000 people have been moved to relocation camps and 268,000 people are living as IDPs trapped in the jungle.
In view of this dire situation, may I ask the Minister a rather large number—indeed, a barrage—of questions? I realise that she will not be able to address them all this evening. However, they are relevant to the Question on the Order Paper as they relate to the context of the discussions and the sincerity of purpose of the SPDC. I hope that she may be able to answer the questions in due course. They also reflect the concerns that were expressed to us by those in the ethnic national groups whom we met. I emphasise that I know it is an unacceptably long list of questions.
First, will Her Majesty's Government urge the European Union to impose targeted economic sanctions, which would penalise the regime, without having adverse effects on the majority of the population, for example, the prohibition of capital investment, trade in timber and marine products and investment in oil exploration and production?
Secondly, will Her Majesty's Government urge the United Nations Security Council to impose an arms embargo, in view of the fact that the SPDC devotes approximately one half of its national budget to military expenditure, which is used in offensives against its own civilians?
Thirdly, will they urge the Governments of Thailand, India and Bangladesh to desist from repatriating displaced Burmese citizens without adequate security guarantees? Fourthly, will they urge ASEAN nations to consider suspending Burma from ASEAN? The need for such consideration is urgent in view of the Burma's impending presidency of ASEAN in 2006.
Fifthly, will they urge the SPDC to open all of Burma to international humanitarian and human rights organisations? Sixthly, will they urge the SPDC to adopt a policy of tripartite talks involving the National League for Democracy and the ethnic national groups and to adopt a nationwide ceasefire on principles equally applicable to all parties in the conflict? Seventhly, will they impress upon the SPDC the unacceptability of its current procedures for the national convention, which involve limiting participation to those whom they invite, censoring contributions and denying media access? Next, will they raise with the SPDC the widely held concerns over violations of religious liberty, not only against the Christians, which I have detailed this evening, but also against Muslims in other parts of Burma?
Ninthly, will the Government urge the International Labour Organisation to intervene as a matter of urgency? Tenthly, will they consider initiating proceedings for bringing the SPDC to account for war crimes? Finally, will they consider more sympathetically support by DfID for cross-border humanitarian aid to the many thousands of IDPs in Burma, who are currently denied healthcare, adequate food supplies, shelter and education? Other national governments provide such cross-border assistance and personnel currently providing such cross-border aid adequately fulfil the criteria of accountability, transparency, impartiality and professional effectiveness. Furthermore, these criteria may be better fulfilled by these personnel than by aid organisations operating inside Burma under constraints imposed by the SPDC.
In conclusion, we owe it to any people suffering such atrocities to do everything in our power to help them. However, ethnic national groups such as the Karen, the Karenni, the Chin and the Kachin have a historic relationship with us—fighting alongside our soldiers and sometimes giving their lives for them. Therefore, they hope that we will not forget their loyalty or let them down now in their hour of need. I hope that this debate in your Lordships' House will reassure those people of our loyalty to them and our commitment now to do everything possible to ensure they achieve the freedom, peace and justice that they desire so passionately and for which they are paying such a high price.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Chan: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for securing this timely debate, particularly as the military rulers of Burma opened a national convention last week, 17 May, to finalise a new constitution for their country. The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has a formidable reputation for championing people whose human rights are being violated in many parts of the world, especially in Asia and Africa.
The people of Burma, regardless of politics, ethnicity or religion, have suffered from more than 30 years of internal warfare and military oppression. After decades under a brutal military regime, a widespread movement for democracy culminated in the massacre of thousands
1302
of demonstrators throughout the country in 1988. The military dictatorship bowed to intense pressure and held elections in 1990.
May 27 marks the 14th anniversary of the 1990 elections when the National League for Democracy, led by Nobel Laureate, Aung San Suu Kyi, won over 80 per cent of the seats in parliament. The military regime, the State Peace and Development Council—SPDC—rejected the 1990 election results and refused to hand over power to the democratically-elected legitimate representatives of the Burmese people. Some of the elected representatives have been in detention or exile ever since.
May 30 marks the first anniversary of the attack on Aung San Suu Kyi and her supporters in Depayin by 3,000 members of the Union Solidarity Development Association (USDA), an organisation affiliated to, and controlled by, the military regime. According to Burma's government in exile, the National Coalition Government of the Union of Burma (NCGUB), the military regime indicated that 282 people were killed in that attack. The life of Aung San Suu Kyi was endangered and she was taken into detention again without news of her whereabouts or her welfare for several months. The SPDC continues to hold Aung San Suu Kyi under house arrest, 1,400 people are detained as political prisoners; they restrict freedom of speech and association and insist that the new constitution guarantees that the military retain a hold on key political roles.
The national convention that opened on 17 May has been described as a sham by several bodies, including human rights organisations, Burmese pro-democracy organisations and most ethnic national groups, as well as most democratic governments around the world. Proceedings of the national convention exclude the participation of the main pro-democracy party, the National League for Democracy (NLD) and most ethnic national groups.
The NLD and ethnic national groups such as the Karen National Union (K NU), Karenni National Progressive Party (KNPP), Shan State Army-South (SSA-South) and the umbrella United Nationalities Alliance (UNA), have boycotted the national convention because the SPDC rejected calls to release NLD leaders Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin U from detention, open all NLD offices and permit free discussion of the issues being considered in the national convention.
For example, citizens have been warned that if they discuss the constitution outside the confines of the national convention, they could face gaol sentences of between seven and 20 years. The national convention delegates are hand-picked by the SPDC and the whole event is a stage-managed rerun of the failed national convention that collapsed in 1996.
The governing council of the Inter-Parliamentary Union adopted a resolution on 23 April this year, in which it declared that the IPU:
"reaffirms its conviction that the National Convention in its present form is designed to prolong and legitimize military rule against the will of the Burmese people as expressed in the 1990 elections, and that this stands in direct opposition to the principle

1303
enshrined in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights that the 'will of the people shall be the basis of the authority of government'".
Together with the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, and other noble Lords, I urge Her Majesty's Government to send a strong message to Burma's military rulers about our grave concerns for ethnic nationals who are being persecuted without respect for their human rights.
With regard to internally displaced people, most of whom are from ethnic national groups, I support what the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, said about DIM's humanitarian assistance. That assistance—through the Burmese Border Consortium—goes to 140,000 refugees in camps in Thailand, but no aid at all goes to the internally displaced people trapped inside Burma. There are several indigenous ethnic national organisations that go across borders to distribute humanitarian aid to the internally displaced peoples in the jungles of eastern Burma. These organisations provide a high standard of accountability and transparency to donors, with regular written reports, accounts of use of funds, videos and photographic documentation.
As part of a review of the Government's Burma policy, I encourage the Minister to consult with ethnic national groups, including backpack health worker teams, to ascertain levels of accountability and reconsider their policy to cross-border aid to internally displaced people. MD could also train the ethnic national groups to improve accountability. Christian Solidarity Worldwide supports aid to ethnic national groups.
Christian Aid, through its recent report, Burma's Dirty War, urges the UK and Irish Governments, the EU and other nation states to:
"ensure that humanitarian organisations working with displaced people are provided with the necessary funds to support displaced people inside Burma and to continue to support refugees in Thailand".
We have heard about religious persecution against the Chin, but Burma is one of the world's worst violators of religious freedom since 1999—according to the US State Department. The persecution of Christians in Karen, Karenni, Chin and Kachin areas, and Muslim Rohingyas in Arakan State, is widespread.
In Karen State, churches have been burnt down and Christian activities disrupted. A 53-year-old Karen Christian woman told Christian Solidarity Worldwide that in one village on 25 March this year, the Democratic Karen Buddhist Army—a government-sponsored militia—ordered villagers to clear an area for the construction of a Buddhist pagoda in front of the village church. Materials were delivered on 27 March. Using a loudspeaker, the Buddhist army ordered Christians to build a pagoda. They threatened to kill the pastor of the church, who had to flee for his life. During Christian worship, the loudspeakers would blare out Buddhist propaganda, urging them to convert to Buddhism. The Buddhist army regularly made the villagers dig trenches and undertake forced labour, carrying heavy goods for them for no payment.
1304
Will Her Majesty's Government please raise with the SPDC the widely held concerns over violations of religious liberty, including compulsory contributions by non-Buddhists to the construction of pagodas, the closure of Christian churches and the persecution of Muslims?
Finally, I turn to refugees in Thailand. An estimated 140,000 Karen and Karenni live in camps along the Thai-Burmese border. Burma's pro-democracy activists have been able to live in exile in Thai towns and cities, some claiming asylum through UN HCR.
But Thailand is not a signatory to the 1951 Refugee Convention, and its definition of "temporarily displaced people" is extremely narrow. Thailand recognises as refugees only those who are fleeing armed conflict, not those who are fleeing persecution and human rights violations.
In August 2003, Thailand reached an agreement with the Burma military government to deport 400 illegal Burmese nationals a month. I hope that Her Majesty's Government will urge the Thai Government to desist from repatriation of temporarily displaced Burmese civilians, without adequate security guarantees acceptable to those liable to repatriation.
There are more than 200,000 Shan people in Thailand who have no protection whatever and are not provided with shelter, unlike the Karen and Karenni. Thailand has also recently banned NGOs from engaging in activities which might "irritate bilateral relations" with Burma, according to the Bangkok Post of May 16 last week.
This may affect the valuable work of Dr Cynthia Muang, who runs the Mae Tao Clinic near the Burma border in Mae Sot. She has treated almost 200,000 refugees since it was set up in 1989. The clinic's activities are now being monitored, and,
"the authorities specifically ordered that any undertakings must not harm bilateral ties".
Such vague wording could apply to any humanitarian or educational work which the SPDC dislikes.
I hope that the Minister will consider expressing concern to the Thai authorities and will urge the government of Thailand to desist from restricting the work of Dr Cynthia Muang.
9.27 p.m.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I, too, thank my noble friend Lady Cox for initiating this debate on the situation in Burma. It would have been even more helpful if it had taken place after 7 June. The ambassador in Yangon is coming for a briefing and I hope that noble Lords know about that and have been invited. I very much hope that the noble Baroness will put her points and her questions to the ambassador.
I hold no brief for the government; I want to make that completely clear. I have no way of contradicting the points that have been made. However, if the noble Baroness were to go to some very poor parts of India, she might also find that a number of children have died as there is insufficient healthcare available. Every poor country has that problem. In Africa the situation is

1305
even worse than in India. We cannot lay everything at the door of the regime—that there is no healthcare or that people are poor or that nothing is available. That cannot entirely be laid at the door of the regime.
We have isolated Burma for some time. Before that, Burma isolated itself from us. In those days we said, "Wouldn't it be good if they opened the door?" They opened the door and now everyone in this Chamber is saying, "Isolate them. Close the door. Don't do anything. Impose sanctions".
Noble Lords say that sanctions should be implemented in such a way that they hurt only the regime. Has anybody, as yet, devised a method by which sanctions hurt the regime but do not affect the people? All that the recent American sanctions have done is to put 70,000 to 90,000 people—figures are not exact—out of work. Burma is a very poor country. There is very little employment. The only employment for any intelligent young man is to go into the armed services. We have hounded out of the country all the companies over which we had any influence. There is no inward investment. There is no large-scale commerce in Burma. There are continual calls for reducing contact.
We have tried do this since the election 14 years ago. What has it got us? Where is it getting us? The regime is getting more entrenched, and feels it has got its back to the wall. It is a military regime: it is not going to collapse or give way just like that. We have two options: the option of dialogue and the option of armed intervention. We have tried armed intervention in another country—not very successfully—and we certainly will not be trying it in Burma. The only way forward is dialogue. It is time to talk, not to close doors on all conversation.
I am very interested to hear that the Burmese were such good allies of ours. Let us not forget that the national hero Bhojo Aung Sang fought against us with the Japanese. He later changed sides, but in the war he was not with us. It is not just the ethnic minorities we have to think about. The Bamar, the largest group, fought with us more than everybody else. The ethnic problems of Burma predate the present regime. They have been going on for a very long time, and it is well to remember that there are faults on both sides.
Other countries have had things done to their ethnic minorities. I remind this House of what China did in Tibet. Did everybody stand here and say "Let's boycott China"? Why do we not boycott China? China has a very poor human rights record. It has no democracy, and it has treated its ethnic minorities— not to mention Burma—in a most appalling manner. But nobody is talking about boycotting China; we are talking about boycotting Burma. China enjoys preferred nation status with the United States; Burma is a small country with very little influence on anything.
Where does the regime get its funds? Does it get them from taxes? No, it does not. The money comes from gems and the opium trade. Who is it working with? China. It is the opium trade which keeps the
1306
generals funded. In fact, we have put them in a situation where there is no other way for them to get money.
It is time for us to stop listening to people like the Burma Campaign. I was at the pro-democracy group meeting in Parliament, and the representative of the Burma Campaign produced a ream of facts and figures on how much money the government get from tourism. Those of your Lordships who have been to Burma, as I have, will realise it is impossible to get facts and figures of any kind in that country. So how did the representative have them on tourism, to the last penny? Very little of the money spent by any tourist in Burma goes to the government. Most of the money goes to the people who provide the artefacts, who make the things, who work in hotels. All the hotels that people stay in are owned by companies which are outside the borders of Burma, by people from surrounding countries such as the Thais. There are hotels which are owned by the generals, but nobody goes to stay in them because the generals cannot manage to run anything. They cannot manage to run any factories, any hotels, or any tourism. The money goes much more to the people.
Taxi-drivers are going out of business because there are no tourists to carry around. Artisans are going out of business because there are no tourists to buy anything. I think it is absolutely appalling for us continually to call for boycott, boycott, boycott. It will not get us anywhere, and it will not help all those people in Burma we are championing today. For various reasons we are all championing the people of Burma. I went there last year, and I came back sad and frustrated because the people are wonderful. They deserve our support, not a wall around them saying, "Please do not talk to anybody". It is time Her Majesty's Government rethought their plans for Burma.
I think that Daw Suu Kyi is a most wonderful person, but she was invited to join the first constitution commission, which she refused. There was also talk when I was there last year that she was going to be invited to join this constitution commission. If so, she has obviously refused. She was also asked to become prime minister. When I put that fact to the Minister at the FCO, he said, "But there were strings attached". Well, they are hardly going to hand over the country to her, are they? Of course there were strings attached. If she had—I am sure the noble Lord will have his chance. I am quite willing to give way—
Lord Alton of Liverpool: No.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I am sure that there were strings attached—nobody is going to hand over what they have to anybody else.
There is never all or nothing. If Daw Suu Kyi wants all, she will have nothing, as has happened for the past 14 years. If she found it unworkable to be involved in the affairs of Burma, she could then have said, "Look, they are doing this and I cannot support them in this manner". It would have strengthened her position; it would have made all the neighbouring countries more

1307
aware of what was happening there. However, she refuses to have any interaction with the Government. We are following the same path of no interaction. But you cannot change things without interaction. You cannot change things without dialogue or involvement.
9.38 p.m.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who has just resumed her seat, will know that I profoundly disagree with much of what she has just said. However, I am nevertheless glad to hear that point of view being expressed in our free Parliament. I hope it is an illustration to those who will read the accounts of this debate in places like Burma that contrary opinions can be held by Members of your Lordship's House, and that we have the freedom to disagree. Although there will not be time for me to deal in detail with all the arguments that the noble Baroness has just put forward, let me just mention one or two things.
Daw Aung San Sun Kyi is the democratically elected leader of the Burmese people, and this approach of -she wants to have it all or have nothing," is not an appropriate way to speak of someone who has been elected as the leader of her nation, who has been excluded from the national convention talks and has been under house arrest. As we heard from my noble friend Lord Chan earlier, she also had an attack on her life just a year ago with 3,000 people attempting to take that life.
The noble Baroness mentioned the hotels in Rangoon. She knows as well as I do those hotels were built on the blood, sweat and tears of forced labour. People who travel to Burma and stay in those hotels should remember that. She also talked of the grinding poverty in the country. If that is so—and I agree with her that it is—then perhaps the Burmese military junta should spend less of their money on weapons, arms and their standing army, and use more of their money on the relief of poverty in their country. I congratulate her noble friend Lady Cox on characteristically—of course. I shall give way.
Baroness Flather: My Lords, I have been told that in many countries the hotels are built on the poverty of the people. Burma is not the only country to do that. I accept totally that Aung San Suu Kyi is the democratically elected leader. For 14 years we have been saying that but it has not moved us forward. I am trying to move the matter forward. I have no brief for the junta.
Lord Alton of Liverpool: My Lords, I am glad that the noble Baroness said that. It is worth reminding the House what the former UN special rapporteur on Burma, Mr Rajsoomer Lallah, QC, said in his report on the situation of human rights in Myanmar:
"The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the serious human rights violations that continue to be committed by the armed forces in the ethnic minority areas. The violations include extrajudicial and arbitrary executions (not sparing women and children), rape, torture, inhuman treatment, forced labour and denial of freedom of movement. These violations have been so numerous and consistent over the past years as to suggest that they
1308
are not simply isolated or the acts of individual misbehaviour by middle- and lower-rank officers but are rather the result of policy at the highest level entailing political and legal responsibility".
That is not my personal, private view; it is the view of the former UN special rapporteur on Burma.
I say to the noble Baroness and to the House that I. too, have traveled—in my case, illegally—in Burma, but I have also travelled three times to the Burmese/ Thai border and have seen first-hand some of the depredations that have occurred there. The Karen did not change sides during the Second World War; they were our allies throughout. Indeed, when I initiated a debate on this subject in your Lordships' House in 1998, Lady Mountbatten of Burma was good enough to write to me, and I read her letter into the account. She reminded us that her father said that the Karen were our bravest allies and that they had become our forgotten allies.
The Minister will recall that during Question Time on 13 May I mentioned General Bo Mya, who is a holder of the Burma Star and the leader of the Karen National Union. I was able to visit General Bo Mya just a few weeks ago. I asked him—the noble Baroness may be interested in this—whether it was time to try to initiate dialogue and talks with the Burmese military junta. He agreed that it would be worth trying to do that. When I returned to London, I took a letter to the Burmese Embassy. I am glad to say that General Bo Mya was able to travel to Rangoon and to have the first talks there between the KNU and the Government in very many years. I regard that as welcome progress.
However, the non-participation of the KNU, the National League for Democracy, which my noble friend Lord Chan referred to earlier, and other serious and authentic voices inevitably turned the national convention, which was reconvened on 17 May, into a charade. The refusal of the SPDC to release Aung San Suu Kyi and U Tin Oo, which is why they have failed to participate in the talks, is the reason for their non-participation. It is simple: if the SPDC want to make progress, it should release Aung San Suu Kyi and allow her to come to the talks; it should release U Tin Oo and allow him to come to the talks; and it should release the 1,300 political prisoners who are held in Burmese gaols at present.
In a briefing note to your Lordships today—many will have seen the Myanmar News Bulletin—the SPDC attacked the NLD for ending, as it said, three years of active participation. But the SPDC must realise that the exclusion of leaders turns the convention into a charade. If that decision is reversed, progress towards what it calls,
"a peaceful, stable and sustainable democracy",
becomes possible. Failure to make progress condemns the Karen and the other ethnic minorities to a desperate future.
Last year, with Congressman Joseph Pitts, I took evidence from the Karen about their continued suffering. The story of one child whom I met at a refugee camp near Mae Sot illustrates how the brutality and violence of this perfidious regime continues. Saw Naing Gae is just eight years old. He

1309
saw the Burmese military shoot dead his mother and father. He was then trafficked across the border and sold to a Thai family. Desperately unhappy, he managed to escape and made his way to the camp, where he is staying with a group of about 30 other orphans. He was unable even to smile. Every trace of joy and innocence had been stamped out of him—all this by the age of eight.
Saw Naing Gae squatted alongside four other children, brothers and sisters whose parents had also been brutally murdered. The oldest girl, aged 12, now head of their family, dissolved into tears as she recounted their story.
Let me share another first-hand account. Aged 45, the mother of five children and pregnant with her sixth, Naw Pi Lay was murdered in June 2002 by the Burmese military. During a massacre in the Dooplaya district of the Karen state 12 other people were killed, including children aged 12, seven, five and two years old.
Elsewhere in the same district at Htee Tha Blu village further human rights violations were carried out by Light Infantry Battalions 301 and 78. They beat and tortured villagers, stole their belongings and burned down their church and their homes.
When I visited the region in 1998 I illegally crossed the border and entered the Karen state. I heard and saw evidence of the internally displaced people, estimated now at some 600,000. I heard about and saw the scorched earth policy that has depopulated and destroyed countless villages. In 2003 I met one of the Free Burma Rangers who had just come out of the Karen state. He had been with a little girl of eight who still had a bullet lodged in her stomach. At great personal risk, he and many others had regularly gone into the Karen state to help people like her, often taking nurses and medics with them.
At Mae Sot, Congressman Pitts and I took evidence from the Committee for Internally Displaced Karen People. They provided me with over 100 pages of carefully documented examples of human rights violations committed by Burmese military over the past 12 months. One day I hope that that evidence will be placed before an international court and that the perpetrators will be brought to justice for the genocide—I use that word advisedly because I believe that is precisely what has happened in the Karen state—that has been committed.
In evidence on behalf of the Jubilee Campaign, the group I helped to found some 20 years ago, I was able to give evidence directly to the United States Congressional Committee on Human Rights. I detailed many of the other atrocities to which there will not be time to refer tonight. The report I have just mentioned lists three mass killings by the SPDC. It is a carefully chronicled account of looting, burning, torture, rape and murder.
The SPDC routinely plants landmines. I visited a prosthesis centre and I met some of those who had had limbs blown from their bodies. I went to areas where landmines had been laid and the SPDC had then used Karen people as human minesweepers. I saw some of
1310
the victims, people whose limbs had been severed from their bodies, whose skin had been peppered with shrapnel, and others left blind.
I also talked to the families of people whose loved ones—men and women—had been seized and used as porters and construction workers and who had never returned. The SPDC kill many of the porters in frontline areas, especially when they are unable to work any longer because of exhaustion or sickness.
The international focus on Burma has long been on the heroic struggle of Aung San Suu Kyi and her National League for Democracy, but a settlement with the NLD would represent a solution to only half the conflict. That is why it is so right that the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, has concentrated our minds on the position of the ethnic minorities.
The seven ethnic groups who have been fighting for self determination or autonomy at some point or another since World War II—the Karen, Karenni, Mon, Arakam, Kachin, Chin and Shan—will still need to have their grievances addressed. In Chiang Mai I met with the authors of a carefully meticulous 120-page report on the Burmese military regime's use of sexual violence in the Shan state over the past six years.
The report of the Shan Human Rights Foundation and Shan Women's Action Network, Licence to Rape, to which the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, referred, details how rape has been used as a weapon of war. Sexual violence, especially widespread gang rape, has terrorised and humiliated communities, flaunts the power of the regime, "rewards" troops and demoralises resistance forces.
Women who have been raped have frequently been abandoned or rejected by their husbands. One woman described how she was gang raped when she was seven months pregnant and then gave birth prematurely to her child. Another was told by her husband to leave, because, "You didn't control yourself. You are no longer my wife. Leave our home".
The Burmese military junta have turned their country into one vast concentration camp, yet they fail to appreciate the strength of the human spirit and the capacity to endure and survive.
As Human Rights Watch points out in its superb report, Out of Sight, Out of Mind, which I commend to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather:
"by violating the internationally recognised principle of non-refoulement, the Royal Thai Government is placing refugees and undocumented asylum seekers in danger of persecution, arrest. economic sanctions or other reprisals from government authorities, upon return to Burma".
I hope that when the Minister replies to the many questions asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, she will be able to say what discussions she has been having with the Royal Thai Government about this and whether she has urged them, as my noble friend Lord Chan said earlier to ratify the 1951 convention relating to the status of refugees and along with that the 1967 protocol.
All of us want to see an end to the depredations and violence inside Burma. The SPDC must appreciate that the world will remain sceptical about its sincerity to bring such change until it welcomes to the table all

1311
who have a stake in the country's future and we will remain critical until they do so. The alternative is for Burma to go on bleeding to death.
9.50 p.m.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, yet again we are deeply indebted to the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for reminding us of the appalling violations of human rights which have occurred in Myanmar and for bringing such an impressive weight of first-hand knowledge to your Lordships, which has been reinforced just now by the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who also has been many times to the areas where oppression and violence is at its worst. I pay tribute to both of them for the immense courage and dedication they have brought to this task.
Several noble Lords have mentioned the constitutional convention which has been going on for just over a week in Myanmar and which was billed by the SPDC as a key step in its "road map to democracy", but it has been rubbished by the UN Secretary-General, the European Union and the US as lacking credibility because the leader of the opposition, Aung San Suu Kyi, and key ethnic group leaders were excluded. This debate provides an opportunity for our own government to say that we do not recognise the legitimacy of this stage-managed process as the first step on the road to anywhere. The regime may have embarked on what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, described as a charade—an elaborate charade, I must say—intended to deceive the outside world, but let it be known that none of us are taken in.
Even the neighbouring states, which are so keen to expand their business with Myanmar, do not believe that the military intend by this move to hand over power to civilian government. That well known Liverpool fan, Thai Prime Minister Thaksin Shinawatra, said he did not feel comfortable about the process, although he still hoped the national reconciliation could be salvaged. That is very strong language by ASEAN standards. The Malaysian Foreign Minister, Syed Hamid Albar, said that the SPDC had to be serious about engaging the NLD. and Indonesia said that it had hoped that the implementation of a road map would be all-inclusive with the involvement of all groups with different ethnic and political orientation. ASEAN foreign Ministers had issued a communiqué last June calling for a peaceful transition to democracy and had offered help in drafting the new constitution. But according to the government-run newspaper, New Light of Myanmar, one of the objectives of the conference is
"for the tatmadaw [military] to be able to participate in the national political leadership role of the state".
General Khin Nyunt, the Prime Minister and designer of the road map, said at a meeting of the "ceasefire groups", which had demanded amendments to this objective, that the military wanted to play a political role along with other political groups. These ceasefire groups are former rebels from various ethnic minority communities. They did not accept the fiat issued by Lieutenant General Thein Sein, appointed by the military to chair the convention, that it would adopt the same six political objectives and 104 principles that were
1312
observed by the previous convention which had been so abruptly terminated by the regime in 1996, on the grounds that to do so would contradict the idea of the Union of Burma built on unity, equality and self-government. The participation by the military, they observed, was not in accordance with democracy, nor was it in keeping with the people's wishes. This was the view of minority groups which had made peace with the regime.
The UN special rapporteur, Paolo Sergio Pinheiro, noted that the three bodies which had been set up to prepare the reconvening of the national convention did not contain any representatives of the ethnic minorities. It was apparent that for the convention itself—for the photograph I saw—they managed to recruit a few stooges from ethnic minorities, but they were certainly not representative. As the report just published by Amnesty International on the Rohingya shows, the reality for that particular group of about 1 million people is that their very existence is denied because they are deemed not to be members of an ethnic group, they are ineligible for citizenship and thus presumably also for participation in the convention.
At the beginning of the 1990s there were about a quarter of a million Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh. Although most of those people subsequently returned in a repatriation programme sponsored by the UNHCR in 1994 and 1995, we questioned the voluntary nature of the returns at the time. Now there are reports of coercion being used against the 23,000 who remained in the refugee camps in southern Bangladesh. Medecines Sans Frontieres, which blew the whistle on a previous occasion, says it had 550 complaints of intimidation of these refugees during 2003 from people who were still afraid to return. Since it would appear that once again the UNHCR is alleged to be providing inadequate protection for these people, and since the UK is a member of Excom, the governing council of UNHCR, we should demand an independent investigation of the situation in those two camps to make sure that the returns are purely voluntary.
It is important that we should be seen to stand up for the rights of this particular minority, which is Muslim, as has been mentioned. It is sometimes alleged that Europe and the US are less interested in the human rights of Muslims, and we must demonstrate that our concerns are just as great for the rights of all oppressed peoples, whatever their religion.
The Karen National Union has been mentioned. It has been engaged in armed struggle against the stale in support of its demand for a federal union of nationalities since 1950. It boycotted the convention. The Karen is the largest minority—perhaps 5 million people out of a total population of 42.5 million. Therefore, to ignore them is a fatal mistake on the part of the regime. The Shan Nationalities League for Democracy won the second largest number of seats in the 1990 Parliament and it too is boycotting the convention, in common with the United Nationalities Alliance.

