Sitting of 7 September 2004

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

    Renewable Energy
    Miss Anne McIntosh: What discussions he has had with the (a) First Minister and (b) Energy Minister on the Government's policies for renewable energy. [187626]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I have discussed renewable energy over recent months with both the First Minister and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry. Promotion of renewables is, of course, a devolved responsibility in Scotland.
    Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for that reply. He will be aware that renewable energy is unreliable and in most instances requires back-up from other sources, so the Government have asked the oil companies to take a special lead in that regard. Against that background, how can he justify parts of Scotland, such as the west of Scotland and the Isle of Skye, being blighted?
    Mr. Darling: It is the case that it is best for energy to come from several different sources, but if we are to meet our environmental obligations, it is important to increase the amount of electricity that comes from renewable sources. There are parts of Scotland in which the development of renewable energy has been welcomed for such reasons as job creation. I accept the hon. Lady's general point that if electricity is generated and transmission lines then have to be built or upgraded, it can be controversial. However, there is no getting away from the fact that in an economy such as ours, in which every single one of us depends on electricity, we need to generate the stuff as efficiently and effectively as possible, and that means having the right mix of supply.
    Miss Anne Begg: I am sure that the Secretary of State is already aware that a week last Thursday at an anniversary celebration for 10 years of Talisman in the North sea, both the Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services and the First Minister made announcements. The First Minister
    586
    made an announcement on the development of the Beatrice platform, which has huge wind turbines and has received investment from the Government, and the Energy Minister announced new developments for the Tweedsmuir field. Does the Secretary of State agree that that shows how Scotland and the UK working together will ensure that the energy needs of the north-east of Scotland and the rest of the country will come from a mix of oil and gas developments and renewable sources?
    Mr. Darling: That is a very good point. Both the Scottish Executive and the UK Government—as well as industry—are working together so that we may increase the amount of energy generated from renewable sources. It is also worth bearing it in mind that over the summer the Conservatives came out against a lot of renewable energy generation. Most people who want to ensure that we have supply in the future will want us to have the right mix and, especially, to increase the amount of renewable-generated electricity because that must be good for the environment. As I said earlier, all such applications can be controversial, but most people, especially those in the north-east of Scotland who listened to last week's announcement, would have been pleased that the Scottish Executive and the UK Government were working closely together.
    John Thurso: Is the Secretary of State aware of the recommended transmission charge by National Grid Company of some £22 per kilowatt for electricity generated in my constituency, which Scottish Renewables estimates will create a burden of some £75 million above that on similar producers in England? What can the Government do to ensure that that unfair burden is not levied on the nascent Scottish renewables industry?
    Mr. Darling: I am aware of the proposals. There is provision in the Energy Act 2004 to provide relief from charges, which I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will welcome. On electricity generation and the new scheme, it is important to bear it in mind that, as a result of the changes, the interconnnector charges that Scottish generators would otherwise have to pay when selling electricity to England and Wales will be removed. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right that it is important to ensure that there is a level playing field for generators throughout the country, although account must be taken of the inevitable costs incurred when electricity is transmitted. I am aware of his point and anxious to ensure that Scottish renewable energy generation is encouraged.

    Quality of Life
    Jim Sheridan: What factors are taken into account when assessing the quality of life in Scotland's communities. [187627]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): There is no single indicator that can be used to measure quality of life. Indicators covering economic, social and environmental issues taken together can, however, reflect important factors affecting quality of life.
    Jim Sheridan: I thank my hon. Friend for her response, but does she agree that good quality, accessible health services are equally important to the quality of life of all our constituents? Will she use her good offices to remind local health boards such as Argyll and Clyde, which is reducing health services in Inverclyde, that the money that the Government are investing in health services is meant to serve all our communities?
    Mrs. McGuire: My hon. Friend is right that the Government regard health as a priority for investment. I am aware that Argyll and Clyde health board is undertaking a major consultation on proposals on the future configuration of health services in the area, and I am sure that he will welcome its decision to extend the consultation period to 15 October, although, as he will understand, the provision of NHS services in Scotland is a devolved issue for the Scottish Executive.
    Sir Archy Kirkwood: Does the Minister accept that the indices of deprivation recently produced by Oxford university are being increasingly used to assess the quality of life in Scottish communities? Those indices are an improvement on what was used before, but from her constituency experience she will know that rural districts include areas of bad deprivation and severe poverty, with fragile economies and low wages. While I acknowledge the difficulties on the west coast of Scotland, can she give the House an assurance that rural areas will not suffer from the mindless application of indices of deprivation in future?
    Mrs. McGuire: The new indices are an improvement on what was used before and take into account current income, employment, health, education, housing and access to services. The geographical areas studied each cover 500 to 1,000 people, and that approach is helpful to rural communities. The hon. Gentleman and I have met to discuss the subject, and if he would find it helpful I should be delighted to meet him again to see whether more refinement is needed to reflect the issues affecting rural communities.
    David Cairns: While health policy is devolved, many drivers for change in the health services in Scotland apply across the United Kingdom, and include the European working time directive, the reduction in junior doctors' hours, the operation of the royal colleges, GPs' and consultants' contracts, and so on. Does she therefore agree first, that the House has a locus in the debate on the future of the health service in Scotland, and secondly, that we cannot solve the problems in the Scottish health service one hospital at a time? These are national problems affecting the national health service in Scotland and they need a national solution.
    Mrs. McGuire: The reconfiguration of health services, particularly the acute services review in Scotland, has attracted a great deal of energetic and robust debate. However, it is a matter for the Scottish Executive, and it would be utterly inappropriate for me to comment on the way in which health boards carry out their functions.