1313
Those political parties, together with the NLD, represent over 90 per cent of the seats won in the 1990 Parliament. If there was a genuine transition to democracy, there would have to be proper mechanisms of consultation which would involve people on the ground, rather than a closed meeting of 1,000 or so hand-picked delegates, closely supervised by the military and told when to get their hair cut and exactly how they were to behave in the convention. If they had agreed to participate, all those parties together would have been allocated less than 1 per cent of the convention membership.
The special rapporteur has already said, as tactfully as he could, that the SPDC has got its road map in the wrong order. The first step should be to lift restrictions on freedoms of expression, movement, information, assembly and association, and the repeal of security legislation, so as to create an enabling environment in which political parties, ethnic nationalities and civil society could debate constitutional ideas and the methodologies that are necessary to implement those which gain most support. Any constitution which is foisted on the people as a result of the secret conclave now taking place would have no legitimacy, and would tend to harden the division between the military clique at the centre and the ethnic minorities at the periphery of the state.
It has been mentioned that in 2006, Myanmar is scheduled to assume the chair of ASEAN. That will be impossible without progress towards the restoration of civilian rule. Prime Minister Khin Nyunt appears to recognise that, according to a report by the International Crisis Group. The ICG believes that any new constitution must allow for the development of strong civilian institutions and must foster local autonomy and ethnic rights. Yet it acknowledges that achieving these goals, which are necessary if the increasingly serious humanitarian problem is to be solved, means that the army has to give up its power and privileges. Even if Khin Nyunt genuinely felt that this was the right course for him to take, he would not necessarily be able to take the hardliners in the military with him.
I tend to agree with the ICG that we will not solve the problem by threatening even stronger sanctions than the Americans have already imposed if, indeed, we could persuade the EU to go along with us in that policy. But we might possibly get somewhere—here I go along with the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, to some extent—if we could persuade the regime to adopt a genuine road map so that it becomes an authentic means of getting to free and fair elections, human rights and the rule of law. That is not to say that we should relax any of the existing measures that we have taken against the regime or, through our bilateral relations with the neighbours, the pressure that we can exert through the EU-ASEAN forum and, particularly, our links with China, which have most influence on the regime. Perhaps the use of a carrot might provide an alternative way forward as the ICG suggests.
1314
We always say that Myanmar is unique in that it is the only dictatorship with which there is no dialogue. But, for the first time, in 2003, Amnesty International was allowed into the country on a mission. There has been engagement with the special rapporteur. There is still some chance that the ILO will be able to make progress on the issue of forced labour, although I acknowledge that so far it has not secured the cooperation that it had hoped for.
The Bangkok Process has not yet been mentioned. It has stalled for the moment with the regime's postponement of the meeting that was supposed to take place at the end of April, but it still involves dialogue between the SPDC and regional partners, together with the UN special envoy. We should develop a European strategy for supporting those initiatives in a coherent way and for agreeing our own benchmarks to go further than those of the Bangkok Process and offering Myanmar, if she wishes to take it, a phased return to international respectability.
10.2 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my warm appreciation to my noble friend Lady Cox on securing the debate. I would also like to pay tribute to her for the dedicated work that she does in this field. As always in your Lordships' House, the debate has been both informed and detailed with many noble Lords enlightening us with their expertise.
As we have heard, there is no doubt that the regime in Burma continues to be an oppressive military dictatorship that shows nothing but disdain for the human rights of a peaceful and decent people. Indeed, that situation has been clearly spelt out many times during debates and Questions in this House.
The human rights report of 2003, issued by the Foreign Office, states:
"Human rights violations in Burma continue to be widespread and systematic and the Burmese ethnic minority groups suffer disproportionately.
Noble Lords on all sides agree that Burma's human rights record is marked by consistent abuses and broken promises of reform while routinely detaining large numbers of political prisoners—as we have heard, sometimes they are elderly people—who are often held in appalling conditions. Today, those abuses have been outlined in great detail and with considerable passion by noble Lords. I shall not attempt to repeat them.
In the short time that I have available, I believe that it is vital that we examine how best to resolve this ongoing issue. It is true that some progress has already been made. I recognise the work that the Government have done in that regard. We take note of BAT's decision last year, and Premier Oil's decision before that, to pull out of Burma. We are aware that that sends a very clear message to the regime.
We also take note of the ongoing efforts of the Burma Campaign UK, which does so much to keep Burma in the public debate. We welcome, too, the recent ceasefires that have been agreed and those that have been discussed by the Burmese military regime

1315
and the country's various rebel groups—most recently the Karen National Union and the Karenni National Progressive Party. But of course, much more can and must be done.
In a recent Westminster Hall debate on Burma, my honourable friend the shadow Foreign Affairs Minister, Richard Spring, set out the case for targeted sanctions. Many argue, though, that it is wrong and unproductive to demonise maverick states. It does favours to no one and does not solve the problems, as stressed by my noble friend Lady Flather.
I have visited Burma on several occasions since the mid-1980s and have seen the marked improvements in many aspects since the old communist regime was in power. I fully understand, too, the horrors that my noble friend Lady Cox described, and anything we can do to help change the situation should be welcomed. However, two wrongs do not make a right, and we should not forget that several other countries exist around the world with fairly similar regimes, yet the Government seem quite happy to continue to turn a blind eye to them. My noble friend Lady Flather interestingly and forcefully suggested that dialogue could be more successful than isolation. Of course, nobody is suggesting that we should impose sanctions that would affect the lives of the people of Burma, but some specifically targeted sanctions, as I mentioned earlier, could be looked at.
In answering the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on 9 March 1998 regarding international sanctions, the Minister rightly said,
"wherever possible, sanctions should be targeted to hit the regime rather than ordinary people. Recent sanction regimes have included humanitarian exemptions to minimise the impact on the civilian population. We are always open to suggestions on how sanctions can be better targeted to achieve maximum impact".—[Official Report, 9/3/98; col. 9.]
What is the Government's present view?
I followed up that day with a question which I repeat, asking,
"what assessment does the Minister make of the United States concept of consistent principles and flexible tactics depending on national interests and strategic relationships, which allows the United States to impose sanctions on countries such as Burma and the Sudan but which confers most favoured nation status on China? In the light of their ethically driven foreign policy, do the Government agree with that position?".—[Official Report, 9/3/98; cols. 10–11.]
While welcoming the unilateral action of the British Government, it is also important that we acknowledge the pressure that the wider international community can bring to bear. Recently, the EU has strengthened its common position on Burma, seeking to broaden and strengthen the assets freeze and travel ban measures, further tightening the arms embargo and economic sanctions. It is often said that travel bans are not necessarily a successful method of putting pressure on regimes. I am sure that noble Lords on all sides would be interested to hear what the exact impact of the EU sanctions has been. Perhaps the Minister could take this opportunity to outline the total value of assets frozen EU-wide and also specifically in the UK.
1316
Did Her Majesty's Government receive a report from the 17 May convention held outside Rangoon? Little has been mentioned in the press, as the noble Lord, Lord Alton, has said. Will Her Majesty's Government be providing aid to the IDPs, estimated to be around 1 million, who are near the border, as mentioned by my noble friend Lady Cox and the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Avebury? Does the Minister see a role here for the United Nations? Now is the time for Britain to show real leadership on this subject. It is time to press for a UN Security Council resolution.
Burma is a wonderful, stunningly beautiful country. steeped in history, at many times turbulent and riven with great cruelty but, none the less, with great potential. We surely have a responsibility through our past involvement with this country and our present knowledge of its people's troubles to try our utmost in a positive way to help the people towards a better life.
10.10 p.m.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, I first thank the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, for raising this important issue and all noble Lords who have contributed so eloquently to our debate.
When we discussed human rights in Burma on 13 May, I expressed scepticism about the military regime's willingness to organise a national convention that would be genuinely inclusive. At that time, I said that we would be in a better position to make a judgment about whether this was a genuine initiative in the following weeks. I regret to say that, since the convention opened on 17 May, our scepticism has deepened considerably.
I would first like to take the argument put forward clearly, eloquently and with great conviction by the noble Baroness, Lady Flather. When she argued that there were "faults on both sides", she missed the essential point of the argument. I agree very much with what the noble Lord, Lord Alton, said. The difference is that, in 1990, there was an election in Burma and the Burmese people elected—in what was deemed to be a genuine election—Aung San Suu Kyi as their leader. I do not know whether this case is unique in the world—when an elected leader is not allowed to take up office and even imprisoned, as she has been. If it is not unique there must be very few regimes around the world where such a thing has happened. Although the Burmese people have a leader, that leader is not allowed to lead them. That goes to the heart of the argument about Burma.
It would be helpful if I set the national convention in the context of recent political developments in Burma. On 30 August last year, General Khin Nyunt of the State Peace and Development Council—the ruling junta—announced a seven-step road map to build what was described as a "modern prosperous democratic state". The first step of the road map was the convening of the national convention to draw up the new constitution. The convention opened on 17 May at an isolated, heavily guarded site outside

1317
Rangoon which is closed to outsiders. The rules and regulations governing the convention delegates remain heavily restricted, which is hardly a promising start, as the noble Lord, Lord Chan, argued so persuasively.
Our embassy in Rangoon maintains regular contact with community leaders from the ethnic nationalities, as I hope the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, knows. We are in touch with those who have delegates participating in the national convention. According to the SPDC, a total of 1,088 delegates are participating and they cover eight groups, including representatives from minor political parties, ceasefire groups, the national races and workers and state service personnel. However, I should emphasise that 90 per cent of those individuals have been appointed by the SPDC, so the noble Lord, Lord Avebury, was quite right when he argued so persuasively that, by no stretch of the imagination can the convention be described as genuinely inclusive or genuinely representative of the wishes of the people of Burma.
No significant elected representatives are taking part in the convention. As noble Lords would expect, our embassy is also in touch with the elected politicians who have chosen not to take part in the convention. Those include the Shan nationalities, whom the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, mentioned, the United Nationalities Alliance—the group that covers a number of different ethnic parties and, most importantly, the National League for Democracy, which announced on 14 May that it would not participate in the convention.
My honourable friend, Mike O'Brien, the Minister of State at the FCO, made it clear in his press statement, which was issued on the same day, that we fully respect the NLD's decision, which would not have been taken lightly. I hope that that answers the seventh question asked by the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, on the acceptability of the convention. If the convention is to be meaningful, it is absolutely essential that delegates should be able to discuss key issues such as the future role of the military in Burma, for example. The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was quite right. The SPDC refused to release the NLD's general-secretary, Daw Aung San Suu Kyi, and its vice-chairman, U Tin Oo, from house arrest. When the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, says that Aung San Suu Kyi chose not to go, the fact is that she was not released from house arrest. The noble Baroness must take that point on board. They have both been detained since the regime-sponsored attack on the NLD's convoy in northern Burma on 30 May last year. The SPDC also refused to allow the reopening of the NLD offices throughout Burma.
Baroness Flather: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we have very little time and I have a lot of points to answer, if the noble Baroness will be so kind.
The SPDC has ignored the views of the Burmese people, as expressed in the 1990 election, as well as the recommendations and the expectations of the
1318
international community, including the Secretary General of the United Nations and his special envoy to Burma Tan Sri Razali Ismail.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, argued, in effect, that there is a policy of something approaching cultural genocide against the ethnic minorities in Burma. Although the convention meeting has only just reopened, despite the alleged desire for a democratic state, reports indicate that the SPDC is determined to put in place a strongly centralised model of government. It wants control of mineral, gem and timber resources as well as education and school curricula. We know that the ethnic groups are against this and they are particularly keen to re-establish the teaching of local languages, which was abolished after 1974. The current proposals also give the regime the right to terminate or relocate villages if it is "in the public interest". This is bound to be a sensitive issue in the ethnic areas, which have already seen large-scale forced relocation, as the noble Baroness argued.
The noble Baronesses, Lady Rawlings and Lady Cox, and the noble Lord, Lord Alton, who I thought spoke very movingly about his personal experiences in Burma, talked about the internal displacement in Burma. There are about 140,000 refugees, mostly from the Karen and the Karenni states, living in camps on the Thai/Burmese border. As many as 1 million live as illegal immigrants in Thailand and many of the illegal migrants are from the Shan state. Approximately 20,000 refugees from Muslim and Rohingya ethnic groups live in camps in Bangladesh and there are 630,000 internally displaced refugees within Burma itself.
In her fifth question, the noble Baroness, Lady Cox, asked about opening all parts of Burma to human rights observers. Although ceasefire negotiations have started between the Karen National Union and the State Peace and Development Council there is no evidence, so far, to suggest that the environment is right for the safe return of Karen refugees. The UNHCR has only recently made a first reconnaissance visit to assess the situation in one part of south-east Burma. It will be making further visits in forthcoming months.
In her third question, the noble Baroness asked specifically about the Thailand, Bangladesh and India angle. We remain of the view that the border areas of Burma remain too unstable to encourage or force the return of refugees. Although Thailand, India and Bangladesh are not signatories to the 1951 refugee convention, they do work closely with the office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees to provide appropriate protection to refugees and to ensure that they are not forced into that position. Obviously, we fully support the work of the UNHCR and the Governments of Thailand, India and Bangladesh in trying their best to protect the Burmese refugees.
In her fifth question, the noble Baroness asked about access. I hope that I have given her the indication that we do not believe that it is yet safe for full access across Burma. The noble Lord, Lord Chan,

1319
and other noble Lords were also very interested in DfID assistance. The United Kingdom is the largest EU donor of humanitarian assistance. DUD provides humanitarian assistance to help those displaced by funding the Burmese Border Consortium, the International Committee of the Red Cross, the World Health Organisation, UNICEF and UNHCR. The UK also provides support through the European Commission and for the repatriation and reintegration of refugees.
As I have been able to indicate to noble Lords on a previous occasion, one of DfID's major priorities is supporting the prevention and awareness of HIV/ AIDS through a UN-coordinated programme in Burma. I can send details to those of your Lordships who would be interested in that. The matter was not specifically raised in the debate so I shall not dwell on it.
Cross-border programmes are another issue. We are aware that some NGO groups undertake cross-border assistance from Thailand. We have not so far supported those through DfID as we do not have access to the areas where these people live and are not able to monitor what is really going on and evaluate the proper use of funds. However, DfID's policy is to fund only transparent and accountable humanitarian assistance. I am very happy to discuss that further with the noble Baroness if she would find that helpful.
The noble Baroness was quite right to raise the question of religious persecution, as were the noble Lords, Lord Chan and Lord Avebury. Despite a background of general religious tolerance in most areas, there remain instances of restriction on the right to religious freedom. But I assure the noble Lord, Lord Chan, that we have condemned that in successive highly critical UK and EU-sponsored UN resolutions, most recently at the UN Commission on Human Rights on 21 April.
The noble Baroness, Lady Cox, also spoke about child soldiers. Burma is reported to be the world's single largest user of child soldiers, a truly awful record. Most are forcibly recruited in rural areas, and UNICEF estimates that as many as 70,000 child soldiers are currently in the Burmese army. We have sponsored UNGA and UNHCR resolutions on this,
1320
most recently in January 2004 when the UN Security Council passed a resolution on children affected by the conflict.
The noble Lord, Lord Alton, was quite right in the points that he made about rape. However, I want to turn to the issue of ASEAN. We welcome the ASEAN action calling for the full release of Aung San Suu Kyi and national reconciliation in Burma. We believe that all Burma's regional neighbours have a role to play in this and we will continue to raise our concerns on this with the Burmese authorities.
I say to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, that the reason we have the trade policy with Burma that we do—I cannot go into detail because time is against me—is that it is the policy that Aung San Suu Kyi, the elected leader of the country, has asked us to pursue. We favour multilateral sanctions wherever possible. We will continue to support multilateral action through the EU's common position. I stress to the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, that that is an EU position that has been agreed among us all. We follow that policy, and it is slightly different, of course, from that of the United States of America.
Her Majesty's Government remain committed to helping Burma to achieve national reconciliation. We have repeatedly called on the regime to release immediately Daw Aung San Suu Kyi as well as all political prisoners and to reopen the NLD's offices. We believe that a lasting settlement to Burma's problems can be reached only by all parties working together, and of course Aung San Suu Kyi has a crucial role to play in that.
So together with our partners in Europe we will be closely monitoring the situation, and we will respond proportionately. I stress that point to the noble Baroness, Lady Flather, who I know has very strong views on this. Recognising the public calls by certain Asian countries on the SPDC to make the convention fully inclusive, we hope that all Burma's regional neighbours will follow suit. For the sake of Burma and its people—who have suffered years of oppression and economic decline—we want to ensure that there is a real opportunity for progress and that genuine reconciliation is a goal to which everyone in Burma can look forward.
I thank your Lordships for your participation this evening.
House adjourned at twenty-three minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Civil Partnership Bill [H.L.]
(Fifth Day)
Tuesday, 25 May 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell) in the Chair.]
Clause 162 [Proceedings for presumption of death order]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 65C to 65G:
Page 79. line 19, leave out "the applicant"
Page 79, line 20, at beginning insert "the applicant"
Page 79, line 21, omit "or"
Page 79, line 22, at beginning insert "the applicant"
Page 79, line 23, at end insert ", or
(c) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in England and Wales and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 162, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 163 agreed to.
Clause 164 [Applications, for declarations as to validity etc.]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 65H:
Page 79, line 38, leave out from "if)" to end of line 45 and insert "—

(aa) either of the civil partners in the civil partnership to which the application relates—

(i) is domiciled in England and Wales on the date of the application,

(ii) has been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or

(iii) died before that date and either was at death domiciled in England and Wales or had been habitually resident in England and Wales throughout the period of 1 year ending with the date of death, or

(ab) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in England and Wales and it appears to the court to he in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 164, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 165 [Jurisdiction of Scottish courts]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 65J and 65K:
Page 80, line 33, at end insert ", or
(c) the following conditions are met—

(i) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Scotland,

(ii) no court has, or is recognised as having, jurisdiction under section 159 regulations, and

(iii) it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case."

Page 80, line 37, at end insert "(but only where the court is the Court of Session)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 165, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 166 and 167 agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment Nos. 65L to 65Q:
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
"MEANING OF "THE COURT"
In sections (Proceedings for dissolution. separation or nullity order) to (Applications for declarations as to validity etc.) "the court" means—

(a) the High Court, or

(b) if a county court has jurisdiction by virtue of Part 4, a county court."

After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEEDINGS FOR DISSOLUTION, SEPARATION OR NULLITY ORDER
(1) The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for a dissolution order or a separation order if (and only if)—

(a) the court has jurisdiction under section 159 regulations,

(b) no court has, or is recognised as having, jurisdiction under section 159 regulations and either civil partner is domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date when the proceedings are begun, or

(c) the following conditions are met—

(i) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Northern. Ireland,

(ii) no court has, or is recognised as having, jurisdiction under section 159 regulations, and

(iii) it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.

(2) The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for a nullity order if (and only if)—

(a) the court has jurisdiction under section 159 regulations,

(b) no court has, or is recognised as having, jurisdiction under section 159 regulations and either civil partner—

(i) is domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date when the proceedings are begun, or

GC 451

(ii) died before that date and either was at death domiciled in Northern Ireland or had been habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of 1 year ending with the date of death, or

(c) the following conditions are met—

(i) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland,

(ii) no court has, or is recognised as having, jurisdiction under section 159 regulations, and

(iii) it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.

(3) At any time when proceedings are pending in respect of which the court has jurisdiction by virtue of subsection (1) or (2) (or this subsection), the court also has jurisdiction to entertain other proceedings, in respect of the same civil partnership, for a dissolution, separation or nullity order, even though that jurisdiction would not be exercisable under subsection (1) or (2)."
After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEEDINGS FOR PRESUMPTION OF DEATH ORDER
The court has jurisdiction to entertain proceedings for a presumption of death order if (and only if)—

(a) the applicant is domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date when the proceedings are begun,

(b) the applicant was habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of 1 year ending with that date, or

(c) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland and it appears to the court to he in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case."

After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
"PROCEEDINGS FOR DISSOLUTION, NULLITY OR SEPARATION ORDER:SUPPLEMENTARY
(1) Rules of court may make provision in relation to civil partnerships corresponding to the provision made in relation to marriages by Schedule 1 to the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15)).
(2) The rules may in particular make provision—

(a) for the provision of information by applicants and respondents in proceedings for dissolution, nullity or separation orders where proceedings relating to the same civil partnership are continuing in another jurisdiction, and

(b) for proceedings before the court to be stayed by the court where there are concurrent proceedings elsewhere in respect of the same civil partnership."

After Clause 167, insert the following new clause—
"APPLICATIONS FOR DECLARATIONS AS TO VALIDITY ETC.
The court has jurisdiction to entertain an application under section 144 if (and only if)—

(a) either of the civil partners in the civil partnership to which the application relates—

(i) is domiciled in Northern Ireland on the date of the application,

(ii) has been habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of I year ending with that date, or

GC 452

(iii) died before that date and either was at death domiciled in Northern Ireland or had been habitually resident in Northern Ireland throughout the period of I year ending with the date of death, or

(b) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Northern Ireland and it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clauses 168 to 171 agreed to.
Clause 172 [Supplementary provisions relating to recognition of dissolution etc.]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley had given notice of her intention to move Amendment No. 65R:
Page 84, line 30. at end insert—
"( ) The power to make regulations under subsection (2) having effect in Northern Ireland is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12)) and subsections (3) and (4) do not apply to such regulations.
( ) A statutory rule containing regulations under subsection (2) is subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament and section 5 of the Statutory Instruments Act 1946 (c. 36) applies accordingly."
The noble Baroness said: I beg leave to withdraw Amendment No. 65R to Clause 172, which would have made a technical change to the kind of process by which regulations for Northern Ireland will be made to give effect to Clause 172. This is to allow further consideration to be given to the kind of legislative format of any regulations made for Northern Ireland under the clause. This consideration does not extend to the level of parliamentary scrutiny. It is still intended that these regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure. If necessary, any amending provision to prescribe technical processes specifically for Northern Ireland will be tabled on Report.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Lyell): The Question is that the amendment be agreed to. I think that is the correct procedure if someone wishes to speak.
Lord Henley: It is extraordinary to withdraw an amendment before it has even been moved. Either an amendment is moved or it is not moved. However, on this occasion, the noble Baroness has decided to withdraw the amendment. I presume, therefore, that the amendment has been moved, but that it has not been discussed. She now wants to withdraw it.
Lord Higgins: It may be better if the noble Baroness moves the amendment and then withdraws it, rather than withdraw it before it has been moved.
Baroness Crawley: I am happy to take the advice offered by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. I shall move the amendment and then withdraw it.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: I hope that I moved the amendment after the noble Baroness made her short interjection. If any noble Lord wishes to speak before the noble Baroness withdraws her amendment, we should allow a little time for debate.
Baroness Crawley: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 172 agreed to.
Clauses 173 to 177 agreed to.
Clause 178[Fees]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 65S and 65T:
Page 86, leave out line 41 and insert "The power to make an order under section (Fees)(1) includes power to make an order prescribing"
Page 87. line 1, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 178, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 179 to 181 agreed to.
Clause 182 [Provisions to which section 181 applies: Acts of Parliament etc.]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 65U:
Page 88. line 29, leave out "The Secretary of State" and insert "A Minister of the Crown"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 65U, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 65V through to 65AB. The amendments relate to the power under Clause 182(2) to make orders. It may be helpful to the Committee if I set out briefly the background.
Part 6 deals with relationships arising through civil partnerships. Clause 181 provides that references to step relations and to in-laws in certain legislation are to be read as including relationships arising through civil partnership. Clause 182 identifies the legislation to which those interpretation rules apply. In particular, they will apply to an existing Act of Parliament or of the Scottish Parliament if it is listed in Schedule 15, and Clause 182(2)(a) confers a power by order to amend the list in Schedule 15. The rules in Clause 181 will also apply to existing subordinate legislation, if it is specified by order, and the power to make such orders is given by Clause 181(2)(b).
The amendments serve three purposes. First, Amendments Nos. 65U, 65Y and 65AA provide that the power in Clause 182(2) is to be exercisable by a Minister of the Crown, rather than the Secretary of State. That is the standard approach adopted in the Bill and will ensure that Ministers who are not Secretaries of State can make any orders that may be needed in relation to legislation for which they are responsible.
Secondly, Amendment No. 65V ensures that the power conferred by Clause 182 is extended to the National Assembly for Wales in respect of the interpretation of existing subordinate legislation which it has made or which falls within its competence. Thirdly, Amendment No. 65V ensures that the power in Clause 182(2) is extended to Northern Ireland departments. It is to ensure
GC 454
that Acts of the United Kingdom Parliament relating to transferred matters in Northern Ireland can be made subject to the interpretation rules in Clause 181.
The other amendments are consequential. Amendments Nos. 65W and 65X specify that the power in Clause 182(2), when exercised by a Northern Ireland department, is exercisable by statutory rule. That is usual in the case of subordinate legislation in Northern Ireland. Amendment No. 65Y is simply a consequential drafting change to subsection (5), which sets out the negative resolution procedure requirement for statutory instruments made by a Minister of the Crown. Amendment No. 65Z provides that a statutory rule made by a Northern Ireland department is subject to the negative resolution procedure for Northern Ireland. Finally, Amendment No. 65AB defines the phrase,
"deals with a transferred matter"
in the new subsection. I beg to move.
Lord Henley: When the Minister referred to "step relations", was she implying that the definition of step relations in Scotland differed from that in England, or is it just that the law in Scotland is different?
Baroness Crawley: No. As I understand it, there is no difference between the definition of step relations in England and that in Scotland.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment Nos. 65V to 65AB:
Page 88, line 33, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"( ) The power conferred by subsection (2) is also exercisable—

(a) by the Scottish Ministers, in relation to a relevant Scottish provision;

(b) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to a provision which deals with a transferred matter;

(c) by the National Assembly for Wales, if the order is made by virtue of subsection (2)(b) and deals with matters with respect to which functions are exercisable by the Assembly."

Page 88, line 35, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (4A),"
Page 88, line 36, at end insert—
"(4A) Any power of a Northern Ireland department to make an order under subsection (2) is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12))."
Page 88, line 37, leave out ", other than an instrument made by the Scottish Ministers," and insert "made by a Minister of the Crown"
Page 88, line 42, at end insert—
"( ) A statutory rule containing an order under subsection (2) made by a Northern Ireland department is subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.))."
Page 89, line 8, at end insert—
""Minister of the Crown" has the same meaning as in the Ministers of the Crown Act 1975 (c. 26);"

GC 455
Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
""transferred matter" has the meaning given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) and "deals with" in relation to a transferred matter is to be construed in accordance with section 98(2) and (3) of the 1998 Act."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 182, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 15 agreed to.
Clause 183 agreed to.
Schedule 16 agreed to.
Clause 184 [Discrimination against civil partners in employment field]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 66:
Page 90, line 36, after "sex" insert "or the same sex"
The noble Lord said: I think that it would be convenient to consider Amendment Nos. 67 and 68 with this amendment.
I am astonished at the amount of work that has gone into the Bill and the amount of correspondence that has descended on us since the last sitting. In addition to a massive commentary on the clauses, one has received letters from the noble Lord, Lord Filkin, in the Department for Constitutional Affairs; the noble Baroness, Lady Crawley, in the Government Whips' Office; the Women and Equality Unit and the Civil Partnership Bill team; and the noble Baroness, Lady Scotland, in the Home Office. In addition, there has been a "Dear colleague" letter from the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, and another from the Home Office addressed to the noble Lord, Lord Alli. I cannot promise that I have assimilated every point made in that correspondence, but no doubt it is intended to be helpful. My only question is whether that voluminous correspondence has been placed in the Library, since some people outside this House may have difficulty comprehending the detail of the legislation.
3.45 p.m.
Lord Alli: Quite a lot of that correspondence is self-inflicted. Those of us in Committee have asked for much of it. When the Ministers respond, it is hardly for us to say, "Oh, there is a wealth of correspondence", because we have been asking for it. Maybe if we ask for less, we will be sent less.
Lord Higgins: I cannot promise to do that, but I take the point that this information is intended to be helpful to the Committee in the light of the discussions that have taken place.
Baroness O'Cathain: I do not like to disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Alli—I really do not—but I did not bring the papers down with me, because you end up with arms like gorillas down by your ankles because of the amount of stuff that you must carry around on this Bill. Two or three letters are, I agree, direct responses to questions from the noble Lord and questions from me. The reality is that most of it is new amendments and explanatory notes about new amendments. It is good to
GC 456
have those explanatory notes, but on the other hand, it is coming non-stop, even again today. We do not have time to look at it all.
Lord Higgins: I was not in any way intending to criticise the production of the information—on the contrary, it was helpful. I was only saying that it is pretty difficult to assimilate it in the time that we have available. No doubt we can return to these matters on Report.
The amendments are related to the question of how these matters are to be handled, where sex is, as quoted in the clause, a "genuine occupational qualification". It is not clear exactly how that is going to operate. It is not immediately apparent why the introduction of same-sex partnerships could give rise to any particular problem with regard to discrimination in employment. It would be helpful to have a brief explanation of that, as against the situation for married couples. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: May I follow up what my noble friend Lord Higgins said? This is a very complex Bill. It does not help to have it changing its nature like a kaleidoscope every day of the week. The House of Lords has a high reputation for the work that it does, particularly on legislation that has been received from the other place without having been considered there; or at least large parts of it not having been considered there. It is our duty to try to make sense of what comes from there. Not infrequently, the Government then lumber us with a huge number of amendments. I do not think that in my time here I have ever seen such a volume of amendments, such complexity and so many references backwards and forwards.
I am sure that the Minister understands every word of it and that she would not even need to take advice from the officials behind her who, I notice, number seven. That is nearly as many as there are noble Lords here to consider the Bill. Sooner or later, it would serve the Government right if the Committee decided just to let the whole lot go through, just like that, and leave it as the mess that so much legislation is when it is first published. For sure, when it gets to the other place, it will not be properly discussed. It will be timetabled, and it will be a great surprise if they even look at most of it.
I am becoming heartily fed up with this place being taken for granted. The Government throw ill considered, ill digested and badly drafted legislation at us, expecting us to take responsibility for ensuring that when it gets on the statute book it is reasonable legislation. It has gone too far, and it is time that the Government resolved to bring before us a Bill that they intend to take through the House and not a Bill which they intend to amend massively after they have published it.
Baroness Crawley: Of course, I take note of the complaints about the number of government amendments. I am told by my noble friend Lady Hollis of Heigham that both this Government and the previous government have had Bills that have had copious government amendments. However, I apologise for the scale of the amendments and for the timescale, which

GC 457
may be a greater worry for Members of the Committee. If they look at the forthcoming business, Members of the Committee will see that we have a good few weeks between now and Report in which to consider the amendments.
Lord Tebbit: Can the Minister give us an undertaking that the Government will not bring forward more amendments between the end of Committee and Report?
Baroness Crawley: I am afraid that I have to disappoint the noble Lord. I cannot give that undertaking, but obviously we shall do our best. The number of officials, to which the noble Lord referred, reflects the number of government departments that are involved in the Bill.
I shall answer the questions put by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, by way of responding to each of the amendments. If I may, I shall consider Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 first and then turn to Amendment No. 66.
The provision of the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that subsection (4) of Clause 184 seeks to amend enables an employer to offer two jobs in his or her employment to a married couple, without falling foul of the requirement not to discriminate on grounds of sex. I suppose that the most common situation would be one in which shared accommodation was intrinsic to the job, such as a couple managing a public house. As the daughter of a publican, that is the one I know best.
All that the clause would do is to extend that exception to a case where the couple to be offered the two jobs are civil partners. That goes with our intention in the Bill to ensure that civil partners are not disadvantaged in comparison with married couples. I can see no good reason why an employer with an opportunity of that kind should be allowed to offer it to a man and woman but unable to make it available to a same-sex couple in a civil partnership for fear of a claim of sex discrimination. As the law stands under the Sex Discrimination Act, an exemption is made for a married couple if there is an issue of tied accommodation with the job. We are saying that we read across from that exception to civil partnership, so that where one reads "married persons" one would insert "civil partners".
I assume that Amendment No. 66 is a probing amendment. It is not clear to me what its intended purpose is, and I am not sure what effect it would have in practice. The subsection that Amendment No. 66 would amend relates to the comparison that must be made, if discrimination on the ground of sex is to be demonstrated. The noble Lord will know that, by definition, such a comparison must be with a person of the opposite sex. Someone who is trying to demonstrate that there has been discrimination on the ground of sex must use opposite sex comparators. Adding the words "or the same sex" would therefore have no effect in this context.
GC 458
I hope that the noble Lord will be satisfied with that and will withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. How will employers know about all that?
Baroness Crawley: I understand that there will be guidance for employers, employers' organisations and public and private organisations.
Baroness O'Cathain: I want a little clarification from the Minister. Someone might, for example, have a country house but not be there for most of the week. Often, one sees advertisements in The Lady saying, "Married couple wanted to look after house while owners are in London". Such advertisements specify married couples, because normally the wife is the housekeeper and the husband is the gardener, the DIY man, the mechanic and everything else. In future, will people be unable to advertise in The Lady to say that they want a married couple for a house?
Baroness Crawley: The noble Baroness is right: we can see such advertisements each week, should we be looking for them. They are not against the law because there is an exception in the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 that allows married couples to be considered for such jobs. I used the public house example, but the noble Baroness is right to say that it could apply to a cook and gardener or a housekeeper and gardener. It is the same thing. As the legislation is drafted, there would be a read-across from the legality of the advertisement in The Lady saying "married couple" to saying "civil partnership".
Lord Tebbit: I thank the noble Baroness for that explanation. Is she really saying that, at the moment, it would be illegal under the Sex Discrimination Act 1975 to advertise for a same-sex couple to work in such circumstances? I find that difficult to believe The noble Baroness must know, as she has everything at her fingertips.
Baroness Crawley: I understand that it is. That is my legal advice.
Lord Higgins: Legal advice or not, we will need to think that one through before Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 67 and 68 not moved.]
Lord Higginshad given notice of his intention to oppose the Question that Clause 184 stand part of the Bill.
The noble Lord said: I have no further comments to make.
Clause 184 agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 68A:
After Clause 184, insert the following new clause—
"DISCRIMINATION AGAINST CIVIL PARTNERS IN EMPLOYMENT FIELD: NORTHERN IRELAND
(1) Amend the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 (S.I. 1976/1042 (N.I. 15)) as follows.
(2) For Article 5 (discrimination against married persons in employment field) substitute—
"5 DISCRIMINATION AGAINST MARRIED PERSONS AND CIVIL PARTNERS IN EMPLOYMENT FIELD
(1) In any circumstances relevant for the purposes of any provision of Part 3, a person discriminates against a person ("A") who fulfils the condition in paragraph (2) if—

(a) on the ground of the fulfilment of the condition, he treats A less favourably than he treats or would treat a person who does not fulfil the condition, or

(b) he applies to A a provision, criterion or practice which he applies or would apply equally to a person who does not fulfil the condition, but—

(i) which puts or would put persons fulfilling the condition at a particular disadvantage when compared with persons not fulfilling the condition, and

(ii) which puts A at that disadvantage, and

(iii) which he cannot show to be a proportionate means of achieving a legitimate aim.

(2) The condition is that the person is—

(a) married, or

(b) a civil partner.

(3) For the purposes of paragraph (1), a provision of Part 3 framed with reference to discrimination against women is to be treated as applying equally to the treatment of men, and for that purpose has effect with such modifications as are requisite."
(3) For Article 7 (basis of comparison) substitute—
"7 BASIS OF COMPARISON
Each of the following comparisons, that is—

(a) a comparison of the cases of persons of different sex under Article 3(1) or (2),

(b) a comparison of the cases of persons required for the purposes of Article 4A, and

(c) a comparison of the cases of persons who do and who do not fulfil the condition in Article 5(2),
must be such that the relevant circumstances in the one case are the same, or not materially different, in the other.",
and omit Article 3(4).

(4) In Article 10 (exception where sex is a genuine occupational qualification), in paragraph (2)(h) for "by a married couple-substitute—

"(i) by a married couple,

(ii) by a couple who are civil partners of each other, or

(iii) by a married couple or a couple who are civil partners of each other".

(5) In Article 65 (remedies on complaint under Article 63), in paragraph (1B) for "or marital status as the case may be" substitute "or (as the case may be) fulfilment of the condition in Article 5(2)"."
The noble Baroness said: The Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 makes it unlawful to discriminate in the field of employment against people on the ground that they are married. The clause extends that protection to discrimination against civil partners in the same circumstances.
An exception in the Sex Discrimination (Northern Ireland) Order 1976 permits discrimination where sex is a genuine occupational qualification for a job because it is one of two jobs to be offered to a married couple. We had the same discussion about the previous amendment, but we are now transferring the legislation to Northern Ireland.
The clause also provides that the exception can be claimed, if the two jobs are to be offered to a couple who are civil partners. I beg to move.
Lord Tebbit: I have to ask for some examples of occupations where sex is a genuine qualification.
4 p.m.
Baroness Crawley: Can I write to the noble Lord on that? I am getting advice that is not the moment.
Lord Tebbit: Surely we will not be asked to agree a clause when we cannot be told its meaning.
Baroness Crawley: Examples would be actors and actresses and models.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 185 [Civil partners to have unlimited insurable interest in each other]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 69:
Page 91, line 16, leave out "contracts of assurance" and insert "civil partnerships"
The noble Lord said: The amendment is essentially about timing. The final subsection of the clause states:
"This section applies in relation to contracts of assurance entered into on or after the day on which it comes into force".
As I understand it, that means that a contract of assurance could come into force, with the Bill's coming into force determining the timing of the matter. However, I would have thought that it ought not to be in advance of a civil partnership having been formed. Therefore, the amendment would be appropriate. It would mean that the civil partnership had to be formed before the clause came into operation. I beg to move.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): I was not sure how wide the noble Lord was going to range on the amendment, but it is clear that he is not opening up the whole issue about insurable interest. The automaticity that spouses have in insurable interest goes across to civil partners in a way that obviously does not apply to two strangers, otherwise we would have the plot of a murder mystery.
In terms of timing, we have such a formulation because there is a risk that Clauses 1 and 155 could be commenced prior to Clause 185, and therefore there would be a disjunction in timing. We will seek to avoid that if we can. Obviously, Clause 185 would in no way prevent persons who had entered into contracts of assurance prior to forming a civil partnership—where the insurers had recognised that they had an insurable interest from that contract—continuing once they were civil partners. The automaticity follows the commencement of the clause.

GC 461
Up until the commencement of the clause, people must establish that they have an insurable interest, as they might do if they were siblings, for example. Once the clause is commenced, however, the assumption is automatic. Because there could be a disjunction in timing, the clause is needed.
Lord Higgins: I understand the point about disjunction, but am I wrong in thinking that the contract of assurance could come into force after the civil partnership is formed? I am not clear what the Government actually intend. Do they want to say that anyone can have a contract of insurance that is operational after the Bill, and that it will then become a mutual affair, so to speak?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It will apply at a lower level than that. At the moment, a contract of assurance can be used to protect a joint mortgage if you can establish to the satisfaction of the insurance company that you have a legitimate insurable interest in each other's life. Such a contract could be between siblings, between flatmates or two people living as though they were in a civil partnership. At the moment, spouses, uniquely, do not have to establish that they have an insurable interest; it is automatically assumed that they do so. Here we are establishing the same level of automatic assumption for civil partners once they have registered.
It may be that a couple of the same sex living together already have a contract of assurance, but to do so they would have had to establish it. In future, they will not have to establish the fact that they have an insurable interest. But because there could be a disjunction of timing, we need this clause. However, I cannot conceive of any problem—if I may put it that way—that this may pose for anyone.
Lord Higgins: Let me try again because I am still not quite clear about this. As I read the provision, it means that this clause would not apply to a contract of assurance which existed before the partnership was formed. However, I understand the Government's intention to be that if someone has a contract of assurance and a civil partnership is then formed, it will be something that is a mutual interest. However, at the moment, an insurance policy taken out before the civil partnership was formed would not have the same degree of mutuality as one taken out afterwards.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps it is my ignorance, but I do not understand the use of the word "mutuality" here. All this clause states is:
"Where two people are civil partners, each of them is to be presumed … to have an interest".
They do not have to establish it. That is all that is said.
Lord Higgins: I remain unconvinced, but I shall look at the matter again and return to it on Report.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn
Clause 185 agreed to.
Clause 186 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 69A:
Page 91, line 19, leave out "amends certain enactments" and insert "contains amendments"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 69A, I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it. So far. discussion on the Bill has mainly centred on the creation of the new legal relationship of civil partnerships, their formation and dissolution and some of the legal consequences of forming a civil partnership. From now on, we turn to the issues surrounding social security and their implications. Here the Government's purpose is twofold: to ensure that there is no inequity of treatment—
Baroness Wilcox: I was distracted by a new posse of civil servants entering the Moses Room. We could not work out whether they were leaving or remaining. The social construct of the seating arrangements was confusing. We apologise for interrupting the noble Baroness.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Having discussed The Lady, it appears that the best principles governing dinner parties in country houses has been the source of most of our analogies so far.
Our advisers have changed because at this point in the Bill we move to the territory of social security. Two things must be done simultaneously. We must ensure on the one hand that there is equity of treatment between civil partners and married couples while, on the other hand, we must ensure equity and comparability of treatment between cohabiting couples of opposite sexes and cohabiting couples of the same sex for social security purposes. The test used for social security purposes for a cohabiting couple is whether two people are living together as a couple, as husband and wife—or the equivalent wording. That sets out the general context in which a whole sequence of amendments have been tabled both on the government side and by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
We start, possibly in a slightly back-to-front manner, with a series of amendments needed for Northern Ireland. Since most social security and child support legislation for Northern Ireland stands separate to that passed at Westminster for Great Britain, we need separate amendments to ensure that provisions there mirror what we are providing for Great Britain. Amendments Nos. 69A, 69B, 71A, 71B, 71C, 71D, 7IE and 71F amend Clause 186 to ensure that Northern Ireland departments making an order under Clause 191 may deal with references in existing social security and child support legislation to persons who are living or have lived together as husband and wife. The power under Section 191 will enable Northern Ireland departments to translate such references into a reference to persons who are living, or have lived, together as if they were civil partners.
The insertion of the reference to the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 is to ensure that parallel amendments may be

GC 463
made to that order and the 1979 Act of the same name. The Committee may wish to discuss the substance of the issue when we reach the GB provisions, on which the situation is clear, but the Northern Ireland bundle mirrors what we will do with the GB framework. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 69B:
Page 91, line 21, after "Act" insert ", Northern Ireland legislation"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 70:
Page 91, line 24, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: It would be helpful to discuss Amendment No. 71 also. Truth be told, I am not sure that this grouping is very helpful, as Amendment No. 70 deals with a small, pedantic point, whereas Amendment No. 71 deals with the more important issue of the deletion of subsection (3).
I shall deal first with Amendment No. 71 and say a word at the end about Amendment No. 70. With almost unintentional humour, the draftsman has described Part 7 of the Bill as "Miscellaneous". We accept that the main purpose of the Bill relates to the controversial issue of civil partnerships and broad issues of equality. However, despite the assertion by the noble Lord, Lord Alli, that the central purpose of the Bill is almost uniquely important and that none of the other matters in the Bill is of the least importance, this part contains a series of sections concerned with social security, child support and tax credits. It would be helpful to pick up each issue separately as we come to the related amendments.
It remains unclear why the position on tax as against social security should be treated as it has been. We received a press release—nowadays even the gravest issues can be dealt with by press releases, certainly by Inland Revenue ones—that said that the Civil Partnership Bill was social security legislation, so any tax consequences would be dealt with in the next available finance Bill. We have failed to get from the Government Front Bench any answer on what that expression means or when the next available finance Bill is likely to contain the legislation that has such an important bearing on this Bill
The other strange aspect is that the press release states:
"The clauses giving effect to the changes have been included in the Civil Partnership Bill"—
so far as concerns tax credits and so on—
"as these matters are outside the scope of the Finance Bill".
The Government seem to want to have their cake and eat it. I am unclear why the Bill deals, for example, with tax credits, an area taken over effectively in an empire-building exercise by the Chancellor. At all events, it does not seem a satisfactory arrangement, when so much of what is important in the Bill turns out not to be in it at all. More particularly—and this brings
GC 464
me to the amendment—so much will be dealt with by powers to make subordinate legislation. The subsection states that the,
"power under section 191 to make orders amending enactments and subordinate legislation is to be treated as including power to amend the provision to refer to persons who are living or have lived together".
The noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, and I have discussed these matters many times and over a range of Bills over many years. She has always been extremely helpful in letting us have draft orders before we come to the more substantive parts of the Bill. I hope she will find it possible to do that on the various matters that we are now going to discuss, which are dealt with simply by taking powers to implement the legislation by subordinate legislation. I hope that she will make it possible to have those draft orders before we get to Report. She has been extremely helpful in that respect in the past, and one must hope that that is so in future.
At all events, Amendment No. 71 suggests that to take powers in this area—in a great many areas of social security, the Child Support Agency and so on—is not a desirable way in which to proceed, when such an incredible amount of detail on other matters of relatively small importance is spelt out almost ad infinitum in the Bill. I hope that the Minister will respond on that issue.
Amendment No. 70 would leave out subsection (2)(b), which contains a rather extraordinary expression. It refers to legislation that,
"contains references (however expressed) to persons who are living or have lived together as husband and wife".
I cannot recall ever seeing in legislation before the expression "however expressed", which seems remarkably wide-ranging. Perhaps the draftsman finally cracked up at this stage and thought that this was the easiest way out. Will the Minister tell us why the parenthesis is necessary? I beg to move.
4.15 p.m.
Lord Alli: I hesitate to intervene in what I suspect will be a series of conversations between the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis of Heigham. However, I wonder whether the Minister will answer a question for me which is of concern in this area.
This part of the legislation allows a test for same-sex couples, so that a number of people living in same-sex couples who claim individual status will lose that status and be treated by the social security system in the same way as unmarried couples. Ironically, this is one of those areas that the noble Baroness, Lady O'Cathain, if she were in her place, would understand. It follows the agenda of rights and responsibilities and some of the penalties that go along with equalisation in this area.
I have one specific worry. Through the social security system, there is a danger that a lot of gay couples who currently keep their relationship secret because of fear of prejudice may be outed by various departments which seek, rightly, to implement the regulations but, in doing so, expose relationships that

GC 465
many people are not confident of exposing. Will the Minister tell me more about what other departments might do to help in those situations, because that is a worry and concern to many people in the gay community?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The push of the amendments as drafted is to exclude cohabiting same-sex couples from falling within the remit of certain aspects of social security, although I know from what he has said that that is not the noble Lord's intent. That is what his amendments technically do hut, as it was not the argument that he advanced, I shall not go down that path, despite the fact that I have a speech written to that effect. I am sure that he will be rather pleased.
The noble Lord went on to a second point, which was a legitimate query about the power taken by the Bill to amend regulations subsequently. We are trying throughout the Bill—I am not saying that we have got it perfect—when there is primary legislation that needs amendment, to amend that legislation in the Bill or by schedule. As the noble Lord will know, an awful lot of social security legislation is tucked away in regulations. Therefore, we are seeking to take a power to amend those regulations accordingly, otherwise we shall absolutely clutter up legislation.
If we were to redraft all regulations so that wherever it said "married couples" they also referred to "civil partners" and where it said "cohabiting couples" or "lived together as husband and wife", we had to express whether the couple were of the opposite or same sex, we would end up with a Bill that was several sizes larger than this one. Therefore, it makes greater sense, because we all know that the import is to get a read-across from married status to civil partnership and cohabiting opposite-sex couples to cohabiting same-sex couples, to do that in secondary legislation, as for the most part that simply means adding in a couple of words to adjust the terminology. It makes sense to do that by regulation and not to clutter up the Bill.
The noble Lord also pushed us on the phrase "however expressed". There have been various ways in which to express both opposite-sex cohabitation as well as same-sex cohabitation, so it is a way in which to have an inclusive terminology.
I am very happy that my noble friend Lord Alli raised a substantive point, to which we may wish to return. He referred to the worry that by expanding social security reach to include, for the first time, people living as same-sex couples who have hitherto been treated as individuals, we would turn the clock back to the treatment of cohabiting opposite-sex couples, which many of them experienced in the 1950s. I am thinking of prurience, twitching net curtains, anonymous telephone calls and the like.
It was precisely because I shared those concerns, and because representations had been made to me by friends and colleagues such as my noble friend Lord Alli, that I have had two seminars with relevant organisations, including Stonewall, the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Lesbian and Gay Lawyers
GC 466
Association, the Local Government Association and the CAB. We considered whether the existing test for living together as husband and wife for cohabiting unmarried opposite-sex couples was still appropriate in its language and, if so, whether it could he applied to same-sex relationships. What we came up with as a result was a need to readdress that test across the board.
We found the discussion very helpful—it is going very well—and we are getting a new framework in which we can train our staff to act appropriately, sensitively, discreetly but even-handedly with opposite sex and same-sex couples in future. We are working on the matter, and I hope to have drafts that I can put in the Library and circulate to people as they wish during the summer.
Alongside that process—this has been put to us emphatically—we need to ensure that our staff are trained, both those of heterosexual and those of same-sex orientation. Some staff are worried that they may be outed against their wish, on the ground that they have "special skills" or "special insights". The issue is delicate. I have spoken to staff about the problems, and I am seeking the aid of the organisations to help us to go through the modules of sexual orientation training and role-play, where appropriate. We went through similar exercises when we introduced the disability legislation, to increase sensitivity.
I hope that the Committee will forgive this slightly extended discussion. I assure the noble Lord that with the help of the organisations, to which I pay tribute, we shall not only produce a sensitive test for same-sex couples but greatly improve the test for cohabiting couples. I hope that, with that extended description, which rather got away from the original point of the amendments, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: Although we understand that some of the orders made under the clause and related clauses may simply be of, in effect, a drafting nature, clearly some of them will not be. They are very wide powers in relation to a whole range of matters—social security, child support, tax credits, occupational pensions and so on. Is the noble Baroness able to provide draft regulations of a substantive as against a purely drafting nature? I very much hope that she is.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am advised that we are at a disadvantage because the Bill started in this House. Normally, on social security legislation, we have been able to provide draft regulations for us to consider while a Bill was in Committee and on Report. That has usually been because the Bill has started in the other House, so the time of parliamentary counsel has been available to move from primary legislation to the draft regulations. So, I cannot do what the noble Lord asks.
I shall see whether we can expand on the explanatory memorandum that went to the Select Committee on Delegated Powers and Regulatory Reform, if the noble Lord feels unsure about the reach of the Bill. If he would like to indicate any area, over

GC 467
and beyond what we have done for that committee, I shall be very happy to ask our officials to expand on the regulations.
Part of the matter is the need to have what I call a fishing-trip clause. For example, with Schedule 17 and related clauses, we think that we have to the best of our ability caught most of the appropriate legislation. However, I asked yesterday whether we had considered a situation where someone may be liable who applied for a social fund payment to help with funeral costs for someone on income support. The person liable is normally next of kin. Have we covered civil partnerships under "next of kin"? We do not know. I need to check that.
In such a situation, we do not yet know that we have caught every piece of legislation and their associated regulations. That is why we need the general power, otherwise I would be troubling noble Lords with not only a very long Bill, but repeated occasions on the Floor of the House simply to add "or civil partners" in regulations after regulations.
If, following the noble Lord's scouring of the Delegated Powers Committee's explanatory memorandum, he would like the officials to enlarge on any substantive point, I would be happy to arrange that. However, I cannot give him the draft regulations now. It is too early.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Baroness, but it is a considerable disadvantage if, every time that a Bill starts in the House of Lords, the draftsman has not yet drafted the regulations. Perhaps we need to consider the point further.
My primary concern is that the powers may be used to affect various interests. For example, the Bill contains considerable proposals for occupational pensions, in which we may be granting order-making powers that would affect private interests involved. I will need to consider to what extent the powers should be rather more confined and restricted than they appear to be in some cases at the moment. We shall return to the matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 71 not moved.]
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 71A to 71F:
Page 91, line 26, after "enactments" insert ", Northern Ireland legislation"
Page 91, line 30, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (4A)."
Page 91, line 34, at end insert
"(4A) Section 171(3), (5) and (6) of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 7) applies to the exercise by a Northern Ireland department of the power under section 191 in relation to social security and child support as it applies to any power under that Act to make an order (there being disregarded for the purposes of this subsection the exceptions in section 171(3) and (5) of that Act)."
GC 468
Page 91, line 35, after "Act" insert "or Northern Ireland legislation"
Page 91, line 37, after "(c. 41)" insert "and the Pneumoconiosis, etc., (Workers' Compensation) (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/925 (N.I. 9))"
Page 91, line 37, leave out "subsection (4)" and insert "subsections (4) and (4A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 72:
Page 91, line 38, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in this section shall come into effect until the Social Security Advisory Committee has been consulted and any recommendations it makes have been debated in both Houses of Parliament."
The noble Lord said: The amendment is self-explanatory. On many previous pieces of social security legislation we have found that the Social Security Advisory Committee has been almost completely ignored or not consulted at all; on other occasions it has produced advice of help to the House. I am not sure what is the situation in relation to this legislation. No doubt the noble Baroness will tell us whether the committee has been consulted and, if so, with what result.
4.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The amendments would require us to consult the Social Security Advisory Committee. The noble Lord will understand that I cannot accept the amendments for the following reasons. First, the Social Security Advisory Committee is not consulted about regulations that are laid within six months of the primary legislation because it is assumed that the halo effect of parliamentary scrutiny will continue, as will be the case here. Secondly, the committee's formal remit does not extend to some areas covered by the Bill: for example, Inland Revenue tax credits—an issue about which the noble Lord has been concerned in the past—the Child Support Agency and occupational pensions. So there cannot be the blanket coverage sought in the amendment.
The third reason, which I hope will give the noble Lord a little more satisfaction, is that there is already good, informal consultation between the Social Security Advisory Committee, the Inland Revenue and ourselves, and a memorandum of understanding is being drawn up to that effect. The noble Lord asked me for an assurance about whether the Social Security Advisory Committee was consulted. We wrote to the committee about this matter and, in its letter of 19 May, the Social Security Advisory Committee replied that,
"no particular concerns have been expressed about those matters that fall within the Committee's statutory remit".
So I checked whether the Social Security Advisory Committee had any concerns, and it has made it clear that, as of four or five days ago, it has not.
It has made active and valuable evaluations of the "living together" test and some of the detailed informal consultation underpinning the Bill. With those assurances, I hope the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: That was a more convincing reply than I have received on other occasions. I am grateful. However, it raises the question of whether the powers of the committee should be extended to cover the issues specified by the noble Baroness. It also raises the question of whether the six-month limit on the Social Security Advisory Committee being allowed to comment on orders laid within that time is as appropriate as it might be—-not least because they will be drafted within six months but no attempt has been made to draft them so far.
At all events, I am glad to hear that the committee has been consulted, even though it has nothing very helpful to say. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think the noble Lord means that the committee had nothing critical to say.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 186, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 17 [Social security, child support and tax credits]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 73:
Page 211, line 21, leave out paragraphs (a) and (b).
The noble Lord said: As I said earlier, the Bill affects a great many areas of social security, including occupational pensions, state pensions, public service pensions, tax credits and so on, and the Child Support Act 1991. By leaving out the sub-paragraphs referred to in the amendment, in effect, the powers of inspection in relation to the Child Support Act 1991 would be removed. However, it would be helpful to have a wider debate on the position of the Child Support Agency because I am not absolutely clear how it will operate in the context of the Bill.
Obviously the basic legislation is concerned with couples who are married or in a relationship where a child is produced. The question is whether the parent who does not have care should make some contribution towards the support of the individual child.
I am not quite clear why the Child Support Agency is relevant in that context. Are we saying that if a same-sex couple adopts a child and the relationship either breaks up or one or other of the same-sex partners does not help to finance the child, the Child Support Agency and the powers specified under the schedule will become operative?
We well know that the situation of the Child Support Agency generally has been very unsatisfactory, albeit that the agency was introduced originally by a Conservative government. The present Government sought to change the formula so that from April 2002 the system would go live for new cases only, resulting in a situation where absent parents would pay 50 per cent of their net income for one child, 20 per cent for two and 30 per cent for three or more.
This has been appallingly slow in coming into effect. Time and time again, Parliamentary Questions are put to Ministers, asking when the conversion of the system is to take place; and time and time again the matter has been delayed. So on top of what is already, to say the
GC 470
least, a shaky organisation under immense strain, we are suddenly going to impose further powers under this legislation, thus giving greater scope for maladministration and so on.
I am appalled that the amount of compensation paid by the Child Support Agency for maladministration in the past five years is more than £12 million. The whole system is under enormous strain, as the noble Baroness will recognise. She personally has done all that she can to try to put the matter right, but to put this further strain on it at this stage is unwise, even if one understands—as I do not—exactly what it is that the Child Support Agency is supposed to do in the context of the Bill.
It would be helpful if the noble Baroness could tell the Committee why this particular issue in relation to social security has been included in the Bill in addition to those relating to pensions and so on, which we understand are relevant. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am at a slight disadvantage because the noble Lord's speech is, to some degree, at odds with the tabled amendment. His amendment would jeopardise the position of compellable witnesses. At the moment, in law, spouses are not compelled to incriminate themselves and give evidence against their partners. We are extending that same right of immunity to civil partners.
The noble Lord's amendment would extract from the Bill the right of immunity not to be a compellable witness for a civil partner. That is what the amendments would do and that is what my speech is about—but that is not, of course, what the noble Lord has been talking about. I do not think he mentioned the words "compellable witness" at any stage, even though his amendment would affect such people.
He spoke to the more general point about why the Child Support Agency has anything to do with the Bill. He was right to focus on adoption. Some partners, he they same-sex male or same-sex female, and same-sex couples whether or not they are civil partners, may well bring children into a relationship from a previous relationship. In the case of a same-sex female couple, the biological father of the child, or otherwise the biological mother if she remains the non-resident parent, will be liable for support from the Child Support Agency.
A child may also be adopted within the relationship or a child may be produced through artificial insemination. I understand that 100 or 125 same-sex female couples undergo the procedure every year. Finally, the child may have become the child of the family for other reasons. For example, the natural father of the child of a same-sex female couple may have died.
In all those cases, where there would be a presumption of continued child support as in marriage, that will be the case for civil partners, and where there would be a presumption for cohabiting partners, that will be the case for same-sex couples. The Bill establishes the same responsibilities for children, whether those children are adopted, children of the relationship or a child of the family, as currently exist for opposite-sex couples.