    Industrial Policies
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: What conclusions he has drawn in relation to Government policies for industry from his visit to Sun Microsystems at Linlithgow on Tuesday 31 August. [187628]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): I was very pleased that my hon. Friend was able to join me to visit Sun Microsystems last week. Sun's investment in the Linlithgow plant demonstrates that the Government's policies and our management of the economy, allied to the Scottish Executive's enterprise strategy, are making Scotland the right place for such companies to do business.
    Mr. Dalyell: How about expeditious freight links?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend makes a very good—and very short—point. He is right, and that is why the development at Edinburgh airport, which is now a major freight airport in the UK, is important. Companies such as Sun are anxious, however, to have further freight connections, perhaps at Prestwick or in other countries, where heavier goods could be transported to different parts of the world. However, we want to do everything that we possibly can to encourage companies such as Sun, which makes goods that are exported throughout the world, to thrive in Scotland, and we shall continue to do so.

    Manufacturing Industry
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: If he will make a statement on manufacturing industry in Scotland. [187629]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mrs. Anne McGuire): The Government fully recognise the substantial role that manufacturing continues to play in Scotland's economy. We will continue to work with the Scottish Executive to ensure that Scotland's manufacturing industry benefits from the macro-economic stability delivered by the Government.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for her reply. I am sure that she will admit that manufacturing growth in Scotland is lower than in England, but that is not the purpose of my question. Does she not agree that manufacturing industry is one of the few sources of non-inflationary sustainable economic growth, and if so will she ensure that the Government and the Scottish Executive do not impose further additional costs on manufacturing industry that will undermine its competitive position?
    Mrs. McGuire: I know from the hon. Gentleman's continued attendance at Scottish questions that he takes a great interest in matters Scottish, and I hope that he will also recognise that the Government have done a great deal for manufacturing industry. Working with the Scottish Executive, we are determined to recognise that Scotland has world-class companies and a world-class reputation. Yes, we have very good traditional industries such as shipbuilding and aerospace, but we