GC 471
The noble Lord finally made some general points about the Child Support Agency. Like the noble Lord, I wish that the information technology and computer systems had been able to move ahead faster, but we should not underestimate the fact that we have already put through something in the order of 150,000 cases under the new system. I believe that as of a few days ago, the child maintenance premium has gone to around 20,000 families. So we are getting there, perhaps a little more slowly than one would wish, but when we are assured that the new system is sufficiently robust so that we can bring existing cases held under the old system across to the new one, we shall be able to direct money to children more quickly, more transparently and with more consent.
With those remarks, I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment regarding compellable witnesses.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Baroness said that this is intended to extend to civil partners the present exemption from liability of a spouse to be a compellable witness against the other side. She made those remarks in the context of child support arrangements. However, I rather assume that she has referred to a general principle here, which is one that we would certainly support. However, I wonder where it appears in the Bill. Having had only a quick look, I have not found it. Perhaps I have overlooked the provision, or is it intended that it should be dealt with by order? If not, where is it set out? It is certainly something that should be in the Bill.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall take advice on that. However, the noble Lord is absolutely right. This is a general power derived from social security legislation passed in 1986, 1989 and 1992 regarding compellable witnesses. In this Bill we are extending those provisions across the board, but the first point at which the matter arises is with regard to the Child Support Agency, as the noble Lord realises. However, I am about to be told where this is set out in the Bill.
I turn to page 221. Paragraph 54 of Schedule 16 states:
"In section 109B (power to require information), in subsection (5)(a), for 'married, his spouse' substitute 'married or is a civil partner, his spouse or civil partner—.
Lord Goodhart: That is concerned with the Social Security Administration Act 1992. However, I am interested to learn about the general principle which would apply across the board, such as to criminal cases of all kinds. This goes very much wider than social security matters. Should it not be put in the Bill?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I did not know that we were entering the field of criminal legislation when talking about arrangements for the Child Support Agency in this Bill. I shall write to the noble Lord on the point, if he can bear to receive another piece of correspondence.
Lord Higgins: I share the implicit concern expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, that this may go rather wider than we had thought. However, as I now understand the precise purpose of this provision—which seeks to amend Section 15 of the Child Support Act 1991 covering the powers of inspectors—in that context, inspectors may find themselves in a situation where either one member of a married couple or one partner of a civil partnership refuses to respond to him, by analogy with the situation of a wife not being able to give evidence against her husband. That will place a severe restriction on the ability of the inspectors to find out what is really happening. However, no doubt we would create a difficult legal precedent if we went against it. I am not clear why the power has to be included. I want to consider carefully what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said and I shall do so in the light of the Minister's comments. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 74 not moved.]
4.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 211, line 29, leave out "(as originally enacted)"
The noble Lord said: The drafting again seems slightly unusual because, as pointed out by the noble Baroness, an enormous amount of what I am almost inclined to say is legislative garbage is made by reference back and forth, from statutory instrument to primary legislation and back again. In the absence of consolidation, it is tremendously difficult for anyone to follow the trail to its conclusion.
To include "as originally enacted" seems very strange. Perhaps I am mistaken and it has been used before. It means that, instead of looking at a particular Act of long ago that might have been altered three or four times and then again by statutory instrument, one has to go back to the beginning—before it was altered—to find its meaning. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify the situation. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall do my best to help. I agree with the noble Lord; the phrase is unusually colloquial for a Bill. It refers to the Child Support Act 1991. The new system was introduced by amendments to that Act, not by a new, free-standing Act that replaced the old one. The phrase simply refers to arrangements under the old scheme as opposed to the new one. Under the old scheme, the partner of the non-resident parent might need to have his or her income assessed to determine the level of household income necessary for the children in the second family. That does not come into play under the new scheme so we need to distinguish between the old and new schemes in the wording. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: But that seems to imply that the original scheme will continue for ever or remain rather like the smile of the Cheshire cat after the Cheshire cat has disappeared. Am I right in thinking that the provision deals with—the amendment would cancel it

GC 473
out—the idea that the original scheme eventually disappears? This would appear to perpetuate it indefinitely.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The scheme is not perpetuated indefinitely but while the old scheme continues we need the power. When the old scheme folds in the sense that existing clients of the agency will go across to the new scheme, the power will obviously not be needed. The income of the second adult in the non-resident parent's family would not be taken into account because we would not need to assess it.
Lord Higgins: That seems rather a counsel of despair given that the Government were going to abandon the old scheme, introduce the new scheme and have it operational a long time ago. The whole saga of the Child Support Agency has been a very sad one and continues to be so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 76:
Page 212, line 1, leave out paragraph 4.
The noble Lord said: The amendment seeks to leave out paragraph 4 which would insert after paragraph 6(5) of the schedule—dare I say it?—as originally enacted, a new sub-paragraph (5A) which states:
"For the purposes of this paragraph, two adults of the same sex arc to he regarded as living together"—
as civil partners and as if they were two adults of the opposite sex. It is effectively a cohabitation argument, if I understand it correctly. The cohabitation provisions will effectively appertain to determining to what extent people on the old scheme are parents with care. That is as opposed to those subject to the new scheme; we are not clear at all what happens under that.
This is very deep water, and I enter it with some trepidation, even having lived with it since 1991. Perhaps the noble Baroness will tell us exactly what it is all about. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would happily spend half an hour discussing the new arrangements for child support, but I am not sure that the rest of the Committee would be very happy with that. A self-denying ordinance will prevail, so I shall not.
I merely say that, under the new scheme, the only income assessment made is of the non-resident parent's wage or salary, as against the number of children in the first and possibly the second family. If there is one child in the family that he is needed to support, he pays 15 per cent; if there are two, he pays 20 per cent; and if there are three or more, he pays 25 per cent. That is the only calculation that needs to be made. It takes about eight lines of financial calculation, compared to 39 lines of it under the old scheme.
Under the old scheme, because minimum income levels are determined by the capacity of the second family to support its children before money goes to the first family that the non-resident parent is obliged to support, one has to determine the income of the
GC 474
partner of the non-resident parent to see whether that second family has sufficient income. We have quite rightly stripped all that out of the new system. While the old system exists, it is important to establish parity—fairness—between different groups of people.
The amendment would do something that I am sure that the noble Lord does not intend. It would recognise civil partners for husband-and-wife purposes—for assessing joint financial income in terms of a conventional spouse as the non-resident parent. It would also recognise cohabiting opposite-sex couples, as now, but not cohabiting same-sex couples. Those are what we need to bring into the equation. For reasons that escape me, the noble Lord seeks to exclude those by his amendment. I am sure that, on reflection, he will want them included. On that basis, I hope that he will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: Having dealt with constituency cases between 1991 and 1997 on the Child Support Agency and tried to explain to infuriated individuals why they had to pay for their children, I am glad to have escaped from all that. I do not think that I would manage, and I doubt whether even the noble Baroness would manage, to convince them that it was absolutely justified that they should do so. The whole area is a legislative nightmare. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 76A:
Page 212, line 23, at end insert—
"PART 1A
AMENDMENTS OF THE CHILD SUPPORT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1991(S.I. 1991/2628 (N.I. 23)).
5A In Article 3 (meaning of "child"), in paragraph (2)—

(a) in sub-paragraph (a), after "married" insert "or a civil partner",

(b) in sub-paragraph (b), after "marriage" insert or been a party to a civil partnership,", and

(c) in sub-paragraph (c), after "granted" insert "or has been a party to a civil partnership in respect of which a nullity order has been made".

5B In Article 17 (powers of inspectors), in paragraph (7)—

(a) after "married" insert "or is a civil partner", and

(b) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".

5C For paragraph 6(5)(b) (as originally enacted) of Schedule 1 (maintenance assessments) substitute—
"(b) where the absent parent—

(i) is living together in the same household with another adult of the opposite sex (regardless of whether or not they are married),

(ii) is living together in the same household with another adult of the same sex who is his civil partner, or

(iii) is living together in the same household with another adult of the same sex as if they were civil partners,

income of that other adult,".
5D After paragraph 6(5) (as originally enacted) of that Schedule insert—
"(5A) For the purposes of this paragraph, two adults of the same sex are to be regarded as living together in the same household as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two adults of the opposite sex."
5E In paragraph IOC of that Schedule (as substituted by section 1(3) of, and Schedule 1 to, the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act (Northern Ireland) 2000 (c. 4 (N.I.))), for subparagraph (5) substitute—
"(5) In sub-paragraph (4)(a), "couple" means—

(a) a man and a woman who are married to each other and are members of the same household,

(b) a man and a woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife,

(c) two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are members of the same household, or

(d) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners.

(6) For the purposes of this paragraph, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex"".—
The noble Baroness said: The amendment deals with amendments to the Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1991. It mirrors the existing proposals for civil partners and same-sex couples. On that basis, I hope that the Committee will accept it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 78:
Page 213, leave out lines 16 and 17.
The noble Lord said: The matter is again very complex. The amendment is concerned with social security contributions and the definition of a surviving civil partner. That raises the question of survivors' pensions and, perhaps to some extent, contributions. I think, but am far from certain, that the clause seeks to define a surviving civil partner. Apparently, the provision would apply only in the case of women. I presume that that in turn refers to the complexity of existing legislation, whereby only a woman gains from the existing contribution. I am reassured by the noble Baroness's nod. Apparently that anomaly will be perpetuated here, although I presume that it will persist only until a certain date rather than indefinitely. Perhaps the noble Baroness could confirm whether that is so.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Many of the points that the noble Lord made are relevant to the bigger amendment, Amendment No. 77, which he did not move, rather than the smaller one, Amendment No. 78. As he was using the amendment to open up a general question, I shall seek to answer it.
The noble Lord is entirely right. At present, widows may enjoy survivors' benefits from 1978 and widowers from 1988. Women are also entitled to a dependency pension based on National Insurance contributions, whereas men may not enjoy such a pension until 2010, when the ages will start to equalise. Widowers'
GC 476
retirement age is five years later than that of widows, so a double transition is happening. There is both the right of men to draw a pension from their partner's national insurance contributions in the same way as women can, and, secondly, we have the disparate ages of retirement: 60 until 2010 for women, increasing by one year every two years until 2020. The noble Lord is therefore right on both those counts. It is a finite problem. As and when the pension age is equalised, the treatment of widows and widowers will be equalised in the same way. I hope that that answers the noble Lord's points.
I could go on to the technical detail of his amendments, but I think that he was using them as a peg for the wider assurances.
Lord Higgins: That is helpful. I suppose that that was the reason for the clause as it stands. It is helpful to have it on the record that the situation will eventually be phased out. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 79 not moved.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before the next group of amendments, I must advise Members of the Committee that if Amendment No. 79B were agreed to, I would not he able to call Amendment Nos. 80 or 80A.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 79A:
Page 214, line 22, leave out sub-paragraphs (1) to (4).
The noble Lord said: This part of the Bill is concerned with contributions and the use of former spouses' contributions. It may be helpful to take the two together. As I understand it, there will be discussion generally of these matters as far as the contributions issue is concerned. I am not really clear why we are going to modify the legislation with regard to the additional pension benefits, or how exactly the system will work in relation to same-sex couples. Am I right in thinking that it mirrors the existing situation with regard to married couples, or is there any difference? I beg to move.
5 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: On the noble Lord's question whether it mirrors the situation of married couples, he is absolutely right. At the moment, a married woman but not a married man can use her husband's national insurance contributions to draw a category B pension, or a dependency or a 60 per cent pension from him. From 2010, so will men be able to draw a similar pension from women if. for example, the man was at home and she was in work and she had acquired the better run of national insurance contributions. The amendments remove the right of civil partners to enjoy the same access to category B pensions as currently exists. There is a complexity because at the moment a woman derives a pension from a man.
Therefore, if we were to get an exact mirror, male same-sex couples would be able to draw pensions now, whereas female same-sex couples—because a female

GC 477
could not draw a pension from another female, because a man cannot draw a pension from a female—would not. You get the bizarre result that male same-sex couples would be drawing a dependency pension ahead of female same-sex couples. That is why I equivocated a little, but the attempt is to replicate the existing situation with regard to married couples. We had to decide whether to replicate exactly. or try to get the fairness point established. From 2010, in the same way that men draw from women, so will same-sex couples be able to draw, subject to the retirement age, which is gender-based, not marriage or spousal relationship-based. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Lord Higgins: Yes, it was helpful. One will need to study it rather carefully. I am wondering where it would be most appropriate in your Lordships' consideration of this Bill to raise the issue of contributions more generally—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not think anywhere.
Lord Higgins: That is not the view of some of the outside interests. There are some serious anomalies here with regard to the situation of same-sex couples gaining from the contributions situation. More particularly, and I have expressed this concern before—I am now hopelessly out of order—in existing circumstances wives get a pension as a result of their husband's contributions. Apparently now one or other of the same-sex partners will get a pension—let us say a wife's pension, in effect, though I must not say that—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A dependent's pension.
Lord Higgins: A dependent's pension. I am not clear—and this is relevant to what we have been discussing—to what extent the contribution of one or other of the partners will be relevant. Are we to understand that the larger contribution of the two presumed contributions of the individuals concerned will be the basis for the pension? Underlying what I am saying is a concern that some other groups, particularly those with deficient contribution records who do not get a national insurance pension now, will continue not to get it because of their deficient record, whereas suddenly those who form a same-sex partnership will find that they do, even though they have a deficient contribution record. That seems unfair. That is what I am concerned about in this section—which as the noble Baroness rightly pointed out is about contributions—and I wonder whether we are dealing unfairly, because of the existing contribution rules, with regard to specific individuals.
On top of all that, if someone now gets married, he finds that he gets a wife's pension, and he has paid no more in contributions than a single person. The existing system, a relic, as I said at Second Reading, of Beveridge, provides that single people are grossly discriminated against. What worries me here is that we are extending that discrimination. There is yet another group who will get a national Insurance pension while deficient in their contributions, while single people
GC 478
continue not to get any benefit, even though they have paid the same amount. At some stage, we need to consider whether it is appropriate to extend these provisions in this way when we have another group that is even more unfairly treated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord is absolutely right that the state pension is the last unreformed bit of Beveridge. It presumed a society where he worked for a wage, and she was at home and worked bringing up the children, but not for a wage. Therefore, his wage, and subsequently his pension, were regarded as providing for both of them. It was therefore a dependent's pension based on 60 per cent, and only if her own national insurance contributions through work exceeded that would she come best to a calculation. It is still the case that only 14 per cent of women recently retired go into retirement with a full basic state pension in their own right. The rest get it either through their husband or, given that half of all women aged over 65 are widows, through a displacement of national insurance contributions.
There is a wider debate that the noble Lord may wish to have at some stage, but this is not the time for it. By extending to civil partners the rights and responsibilities of marriage, the dependency pension, the category B pension, the 60 per cent pension—which currently goes to wives, and will from 2010 be available to men if their wives have a better NI record—must be read across to civil partners. That means that single people, or people who have been cohabiting in same-sex or opposite-sex relationships for many years—even 20, 30 or 40 years—do not derive any entitlement to national insurance. That is where we stand. We are addressing the immediate anomaly by trying to ensure that civil partners enjoy the same structure of social security support and responsibilities as do married couples.
I do not deny that that means that other people do not have those same rights. The noble Lord has identified that. However, that is as far as I can go as this stage. We understand the situation perfectly well, but as this Bill seeks to establish equity or parity of treatment between civil partners and married couples, to civil partners will go the category B dependency pension from an appropriate stage.
Lord Goodhart: Perhaps the noble Baroness would confirm that in the case of civil partners, as well as spouses, no one can claim both a category A and a category B pension, and that there is no question of one civil partner getting two pensions—it is whichever is the better of the two.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is certainly the case that you cannot have both a category A and category B pension. Conventionally, a man will have worked and acquired the national insurance contribution, and the wife, not being in waged work, will have acquired the dependency pension. If you have two civil partners, both of whom have worked all their lives, they in their relationship will receive two 100 per cent pensions rather than 160 per cent.

GC 479
I can quite envisage a situation, for example, where one partner in a lesbian relationship may have brought her children with her. Because she has come out of a marriage with children, she may be deficient in national insurance contributions whereas her new civil partner has a full record. It would therefore make sense for her to get the 60 per cent.
I can also envisage situations where, in the case of a same-sex couple, one may be in regular employment as a teacher and the other may be self-employed as a potter or a craftsperson and not have a full record. They will have a choice as to which is the best buy for them. I would expect that in most civil partnerships the dependency pension will not come into play simply because people will be better off drawing on their own national insurance contributions, but that may not always be the case.
Lord Goodhart: The other point I was going to make, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, quite rightly said, is that this will provide a new opportunity for someone who has a poor contribution record to enter into a civil partnership, with the result that they will then acquire a much better contribution record. But, of course, that is equally the case at present for a woman with no contribution record who marries a man with a full contribution record and thereby acquires a right to the widow's pension.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is exactly right. That is a consequence of the read across from the existing relationship between married couples.
Lord Higgins: This has been a helpful discussion. I am not sure to what extent it was wholly related to the amendments—to a considerable extent, I think—but we need to be clear about the matter. As the noble Baroness said, this perhaps deals with the last unreformed piece of Beveridge. While there may not be any votes in it, it is a matter that should be borne in mind when we go on, as the Bill does, extending the anomalies in the way suggested.
I wonder where best we might raise the issues of retrospection and so on.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: How about tomorrow?
Lord Higgins: Perhaps not at this point. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendments Nos. 79B to 81 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81A:
Page 215, line 33, after "Category B" insert "retirement"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 81A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 81B. These are two minor amendments to correct the drafting of paragraph 21 of Schedule 17. The paragraph amends Section 51 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 so as to extend entitlement to category B retirement pension from widowers alone to widowers and surviving civil partners.
Amendment No. 81A seeks to insert the word "retirement" into line one of new subsection (1A). It might be thought unnecessary when using the word "pension" to insert the word "retirement", but I am advised that you have to use the description in the text set out in the original legislation; that contained the word and hence it needs to be reinserted.
Amendment No. 81B reflects the fact that subparagraph (3) now has effect in relation to deaths occurring after 5 October 2002. The original text of the Act set out the different date of "2000". That has been amended by Section 39 of the Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Act 2000 to "2002". We need to go back to the exact wording of the home legislation, if I can so regard it. Perhaps we should have picked up on the matter earlier, but we did not. I hope that Members of the Committee will accept these drafting amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81B:
Page 215, line 44, leave out "2000" and insert "2002"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 81C:
Page 221, line 20, at end insert—
"56A In section 20 (descriptions of contributory benefits). in subsection (1)(f)(ii), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
56B In section 30A (incapacity benefit: entitlement), in subsection (2)(b)(ii), after "spouse" insert "or deceased civil partner".
56C In section 30B (incapacity benefit:rate), in subsection (3)(a), after "people" insert "or civil partners".
56D (1) Amend section 36 (bereavement payment) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".
(3) For subsection (2) substitute—
"(2) A bereavement payment shall not be payable to a person if—

(a) that person and a person of the opposite sex to whom that person was not married were living together as husband and wife at the time of the spouse's or civil partner's death, or

(b) that person and a person of the same sex who was not his or her civil partner were living together as if they were civil partners at the time of the spouse's or civil partner's death."

56E In section 36A (cases in which sections 37 to 41 apply), in subsection (2), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
56F (1) Amend section 37 (widowed mother's allowance) as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), after "remarries" insert "or forms a civil partnership".
(3) After subsection (4)(b) insert "or
(c) for any period during which she and a woman who is not her civil partner are living together as if they were civil partners."
56G (1) Amend section 38 (widow's pension) as follows.
(2) In subsection (2), after "remarries" insert "or forms a civil partnership".

GC 481
(3) After subsection (3)(c) insert "or
(d) for any period during which she and a woman who is not her civil partner are living together as if they were civil partners."
56H (1) Amend section 39A (widowed parent's allowance) as follows.
(2) After "spouse" (in each place other than subsections (2)(b) and (4)), insert "or civil partner".
(3) After "spouse's" (in each place) insert "or civil partner's".
(4) In subsection (2), after paragraph (b) insert "or
(c) the surviving civil partner is a woman who—

(i) was residing together with the deceased civil partner immediately before the time of the death, and

(ii) is pregnant as the result of being artificially inseminated before that time with the semen of some person, or as a result of the placing in her before that time of an embryo, of an egg in the process of fertilisation, or of sperm and eggs."

(5) In subsection (4), after "remarries" insert "or forms a civil partnership".
(6) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The surviving civil partner shall not be entitled to the allowance for any period after she or he forms a subsequent civil partnership or marries, but, subject to that, the surviving civil partner shall continue to be entitled to it for any period throughout which she or he—

(a) satisfies the requirements of subsection (2)(a) or (b) above; and

is under pensionable age."

(7) After subsection (5)(b) insert "or
(c) for any period during which the surviving spouse or civil partner and a person of the same sex who is not his or her civil partner are living together as if they were civil partners."
56I (1) Amend section 39B (bereavement allowance where no dependent children) as follows.
(2) After "spouse" (in each place other than subsection (4)), insert "or civil partner".
(3) After "spouse's" (in each place) insert "or civil partner's".
(4) In subsection (4), after "remarries" insert "or forms a civil partnership".
(5) After subsection (4) insert—
"(4A) The surviving civil partner shall not be entitled to the allowance for any period after she or he forms a subsequent civil partnership or marries, but, subject to that, the surviving civil partner shall continue to be entitled to it until—

(a) she or he attains pensionable age, or

(b) the period of 52 weeks mentioned in subsection (3) above expires,
whichever happens first."

(6) After subsection (5)(b) insert "or
(c) for any period during which the surviving spouse or civil partner and a person of the same sex who is not his or her civil partner are living together as if they were civil partners."
56J In section 39C (rate of widowed parent's allowance and bereavement allowance)—

(a) after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner", and

(b) in subsection (5), after "spouse's" insert "or civil partner's".

GC 482
56K In section 46 (modifications of section 45 for calculating the additional pension in certain benefits)—

(a) after "under pensionable age", in subsection (2), insert "or by virtue of section 39C(1) above or section 48A(4), 48B(2) or 48BB(5) below in a case where the deceased civil partner died under pensionable age",

(b) after "spouse", in paragraph (b)(i) of the definition of "N" in subsection (2), insert "or civil partner", and

(c) after "spouse" (in each place) in subsection (3), insert "or civil partner".

56L (1) Amend section 48 (use of former spouse's contributions) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) for "married" substitute "in a relevant relationship",

(b) for "marriage" substitute "relationship", and

(c) after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".

(3) In subsection (2), for "marriage" substitute "relevant relationship".
(4) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) Where a person has been in a relevant relationship more than once, this section applies only to the last relevant relationship and the references to his relevant relationship and his former spouse or civil partner shall be construed accordingly.
(4) In this section, "relevant relationship" means a marriage or civil partnership."
56M (1) Amend section 48A (category B retirement pension for married person) as follows.
(2) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) A person who—

(a) has attained pensionable age, and

(b) on attaining that age was a civil partner or forms a civil partnership after attaining that age,
shall be entitled to a Category B retirement pension by virtue of the contributions of the other party to the civil partnership ("the contributing civil partner") if the following requirement is met.

(2B) The requirement is that the contributing civil partner—

(a) has attained pensionable age and become entitled to a Category A retirement pension, and

(b) satisfies the conditions specified in Schedule 3, Part 1, paragraph 5."

(3) In subsections (3) and (4), after "spouse" insert "or contributing civil partner".
(4) In subsection (4A), for "widow or widower" substitute "widow, widower or surviving civil partner".
(5) In subsection (5), after "spouse's" insert "or contributing civil partner's".
(6) Section 48A (as amended by this paragraph) does not confer a right to a Category B retirement pension on a person by reason of his or her forming a civil partnership with a person who was born before 6th April 1950.
56N (1) Amend section 48B (category B retirement pension for widows and widowers) as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert
"(1A) A person ("the pensioner") who attains pensionable age on or after 6th April 2010 and whose civil partner died—

(a) while they were civil partners of each other, and

(b) after the pensioner attained pensionable age,
shall be entitled to a Category B retirement pension by virtue of the contributions of the civil partner if the civil partner satisfied the conditions specified in Schedule 3, Part 1. paragraph 5."

(3) In subsection (2), after "subsection (1 )" insert "or (1A)".
(4) In subsection (3), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".

GC 483
56O (1) Amend section 48BB (category B retirement pension: entitlement by reference to benefits under section 39A or 39B) as follows.

(2) After "spouse" (in each place) insert -or civil partner".

(3) After "spouse's" (in each place) insert "or civil partner's".

(4) In subsections (1)(b) and (3)(b), for "remarried" substitute "following that death married or formed a civil partnership".
56P (1) Amend section 51 (category B retirement pension for widowers) as follows.
(2) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) A civil partner shall be entitled to a Category B retirement pension if—

(a) his or her civil partner has died and they were civil partners of each other at the time of that death,

(b) they were both over pensionable age at the time of that death, and

(c) before that death the deceased civil partner satisfied the contribution conditions for a Category A retirement pension in Schedule 3, Part 1, paragraph 5."

(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "man's" substitute "person's", and

(b) after "wife" insert "or deceased civil partner".

(4) In subsection (3), after "2002" insert "or a surviving civil partner".
(5) In subsection (4)—

(a) for "man" substitute "person", and

(b) after "pension" insert "under this section".

(6) Section 51 (as amended by this paragraph) does not confer a right to a Category B retirement pension on a person who attains pensionable age on or after 6th April 2010.
56Q In section 5IA (special provision for married people), in subsection (1)—

(a) after "person" insert "or civil partner", and

(b) after "marriage" insert "or civil partnership".

56R In section 52 (special provision for surviving spouses), in subsection (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
56S In section 60 (complete or partial failure to satisfy contribution conditions), in subsection (2)—

(a) after "married" insert "or a civil partner", and

(b) for "widow or widower" substitute "widow, widower or surviving civil partner".

56T In section 62 (graduated retirement benefit), after subsection (1)(aa) insert—
"(ab) for extending section 36 of that Act (increase of woman's retirement pension by reference to her late husband's graduated retirement benefit) to civil partners and their late civil partners and for that section (except subsection (5)) so to apply as it applies to women and their late husbands;"."
The noble Baroness said: These amendments, which apply to Northern Ireland, mirror the amendments to the corresponding social security and child support provisions for Great Britain. Perhaps I can assume, given our earlier discussion, that Members of the Committee would be happy to accept them. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment Nos. 81D to 81G:
Page 221, line 24, at end insert—
"57A In section 82 (short-term benefit: increase for adult dependants)—

(a) in subsection (3)(a) and (b), after "husband" insert "or civil partner",

(b) in subsection (3)(b), for "his" substitute "her husband's or civil partner's", and

(c) in subsection (4)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".

57B In section 83A (pension increase for spouse)—

(a) in subsection (1), for "married pensioner" substitute "pensioner who is married or a civil partner", and

(b) in subsections (2) and (3), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner".

57C (1) Amend section 85 (pension increase (person with care of children)) as follows.

(2) Omit subsection (1).

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) Subject to subsections (2A) and (4) below, the weekly rate of a Category A retirement pension shall be increased by the amount specified in relation to that pension in Schedule 4, Part 4, column (3) for any period during which a person who is neither the spouse or civil partner of the pensioner nor a child has the care of a child or children in respect of whom the pensioner is entitled to child benefit."
(4) In subsection (2)—

(a) for "the following provisions" substitute "subsections (3) and (4) below", and

(b) for "pension to which this section applies" substitute "Category C retirement pension payable by virtue of section 78(1) above".

(5) After subsection (2) insert—
"(2A) Subsection (1A) above does not apply if the pensioner is a person whose spouse or civil partner is entitled to a Category B retirement pension, or to a Category C retirement pension by virtue of section 78(2) above or in such other cases as may be prescribed."
(6) In subsection (4), after "subsection" insert "(1A) or".
57D In section 114 (persons maintaining dependants etc.)—

(a) in subsection (2), for "wife" substitute "wife, civil partner", and

(b) in subsection (3)(a), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".

57E In section 120 (treatment of certain marriages), after subsection (1)(a) insert—
"(aa) for a voidable civil partnership which has been annulled, whether before or after the date when the regulations come into force, to be treated for the purposes of the provisions to which this subsection applies as if it had been a valid civil partnership which was dissolved at the date of annulment;".
57F (1) Amend section 121 (interpretation of Parts 1 to 6 and supplementary provisions) as follows.

(2) In subsection (1), in the definition of "relative" after "by marriage" insert "or civil partnership".

(3) After subsection (1) insert—

"(1A) For the purposes of Parts 1 to 5 and this Part of this Act, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex."
57G In section 123 (income support), in subsection (1)(c), (f) and (g), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".

GC 485
57H In section 125 (trade disputes), in subsection (3)(b), (c) and (d), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
57I In section 126 (effect of return to work), for "married or unmarried couple" (in each place) substitute "couple".
57J (1) Amend section 133 (interpretation of Part 7 and supplementary provisions) as follows.
(2) In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of "family" in subsection (1), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
(3) After the definition of "child" in subsection (1) insert—
""couple" means—

(a) a man and woman who are married to each other and are members of the same household;

(b) a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;

(c) two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are members of the same household; or

(d) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;".

(4) Omit the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple" in subsection (1).
(5) After subsection (1) insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Part, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex.""
Page 222, line 5, at end insert—
"59A (1) Amend section 146 (interpretation of Part 10) as follows.
(2) In the definition of "war widow's pension" in subsection (2)—

(a) after "any widow's" insert "or surviving civil partner's", and

(b) after "widow" insert "or surviving civil partner".

(3) For subsection (3) substitute—
"(3) In this Part of this Act, "couple" has the meaning given by section 133(1) above."
59B (1) Amend Schedule 4A (additional pension) as follows.
In paragraph 1(2), after "under pensionable age," insert "or by virtue of section 39C(1), 48A(4) or 48B(2) above, in a case where the deceased civil partner died under pensionable age,".
(3) In paragraph 1(4)(a) and (b), (5), (6) and (7)(a) and (b), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
59C (1) Amend Schedule 7 (industrial injuries benefits) as follows.
(2) For paragraph 4(3)(a) in Part 1 substitute—
"(a) a beneficiary is one of two persons who are—

(i) spouses or civil partners residing together,

(ii) a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as if they were husband and wife, or

(iii) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners, and".

GC 486
(3) In Part 1—

(a) in paragraph 6(1), (3) and (4), after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner", and

(b) in paragraph 6(4)(a), after "spouse's" insert "or civil partner's".

(4) In paragraph 15 of Part 6—

(a) in sub-paragraph (2), after "remarries" insert "or forms a civil partnership", and

(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (3), insert "or is living together with a person of the same sex as if they were civil partners"."

Page 222, line 7, at end insert—
"PART 4A
AMENDMENTS OF THE SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION (NORTHERN IRELAND) ACT 1992 (c. 8)
60A In section 2AA (full entitlement to certain benefits conditional on work-focused interview for partner), in subsection (7), for the definition of "couple" substitute—
""couple" has the meaning given by section 133(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;".
60B In section 3 (late claims for bereavement benefit where death is difficult to establish)—

(a) after "spouse" (in each place) insert "or civil partner", and

(b) after "spouse's" (in each place) insert "or civil partner's".

60C (1) Amend section 13A (payment out of benefit of sums in respect of mortgage interest etc.) as follows.
(2) In subsection (4)—

(a) in paragraph (a) of the definition of -partner'', for "to whom the borrower is married" substitute "who is married to, or a civil partner of, the borrower', and

(b) in paragraph (b) of that definition, for "to whom the borrower is not married but who lives together with the borrower as husband and wife" substitute "who is neither married to, nor a civil partner of, the borrower but who lives together with the borrower as husband and wife or as if they were civil partners".

(3) After subsection (4A) insert—
"(4B) For the purposes of this section, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex."
60D (1) Amend section 69 (overpayments - general) as follows.
(2) In subsection (9), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
(3) After subsection (11) insert—
"(12) In this section, "couple" has the meaning given by section 133(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act."
60E In section 71 (overlapping benefits - general), in subsections (2)(b) and (d) and (5)(b) and (d), for "wife or husband" substitute "wife, husband or civil partner".
60F In section 72A (payment of benefit where maintenance payments collected by Department), in subsection (5)—

(a) after the definition of "child maintenance" insert—
""couple" has the meaning given by section 133(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act;",.

(b) in the definition of "family", for "married or unmarried couple" (in each place) substitute "couple", and

(c) omit the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple".

60G (1) Amend section 74 (recovery of social fund awards) as follows.
(2) In subsection (3)(b), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
(3) For subsection (5) substitute—
"(5) In this section, "couple" has the meaning given by section 133(1) of the Contributions and Benefits Act."
(4) In subsection (6)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "wife" insert "or civil partner", and

(b) in paragraph (b), after "husband" insert "or civil partner".

60H In section 100 (failure to maintain - general), in subsection (4), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
60I In section 102 (recovery of expenditure on income support: additional amounts and transfer of orders), in subsection (1)(b), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
60J In section 103B (power to require information), in subsection (5)(a), for "married, his spouse" substitute "married or is a civil partner, his spouse or civil partner".
60K In section 136 (up-rating under section 132 of pensions increased under section 52(3) of the Contributions and Benefits Act)—

(a) in subsection (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner", and

(b) in subsections (2) and (3), after "spouse's" (in each place) insert "or civil partner's"."

Page 223. line 22, at end insert—
"PART 6A
AMENDMENTS OF THE CHILD SUPPORT (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1995 (S.I. 1995/2702 (N.I. 13))
65A (1) Amend paragraph (7) of Article 4 (the child maintenance bonus) as follows.
(2) After the definition of "child maintenance" insert—"
"couple" means

(a) a man and woman who are married to each other and are members of the same household;

(b) a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;

(c) two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are members of the same household; or

(d) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;".

(3) In the definition of "family" for "married or unmarried couple" (in each place) substitute "couple".
(4) Omit the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple".
65B After that paragraph insert—
"(7A) For the purposes of this Article, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex."
PART 6B
AMENDMENTS OF THE JOBSEEKERS (NORTHERN IRELAND) ORDER 1995(S.I. 1995/2705 (N.I. 15)).
65C (1) Amend Article 2 (interpretation) as follows.
(2) After the definition of "contribution-based jobseeker's allowance" in paragraph (2) insert—
""couple" means—

(a) a man and woman who are married to each other and are members of the same household;

(b) a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;

(c) two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are members of the same household; or

(d) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;".

(3) In paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of the definition of "family" in paragraph (2), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
(4) Omit the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple" in paragraph (2).
(5) After paragraph (2) insert—
"(2A) For the purposes of this Order, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex."
65D In Article 3 (the jobseeker's allowance), in paragraph (4), in the definition of "a joint-claim couple", for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
65E In Article 25 (recovery of sums in respect of maintenance), in paragraph (1), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 82:
Page 224, line 15, leave out sub-paragraph (2).
The noble Lord said: We turn from the vexed question of state pensions to amendments to the Tax Credit Act 2002, on which the noble Baroness and I spent a long time.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Many happy hours.
Lord Higgins: Indeed. The question is: what is the situation regarding tax credits in same-sex partnerships? The subsection suggests,
"for 'married couple or unmarried couple' substitute 'couple—'".
The question of tax credits is important. One can understand the problems caused by complexity in this area. Perhaps I may say to the noble Lord, Lord Alli, in particular that those entering a civil partnership may be wise to consider the effects on them as regards tax credits. They may find that not everything is as good as they might reasonably suppose. In reports in the Sunday papers last weekend, the stringent codes of practice that the Revenue is now adopting were described as "alarming reading". It was reported that steep fines of £3,000 and a further fine of £60 a day may be imposed if one does not complete the forms as accurately as the Revenue wishes.
The whole area of tax credits has become unbelievably complex and difficult. The main problem that arises from this is the question of take-up, which

GC 489
is frighteningly low. But the extent to which people are confused is not surprising. Within the space of four years, from 1999 to 2003, the Chancellor abolished family credit and introduced the working families' tax credit, introduced the disabled person's tax credit, introduced the child care tax credit, introduced an employment credit, introduced the children's tax credit, introduced the baby tax credit, abolished the working families' tax credit, abolished the disabled person's tax credit, abolished the children's tax credit, abolished the baby tax credit and introduced the child tax credit. All that is apart from the pensions credit, which itself has considerable problems. It is therefore not surprising that many people are confused about what is going on. How many of these surviving credits, if I may put it that way, will those who form civil partnerships be entitled to receive?
The tax credit renewal form is appallingly complex—I would have great difficulty in filling it in. There are real problems here. More particularly, the question arises—and it is worthwhile having a fairly general debate at this stage—to what extent those entering into a civil partnership will gain as far as tax credits are concerned, and to what extent they will find it not to their advantage to have formed a civil partnership. Perhaps the noble Baroness could enlighten us. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This is a key issue because more than in most areas of social security, treating same-sex couples—whether in civil partnerships or cohabiting—as joint households will have significant effects. The amendment is pegged to open up a wider discussion, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks. For the purposes of social security, this amendment would treat civil partners, cohabiting same-sex and cohabiting opposite-sex couples as though they were two separate individuals claiming benefit, to their financial gain. The only union left after he removed those is marriage, where they would be treated as a household, to their huge financial detriment. I understand that the noble Lord does not intend that in this probing amendment. He asked what examples I could give.
I will take a "Janet and Jane" rather than a "Janet and John" example. Janet has two children and earns £15,000 a year. Jane has one child and earns £10,000 a year. Treated as separate individuals, as they currently are under the law, they would together but as separate individuals, acquire an additional £8,000 tax credit to top up their incomes of £15,000 and £10,000 respectively. However, were this Janet and John—whether married or cohabiting and therefore treated as a couple—they would, with the same income and the same number of children, get not £8,000, but £1,800.
We covered this matter at our preliminary discussion. It means that when someone moves from being assessed as a single person for tax credits where children are involved, high-value benefits such as housing benefit—although the non-dependent adult deduction comes into play here, which mitigates it somewhat—income support, jobseeker's allowance and other income-related benefits, in particular where
GC 490
there are children, to being assessed as a couple, some of the losses can be very considerable. The noble Lord asked me for an example, and that is what I would cite for him.
We will do our best to ensure that all couples, whether of the same sex or of the opposite sex, let alone civil partners, understand the implications of how social security legislation will affect them once this Bill comes into force in a year or so. Equally, we will seek to avoid asking for repayments from someone who has inadvertently made a mistake and failed to appreciate that, although they have not entered into a civil partnership, nonetheless they are affected because they now form a same-sex couple. The test for that refers back to an earlier discussion: whether people are living together as husband and wife as revised under our new proposals in conjunction with the organisations to which I referred.
However, I do not think that we can duck the issue that if we are seeking to establish parity between civil partners and married couples, there should also be parity between same-sex cohabiting couples and opposite-sex cohabiting couples. The noble Lord asked me to clarify the situation, and I have set out exactly what will happen.
The amendment tabled by the noble Lord would continue to treat not only civil partners and same-sex cohabiting couples, but also for the first time cohabiting opposite-sex couples, as though they were single people, thus penalising only those who are living together in a marriage. I know that he did not intend to do that, but it was the hook for the debate. However, the noble Lord is right to assume that significant changes will be made, mostly to the financial detriment of same-sex couples who, for the first time—whether or not they are in a civil partnership and particularly where they have children. have a low income and are dependent on social security, and particularly where disability is involved—will find their household income will be lower than it otherwise has been in the past, although comparable with that of a cohabiting heterosexual couple. That is the package and we cannot walk away from it.
I hope that, with a response which repeats some of what I said in advance of the Second Reading oft his Bill, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
Lord Higgins: It is helpful, as the noble Baroness rightly surmised, to try to clarify the situation by tabling a probing amendment. Given all the confusion over tax credits, it is important that those contemplating entering into a same-sex partnership under this Bill if it goes through and receives Royal Assent should be aware of the possible consequences. In that context, it is most helpful to have the words of the noble Baroness on the record. No doubt the noble Lord, Lord Alli, and others will take careful note of the situation, one that is extremely complicated and difficult to understand.
One can only hope that the Government are successful in conveying the position to people. Given the level of take-up, I refer here to everyone—not only those in single-sex partnerships—either not claiming tax credits or suffering because they have filled in the form and are

GC 491
then severely penalised. I am appalled by reports of the attitude now being taken by the Revenue. Making the change from what used to be social security to Inland Revenue organisation of these matters has changed the approach taken by the department now responsible to those who have difficulty understanding the legislation we pass. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 82A:
Page 224, line 15, leave out from "(3)(a)," to end of line 16 and insert "after the words "married couple or unmarried couple" insert "or civil partner""
The noble Lord said: This is essentially a drafting point. I do not know whether the Government feel like accepting it. I beg to move.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I was a bit thrown by that last remark—that the noble Lord thought that he was improving the Bill by a drafting amendment. My understanding of the purpose of the amendment is that it is a subset of the previous discussion. In other words, it would allow same-sex couples who are not civil partners to be treated as separate individuals. It goes back to the discussion about Janet and John being married. The amendment means that civil partners, married couples and cohabiting opposite-sex couples would be treated as couples, but same-sex non-registered couples would remain as individuals. Therefore, it is the subset of the previous discussion and might helpfully have been grouped with it.
I go back to my previous arguments. The provision comes as part of the package of the read-across. Therefore, I do not believe that the amendment does what the noble Lord believes that it does to improve the drafting, but I shall take advice on the matter. I look to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, because on at least three of the last half a dozen social security Bills he has challenged the wording and has been found to be right when Parliamentary Counsel were incorrect. If he supports the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, I shall certainly come back with a drafting amendment. Otherwise, I shall remain agnostic about whether it improves the drafting.
As the amendment stands, however, I am sure that it does what the noble Lord does not intend it to do. It relates back to the previous discussion and takes a position on equities that the noble Lord would not wish to support. On the basis of the substance of the explanation, I hope that he feels able to withdraw the amendment.
Lord Higgins: As I cannot call a vote on the issue, I shall not do so. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 82B:
Page 225, line 2, at end insert—
"PART 8A
AMENDMENTS OF THE STATE PENSION CREDIT ACT (NORTHERN IRELAND)2002 (C. 14 (N.I.)).
73A In sections 2(5)(a) and (8)(b), 3(1)(b), 4(1), 5. 6(3)(c)(ii) and 9(4)(a), (b) and (d), for "married or unmarried couple" substitute "couple".
73B In section 2(5)(b), for "such a couple" substitute "a couple".
73C (1) Amend subsection ( I ) of section 17 (other interpretation provisions) as follows.
(2) After the definition of "the Contributions and Benefits Act" insert
""couple" means

(a) a man and woman who are married to each other and are members of the same household;

(b) a man and woman who are not married to each other but are living together as husband and wife otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;

(c) two people of the same sex who are civil partners of each other and are members of the same household; or

(d) two people of the same sex who are not civil partners of each other but are living together as if they were civil partners otherwise than in prescribed circumstances;".

(3) In the definition of "foreign war widow's or widower's pension" for "widow or widower" (in each place) substitute "widow, widower or surviving civil partner".
(4) Omit the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple".
(5) In the definition of "war widow's or widower's pension"—

(a) in paragraph (a), for "any widow's or widower's" substitute "any widow's, widower's or surviving civil partner's", and

(b) in paragraph (b), for "widow or widower" substitute "widow, widower or surviving civil partner".

73D After section 17(1) insert—
"(1A) For the purposes of this Act, two people of the same sex are to be regarded as living together as if they were civil partners if, but only if, they would be regarded as living together as husband and wife were they instead two people of the opposite sex.""
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 83 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Schedule 17, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I am wondering how many loose ends we should pick up in debating the schedule. We have discussed the matters relating to the Child Support Act 1991. We have had some discussion of the amendments to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 and some discussion of category B pensions and other state pensions.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That seems fairly comprehensive.
Lord Higgins: It seems fairly comprehensive, except that, as we turn over page after page, we find amendments to the Social Security Administration Act 1992, which we have not discussed in any great detail—and, dare one say it, amendments to the Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992, which I have done

GC 493
my best to keep out of. There are also the State Pension Credit Act 2002, to which we have referred, and the State Tax Credits Act 2002. There are probably a number of points to which we shall wish to return on Report but, on the whole, we have covered most of the schedule, if not comprehensively then in a reasonable amount of detail, so I would not wish to delay the Committee further.
Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 187 [Power to amend enactments relating to pensions]:
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 84:
Page 91, line 40, leave out "A minister of the Crown" and insert "The Secretary of State"
The noble Lord said: This may be a matter that the Minister referred to in his opening remarks. Generally speaking, we would expect the Secretary of State rather than a Minister of the Crown to make amendments to various enactments relating to pensions, including pensions generally and Church legislation—a matter on which the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Chelmsford may have something to say. It seems more appropriate for that to be done by the Secretary of State rather than a mere Minister. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The right reverend Prelate is deciding whether he wants to be tempted down the paths of righteousness by talking about Church administration.
A Minister of the Crown is not necessarily junior or inferior to a Secretary of State. He might be someone like the Lord Chancellor, who may well be responsible for judicial pensions. A Secretary of State is a subset of Minister of the Crown, rather than the other way round.
Lord Goodhart: But the Lord Chancellor is a Secretary of State now.
Lord Higgins: I was going to make exactly that point. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I are agreed—so there is another good debating point down the drain! I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 84A:
Page 91, line 41, after "enactment," insert "Northern Ireland legislation,"
The noble Lord said: In moving the amendment, I shall also speak to Amendments Nos. 85B, 85C, 87A, 87B, 87C, 87D, 88A, 89A and 91ZA. The amendments deal with Northern Ireland, amending Clause 187, which deals with the power to amend enactments relating to pensions. I wonder whether I have said enough. I can go on to expand a little, if Members of the Committee wish, but they have not shown any fascination hitherto with aspects of social security in Northern Ireland. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 85:
Page 91, line 43, at end insert "state"
The noble Lord said: This is an incredibly inconvenient amendment because, although it comes at the end of a line, it is also at the end of a page, which means that it is difficult to see exactly what it does. The clause seems very wide and, at a later stage, I may express concerns about the extent to which a Minister of the Crown or even a Secretary of State may amend, repeal or even revoke any enactments, subordinate legislation or Church legislation relating to pensions, allowances and so on. The power seems extraordinarily wide, although it is restricted at the end of the paragraph by the words.
"for … civil partners or dependants of … civil partners'.
The purpose of the amendment is to restrict the specific mention of pensions to state pensions, by which I mean national insurance pensions. However, I suppose that it could include some public service pensions. It does not seem desirable that the provision be so wide that the Minister could make subordinate legislation that would affect pensions of, let us say, an occupational pension scheme. That seems a bit too wide, so I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: I am unable to agree with the noble Lord. I can see—we will discuss it on the next group of amendments—circumstances in which I would wish an order to be made that might affect private pension schemes as well as the state pension.
The Lord Bishop of Chelmsford: If we put "state" in, "Church" becomes very restricted. As ecclesiastical legislation is relevant, we need to make sure that the amendments carry in relation to that sphere. The insertion of "state" may make that difficult.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It would be extremely unfortunate if the amendment were other than probing, and were to be entertained seriously by the Committee. It would restrict the equity that we are trying to establish in pensions only to state pensions. The noble Lord rightly spotted that some areas might be left out in consequence, such as public sector pensions, but the problem is bigger than that.
I shall stand back and expand on the matter a bit, because the area of pensions is of major importance to us all. The Bill seeks to extend survivor pension rights to civil partners. The amendment would deny civil partners the rights to certain occupational pensions. The noble Lord does not think that the state has any necessary fiat writ there except public sector pensions. That is where the gap opens between us, because that is not the case.
The noble Lord mentioned, when he checked just now, that Schedule 17 deals with all the state benefits. including pensions. Clause 187 was included in the Bill specifically to provide a power that would allow for necessary amendments to the contracting-out provisions, as well as public sector pension schemes and other legislation in respect of certain pensions, so that survivors' benefits may be extended to civil partners.

GC 495
The noble Lord will know that the contracting-out rights are the bit of national insurance one has paid that, instead of going into SERPS or what would now be the state second pension, are looped into the occupational pension. That is providing that, but only that, the private occupational scheme into which those NI rebates are invested provides a level of benefit at least equal under the reference scheme test to what would have been obtained under the state second pension. That means, for example, accrual rights of at least 40 80ths, and a survivor's pension of at least 50 per cent.
Should one need ever to change that, one would need powers under the clause to come back to occupational pensions. Therefore, it is not the case that the state's interest in pensions begins and ends with the classic basic state retirement pension. It underpins the good enough provisions of the whole private sector realm. That is why we need the powers.
I expected the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, to say something in particular, so let me put it on record now; it will certainly come up again. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, may be right to be concerned that Clause 187 is widely drawn. The Delegated Powers Committee—the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, serves on it, and would normally have picked up the matter—shared that concern and asked us to take it further. We will reflect on that, and I may very well come back on Report with amendments to make more explicit—through either affirmative or negative regulations—what the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, seeks.
I could go on at much greater length about what we might propose to do. However, I hope that the noble Lord agrees that, if we were to accept his amendment, we would remove all survivor pension rights in contracted-out legislation to civil partners. He would not want to do that. He assumes that there is a clean line between state and private. There is not, because the contracted-out rebates underpin private sector pensions to a good enough level, equivalent to that of the state second pension. Therefore, we need the powers. We could come back to whether they need to be made more explicit on Report, but that we need them is without doubt. I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw his amendment.
5.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: The issue is serious. As the noble Baroness pointed out, relatively few private pension schemes are totally remote from government one way or another, certainly so far as most occupational pension schemes are concerned, for the reasons that she mentioned; namely, with regard to contracting-out, contracting-in and so on. None the less, I still have some concern in terms of the powers. The right reverend Prelate rightly pointed out that there would be problems given the earlier reference to Church legislation. I understand that point very well and fully accept it. Rather than debating the matter at this stage,
GC 496
it might be easier to consider it when we come to the clause stand part debate. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 85A:
Page 92, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) Orders made under subsection (1) shall give effect, so far as possible, to the principle that any person who is the civil partner of an earner or pensioner or the surviving civil partner of a deceased earner or pensioner shall have the same right to pension scheme benefits as the spouse of an earner or pensioner or the widow or widower of a deceased earner or pensioner."
The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 85A, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 91E. These are the first and only amendments to be tabled by the Liberal Democrats in what has otherwise been a lengthy Committee. I do not think that we will come up with any more, even if the debate goes into another day. I am afraid to say that, after the very rapid pace at which we have been going, I shall have to take a certain amount of time over the amendments and therefore slow down the procedure that we have observed since half-past three.
The Liberal Democrats have given full support to the principle of the Bill and, indeed, to its text as amended by the very large number of amendments that we have had. The third day of Committee was the first occasion on which I had seen a Marshalled List at least as long as the Bill itself. However, we believe that civil partners are not being fairly treated on certain aspects of occupational pensions. I shall try to explain why. The structure of pensions is, of course, extremely complex. I have been away from pensions for two or three years, having previously employed many and varied vigorous arguments with the Minister. On looking into pensions again after that absence, I found the legislation almost incomprehensible.
We have the state pension. We have already discussed the category B retirement pension, which in certain respects means that there are distinctions between what is received by members of civil partnerships and members of married couples. For instance, the category B pension under Section 48A of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 is not payable to a man if his wife is not born before 6 April 1950. A category B pension under Section 48B is not payable to a man if he reaches the age of 65 before 6 April 2010. When considering how those provisions should be applied to civil partnerships, there is an option to treat all surviving civil partners on the same footing as either widows or widowers. If they are treated as widowers, they are treated less favourably in the circumstances just mentioned.
The Government have decided to treat the rights of civil partners claiming category B pensions as if they were men—this is dealt with in paragraphs 18 and 19 of Schedule 17—and, with some reluctance, we accept that principle. We do not think, for example, that there is a sufficient case for treating same-sex couples more favourably than husbands or widowers are treated under the existing law. There might be a case for removing the transitional restrictions on claims by