    589
    are determined to build on the new industries—chemicals, biotechnology and pharmaceuticals. A great deal of work is being done to support the Scottish Executive in macro-economic developments to ensure that Scotland's manufacturing base continues to deliver in the years to come.
    Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: My hon. Friend is aware of the threatened closure of the VA Tech engineering plant in my constituency, a state-of-the-art modern plant, with the possible loss of 250 jobs. Now that that company, which was owned by an Austrian multinational, has itself been taken over by a larger multinational, will she urge the new owners to back the work of the task group set up by local management, trade unions and the local enterprise company to try to keep this important manufacturing facility in Edinburgh and in Scotland, and will she ask her office to do what it can to back the work of the task group?
    Mrs. McGuire: I know that my hon. Friend has been active in the campaign to save the VA Tech transformers plant in Leith, and I am also aware that there is a great deal of involvement on the part of local agencies, including Scottish Enterprise Edinburgh and Lothian, in that. We will continue to keep an eye on the situation as it develops and work with colleagues as appropriate.
    Mr. Peter Duncan:Is the Minister aware that the success or failure of Government policy in the manufacturing sector will be judged over the longer term by its failure to improve competitiveness levels in Scotland? With our international competitiveness ranking slipping to 36th out of 60, some nine places behind the UK as a whole and behind China, Colombia, India and Slovakia, what is she doing to arrest that decline?
    Mrs. McGuire: Sometimes I think that the hon. Gentleman and his party suffer from political amnesia when it comes to manufacturing industry in Scotland. I remember a time through the 1980s and 1990s when there was decimation of manufacturing industry in Scotland. Some of my colleagues on the Government Back Benches have very bitter personal memories of what happened to manufacturing industry. Let me be clear: the Government, with the Scottish Executive, are determined to develop our manufacturing base. To ensure that we are not competing with low-wage economies, our manufacturing base will be developed on the basis of high productivity, high skills, high quality, innovation and high technology—something to which the Conservative party in government never even aspired.
    Mr. Duncan: If existing manufacturing businesses are becoming less competitive on her Government's watch, would the hon. Lady agree that it is particularly vital that we see a growing number of new businesses in that sector? If so, is she content to see the report this week from the Committee of Scottish Clearing Bankers, showing new business start-ups falling by 10 per cent.? When will that trend by reversed?
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman forgets that we are introducing research and development credits, we have cut corporation tax and we have introduced measures to support the commercialisation of academic research. He is very selective in his use of statistics. He is using one aspect of the report, which was published yesterday, but he has failed to advise the House that the number of business start-ups has increased by 15 per cent. since last year. Let us be clear about the summaries of business surveys in Scotland. The Conservatives look at a glass and see it half empty. We look at a glass and see the reality. [Laughter.] If hon. Gentlemen would stop laughing, they would find out what the reality is.
    "Manufacturing remains positive as order growth rate slows".
    That is from the Scottish Engineering quarterly review in September 2004. That is the reality of the situation, not the pessimistic interpretation of one aspect of a statistical review.
    Mr. Duncan: The Minister clearly needs a longer summer recess. Scotland's manufacturing exports have decreased by more than 12 per cent. during the past year, and Scotland's manufacturing and business sector continues to suffer from more talk, more tax, more tape and more complacency from both the Scotland Office and the Scottish Executive. When will the Minister and her colleagues take their eyes off the ministerial reshuffle and focus on delivering an economy that works?
    Mrs. McGuire: The hon. Gentleman fails to recognise that the Scottish manufacturing sector is more optimistic than it has been for some time and that we have cut some of the burdens. [Interruption.] To be frank, I will not take what the Member for Mid Scotland and Fife in the Scottish Parliament, Brian Monteith, says as gospel—he has interpreted a set of statistics.
    The Scottish manufacturing sector is optimistic. The Scottish chambers of commerce business survey points to continued growth in the Scottish economy, and, according to the Lloyds TSB report, Scottish business has the highest expectations, which is the reality of Scottish manufacturing and the Scottish economy. It is a great pity that the hon. Gentleman colludes with hon. Members from other parties who continue to talk down Scotland.
    Mr. Eric Joyce:My hon. Friend may know that Alexander and Dennis, which builds buses in my constituency, has announced £40 million of orders today. Will she visit the plant in my constituency, which is an excellent example of a successful Scottish manufacturing venture?
    Mrs. McGuire: As the Member of Parliament for Stirling, I am always delighted to visit Falkirk. I cannot promise that I will visit in my ministerial capacity, but I understand that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State may visit in the near future, in which case my hon. Friend can personally apprise him of the situation with regard to Alexander and Dennis.

    Scottish Enterprise
    Mr. Alex Salmond:When he last met the head of Scottish Enterprise; and what issues were discussed. [187630]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): First, I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on his good fortune in being elected leader of his party for the second time. It is good to see him leading from London, and we look forward to his doing that for many months.
    Secondly, the hon. Gentleman knows that the funding, direction and oversight of the enterprise networks is a matter for the Scottish Executive, although I have, of course, met the chief executive of Scottish Enterprise on a number of occasions.
    Mr. Salmond: I thank the Secretary of State for his good wishes—I am full-time and elected as opposed to part-time and appointed, like him. I also thank Labour Back Benchers for their enthusiastic support—although it is also worrying.
    Returning to the substantial issue, which was raised earlier, of renewable energy and, in particular, Talisman, the Secretary of State will have noticed that Talisman has cited transmission charges of £20 per kilowatt as the greatest single threat to the viability of the Beatrice offshore wind farm. Will he explain why generators in the north of Scotland must pay £20 or more per kilowatt while generators in the south of England are subsidised at a rate of £9 per kilowatt? How will the Secretary of State address that threat to thousands of Scottish jobs, billions of pounds of investment and Scotland's potential as the renewables capital of Europe?
    Mr. Darling: Labour Members are enthusiastic about the hon. Gentleman's election because he did not win a single general election as leader last time. On the matter of substance, I said to the hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso), who speaks for the Liberals, that it is important to make sure that the transmission charge regime is fair in order to encourage the development of renewable energy. One of the new scheme's advantages is that the Scottish interconnector charges will go, but the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) is right that we must ensure that the regime is fair, so that we can generate renewable energy and other types of energy for sale in England, which is important for the industry's future.
    Mr. Brian H. Donohoe: When my right hon. Friend met Scottish Enterprise, did he raise the Lyons review, in which, as it stands, Ayrshire is not included? What can be done about that and when will a report on the implications of the dispersal of public service jobs be produced?
    Mr. Darling: My hon. Friend has met me to make the case for development in Ayr. As I told him, the object of the Lyons review is to encourage more dispersal of jobs away from Whitehall to other parts of the country. In relation to Scotland, while there are obviously advantages in putting jobs where centres already exist, it is also important that we consider other sites around the country, particularly those where jobs and development are needed. I am very much aware of my hon. Friend's point about Ayrshire, and I shall certainly bear it in mind.