GC 497
men under Sections 48A and 48B of the 1992 Act and treating same-sex couples on the same basis, but that would be beyond the scope of the Bill.
We are particularly concerned about occupational pension schemes. There is no statutory requirement of benefit to be provided by occupational pension schemes for widows or widowers outside the guaranteed minimum pension but, in practice, almost all schemes provide such benefits. Following the Barber decision in the European Court of Justice in 1990, any scheme which provides benefits for widows must also provide equal benefits for widowers. That is a consequence of the equal pay directive of the European Community.
Schemes frequently give a discretionary right to the trustees to provide benefits for the partner—either male or female; same sex or different sex—of an employee, and that power nowadays is often used to provide a pension to a same-sex partner. It is very often done through a system whereby the employee can nominate someone who is a cohabitee or a dependant to receive a survivor's pension.
Public sector pension schemes pay the equivalent of occupational pension schemes but usually on a much more rigid basis and with no discretion to award a pension to an unmarried or same-sex partner. There are of course hybrid or contracted-out schemes in which that part of the state pension provided by SERPS—or now by the state second pension—is not paid and contributions by the employer and employee are correspondingly reduced. But the scheme has to pay an equivalent amount and there is a guaranteed minimum pension.
The GMP has to include a benefit for widows and widowers but, in the case of widowers, that is limited to the amount of benefit which a widower would have received if the wife's employment had begun in 1988, even if it began earlier. The same does not apply the other way round. A widow is entitled to the GMP benefit in full whatever date the employment began. The reason for this, I believe, is that the GMP for widowers is required only from 1988 and employers had until then funded their schemes on the basis that they would not have to pay benefits to widowers.
The Government are proposing to require GMP benefits to be paid to surviving civil partners but to pay them only on the amount that would have been payable if the deceased partner's employment had begun at the date of the commencement of the Bill, which we expect to be not earlier than October next year. It is clear therefore that in a number of respects a surviving civil partner will not for a lengthy transitional period—which may be up to 40 years—do as well as widows or widowers from occupational pension schemes. There is very little in the Bill about occupational pensions. Clause 187 gives a wide but unspecified power to amend existing pensions legislation, on which we have already had a short debate.
Schedules 18 and 19 amend some statutory pension schemes to allow civil partners to benefit, but their scope is limited. I have tabled two amendments. The first, Amendment No. 85A, is very general. It seeks to establish the following principle:
"Orders made under subsection (1) shall give effect, so far as possible, to the principle that any person is the civil partner of an earner or pensioner or the surviving civil partner of a deceased earner or pensioner shall have the same right to pension scheme benefits as the spouse of an earner or pensioner or the widow or widower of a deceased earner or pensioner".
To some extent, it is a probing amendment.
The first issue that I wish to raise is whether the Government intend to legislate to extend the Barber principle and require any occupational pension scheme, including public sector schemes, which provide benefits for widows and widowers, to provide equivalent benefits for civil partners. If that is not the case, there is a massive lacuna in the Bill and there is still substantial discrimination in pension matters in favour of married couples and against civil partners.
The second point, which is covered by Amendment No. 91E, is: if occupational pension schemes are provided for civil partners as of right, should the benefit to the surviving civil partner be restricted to benefits based on contributions since the commencement of the Bill, or should it be possible to go back before that date? Providing full benefits would, I think, be no problem with defined contribution schemes, because they would not necessarily require any further contribution by the employer. It would simply mean that pensions that until then had been solely provided for the employee would also have to take into account a civil partner—part of it would have to go to the civil partner.
I can see problems with defined benefit schemes, where giving to civil partners rights equivalent in all respects to those of widows and widowers would require some additional contributions from employers and employees.
Lord Higgins: I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. I did not quite follow what he was saying on defined contribution schemes. Would I be wrong in thinking that, if the Government legislated in such a way that trustees of a defined contribution scheme were obliged to pay pensions to civil partners, some other members of the scheme would have their pensions reduced?
Lord Goodhart: Yes. If a defined contribution scheme providing benefits for widows and widowers also provided benefits for civil partners, the civil partner concerned would get less from the pot of money. At present, the civil partner would not have to provide a widow's pension, because he is not married—assuming that this applies only to marriages that take place during the course of the employment. Therefore the civil partner concerned would find that he or she received less because part of the pot would provide for the possibility of money going to the surviving civil partner.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but I wonder whether we are making clear the difference between a defined benefit and a defined contribution scheme. A defined benefit would have a collective impact on all the members of the scheme because the contributions, along with those made by the employer, have to meet all the promises made. Clearly, in particular in public sector schemes, there would be a liability. A defined contribution scheme is a privately appropriated pot of money used as an annuity by the individual. As the noble Lord said, at the moment an individual, subject to the reference scheme test, can buy a single life, a joint life, an inflation-proof or a level annuity. According to which element of the package he buys, he will get so many thousands per hundred thousand—anything between £6,500 to just over £7,000 at today's rates.
With a money purchase scheme, one is simply striking a balance: if you get it for this part, you do not get it for that part. whereas a defined benefit scheme is collectively pooled which reflects irrespectively the total level of contributions. Thus someone who is married would be affected by the decision of a civil partner under a defined benefit scheme, but would not be affected by such a decision under a defined contribution scheme.
Lord Higgins: Leaving to one side for a moment the defined benefit scheme because we agree that there are other complications to be considered, so far as the defined contribution scheme is concerned, we are not making any change. What we are talking about could happen under the existing circumstances. As the noble Baroness has rightly pointed out, you pay into the scheme, you receive a given amount and you determine who is the beneficiary. It is wholly irrelevant to the argument.
Lord Goodhart: I am not absolutely certain of that because in terms of a personal pension, it would be true. However, I do not know whether there are some defined contribution schemes where, although the fund is provided through defined contributions, there are obligations to use the fund not only for the benefit of the employee. The employee is bound and does not really have an option to provide a pension for a surviving spouse.
Lord Higgins: That was the reason for my original intervention. If we are referring to a defined contribution scheme of the kind just described by the noble Lord, and if the coverage is extended to include civil partners, the pool remaining for the other members is reduced.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I can help both noble Lords. It depends entirely on whether the scheme is contracted out or not. If a scheme is contracted out, whether a defined benefit or defined contribution scheme, it must meet the standard in terms of benefits of what would have been the state second pension. Clearly, however, accrual rates cannot apply in a defined contribution scheme, but
GC 500
survivors' benefits can do so. However, they apply only for that part of it; the rest—the remaining head space—is for the individual.
One reason for pension simplification is that someone in a defined contribution scheme may end up buying three or four different parts of a pension in order to package them together, so that some will meet the reference scheme test while other parts do not. One of the simplification procedures that we are going through seeks not just to change the tax changes, but to put in place a common package.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness and I hope that she has clarified the position for the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
I return to the question of the defined contribution scheme. I concede that this imposes a certain additional burden on such a scheme, which may therefore require a limited amount of additional funding. But the employee can say, "I have been paying full contributions all my working life, even though I knew I would almost certainly never marry because of my sexual orientation. Why should I now have to pay extra myself to provide benefits for my partner?". But if the partner does not get a full benefit, there would be discrimination against him or her when compared with a widow or widower.
In practice, it seems that little extra funding would be needed in private sector schemes because so many already allow discretionary provisions for partners. The extra cost has been estimated by Stonewall at no more than 0.02 to 0.04 per cent; indeed, that may be somewhat on the high side. It would be, for example, £4 extra out of wages of £10.000.
The big burden is on public sector schemes because they have been very slow to provide for dependants, particularly dependants of same-sex partners. However, the fact that they have been slow is not a reason for excluding the rights of same-sex partners under the Bill.
It seems to me that there is a very strong case for applying the Barber principle beyond equality between men and women and extending it to equality between civil partners and married couples. If there is no satisfactory reply as to that being the Government's intention, we will come back to the issue on Report.
I turn now to the more limited subject of the GMP. which is covered by Amendment No. 91E. The amendment contains suggested changes to eight different sections of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, most of which are consequential. I have not attempted to be complete; I am aware that there are other provisions of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 which would also require amendment, but they are not directly linked with this issue.
The central change concerns paragraph 4 of Amendment No. 91E. That provides that if the earner is a civil partner who has a guaranteed minimum under that section, the weekly rate is not less than the surviving civil partner's guaranteed minimum. Paragraph 4(3) links the surviving civil partner's guaranteed minimum to the widower's guaranteed minimum. Similarly,

GC 501
paragraph 4(4) again links the surviving civil partner's guaranteed minimum to the widower's guaranteed minimum.
I have already explained the reason for this. In funding a pension scheme the actuaries would have assumed that no pensions were to be paid to widowers and they might regard it as unfair to impose what could be seen as a retrospective burden on scheme funds. The effect of this is to backdate the surviving civil partner's pension to 1988, even if the contributions on which the pension is based go back before 1988.
As I have said, the widow's pension is payable on the basis of the total pension obtained by her husband; but a widower's pension under the GMP provisions in Schedule 18 is backdated only as far as 1988, even if the wife's employment and contributions began before that date.
I am asking here not that the date goes back as if the provision related to a widow but as if it were equivalent to the rights of a widower. That is what happens in connection with Schedule 17 and the right to the category B pension. We see some justification for that. Here, however, the surviving civil partner is treated not only less favourably than a widow but less favourably than a widower. We believe that gay and lesbian people, who have paid the same contribution rates but had no prospect of marriage, have subsidised heterosexual couples for many years and should qualify for equal treatment.
Furthermore, the provision would be cheap. The proportion of gay and lesbian people in the country is not large, and the take-up of civil partnerships is likely to be a small percentage of that number—perhaps 5 or 10 per cent. Many private sector schemes already provide discretionary benefits for same-sex partners. The extra cost of funding the GMP will therefore be very small.
We believe that it is reasonable to limit retrospectivity to 1988. The reasons are the same as those for the category B pension. The ideal solution would be to make the benefit fully retrospective for everyone, including widowers, but it is too late to do that and it is outside the scope of the Bill. It would be difficult to justify treating surviving male civil pensioners better than widowers, and it would be difficult to justify treating surviving male civil partners differently from female civil partners.
Our conclusion is that surviving civil partners, whether gay or lesbian, should get backdating but should get it only to 1988. That will give 17 years of backdating, which is a substantial part of a working life. For category B pensions, civil partners are treated exactly the same as widowers; for GMP, they are treated less favourably. Justice requires that there should he equal treatment of civil partners. The additional cost of doing so is too small to lead us to reject that conclusion. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, raised several points, which overall I would rather take
GC 502
up on clause stand part, so I relate my remarks specifically to points he made about the amendment itself.
The crucial thing to be said right away is that the paragraph that I quoted earlier relates to the enormous powers that the Secretary of State is able to take—in the sense that he may amend in whatever way he "considers appropriate". None the less, that power relates to civil partnerships alone. It does not go beyond that, which would go beyond the scope of the Bill.
The existing system for occupational pension schemes has worked well. Trustees have had discretion, and a very large number of cases have extended benefits to various groups—in particular, the right of a member to appoint a particular beneficiary or dependant, and so on. That works reasonably well. However, I do not know whether I am at all enthusiastic about extending the provision in a way that restricts the ability of the trustees to operate, taking into account the overall financial situation of the scheme and a number of other implications as far as that aspect of it is concerned. They have considerable powers already so I would. on balance, be in favour of maintaining a discretion. However, I would rather deal with the matter in a broader context when we come to clause stand part.
6.15 p.m.
Lord Alli: I do not have any major experience of pensions, although earlier in my career I published Pensions magazine, which is the industry journal. One thing I did learn was that they are incredibly complicated and change periodically.
This is an area of real importance to many lesbian and gay couples across the country. I have often said in debates in Committee that I warmly welcome the Bill and congratulate the Government on introducing their proposals—and, in fact, all Members of the Committee for dealing with the Bill as they have. However, this is the one area on which I disagree with the Government's approach and agree with the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Lester of Herne Hill, in the various correspondence that I have seen between the Minister and the noble Lord.
The Bill as it stands would allow pension rights for civil partners to accrue only from the date when the Bill is enacted, which is likely to be late 2005. That does not cause a problem for young lesbians and gay men; it is with older couples that the problems begin to occur. I know that my noble friend the Minister is by far and away a greater expert in this area than I am and will tell me the technical reasons why she believes such reforms are not possible.
This is not a technical issue, however. I have heard from the Dispatch Box time and time again, and from an array of Ministers, that the purpose of the Bill is to remedy a mischief. The mischief that it is here to remedy is that same-sex couples cannot register their partnerships. Once that has been done, the read-across would be the same as for marriage. However one dresses it up, that in effect is what was said.

GC 503
This is the one area where it is not happening. We have remedied the mischief but we have been caught up in a technical argument about a retrospective application of the rules. All I seek, in principle, is for what has been established everywhere else in the Bill to he carried through. The mischief has been remedied; therefore let the rules apply as they would to a married couple.
I also accept the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. Clearly, there is some disparity between women and men and, if we have to compromise, taking the later date would be acceptable. What I do not understand is why the date when the Bill is passed becomes the date of the backdating and not the dates applicable to others.
I know that there is an issue of cost. I have seen the headline figures of £300 million and have stepped back and thought, "That is a lot of money". However, when one unpacks that and sees that not everyone will retire on the day on which the Bill is enacted and that not all the people we are talking about will enter into civil partnerships, that becomes less of a problem. I have received some actuarial advice on this matter—and I do not like straying into the world of actuaries, believe you me—and the estimates that I have received put the additional cost at somewhere between £6 million and £15 million a year.
I do not want to get into an argument about cost because I do not think cost is at the heart of the matter. The heart of the matter is the principle established in the Bill versus a technical argument. I know that the Minister has some sympathy with my argument, but it is the conflict of the two arguments that we have to resolve; the technical point over the principle. In my view, the matter is mainly about fairness. Lesbian and gay couples have made the same contributions and deserve the same pensions in return. It is not about special treatment; it is about equality. I hope that the Minister will be able to explain to me why the two principles are clashing and why the Government have chosen the latter rather than the former.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I recognise that this is probably the substantive issue that divides the Committee. It concerns being opposed to any kind of state recognition of any relationship other than marriage at any point—unless, of course, you happen to be living in sin but none the less covered by social security, in which case we are perfectly happy to catch you on the way down but not on the way up.
Leaving that aside, I recognise that there is a real division of views. I shall set out the two general points—I shall not base them on costs—before I go into detail about the amendment. The first point concerns the issue of retrospection; and the second concerns the issue of dependent status and hardship.
As to the issue of parity, if you like, both the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and my noble friend Lord Alli argued that all they are seeking to achieve is parity with widowers; not with widows. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, seems to think that their rights go
GC 504
back somewhat further but they do not; they go back to 1978 and widowers' to 1988. However, there was consensus that they should go back to 1988 for equal treatment with widowers.
In the Bill we are seeking to treat civil partners in exactly the same way as we treated widowers in 1988. We are not backdating to the time when widows received their rights. We are saying that all pension rights for widowers are prospective and they cannot buy extra years. So the argument at the core of the position of both noble Lords—which is that they want parity and fairness of treatment with widowers; ideally with widows but, if not, with widowers—is not well founded in my view.
Lord Alli: In fairness, my argument is not about parity but about remedying the mischief. The principle of the Bill has been that once you have remedied the mischief the rules applying to heterosexual couples who are married then come into force. This is the only part of the Bill where that does not apply. With respect, that argument is not the same as the argument of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. He is arguing a principled position, which I support; my argument is that we are diverting from a principle, stated at the Dispatch Box, which every Minister has hitherto applied to every other section.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No. I am not aware of any situation in the broad field of pensions in which legislation has ever been retrospective. Funded or unfunded rights which come back through a private pension are accrued over time.
Lord Alli: From my limited research, in 1994 there was a court ruling that allowed female part-time workers who had been excluded from occupational pension schemes to backdate their contributions to 1976. The contributions would also have to be matched by their employers—I accept that—but there is an example of retrospection.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, it was not. The ECJ ruled that part-timers should have been eligible to join the scheme since 1976 and that they had been unfairly denied their rights in the intervening period. This is the Preston case. As a result, their rights were retrospectively backdated to the point at which the clock should have started ticking. That is not the situation here.
These are not rights that have been illegally denied to people; these are rights that will be carried from the point when the Bill is enacted. There is therefore no read across to the Preston case, nor, I suggest, to the Barber case. I am happy to reply more extensively in writing to my noble friend. However, I have looked into the matter and it is very clear that the Preston case rectified the fact that the part-timers had been illegally denied rights that they should have enjoyed for the previous period. That is not the case here. Preston was not retrospective but my noble friend's stance would make the pension retrospective.
Lord Alli: I think that I have a legitimate argument, although the noble Baroness, Lady Hollis, disagrees with it. Retrospectivity existed in the case that I mentioned. The Minister has not answered my point that in every other section of the Bill—not this section, I accept—the principle has been established in this way. I merely seek the reason for its not being applied here. If the reason is not cost, I would like to get to the heart of the argument.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I reassert that I do not recognise my noble friend's argument that the part-timer's case is an example of retrospectivity to which we can read across. It is asserted, not that the rights have been retrospectively backdated, but that, since that period, you have acted illegally and the position is being corrected. There is a major difference between the two. What would have been retrospective was, for example, if widowers in 1988, when they acquired their rights to draw down from a survivor's pension, had those rights backdated to before the Bill—that is to say, to the point at which widows drew them, in 1978. That might have generated cost issues and would have served my noble friend's purpose. But, of course, it did not; it was not; and it was not made so. That is why, in all fairness, one would find it difficult to find a case of retrospection in the pension field or in social security more generally—except when rectifying where you have acted illegally or where there is a case coming through whose judgment is, say, two years down the line and you put into suspense accounts all lookalike cases and return to deal with them once the leading case has been dealt with, as happens in some aspects of social security law.
My noble friend may not welcome my second argument, which refers to the previous discussion about dependency pensions. We are dealing with people who will mostly have had access to the labour market and have incurred pensions in their own right. If, as a result of certain circumstances, such as having children or disability, they are unable to retire on their own pension—as will be the case, unlike 88 per cent of married women—they will have access to their own pension over and beyond any rights to a survivor's pension. That is not the case with existing widows, which is why the survivor's pension was originally invented. Where that is not the case, people in a civil partnership will have access to pension credit.
I rest my case, although I will deal with the amendments as this is a major debate and it was dealt with at great length by the noble Lord. He is entitled to a full reply as best as I can give it. The core of my case is not cost, although it is a serious consideration. The cost that we have been given is some £300 million. The core is that pension legislation is about the building up of accrued rights. This Bill is not about retrospection, as the noble Lord argues; it is about the future rights that people may enjoy. Where you are dealing with income-related social security benefits, such as housing benefit or tax credits, you take a snapshot. You ask whether the couple is same-sex, opposite sex and living together as a household. Those benefits click in from the moment you take that snapshot. Pensions, as with mortgages and the like,
GC 506
involve benefits for which both entry and exit strategies are required, because rights are accrued over time. You must therefore decide when you start clocking those up. That is why they are not similar to other sorts of benefits. Because of that aspect of occupational pensions, you need to start clocking up rights when the Bill comes into effect—that may be in a year's time. In that way we ensure equal treatment with all other extensions of pension provision that, as far as I am aware, we have seen in the past. We will treat civil partners in exactly the same way as we treated widowers in 1988. No more and no less. To do otherwise would be to say to civil partners, "We will treat you more generously than we treated widowers at that time". I am not sure that that argument would necessarily commend itself to people.
Lord Alli: This is my last intervention. What my noble friend says does not take the point. What I am seeking is that they be treated in the same way as heterosexuals are treated now, not as they were treated either in 1988 or 1979. What concerns me is how they are treated now. Legislation and public opinion has changed over the intervening period. The point here is that we may find ourselves putting in place a prejudice in legislation.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I simply disagree because these are accrued rights. At a certain point you enter the accrual of rights and build them up, and at a certain point you draw them down either as a pension or as a survivor's pension. That is why there is no direct read-across to the position of heterosexuals. Let us take, for example, a cohabiting couple. One of the partners may well not be able to draw down the pension of their partner because the law does not permit it.
I repeat that this is not about unfairness in any form. Pensions must be built up as a body of accrued rights over time to which someone is entitled as of right because they will have made contributions in that status. That was true for widows from 1978 and for widowers from 1988; it will be true for civil partners when this Bill becomes law.
I realise that my noble friend does not share that view, but all I can say in response is that I think there is a genuine difference of philosophy here. I believe that pension rights are accrued rights which kick in at an agreed point in time. They are not backdated to when a partnership began, or to any other event. They accrue from the point that this Bill, with parliamentary support, becomes law. That is the difference between us.
Arguments can be made on the grounds of cost or financial hardship, but I do not base my argument on those; rather it is about the nature of retrospectivity. When considering the broader issues of pensions—I certainly do not accept either the Preston or the Barber cases as precedents—then we must consider issues of retrospectivity and accrued rights and whether you can acquire rights that you did not have at the time the clock started to tick. I would find it difficult to go down that road.

GC 507
If noble Lords wish, I can go over each of the amendments in turn. However, again to make the case, I remind the Committee that when the requirement to provide limited price indexation on pensions rights was introduced in 1977, it was not made retrospective. It applied only to rights accrued on pensionable service after the date of introduction. I suspect that I could produce a list as long as my arm of changes made to pensions legislation—mostly to people's benefit, but sometimes to their detriment—which are not retrospective. They apply to the future rights that accrue. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, will withdraw his amendment.
As I have said, I could go into much greater detail, but this is a philosophical point. I do not make my case primarily on the grounds of cost, although I am satisfied that the cost of £300 million is robust. I do not even argue the case on the grounds of need, although the widow's pension originally arose out of financial hardship and need, which is less likely to be relevant here. Rather, I make my argument on the grounds of fairness; that is, in all fairness, every change in accrued rights has been prospective and not retrospective. I have to say that I have not heard any arguments today which persuade me that the Government should take a different position.
Lord Goodhart: Before I make my final remarks, would the noble Baroness answer what was perhaps the most important question I put to her: do the Government intend to require pension schemes that provide benefits as of right for widows and widowers to extend them on the lines of the Barber principle to civil partnerships on, let us say, a non-retrospective basis?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: What we are saying is that the part of the pension covered by contracting-out rights is covered by this Bill. The reference scheme test will apply so that civil partners will be entitled to the same benefits as those enjoyed by spouses. A surviving civil partner will have the same benefits as a widow or widower would have, which is the 50 per cent survivor's pension based on the 40-eightieths accrual rate of the pension.
Secondly, not in this Bill but as a result of the sexual discrimination regulations of December 2003, where trustees offer a level of benefit superior to that of the reference scheme test—most private sector schemes do so—such as a 60-sixtieth accrual rather 40-eightieths, and where that is offered to spouses, it must also be offered to civil partners, and where it is offered to unmarried opposite-sex partners, it must be offered to same-sex partners.
In this Bill, the reference scheme test that provides a floor of benefits at least as good as what is provided by the state second pension is covered. Spouses and similar partners will be treated equally. If trustees offer no more than that, they do not have to do any more, but if they offer benefits above that—as most of them do within that headspace—they will come under the framework of the European regulations. What they do
GC 508
for spouses they must do for civil partners, and what they do for unmarried opposite-sex couples they must do for unmarried same-sex couples. If regulations from the DTI are needed to make that clear, we shall bring those forward.
Lord Goodhart: I am grateful to the noble Baroness. I shall need to look at that provision quite carefully to see whether it is adequate. However, I would like to see some commitment or recognition of that on the face of the Bill. I may table an amendment different from the one we are considering today on the issue.
On the main subject we have discussed, although I think the noble Baroness said that I introduced it at great length—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I wanted to apologise for speaking at length myself.
Lord Goodhart: I shall speak briefly on this occasion. The question of retrospectivity is the main issue between us. We do not regard two wrongs as making a right. We believe that gay and lesbian workers have subsidised the pensions of heterosexuals, in particular married heterosexuals, and in that respect there is a difference from 1988, because it could not be said that before that year, women's contributions subsidised men's pensions. Women have a longer life expectancy and so benefit by paying the same contributions for what is likely to be a longer pension payment. Therefore providing for widowers was not righting a wrong comparable with our proposals for retrospectivity here, although in terms of giving a bonus, it is understandable that retrospectivity might not be appropriate.
Be that as it may, clearly this is an important issue. It is one, although almost certainly not the only one, that we will seek to raise again on Report. Having said that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 85B and 85C:
Page 92, line 3. after "exercisable" insert—
"(a)"
Page 92, line 5, at end insert—
"(b) by a Northern Ireland department, if the provision making the amendment, repeal or revocation deals with a transferred matter."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 86:
Page 92, line 11, leave out subsection (4).
The noble Lord said: This is a minor amendment compared with the issues we have just been discussing. There appears to be inconsistency in this subsection. The overall thrust of the Bill has been to state that same-sex partnerships should be treated in the same way as opposite-sex partnerships or marriages. Subsection (4) says:
"The provision which may be made by virtue of subsection (1) may be the same as, or different to. the provision made with respect to widows, widowers or the dependants of persons who are not civil partners".
I am not clear what the purpose of the expression "or different to" is, unless it is to cover the point that the noble Baroness has been making in the debate that we have just had. Perhaps she could explain. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord was right in his hints on this. We are dealing with different retirement ages and therefore with a different read-across between husbands and wives and civil partners. That is the reason for the phraseology; he is exactly right. I am happy to go beyond that if he would like.
Lord Higgins: In which case, I assume that it is necessary. but it does not seem to be. None the less, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment. by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 87A to 87D:
Page 92, line 23, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (8A),"
Page 92, line 24, at end insert
"(8A) Any power of a Northern Ireland department to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I. 12))."
Page 92, line 26, after "enactment" insert ", Northern Ireland legislation"
Page 92, line 27, after "enactment insert "or Northern Ireland legislation"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 88 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 88A:
Page 92, line 34, at end insert—
"(c) by a Northern Ireland department, unless a draft of the statutory rule containing the order has been laid before, and approved by, a resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 89 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 89A:
Page 92, line 40, at end insert
"(10A) A statutory rule made by a Northern Ireland department and containing an order to which subsection (9) does not apply is subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.)))."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Higgins had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 90:
Page 92, line 40, at end insert—
"( ) No order made under this section may compel any public sector pension scheme to offer survivor pensions benefits to same sex couples who are not civil partners without the consent of a majority of scheme members."
The noble Lord said: It may be more convenient to pick up this point as part of a general debate on the Question whether the clause shall stand part.
[Amendment No. 90 not moved.]
[Amendment No. 91 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 91ZA:
Page 93, line 12, at end insert "and any instrument within the meaning of section 1(c) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (1954 c. 33 (N.I.));
"transferred matter" has the meaning given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) and "deals with" in relation to a transferred matter is to be construed in accordance with section 98(2) and (3) of the 1998 Act."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 187 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: A number of points here are worth pursuing. Some were raised during our earlier debate on the amendments tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. We need to put the issue in perspective. As I pointed out earlier, it is important to bear in mind that in Clause 187 the discretion given to the Minister in making subordinate legislation is extremely wide, in as much that it covers Church legislation, gratuities, pensions allowances and so on. It is also wide in the sense that it refers to whatever he considers is appropriate in the context of pensions and so on related to civil partners. He has considerable discretion in that respect, but the clause is none the less restricted, if I understand it correctly, to the question of making these provisions with regard to civil partners. This may be relevant in particular to occupational schemes generally and more specifically to public service pensions, which are referred to later in the Bill.
One must put this in the context of the serious impact that the Government's policy has had on occupational pensions, in particular the way in which successive measures—starting with the £5 billion being removed by the Chancellor on so on—have led to an absolutely catastrophic decline.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord does not believe what he is talking about.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Higgins: I certainly believe that the appalling decline in final salary schemes and the shift towards defined contribution schemes, together with, as the noble Baroness constantly points out—and I agree with her—a substantial reduction in the size of the employer's contribution in many cases where the transfer has taken place, is a very sad situation.
I feel very strongly that the remaining final salary schemes are likely to be seriously affected by the Pensions Bill and the additional costs which will he incurred in protecting the position of pensioners. This is also an area where, perhaps sadly, we may find that

GC 511
trustees of final salary schemes decide that that is another reason why they should switch to a defined contribution scheme.
It is important that the discretion that trustees have hitherto had in these matters should be retained. As has been pointed out, many occupational pension schemes and their trustees have been more advanced than the Government or state schemes—I am glad to see that the noble Baroness agrees with me—in extending benefits to partners and co-habiting couples, and even to those an individual may specify to be the recipient of a survivor's pension. They have been very progressive and it is reasonable to suppose that they will continue to be so in this case. In circumstances where this is not so, there is a danger that they will switch to defined contribution schemes.
We have to look very carefully at the situation. We have already gone, at considerable length, into the question of retrospection. Like the noble Baroness, I have been trying to think of an example where there has been retrospection. In one sense, the Bill that gave pensions to people left out of the Beveridge scheme when we legislated in 1970 would be something of that kind where, albeit very belatedly, they got pensions to which they had not contributed. But it is certainly difficult to find any precedent, as the noble Baroness pointed out.
Like the noble Lord, Lord Alli, I do not think the issue of cost is necessarily important here. My Treasury halo shudders slightly at that point. There is an important point of principle but the retrospective argument is difficult to accept for the reasons given by the noble Baroness.
Another point worth raising in this clause stand part debate is the position of public service pensions. Unlike the private sector—where, as I say, trustees have been rather progressive—the public service schemes, which are usually governed by regulations made by the appropriate Secretary of State, have tended to be rather unforthcoming in that kind of situation. The positions of the Civil Service scheme and—if one dare say it in the context of the present industrial dispute—the scheme of what I used to call firemen but who are now firefighters are not as favourable as they might be. One can go right across the board so far as the NHS and so on are concerned. Again, they do not provide for pensions to be paid to someone who is not a legally married spouse, although many private schemes do. The NHS is lagging behind the private sector schemes. The police pension scheme does not provide for same-sex couples and other designated beneficiaries. Perhaps the Minister will tell us whether it will under the Bill.
To the extent that charity begins at home, it is important that we look at those individual schemes. Dare one mention that the situation with regard to parliamentary salaries has been somewhat eased? However, in the later clauses and particularly the schedules to which I have referred, we find the most extraordinary degree of specific provision when, at the same time, this clause gives so much discretion to the Minister. If I understand matters correctly, we propose
GC 512
to legislate for a potential same-sex partner of a Prime Minister's widow or Speaker's widow. That seems an unnecessary degree of detail if no more.
I express a personal view here; Members of the Committee know that the Opposition are on a free vote. Overall, my feeling is that it would be unfortunate if private schemes were forced to act in the way described. Their discretion so far has been better than that in the public service, and in many other ways. We shall return to the clause on Report, and no doubt take up the points on retrospection dealt with by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, in his amendments.
Lord Goodhart: The noble Lord has taken up points that I have pretty much covered on my amendments. I obviously do not agree with a good deal of what he said, but I do not propose to say anything further in this debate.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, basically made three points. I conceded one, which was about the state of Clause 187 and the breadth of its powers. We picked that up in an earlier discussion. Given that the Delegated Powers Committee has expressed concern about the regulations, we need to come back to that; it is common ground.
The noble Lord agreed with my understanding of pension policy, law and arrangements in the past and the fact that they have not been retrospective. He has much greater experience of that than me. He is absolutely right on the substance of his points, which were on the discrepancy between the treatment of private sector and public sector schemes. The only public service scheme that can pay benefits to cohabiting partners, if one pays contributions, is the Civil Service scheme. All the other public sector schemes do not even—that is not meant to sound as though there is a pecking order; rather there is development over time—have arrangements for cohabiting opposite-sex couples, let alone putting their feet in the water of this issue of same-sex partners.
At least 20 per cent to 25 per cent of private sector schemes—a substantial number—already have arrangements for cohabiting opposite-sex couples, and 8 per cent have a named dependant, who can be a same-sex partner. The numbers are still fairly small but the noble Lord was right to say that the private sector has shown itself more imaginative and more inclusive—and, apparently, more responsive to the nature of its labour force and staff—than has the public sector.
Should Parliament approve this Bill, all public schemes that produce benefits for spouses will have to produce benefits for civil partners. Unless they have benefits for co-habiting opposite-sex couples, there is no such obligation on them to extend that to cohabiting same-sex couples. That may be another battle to fight on another day for both heterosexual and same-sex couples alike.
The measure will have implications for the public sector because some of the schemes are quite expensive—the police schemes, local authority schemes and so on. In the context of our argument about retrospectivity, the costs that will fall, rightly, on public service schemes to

GC 513
extend equity between civil partners and married couples will be mitigated by the fact that accrued rights will be built up over time.
I do not know whether the noble Lord would like me to pick up on any further point. He is right to identify the clause as carrying the major charge for the Government's attempts to ensure equity of treatment between spouses and civil partners in occupational pensions. I hope that is what we shall achieve.
Lord Higgins: I believe that it is generally agreed that we shall need to return to these issues on Report, particularly in relation to occupational pension schemes and the question of whether those already in schemes are likely to find their benefits reduced or contributions increased as a result of the changes that the Government appear to envisage the Secretary of State will impose. I myself would prefer the change to be discretionary. The other issue is that so many final salary schemes are not only in a hazardous situation but also in deficit. To that extent, this change will result in an increase in the deficit in existing schemes.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, wearing his Treasury hat, none the less recognised earlier on that the costs were not substantial.
Lord Higgins: The Treasury has never been worried about whether the costs were substantial—it would be a serious error to suppose that that was so. There are varying degrees of substantiality—or, as Lady Docker once said, "We are fed up with being poor or varying degrees of poor". That is basically the attitude that the Treasury takes, in my experience.
There are important issues here, particularly given the perilous situation of many final salary schemes. We shall have to consider carefully the points that the Minister made about public service schemes, which, as she rightly points out, have not been doing well in comparison with private schemes. That is yet another reason for considering whether discretion should be taken into account for those private schemes, particularly given the financial situation of many of them.
Clause 187, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 188 agreed to.
Schedule 18 [Amendment of certain enactments relating to pensions]:
Lord Higgins had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 91A:
Page 225, line 5, leave out paragraph 1.
The noble Lord said: The amendments in this group are essentially related to the specific provisions to which I referred in the clause stand part debate. The schedule deals with the Fire Services Act 1947 and the House of Commons Members' Fund Act 1948. I did not mention the Theatres Trust Act 1976. Again, we shall have to consider the detail but I have already covered the points.
[Amendment No. 91A not moved.]
[Amendments Nos. 91B to 91D not moved.]
7 p.m.
[Amendment No. 91E not moved.]
Schedule 18 agreed to.
Schedule 19 [Detained persons]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 91F:
Page 226, line 9, at end insert—
"6A In section 24 (application of Act to cases of insanity). in paragraph (a), for "wife or husband" substitute "wife, husband or civil partner"."
The noble Baroness said: The amendments to Schedule 19 in this group fall into the same category as those provisions already in Schedule 19—that is to say, they make amendments to Armed Forces legislation that refers to spouses or surviving spouses. All the amendments are designed to ensure that civil partners have the same legal rights as spouses, and surviving civil partners have the same legal rights as surviving spouses.
The first amendment concerns Section 24 of the Regimental Debts Act 1893, which provides for the distribution of the property of a serviceman who is found to be insane. It would ensure that civil partners are given the same rights as spouses.
The second amendment in this group is to Section 8 of the War Pensions (Administrative Provisions) Act 1919, which provides a right of appeal against the rejection of a claim for a pension by, among others, the widow or motherless child of a serviceman. As well as inserting a reference to a surviving civil partner, the amendment also replaces "motherless child" with "orphan".
The third amendment is to Section 7(2) of the War Pensions Act 1920, which provides for the payment to a person's wife, children or dependants of a war pension forfeited by reason of the person's imprisonment. The amendment inserts a reference to civil partners.
The fourth amendment concerns Section 2(2) of the Admiralty Pensions Act 1921, which similarly provides for the payment to a person's wife, children or dependants of an admiralty pension forfeited by reason of the person's imprisonment. Again, the amendment inserts a reference to civil partners.
The next amendment amends Section 2(2)(c) or the Polish Resettlement Act 1947, which includes among the persons entitled to claim benefits under the Act the spouses or former spouses of certain former members of the Polish forces and of certain other Poles permitted to enter or remain in the UK because of the Second World War. The amendment ensures that civil partners and spouses, and former civil partners and former spouses, are treated alike and that the formation of a civil partnership by a former spouse or former civil partner has the same effect as remarriage.
Section 1 of the Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act 1947, which allows deductions to be made from the pay of a naval officer, seaman or marine for the maintenance of his wife or former wife or his wife's child, is amended to insert references to civil partners and former civil partners.
Amendments to the Army Act 1955, the Air Force Act 1955 and the Naval Discipline Act 1957 will ensure that each Act applies equally in relation to the maintenance by a member of the forces of his or her civil partner or former civil partner, or his or her civil partner's child. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 91G:
Page 226, line 23, leave out from "Tribunals)," to end of line 24 and insert "in subsection (1), for "the motherless child or" substitute "surviving civil partner or the orphan,"."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 91H to 91L:
Page 226, line 25, at end insert—
"9A In section 7 (restoration of forfeited pensions), in subsection (2), after "wife," insert "civil partner,"."
Page 226, line 27, at end insert—
"Admiralty Pensions Act 1921 (c. 39)
10A In section 2 (restoration of forfeited pension), in subsection (2), after "wife," insert "civil partner,"."
Page 227, line 9, at end insert—
"14A In section 2 (allowances from the Assistance Board), in subsection (2)(c)—

(a) for "of men" substitute "or civil partners of persons",

(b) for "woman" substitute "person",

(c) for "of a man" substitute "or civil partner of a person", and

(d) for "re-married" substitute "subsequently married or formed a civil partnership".

Naval Forces (Enforcement of Maintenance Liabilities) Act 1947 (c. 24)
14B (1) Amend section 1 (deduction from pay in respect of liabilities for maintenance, etc) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1), in paragraphs (a), (aa) and (b) after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
(3) In subsection (2A), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) if, in proceedings in connection with the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership, an order has been made for the payment of any periodical or other sum in respect of the maintenance of the person who, if the civil partnership had subsisted, would have been the civil partner of any such person as is mentioned in subsection (1) above, references in this section to that person's civil partner include references to the person in whose favour the order was made; and"."
Page 228, line 8, at end insert—
"Army Act 1955 ( 3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 18)
22A (1) Section 150 (enforcement of maintenance and affiliation orders by deduction from pay) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) and (aa), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
In subsection (5), after "marriage had subsisted;" insert—
"references to a civil partner include, in relation to an order made in proceedings in connection with the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership, references to a person who would have been the civil partner of the defendant if the civil partnership had subsisted.".
22B In section 151 (deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child), in subsection (1)—

(a) after "wife" (in the first place) insert "or civil partner", and

(b) for "wife" (in the second place) substitute "wife, civil partner".

Air Force Act 1955 (3 & 4 Eliz. 2 c. 19)
22C (1) Section 150 (enforcement of maintenance and affiliation orders by deduction from pay) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(a) and (aa), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
(3) In subsection (5), after "marriage had subsisted;" insert—
"references to a civil partner include, in relation to an order made in proceedings in connection with the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership, references to a person who would have been the civil partner of the defendant if the civil partnership had subsisted.".
22D In section 151 (deductions from pay for maintenance of wife or child), in subsection (1)—

(a) after "wife" (in the first place) insert "or civil partner", and

(b) for "wife" (in the second place) substitute "wife, civil partner".

Naval Discipline Act 1957 (c. 53)
22E (1) Section 101 (service of proceedings for maintenance etc.) is amended as follows.
(2) In subsection (5)(a) and (b), after "wife" insert "or civil partner".
(3) In subsection (5A), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) references to the civil partner of a person include, in relation to an order made in proceedings in connection with the dissolution or annulment of a civil partnership, references to a person who would have been his civil partner if the civil partnership had subsisted; and"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 19, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 190 agreed to.
Clause 191 [Power to make further provision in connection with civil partnership]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Simon): I advise your Lordships that if Amendment No. 92 is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 92A, due to pre-emption.
Lord Higgins had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 92:
Page 93, line 34, leave out subsection (2).
The noble Lord said: This is all about devolution. It is an attempt to have the last word on these matters, but I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 92 not moved.]
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 92A:
Page 93, line 35, at end insert—
"( ) by a Northern Ireland department, in relation to a provision which deals with a transferred matter;"
The noble Baroness said: These amendments confer on Northern Ireland departments the same power to make further provision in connection with civil partnership as Clause 191 confers on Ministers of the Crown and Scottish Ministers. The power of a Northern Ireland department is confined to making an order with

GC 517
respect to provisions that deal with transferred matters as understood in the Northern Ireland Act 1998. Any order made in a Northern Ireland department will be by statutory rule and subject to either affirmative or negative resolution of the Northern Ireland Assembly, in the same way as are orders made by Ministers of the Crown or Scottish Ministers. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 92B to 92G:
Page 94. line 5, at end insert—
"( ) amend, repeal or (as the case may be) revoke any provision contained in Northern Ireland legislation passed or made on or before the last day of the Session in which this Act is passed, including a provision conferring power to make subordinate legislation where the power is limited by reference to persons who are or have been parties to a marriage;"
Page 94. line 15, at beginning insert "Subject to subsection (6A),"
Page 94. line 16, at end insert—
"(6A) Any power of a Northern Ireland department to make an order under this section is exercisable by statutory rule for the purposes of the Statutory Rules (Northern Ireland) Order 1979 (S.I. 1979/1573 (N.I.12))."
Page 94, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) by a Northern Ireland department, unless a draft of the statutory rule containing the order has been laid before, and approved by a resolution of, the Northern Ireland Assembly."
Page 94. line 30, at end insert—
"( ) A statutory rule made by a Northern Ireland department and containing an order to which subsection (7) does not apply is subject to negative resolution (within the meaning of section 41(6) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (N.I.))."
Page 94, line 41, at end insert "and any instrument (within the meaning of section 1(c) of the Interpretation Act (Northern Ireland) 1954 (c. 33 (NI));
"transferred matter" has the meaning given by section 4(1) of the Northern Ireland Act 1998 (c. 47) and "deals with" in relation to a transferred matter is to be construed in accordance with section 98(2) and (3) of the 1998 Act."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clauses 191, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 192 agreed to.
Clause 193 [Minor and consequential amendments and repeals]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 92H:
Page 95, line 28, at end insert "and revocations"
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 92H, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 102 to 104. Amendment No. 92H makes a technical change to Clause 193(1) by adding "revocations" after "repeals". This change is necessary as the new material added in relation to child support and social security arrangements for Northern Ireland amends Northern Ireland Orders in Council. In strict drafting terms the provisions of Orders in Council, as a species of subordinate legislation, are revoked and not repealed.
The other amendments to Schedule 22 are consequential to the inclusion in Schedule 17 of new material for the provision of social security and child
GC 518
support in Northern Ireland. Similar repeals are already contained in Schedule 22 which are consequential on the amendments to social security and child support legislation in Great Britain. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 193, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 20 [Minor and consequential amendments: general]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendment No. 92J:
Page 234, line 11, at end insert—
"Interpretation Act 1978 (c. 30)
At the appropriate place in Schedule 1 (words and expressions defined) insert—
""Civil partnership" means a civil partnership which exists under or by virtue of the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (and any reference to a civil partner is to be read accordingly).—
The noble Baroness said: This is a simple amendment which inserts a new entry into Schedule 1 to the Interpretation Act 1978 to define the terms "civil partnership" and "civil partner". Under Sections 5 and 23 of the Interpretation Act, if an expression listed in Schedule 1 is used in any Act or subordinate legislation, it is to be interpreted in accordance with that schedule unless the Act or subordinate legislation in question shows a contrary intention. The amendment means that references in other legislation to "civil partnership" or "civil partner" will be interpreted by reference to the Civil Partnership Bill. This will ensure that courts, tribunals and others who use and interpret the legislation are given a clear signpost to this Bill. It will also save those drafting legislation from any uncertainty about whether to include specific definitions. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: Does the expression "civil partnership" appear anywhere else?
Baroness Crawley: It appears in all the Acts that we are amending. Rather, once amended, it will appear.
Lord Higgins: Once amended, the term will appear, but it does not appear at the moment.
Baroness Crawley: Once this Bill is on the statute book, the term will appear.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 92K:
Page 242, line 8, at end insert
"Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48)
In section 101E(1)(b) after "or widower" insert "or surviving civil partner".
"Pension Schemes (Northern Ireland) Act 1993 (c. 49)
In section 97E(1)(b) after "or widower" insert "or surviving civil partner"."
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 92K, I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 92L and 105. We are coming to the end of our list of amendments. These amendments will ensure that all the provisions of Part IV of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 apply to civil partnerships.
Amendment No. 92K allows the trustees or managers of a pension scheme to discharge liability for pension credit benefit in respect of civil partners in the same way as they would for a married couple. In particular, this amendment means that where the consent of a widow or widower is required, the consent of a surviving civil partner will be required.
Amendment No. 92L extends the existing regulation-making power relating to the provision of information, the calculation and verification of benefits under a pension arrangement and the charging by pension arrangements so that they will apply where financial provision is made in connection with a dissolution, nullity or separation order made in relation to a civil partnership. Furthermore, the amendments ensure that the provisions relating to the activation of pension-sharing orders apply to civil partnerships and that references to matrimonial documents are amended to include documents relevant to where a civil partnership is dissolved or annulled. In other words, pension-sharing, which currently applies to the dissolution of a marriage and the review of matrimonial assets to divide them appropriately, would also now apply to the ending of a civil partnership.
Amendment No. 105 is required to delete words as a consequence of inserting the text of Amendment 92L in Schedule 20. Those words do not change how existing legislation on pension-sharing works; they merely extend its provisions from spouses to same-sex couples who have formed a civil partnership and now wish to end it. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 92L:
Page 242, line 16, at end insert-
"Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30)
(1) Amend section 23 (supply of pension information in connection with divorce etc.) as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(a)(i) insert—
"(ia) financial relief under Schedule 5 or 7 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (England and Wales powers in relation to domestic and overseas dissolution of civil partnerships etc.),".
(3) In subsection (1)(a )(ii)—

(a) after "1984" insert "or Schedule 11 to the 2004 Act", and

(b) at the end, omit "or".

(4) In subsection (1)(a)(iii) for "(corresponding Northern Ireland powers):" substitute "(Northern Ireland powers corresponding to those mentioned in sub-paragraph (i)), or
(iv) financial relief under Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) or (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) to the 2004 Act (Northern Ireland powers corresponding to those mentioned in sub-paragraph (ia));".
(5) In subsection (1)(b), for "or (iii)" substitute "(ia), (iii) or (iv)".
(1) Amend section 24 (charges by pension arrangements in relation to earmarking orders) as follows.
(2) After paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) an order under Part I of Schedule 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004 (financial provision orders in connection with dissolution of civil partnerships etc.) so far as it includes provision made by virtue of Part 6 of that Schedule (powers to include provision about pensions),".
(3) At the end of paragraph (b) omit "or" and after paragraph (3) (c) insert ", or
(d) an order under Part 1 of Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the 2004 Act so far as it includes provision made by virtue of Part 5 of that Schedule (Northern Ireland powers corresponding to those mentioned in paragraph (aa))."
(1) Amend section 28 (activation of pension sharing) as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(a) insert—
"(aa) a pension sharing order under Schedule 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
(3) After subsection (1)(d) insert—
"(da) an order under Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in England and Wales after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (aa),".
(4) In subsection (1)(f)—

(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) insert "or between persons who are civil partners of each other", and

(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (iii) insert "or (as the case may be) on the grant, in relation to the civil partnership, of decree of dissolution or of declarator of nullity".

(5) In subsection (1)(g), after "divorce etc.)" insert "or under Schedule II to the 2004 Act (financial provision in Scotland after overseas proceedings)".
(6) In subsection (1)(h) for "Northern Ireland legislation, and" substitute "the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15)),".
(7) After subsection (1)(i) insert—

"(j) a pension sharing order under Schedule (Financial relief in the High Court or a county court etc.: Northern Ireland) to the 2004 Act, and

(k) an order under Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) to the 2004 Act (financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (j)."

(8) In subsection (7)(a), omit "matrimonial".
(9) In subsection (8)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "divorce" insert ", dissolution", and

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert "or, where the order is under Schedule 11 to the 2004 Act, the date of disposal of the application under paragraph 2 of that Schedule".

(10) In subsection (9)—

(a) omit "matrimonial", and

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b)(i), after "divorce" insert dissolution".

(1) Amend section 34 ("implementation period") as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)(b)(i), omit "matrimonial".
(3) In subsection (2)—

(a) omit "matrimonial", and

(b) in paragraph (b), after "divorce" insert ", dissolution".

(1) Amend section 48 (activation of benefit sharing) as follows.
(2) After subsection (1)(a) insert—
"(aa) a pension sharing order under Schedule 5 to the Civil Partnership Act 2004,".
(3) After subsection (1)(d) insert—
"(da) an order under Schedule 7 to the 2004 Act (financial relief in England and Wales after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (aa),".
(4) In subsection (1)(f)—

(a) at the end of sub-paragraph (i) insert "or between persons who are civil partners of each other", and

(b) at the end of sub-paragraph (iii) insert "or (as the case may he) on the grant, in relation to the civil partnership, of decree of dissolution or of declarator of nullity".

(5) In subsection (1)(g), after "divorce etc.)" insert "or under Schedule 11 to the 2004 Act (financial provision in Scotland after overseas proceedings)".
(6) In subsection ( 1)(h) for "Northern Ireland legislation, and" substitute "the Matrimonial Causes (Northern Ireland) Order 1978 (S.I. 1978/1045 (N.I. 15)),".
(7) After subsection (1)(i) insert—

"(j) a pension sharing order under Schedule (Financial relief the High Court or a county court etc. Northern Ireland) to the 2004 Act, and

(k) an order under Schedule (Financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) to the 2004 Act (financial relief in Northern Ireland after overseas dissolution etc. of a civil partnership) corresponding to such an order as is mentioned in paragraph (j)."

(8) In subsection (6)(a), omit "matrimonial".
(9) In subsection (7)—

(a) in paragraph (a), after "divorce" insert ", dissolution", and

(b) at the end of paragraph (b) insert "or, where the order is under Schedule 11 to the 2004 Act, the date of disposal of the application under paragraph 2 of that Schedule".

(10) In subsection (8)—

(a) omit "matrimonial", and

(b) in paragraphs (a) and (b)(i), after "divorce" insert ", dissolution"."

On Question, amendment agreed to.
Schedule 20, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 21 [Consequential amendments: Scotland]:
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendment No. 93:
Page 245, line 10, leave out "ailment" and insert "aliment"
The noble Lord said: I am delighted to speak to the Government's amendments to Schedule 21, which deals with consequential amendments for Scotland. Part 3 of the Bill, providing for the formation of civil partnerships in Scotland, was approved by the Committee on 13 May. Although I very much welcome the Committee's swift consensus on those clauses, noble Lords' generosity denied me the opportunity to speak in support of Scotland's inclusion in the Bill—a very important matter. I hope that the Committee will allow me to say a few words now.
The Scottish clauses in the Civil Partnership Bill achieve the same policy purpose as Part 2 but have been drafted to reflect the special characteristic of Scots law. In earlier debate on the equivalent clauses for England and Wales, the Committee considered at some length the underlying principles of civil registration for same-sex couples as well as consideration of policy details. It was a good and thorough debate, and I was gratified that Members agreed that the Committee's time should not be spent revisiting those issues in respect of Scotland.
From the outset, the Scottish Executive has been clear that including Scottish provisions in the UK's Civil Partnership Bill was the most appropriate way of developing legislation in this complex area. The rights and responsibilities that flow from civil partnerships affect matters such as pensions, benefits and taxation, which are reserved to the Westminster Parliament, but also devolved policy areas such as family law—for example, what happens when one partner dies? It would be conceivable for the Scottish Parliament to legislate separately on the devolved areas. However, the intertwining of reserved and devolved policies would make the legislation complex, unwieldy and little understood by the people who will use and benefit from it. It would not be in the best interests of consistency and clarity to proceed with different legislation north and south of the Border.
Such an approach could also lead to problematic cross-Border issues; for example, any difference in the timing of the introduction of civil partnership legislation in Scotland as compared with the rest of the UK could give rise to undesirable anomalies. If, for example, there was a period in which a civil partnership could be registered only in England or Wales, a Scottish couple could still travel south and register their partnership, but what would that mean when they returned to Scotland? They would still have access to the relevant state benefits, taxation and other reserved rights, but not to any of the family law-related benefits, which are devolved. Should such a partnership break down, the couple could not have it dissolved in the Scottish courts.
Separate legislation could mean that there were differences in detail in the rights and responsibilities flowing from civil partnerships in Scotland and those in England and Wales. It would mean that if couples moved from one part of the UK to another, their rights and responsibilities could vary. That would riot help anyone.
The inclusion of Scottish provisions in the Bill engages the Sewel convention. The proposed use of a Sewel Motion was among the matters on which the Scottish Executive invited comment when they went out to consultation on civil partnerships last year. The results were very positive, with 86 per cent of respondents agreeing with a proposal to provide legal recognition to same-sex couples in Scotland, and 74 per cent agreeing with the proposed use of a Sewel Motion.
The Sewel Motion procedure allows this Parliament to legislate for Scotland on devolved areas. A Sewel Motion has been laid before the Scottish Parliament. That

GC 523
Parliament has already taken written evidence from a range of interested organisations and individuals. On 12 May, the Justice 1 Committee took oral evidence from the Law Society of Scotland, Professor Kenneth Norrie—a leading Scottish academic—and the deputy Minister for Justice.
The Sewel Motion will be voted on in due course and well within the prescribed timescale. It must be agreed by the Scottish Parliament before the last amending stage of this Bill in the Lords. I hope that the Committee agrees that the inclusion of Scottish provisions in the Bill is key to a clear, consistent approach to civil partnerships across the UK.
Amendments Nos. 93 to 101 amend Schedule 21. They are minor and consequential. Many of them simply correct spelling mistakes and make clauses consistent. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Evans of Temple Guiting Lord Evans of Temple Guiting moved Amendments Nos. 94 to 101:
Page 249, line 34, leave out "ailment" and insert "aliment"
Page 249, line 37, at end insert—
"( ) in paragraph (b), after "separation" insert "(whether of the parties to a marriage or the civil partners in a civil partnership)","
Page 252, line 16, at end insert
"Marriage (Scotland) Act 1977 (c. 15)
Amend section 3 (notice of intention to marry) as follows—
(a) in subsection (1), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) if he has previously been in civil partnership and the civil partnership has been dissolved, a copy of the decree of dissolution or annulment;", and.
(b) in subsection (2), after "paragraph (a)" insert ", (aa)".
In section 5(4)(b) (ground on which there is a legal impediment to a marriage). at the end insert "or in civil partnership"."
Page 252, line 18, leave out paragraph 36 and insert—
"(1) Amend section 1(3) (jurisdiction of Court of Session to entertain action of declarator) as follows.
(2) In paragraph (b)(i). after "spouse" insert "or civil partner".
(3) After paragraph (b) insert "; or
(c) in a case where the pursuer in the action is the civil partner of the missing person, the following conditions are met—

(i) the two people concerned registered as civil partners of each other in Scotland; and

(ii) it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to assume jurisdiction in the case.""

Page 253, line 33, at end insert
"Family Law Act 1986 (c. 55)
In section 8 (jurisdiction of Scottish courts in independent proceedings), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
GC 524
In section 9 (habitual residence), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
In section 10 (presence of child), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
(1) Amend section 11 (provisions supplementary to sections 9 and 10) as follows.
(2) In subsection (1)—

(a) after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings", and

(b) at the end insert "or as the case may be in respect of the civil partnership which constitutes the family as a child of which he has been accepted".

(3) In subsection (2), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
(1) Amend section 13 (ancillary jurisdiction) as follows.
(2) In each of subsections (1) and (2), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
(3) In subsection (3), after "concerned" insert ", or as the case may be for dissolution or declarator of nullity in respect of the civil partnership concerned,".
(4) In subsection (4)—

(a) after "proceedings" (in the first place) insert "or civil partnership proceedings", and

(b) after "concerned" insert ", or as the case may be civil partnership proceedings in respect of the civil partnership concerned,".

(5) In subsection (6), after "proceedings" insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
(6) In the heading to section 13, at the end insert "or civil partnership proceedings".
(1) Amend section 17 (orders for delivery of child) as follows.
(2) In subsection (3), the existing words "by one party to a marriage for an order for the delivery of the child concerned from the other party where the child, although not a child of both parties to the marriage, is a child of the family of those parties" become paragraph (a) and after that paragraph insert—
"(b) by one civil partner in a civil partnership for an order for the delivery of the child concerned from the other civil partner where the child concerned was a child of the family constituted by the civil partnership.".
(3) In subsection (4)—

(a) after "parties" (in the first place) insert "to the marriage or as the case may be by both civil partners", and

(b) after "parties" (in the second place) insert "or civil partners".

In section 18(1) (interpretation), after the definition of "child" insert—
"civil partnership proceedings" means proceedings for dissolution or declarator of nullity of a civil partnership or separation of civil partners;".
In section 42(3) (interpretation), after "proceedings" (in the first place) insert "or civil partnership proceedings ("civil partnership proceedings" having the same meaning as in Chapter 3)"."
Page 255, line 13, at end insert—
"In section 54(2) (reference to the Principal Reporter by court), after paragraph (a) insert—
"(aa) an action for dissolution or declarator of nullity of a civil partnership or separation of civil partners;"."
Page 255, line 13, at end insert—
"Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 (c. 44)
In section 3(2)(c) (abuse of position of trust: defence), after "to" insert ", or in civil partnership with,"."

GC 525
Page 255, line 36. at end insert—
"Criminal Justice (Scotland) Act 2003 (asp 7)
(1) Amend section 14 (victim statements) as follows.
(2) In subsection (I0)(a), at the end insert "or civil partner".
(3) For subsection (11) substitute
"(11) In subsection ( I 0)(b), "cohabitee" means a person who has lived with the victim—

(a) as if in a married relationship; or

(b) in a relationship which had the characteristics of the relationship between civil partners,
for at least six months and was so living immediately before the offence (or apparent offence) was perpetrated.""

Page 256, line 4, at end insert—
"In section 313(5)(a)(ii) (defence in respect of sexual offence), after "spouse" insert "or civil partner"."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 21, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 22 [Repeals]:
Baroness Crawley Baroness Crawley moved Amendments Nos. 102 to 105:
Page 257, line 17, at end insert—

"Social Security Contributions and Benefits (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c. 7)

In section 37(4), "or" at the end of paragraph (a).

In section 38(3), "or" at the end of paragraph (b).

In section 39A(2) and (5), "or" at the end of paragraph (a).

In section 39B(5), "or" at the end of paragraph (a).

GC 526

Section 85( 1). In section 133(1). the definitions of "married couple". and "unmarried couple"

Social Security Administration (Northern Ireland) Act 1992 (c.8)

In section 72A(5), the definitions of "married couple.' 8) and "unmarried couple"."

Page 257, line 21. at end insert—

"Child Support (Northern Ireland) Order 1995 (S.I.1995/2702(N.I. 13))

In Article 4(7). the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple".

Jobseekers (Northern Ireland ) Order 1995 (S.I.1995/2705 (N.I.15))

In Article 2(2), the definitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple"."

Page 257, line 26, at end insert—

"State Pension Credit Act (Northern Ireland) 2002 (c. 14 (N.I. 15))

In section 17(1), the defifnitions of "married couple" and "unmarried couple"."

Page 257, line 33, at end insert—

"Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30)

At the end of section 23(1)(a)(ii), "or"

At the end of section 24(b), "or".

In section 28(7)(a) and (9), 34(1)(b)(i) and (2) and 48(b)(a) and (8) "matrimonial"."

On Question, amendments agreed to.
Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
Remaining clauses agreed to.
Bill reported with amendments.
Committee adjourned at twenty-five minutes past seven o'clock.

  Language Implementation Body
  Lord Laird
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What plans they have to modify the decision-making process surrounding the budget and business cases for the Language Implementation Body, including consultation with the two agencies concerned.[HL2484]

  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  There are no plans to change the decision-making process. However, the operational arrangements of the process to be followed by each of the relevant parties are reviewed on an annual basis. Consultation with the two agencies is ongoing and will be as often as is required to reach agreement on business plan and budget for each agency.

  Prison Officers: Training in Control and Restraint Procedures
  Baroness Anelay of St Johns
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How long is the training given to prison officers in respect of control and restraint procedures for use on adults and children; and how often officers are required to undertake refresher training in such techniques. [HL2591]

  (£ million)

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–041

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Clinical Services (detoxification and maintenance prescribing

  4

  3

  7

  7

  11

  11

  11

  CARATs

  6

  9

  12

  13

  16

  17

  20

  Intensive drug rehabilitation programmes

  3

  5

  7

  7

  9

  12

  16

  Total

  13

  17

  26

  27

  36

  40

  47

  1 These figures include in their baseline the final year allocations from previous funding rounds (e.g. Comprehensive Spending Review allocations in 2001–02 became the baseline for Spending Review (SR) 2000).

  The funding shown for 2005–06 does not include any additional funding that might be awarded as part of SR 2004, about which it is premature to comment at this stage.

  Lord Adebowale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  For each of the years 2001–02, 2002–03 and 2003–04 (a) how many offenders were referred to drug treatment in the community on release from prison; and (b) how many offenders received drug treatment in the community on release from prison. [HL2724]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Information on the number of (a) offenders referred to drug treatment in the community on release from prison and
  WA 118
  The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal)
  All new prison officers recruited to work in all types of public sector prison establishments, including those accommodating juvenile offenders (who are aged from 15 to 17 years old), undertake 39 hours of basic control and restraint (C and R) training as part of the eight-week prison officer entry level training course.

  Prison establishments are required to maintain an appropriate level of officers trained at basic level in C and R. Those officers selected to fulfil that requirement normally receive eight hours of basic C and R refresher training each year.

  Prison officers who are selected to deal with incidents of concerted indiscipline attend a five-day C and R advanced course and a two-day annual C and R advanced refresher course.

  Prisoners: Drug Treatment
  Lord Adebowale
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  (a) what total funding allocation for prison-based drug treatment in England and Wales has been made available for each year that figures are available; and

  (b) what is the expected funding for the years 2004–05 and 2005–06. [HL2657]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The funding allocated to prison-based drug treatment; incorporating clinical services, counselling, assessment, referral, advice and throughcare services (CARATs) and intensive drug rehabilitation programmes since 1999–2000 is shown in the following table:

  (b) receiving drug treatment in the community on release from prison is not currently available centrally. Systems for collecting these data are currently being developed as part of the criminal justice intervention programme (CJIP).

  Custodial Sentences and Community Service Punishments
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What has been the percentage increase in the number of offenders in the UK who have been given (a) custodial sentences, and (b) community service punishment in each of the last 10 years; and whether they can explain the differential rates of increase.[HL2672]
  WA 119
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal:

  England and Wales.

  The available information, from the Home Office court proceedings database, is given in the table. It shows the number of persons sentenced to a community sentence, of which: the number sentenced to a community punishment order, and the number sentenced to immediate custody for all courts in England and Wales, for each of the years 1993 to 2002. It also provides the percentage change for the numbers

  Number of persons sentenced to a community punishment order, community sentence or immediate custody at all courts for all offences.

  England and Wales 1993 to 20021

  Community sentences Total community sentences2

  of which: Community punishment order3

  Immediate custody

  Year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  1993

  114,806

  47,961

  58,738

  1994

  128,875

  12%

  49,469

  3%

  69,588

  18%

  1995

  129,922

  1%

  48,337

  -2%

  79,538

  14%

  1996

  132,637

  2%

  45,895

  -5%

  85,249

  7%

  1997

  139,990

  6%

  47,123

  3%

  93,841

  10%

  1998

  149,388

  7%

  48,566

  3%

  100,566

  7%

  1999

  151,633

  2%

  49,597

  2%

  105,323

  5%

  2000

  155,538

  3%

  49,983

  1%

  106,187

  1%

  2001

  164,997

  6%

  49,764

  0%

  106,273

  0%

  2002

  186,520

  13%

  50,791

  2%

  111,607

  5%

  % change 1993 to 2002

  62%

  6%

  90%

  1 These data are on the principal offence basis.

  2 Includes figures for community punishment order.

  3 New name for a community service order under the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000 from April 2000.

  Number of persons sentenced to a community service order, community sentence or immediate custody at all courts for all offences.

  Northern Ireland 1993 to 20011

  Community sentences Total community sentences1

  of which: Community service order

  Immediate custody

  Year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  1993

  1,632

  584

  2,414

  1994

  1,775

  9%

  610

  4%

  2,2000

  -9%

  1995

  1,905

  7%

  607

  <-1%

  2,313

  5%

  1996

  1,919

  1%

  645

  6%

  2,168

  -6%

  1997

  1,866

  -3%

  598

  -7%

  2,157

  -1%

  1998

  2,304

  23%

  655

  10%

  2,043

  -5%

  1999

  2,018

  -12%

  702

  7%

  2,008

  -2%

  2000

  1,994

  -1%

  755

  8%

  2,178

  8%

  2001

  1,816

  -9%

  632

  -16%

  1,778

  -18%

  2002

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  ..

  % change 1993 to 2001

  11%

  8%

  -26%

  1 Includes figures for community service order.

  .. Not available.

  WA 120
  sentenced in each of the categories compared with the previous year, and overall.

  Statistics for 2003 will be published in the autumn of 2004.

  Northern Ireland and Scotland.

  Separate tables show similar information from the Northern Ireland Office court proceedings data sets for each of the years 1993 to 2001 (2002 information is currently not available) and for Scotland from the Scottish Executive Justice Department's court proceedings database
  WA 121

  Persons with a charge proved, Scotland 1993 to 2002

  Community sentences Total community sentences1

  of which: Community punishment order

  Immediate custody

  Year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  Total sentenced

  % change with previous year

  1993

  10,801

  5,079

  15,323

  1994

  11,465

  6%

  5,320

  5%

  16,091

  5%

  1995

  11,484

  0%

  5,339

  0%

  16,255

  1%

  1996

  12,154

  6%

  5,711

  7%

  16,923

  4%

  1997

  12,599

  4%

  5,709

  0%

  16,255

  -4%

  1998

  12,531

  -1%

  5,246

  -8%

  15,976

  -2%

  1999

  12,552

  0%

  4,889

  -7%

  16,195

  1%

  2000

  12,437

  -1%

  4,690

  -4%

  15,375

  -5%

  2001

  13,584

  9%

  4,879

  4%

  16,663

  8%

  2002

  15,208

  12%

  5,009

  3%

  16,817

  1%

  % change 1993 to 2003

  41%

  -1%

  10%

  1 Excludes number of persons given probation with a condition of unpaid work.

  Asylum Applicants: New EU Member States
  Lord Hylton
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  When and in what ways they intend to prevent hardship when asylum applicants from the 10 European Union accession states are required to leave temporary accommodation and how many children will be affected by this change.[HL2676]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  From 1 May 2004 asylum seekers from the Czech Republic, Estonia, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Cyprus and Malta, ceased to be eligible for support from the National Asylum Support Service or a local authority under the Asylum Support (Interim Provisions) Regulations 1999. This is because of the effect of paragraph 5 of Schedule 3 to the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002.

  While these changes have been known about by people for some time, IND officials wrote to all those affected on 5–6 April to remind them of the changes and ensure that they were aware of their options after 1 May. Letters were sent to local authorities on 1 April asking that they ensure that cases whom they supported were aware of the changes. Additionally families directly supported by NASS were visited by officials during April to ensure that people understood their options. They can obtain work and register as workers under the Home Office worker registration scheme if from a country covered by the registration scheme, remain in the UK as jobseekers but become self supporting, or leave the UK.

  Once they have secured employment and registered under the scheme, asylum seekers may become eligible for family tax credit and child benefit. If they are on low incomes they can also access housing benefit and council tax benefit. Part-time workers may also be eligible for income-based jobseeker's allowance or income support, provided they meet the usual conditions for those benefits.

  If an accession state national wishes to return to his country of origin, he can seek assistance from the local authority who have a power under the Withholding
  WA 122
  and Withdrawal of Support (Travel and Assistant and Temporary Accommodation) Regulations 2002 to arrange travel. Local authorities also have the powers to provide short-term accommodation and support for families pending return. Additionally, the Immigration Nationality Directorate (IND) can make arrangements for their return.

  Schedule 3 to the 2002 Act does not prevent the exercise of a power or the performance of a duty if, and to the extent that, its exercise or performance is necessary for the purpose of avoiding a breach of a person's convention rights or a person's rights under the Community Treaties. Accession state nationals who feel that their circumstances are such that support should continue to avoid such a breach are able to make representations to NASS or the local authority that was previously supporting them. Several hundred have done so. Support, whether from NASS or local authorities, will continue while the representations are assessed. Whether and for how long support continues after the assessment will depend on the facts in each case. If support is provided it will be on a temporary basis—our overall expectation is that they can find work, return home or become self-supporting.

  Those families from the accession states who are still under consideration for the indefinite leave to remain project will continue to be supported until a decision is made.

  Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986
  Baroness Finlay of Llandaff
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How long is the average delay from the initial application at local level to the issuing of a project licence under the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986; and whether this delay causes unnecessary duplication of research involving animals as defined in the Act. [HL2760]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  In the period April 2003–March 2004, 77 per cent of completed and signed project licence applications were processed within the
  WA 123
  target of 35 working days agreed with the scientific research community. Many applications were actually turned around in signficantly less time, and the average processing time for all applications was 26 working days. We expect to do even better than that once we have in place a new IT system. We have no evidence that the time taken to process project licence applications has caused any unnecessary duplication of research

  The time taken to process such applications varies according to their nature and complexity, but the Home Office has agreed with representatives of the scientific research community that it will try to process 85 per cent of applications for project licences within 35 working days, excluding any time spent waiting while further information is obtained from the applicant. The Home Office cannot account for time taken on applications while they are being prepared and going through local ethical review processes within the establishments of origin.

  Money Laundering
  Lord Hodgson of Astley Abbotts
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many individual money laundering reports were made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service in each of the past three years.[HL2844]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  Under the Proceeds of Crime Act 2002 reports on potential money laundering, known as suspicious activity reports, are made to the National Criminal Intelligence Service (NCIS).

  The total number of suspicious activity reports submitted to NCIS in each of the past three financial years is set out below:

  01/04/2001–31/03/2002

  42,049

  01/04/2002–31/03/2003

  64,277

  01/04/2003–31/03/2004

  105,619

  Firearms: Injuries from Non-criminal Use
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  In each of the years 1998–99 to 2002–03, how many injuries were attributed to events involving handguns, rifles, shotguns, air weapons and imitation firearms where the event was not recorded as a crime or as involving a crime.[HL2886]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  No information is collected centrally by the Home Office in relation to injuries resulting specifically from the non-criminal use of firearms.

  State Visits: Policing
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  How many police were allocated to the state visit of the President of Poland on Wednesday 5 May, and what was the estimated number of spectators for the processions.[HL2919]
  WA 124
  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The Commissioner of Police for the Metropolis informs me there were 32 inspectors, 139 sergeants and 963 constables allocated to the state visit of the President of Poland on Wednesday 5 May.

  The Metropolitan Police Service made no estimate of the number of spectators for processions.

  Euro 2004
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What are the security vetting procedures in place for the sale of tickets for the 2004 European Championships to those resident at United Kingdom addresses by: (a) the Football Association and (b) the Union of European Football Associations over the Internet.[HL2939]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The Football Association limits distribution of its ticket allocation to members of the FA englandfans ticketing club. Membership of the club is subject to a range of vetting and behavioural terms and conditions. UEFA has also made tickets available to the general public on the basis of four tickets per applicant. In accordance with EUFA Euro 2004 ticketing terms and conditions, applicants resident in England and Wales have been subject to police checks. Police vetting of ticket applicants is but one of an extensive range of UK and Portuguese security measures put in place to minimise the risk of significant disorder during Euro 2004.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What representations they have made to the Portuguese Government and the Union of European Football Associations about the deployment of open-air big screens in town centres during Euro 2004, both in terms of the risk of potential hooliganism and as potential targets for terrorists.[HL2940]

  Baroness Scotland of Asthal
  The televising of
  football matches on large screens in public places is a matter for the host police and civil authorities. This issue has been raised with the Portuguese authorities who are satisfied that large screens in controlled areas will provide local and visiting fans with an opportunity to participate in the festivities in a secure and safe environment. Policing and security at large screen venues is the preserve of the host authorities. However an experienced English police team will be in Portugal to provide on the spot advice on the behaviour and risk associated with England fans.

  NHS Trusts: Finances
  Baroness Noakes
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What (a) public dividend capital, and (b) loans, have been advanced to National Health Service trusts in 2002–03 and 2003–04; and how much is estimated to be advanced to (i) National Health Service trusts, and (ii) National Health Service foundation trusts, in 2004–05.[H L2895]
  WA 125
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  The information requested is given in the table. No loans were issued to National Health Service trusts in 2002–03 or 2003–04. Of the £2,784 million available to the NHS for public dividend capital (PDC) in 2004–05, it is currently estimated that £150 million will fund both PDC and loans to NHS foundation trusts. The estimate of loans and PDC to be issued to NHS foundation trusts will be refined during the year as better information becomes available on spending plans and in-year starts.

  Total PDC issued/forecast

  PDC/loans to NHS

  Financial Year

  PDC to NHS trusts £million

  foundation trusts £million

  Total £million

  2002–03

  1,434

  0

  1,434

  2003–04

  1,833

  0

  1,833

  2004–05 (estimate)

  2,634

  150

  2,784

  Baroness Noakes
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  (a) what amount of dividends, and (b) how much cash they expect to receive from National Health Service foundation trusts in respect of the financial year 2004–05.[HL2896]

  Lord Warner
  The dividend payable by National Health Service foundation trusts will be calculated on the same basis as for NHS trusts. It is not possible to estimate the amount of dividends, or cash, that will be received until it is known which organisations are to be given NHS foundation trust status during 2004–05.

  Baroness Noakes
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether they expect to receive any repayment of public dividend capital from National Health Service foundation trusts during 2004–05; and, if so, how much.[HL2897]

  Lord Warner
  We are not currently expecting to receive any repayment of public dividend capital from National Health Service foundation trusts during 2004–05.

  Taxation
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What additional revenue would have been received, in respect of the latest financial year for which figures are available, from a single percentage point rise in (a) the 22 per cent rate of income tax; (b) the 40 per cent rate of income tax; (c) capital gains tax; and (d) inheritance tax, assuming in each case that all other factors remained unchanged. [HL2810]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  The information requested can be found on the Inland Revenue website:www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ stats.tax_expenditures/table1–6.pdf
  WA 126
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the current top rate of income tax on income in each of the member states of the European Union, indicating in sterling in each case the level of taxable income at which the top rates apply.[HL2811]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  The table below shows the current top rates of personal income tax together with the threshold levels of taxable income in each of the EU member states.

  Country

  Top rate of national income tax (%)

  Level of taxable income above which top rates apply (£)

  Austria

  50

  £34,270

  Belgium1

  53.63

  £20,352

  Cyprus

  30

  £22,999

  Czech Republic

  32

  £6,985

  Denmark2

  59

  £27,597

  Estonia

  26

  £0

  Finland3

  52

  £37,591

  France

  48.09

  £32,290

  Germany4

  47.48

  £35,133

  Greece

  40

  £15,764

  Hungary

  38

  £3,942

  Ireland

  42

  £18,863

  Italy5

  45.63

  £47,157

  Latvia

  25

  £0

  Lithuania

  33

  £0

  Luxembourg6

  38.95

  £23,242

  Malta

  35

  £10,399

  Netherlands

  52

  £34,123

  Poland

  40

  £10,480

  Portugal

  40

  £35,922

  Slovakia

  19

  £0

  Slovenia

  50

  £23,756

  Spain

  45

  £30,315

  Sweden7

  57

  £32,453

  UK

  40

  £31,400

  Currency conversions are calculated to the nearest pound sterling using exchange rates as at 17 May 2004.

  1 Belgium: Top national rate (50 per cent) plus local surcharge (average 7.25 per cent). Total effective rate 53.63 per cent.

  2 Denmark: Top national rate (26.5 per cent) is augmented by flat rate local income taxes at both county and municipal levels (average aggregate rate 32.6 per cent). However, the maximum combined rate of local and national income taxes is limited to 59 per cent.

  3 Finland: Top national rate (34 per cent) plus municipal income tax (average rate 18 per cent). Total rate 52 per cent.

  4 Germany: Top national rate (45 per cent) plus solidarity surcharge (5.5 per cent). Total effective rate 47.48 per cent.

  5 Italy: Top national rate (45 per cent) plus regional surcharge (average rate 1.15 per cent), plus municipal surcharge (average rate 0.25 per cent). Total effective rate 45.63 per cent.

  6 Luxembourg: Top national rate (38 per cent) plus employment surcharge (2.5 per cent). Total effective rate 38.95 per cent.

  7 Sweden: Top national rate (25 per cent) plus flat rate local income tax (average rate 32 per cent). Total effective rate 57 per cent.

  Source:

  Inland Revenue.
  WA 127
  Lord Marlesford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What was the top rate of direct tax on personal incomes in the United Kingdom for each year from 1970–71 to 2003–04; and whether they will provide

  Single, non-aged personal allowance for a man with children £

  Taxable income above which the highest rate is charged £

  Highest rate of income tax charged %

  Retail price Index

  Single, non-aged personal allowance for a man with no children at 2003–04 prices £

  Taxable income above which the highest rate is charged at 2003–04 prices £

  1970–71

  325

  20,000

  91.25

  18.92

  3,135

  192,896

  1971–72

  325

  20,000

  88.75

  20.67

  2,869

  176,565

  1972–73

  460

  20,000

  93.75

  22.13

  3,793

  164,916

  1973–74

  595

  20,000

  90

  24.45

  4,441

  149,268

  1974–75

  625

  20,000

  98

  28.82

  3,957

  126,634

  1975–76

  675

  20,000

  98

  35.91

  3,430

  101,632

  1976–77

  735

  20,000

  98

  41.40

  3,240

  88,155

  1977–78

  945

  21,000

  98

  47.19

  3,654

  81,205

  1978–79

  965

  24,000

  98

  51.11

  3,445

  85,688

  1979–80

  1,165

  25,000

  75

  59.19

  3,592

  77,074

  1980–81

  1,375

  27,750

  75

  68.85

  3,644

  73,549

  1981–82

  1,375

  27,750

  75

  76.77

  3,268

  65,961

  1982–83

  1,565

  31,500

  75

  82.20

  3,474

  69,928

  1983–84

  1,785

  36,000

  75

  86.03

  3,786

  76,360

  1984–85

  2,005

  38,100

  60

  90.37

  4,049

  76,934

  1985–86

  2,205

  40,200

  60

  95.71

  4,204

  76,645

  1986–87

  2,335

  41,200

  60

  98.78

  4,314

  76,110

  1987–88

  2,425

  41,200

  60

  102.72

  4,308

  73,191

  1988–89

  2,605

  19,300

  40

  108.88

  4,366

  32,346

  1989–90

  2,785

  20,700

  40

  117.38

  4,330

  32,180

  1990–91

  3,005

  20,700

  40

  128.74

  4,259

  29,341

  1991–92

  3,295

  23,700

  40

  134.85

  4,459

  32,071

  1992–93

  3,445

  23,700

  40

  139.11

  4,519

  31,089

  1993–94

  3,445

  23,700

  40

  141.48

  4,443

  30.568

  1994–95

  3,445

  23,700

  40

  145.35

  4,325

  29,754

  1995–96

  3,525

  24,300

  40

  150.08

  4,286

  29,546

  1996–97

  3,765

  25,500

  40

  153.73

  4,469

  30,269

  1997–98

  4,045

  26,100

  40

  158.81

  4,648

  29,990

  1998–99

  4,195

  27,100

  40

  163.76

  4,675

  30,198

  1999–2000

  4,335

  28,000

  40

  166.35

  4,755

  30.715

  2000–01

  4,385

  28,400

  40

  171.33

  4,670

  30,248

  2001–02

  4,535

  29,400

  40

  173.88

  4,759

  30,854

  2002–03

  4,615

  29,900

  40

  177.52

  4,744

  30,735

  2003–04

  4,615

  30,500

  40

  182.48

  4,615

  30,500

  Notes:

  1. For 1970–71 to 1972–73 the highest rate shown is the standard rate of income tax plus the highest rate of surtax

  2. For 1973–74 to 1983–84, the highest charged includes investment income surcharge at 15 per cent, but this total rate would only apply if the taxpayer's income included investment income greater than the threshold for the highest rate of surcharge, which varied between £2,000 in 1973–74 and £7,100 in 1983–84.

  Olympic Games 2012: London Bid
  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What steps they will take to improve their standing in the summary of results published by the International Olympic Committee on 18 May, in which London ranked eighth out of nine applicant cities to host the 2012 Olympic Games in the category of "Government support, legal issues and public opinion."[HL2974]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  The results published by the International Olympic Committee (IOC) on 18 May represent the findings of their Candidature Acceptance Working Group to the IOC Executive Board. Now that the report has been published all WA 128
  the information In the same form as that given in the Official Report on 11 March (WA 47–48). [HL2812]

  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  An updated version of the table given in my reply to the noble Lord of 11 March 2002 (WA 47–48) is given below:

  candidate cities will develop their proposals, taking into account the findings of the report, in time for the submission of the bid folders on 15 November 2004. The Government, the Mayor and the British Olympic Assocation will work closely with London 2012 to ensure that public awareness of and enthusiasm for the bid is maximised, both in London and across the whole of the UK.

  Lord Moynihan
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the relevant splits in percentage weighting to the category "Government support, legal issues and public opinion" in the International Olympic Committee analysis of 18 May are 70 per cent, 15 per cent and 15 per cent respectively. [HL2975]
  WA 129
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey
  The category of "Government support, legal issues and public opinion" in the IOC's 18 May evaluation report has three sub-criteria: (i) Government support and commitment, (ii) Legal aspects including compliance with the Olympic Charter, and (iii) Public opinion. The relative weighting of these sub criteria is indeed 70 per cent, 15 per cent and 15 per cent respectively.

  For each sub-criterion, the evaluation report attributed minimum and maximum scores and, for government support, an assessment of feasibility. London, Paris, New York, Madrid and Moscow all scored the same for the "Government support and commitment" sub-criterion, with a minimum of 8/10 and a maximum of 9/10 for each city. The feasibility scores were 0.8 for New York, Moscow and London, and 0.9 for Paris and Madrid, and all cities were deemed by the IOC to have a "high probability" of achieving required levels of government support.

  Energy Imports
  Lord Willoughby de Broke
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What percentage of the United Kingdom's national energy requirement is supplied by imported French nuclear power; and at what cost, overall and per megawatt.[HL2813]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  In 2002, 0.3 per cent of the United Kingdom's national energy requirement was met by electricity imported via the French interconnector and the value of such imports, based on trade data collected by HM Customs and Excise, was £140 million (equivalent to £15 per megawatt hour). It is estimated that by 2003, this share fell to 0.2 per cent at an overall value of £90 million (£18 per megawatt hour). Figures for electricity imported from French nuclear power stations only are not available.

  Fairness For All White Paper
  Lord Carter
  asked her Majesty's Government:

  Why the White Paper Fairness for All was not available in formats accessible for disabled people at the same time as the publication of the original documents. [HL2836]

  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  The Government published the White Paper Fairness for All: A New Commission for Equality and Human Rights on Wednesday 12 May 2004. The White Paper sets out our proposals for a new body to meet the challenges we must overcome if we are to end discrimination and promote respect for human rights.

  The White Paper was not available in different formats for disabled people at the same time as publication of the original document due to the extra production time required to publish the document in accessible formats.
  WA 130
  Versions of the document in Braille, large print, other languages, for people with learning difficulties or on audio cassette are available on request.

  The Government welcome the early constructive response of the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) to our proposals. We owe a debt of gratitude to the DRC and other disability organisations for their positive engagement and contributions to the process that have led to the specific provisions regarding disability in the White Paper.

  DTI officials are working closely with disability organisations to ensure that awareness and availability of the White Paper is widespread among people with disabilities.

  Channel Tunnel
  Baroness Byford
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Further to the Written Answer by the Lord Whitty on 6 May (WA 136), what was the cause of the unsatisfactory functioning of electrified grids at the Channel Tunnel entrance.[HL2839]

  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (Lord Whitty)
  The electrified grids in the Channel Tunnel entrances continually short-circuited due to the combination of dirt and high saline content of moisture within the tunnel. Frequent cleaning to attempt to stop this happening did not solve the problem.

  The options put forward by Eurotunnel to rectify the problems of electrified grids were rejected by the Channel Tunnel intergovernmental commission, on advice from the binational Channel Tunnel Safety Authority, on human health and safety grounds.

  South Eastern Trains
  Lord Berkeley
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What is the cost of the new control centre and upgrade of the passenger information system at South Eastern Trains stations. [HL2921]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  The cost of the new control centre is around £200,000. The upgrade of the passenger information system cost £9.5 million, of which £6.1 million was provided by Network Rail.

  Motorcycles: Engine Noise
  Earl Peel
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  What action they plan to take to tackle motorcyclists in the North Yorkshire Moors and the Yorkshire Dales National Parks who adapt their motocycles to increase their engine noise. [HL2935]

  Lord Davies of Oldham
  There are several ways in which we regulate noise from motorcycles. These include noise limits for new motorcycles, plus
  WA 131
  requirements for maintenance and for silencer markings. In response to a request from the department's Advisory Group on Motorcycling we produced some guidance to help riders to comply with the regulations and to aid the police in enforcement.

  Copies of this note Motor Cycle Noise—Statutory Controls on Noise Limits and Silencer/Exhaust Systems have been placed in the House Libraries

  Enforcement at a local level is a matter for the police. I understand that the North Yorkshire Moors National Park Authority is liaising with the police to address the problem in the area.

  e-Envoy
  Lord Lucas
  asked Her Majesty's Government:

  Whether the recent report to the effect that the status of the e-Envoy is to be downgraded is correct. [HL2884]

  Lord Bassam of Brighton
  The report is incorrect.
  WA 132
  At the end of last year we announced our intention to appoint a head of e-government. This is a positive evolution of the original e-Envoy role. It reflects the importance we place on ensuring that the Government capitalise on the potential of information and communication technology to transform service delivery and achieve a step change in operational efficiency across the public sector.

  The new head of e-government will operate at the highest level within government reporting to the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Andrew Turnbull and the Minister for the Cabinet Office. The full responsibilities of the post were set out in a press notice of 15 December 2003 which can be found at http://www.cabinet-office.gov.uk/news/2003/ 031215_headofegovt.asp. Copies are available in the Library.

  I will also place in the Library a copy of a speech made by Andrew Pinder, e-Envoy, on Thursday 20 May to the City Informatisation for the Asia. Pacific Region Forum (CIAPR) in Shanghai, which sets out some of the achievements of the Office of the e-Envoy and future challenges moving forward.

  Vietnam Programme
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development has made the following Statement.

  The Department for International Development (DAD) will be increasing its support to Vietnam to £40 million in 2004–05 and to £60 million in 2005–06 to help Vietnam to meet its challenges. Our new country assistance plan for Vietnam (copies of which I have placed in the Library) will support the Government of Vietnam's own strategies for growth and poverty reduction. It sets out three key objectives for our contribution to the collective development effort. First, we will promote fair, efficient and effective use of public financial resources. Secondly, we will seek to strengthen the Government of Vietnam's efforts to achieve social and economic development which includes all groups of society. Thirdly, we will support Vietnam in its transition to a market-based economy. A fourth pillar of our programme in Vietnam will be to help to improve the effectiveness of the international development effort.
  WS 52
  DfID intends to provide £20 million a year over the next three years in the form of poverty reduction budget support. This commitment will constitute the single largest element of our programme in Vietnam and will provide a significant boost to Vietnam's overall reform programme. I can also announce today a £500,000 project to help to improve the quality of public investment in Vietnam by supporting the introduction of a modern and efficient inspection system in the Ministry of Planning and Investment.

  Iran: Export Licence Application
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  The Government have recently issued a licence for the BBC to export to Iran up to three civilian armoured vehicles which are of military specification. Although military rated, these vehicles are manufactured for civilian use and would provide essential protection for journalists working for the BBC. Her Majesty's Government believed that an exception to the UK unilateral arms embargo should be made to allow the free and secure movement of journalists throughout the region and that approval of the application was otherwise consistent with the consolidated EU and national arms export licensing criteria. Specific provisos about usage and disposal are attached and Her Majesty's Government are satisfied that there is minimal risk of diversion to a military end-use or for use in internal repression.