    Railways
    Mr. George Foulkes:What recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Transport about transferring further responsibility for railways in Scotland to the Scottish Executive. [187631]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Alistair Darling): In July, I published my proposals in relation to railways in the White Paper "The Future of Rail". It sets out proposals for transferring further responsibility for rail in Scotland to the Scottish Executive.
    Mr. Foulkes: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend. I am sure that his advocacy skills help in all his discussions. However, now that more power has been transferred to the Scottish Executive, I hope that he will ask them not to be too convinced by the right hon. Member for Edinburgh, Central (Mr. Darling) arguing for more money to be put into Waverley station, especially if that is at the expense of a more frequent and reliable rail service to Prestwick, which is Scotland's fastest-growing airport.
    Mr. Darling: I found my discussions with the Secretary of State for Transport to be the most fruitful that I had during the entire consultation process; certainly, we were both absolutely agreed on the outcome.
    In relation to Edinburgh Waverley, it is well known that that station needs substantial investment. Railtrack made a complete botch of it. The Scottish Executive, Network Rail, the Strategic Rail Authority and Edinburgh city council have had useful meetings about improving the station. Under the proposals that I made in July, in future it will be for the Scottish Executive to specify what they want in terms of track, stations and services. My right hon. Friend is right, however, that the rail link to Prestwick is equally important. Part of the reason for the success of the airport and development there is that that railway line provides a very good service for people travelling on it.

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

    Devolution
    Miss Anne McIntosh:What devolution issues she has considered since 29 June. [187623]
    Mr. Alistair Carmichael: What human rights issues she has considered since 29 June. [187624]
    Mr. Alan Reid:What devolution issues she has considered since 29 June. [187625]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): Since 29 June, 83 devolution issues have been intimated to me, with all but six relating to human rights. Forty-nine devolution issues related to criminal matters, including pre-trial delay, self-incrimination, the use of temporary judges and regulatory fisheries offences. In the civil sphere, 34 issues were intimated, almost all of which concerned personal injury actions in respect of prison conditions.
    Miss McIntosh: Having had such a busy summer, can the hon. and learned Lady share with the House her advice on the legality of the situation raised by the hon. Member for Banff and Buchan (Mr. Salmond) on the variations with regard to subsidies and grants for renewable forms of energy in Scotland, as opposed to England and Wales?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: Nobody has intimated to me—formally—any illegality. If anyone thinks that any illegality connects to my ministerial office by way of a devolution issue, there is a simple procedure to deal with that. However, it seems to me that this is not a devolution issue.
    Mr. Carmichael: Has the Advocate-General had the opportunity to consider the provisions in the Civil Partnership Bill relating to survivor pension provision? Is she aware that the survivor in a civil partnership will receive a pension based on a calculation taken from the date of enactment, whereas the survivor in a marriage will receive a pension based on their entire length of service? Does she agree that that is an inequitable situation that will leave the Bill vulnerable to a human rights challenge? Will she consider that point and offer the appropriate advice to her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: I am aware of the policy intentions that have been publicised, but any advice that I give will not be public.
    Mr. Reid: As a signatory to the European charter for regional and minority languages, the Government are obliged to provide a Gaelic language TV channel. Broadcasting is a reserved power, but in 1999 secondary legislation transferred the funding of Gaelic language programmes to Scottish Ministers. There appear to be endless discussions between UK Ministers and Scottish Ministers on the subject, with no progress being made. Will the Advocate-General inform the House where responsibility lies for ensuring that the UK meets its treaty obligations to provide a Gaelic language TV channel?
    The Advocate-General for Scotland: The obligations will always technically be on the state, which is, of course, the United Kingdom, but implementation can be tackled in various ways, as has been done through orders. In the case of any challenge, and if the matter were raised formally in court, for example, the European Court of Justice, the state would have to answer it.
    Mr. George Foulkes:Will my hon. and learned Friend use her considerable legal skills to look into the especially difficult problem of leading a Scottish-based party from London and consider whether a Sewel motion might help?
    Mr. Speaker: Order. I do not think that the Advocate-General needs to answer that.

  DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State was asked—
  DEPARTMENT FOR CONSTITUTIONAL AFFAIRS

    Legal Aid (Criminal Offences)
    Jane Griffiths:What assessment the Department has made of the operation of means-testing for criminal legal aid. [187656]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): On 17 May, the Department published the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill, which will permit means-testing for those charged with criminal offences. It has been a longstanding policy of this Government and previous Governments that those who can afford to pay their legal costs and are found guilty should do that.
    Jane Griffiths: Clearly, when those proposals come into effect, overall access to legal aid for criminal cases will be reduced. What assurance can my hon. Friend give that the access that is provided is targeted where it is needed most?
    Mr. Lammy: The community legal service is helping 925,000 people every year in a range of cases, from problems with debt to housing problems, domestic violence and contact with children. That work must continue. However, it is right to give ever greater scrutiny to our criminal legal aid spend when we have experienced a rising budget. Against that backdrop, we spend more on legal aid than any other developed nation in the world.
    Sir Sydney Chapman:Apropos of what the Under-Secretary has just said, will he confirm that the current legal aid budget is £2 billion a year? That represents an increase of at least one third in the past seven years. Two years ago, the budget was overspent by more than —250,0000. Given those facts, does he agree that there will be an economic madhouse unless a Government, of whatever hue, restrict the scope, range and amount of legal aid? If he presents sensible programmes, I for one will support a further restriction.
    Mr. Lammy: We are all proud of the great Attlee invention of legal aid. At the same time, there has been an increase throughout the developed world in legal aid

    595
    spend. Like previous Ministers, I have presented proposals to deal with that. We have asked for a fundamental legal aid review to examine the issues, root and branch. I hope that we can put forward proposals in due course. I remind the hon. Gentleman that, under the previous Conservative Administration, costs increased by 131 per cent. between 1989 and 1993. The issue of legal aid spend is not unique to this Government.
    Keith Vaz:How will the Government's new proposals square with any expansion of the salaried defender system?
    Mr. Lammy: We have been keen to examine where a public defender system can add value. Indeed, the fundamental legal aid review will want to consider that and bear it in mind. It is extremely unlikely that the Government will move to a wholesale public defender system but there is a role to play where shortages exist. I am keen to observe the way in which the new public defender system will work in the context of asylum and immigration legal aid as it is set up in Birmingham.
    Peter Bottomley:Can the Minister remind the House about how few years ago it was that the present Government abolished the means-testing of criminal legal aid? Does he accept that this cut may lead to more cases going to the Criminal Cases Review Commission? Can he assure us that there will be no cut in the budget for that commission?
    Mr. Lammy: The hon. Gentleman will know that at about the time that we changed from means-testing, the concern on both sides of the House was about the lack of speed with which cases went through the system because of the bureaucracy previously attached to means-testing. That is why we have come forward, in the draft Criminal Defence Service Bill, with a range of options. However, it cannot be right that all of us in the House would be entitled to legal aid should we be charged with a criminal offence. That is why we are looking at the issue and are coming forward with a range of models. Of course, I cannot predetermine the outcome of the consultation.

    Evidence in Court
    Tony Cunningham:What measures are being taken to encourage witnesses and victims to come forward to give evidence in court. [187657]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Removing obstacles and anxiety for victims and witnesses, who can sometimes be reluctant to give evidence in court, is a priority for my Department. Measures include the creation of separate waiting facilities at court, so that defendants and witnesses are not forced to wait together. The new witness care units, which provide tailored assistance to guide witnesses through the criminal justice process from beginning to end, are now being piloted in five areas to be rolled out everywhere from the end of next year.
    Tony Cunningham: I thank my hon. Friend for that very encouraging reply. My concern is that if witnesses have a bad experience when they go to court, not only are they less likely to come forward again but, particularly in small communities, word spreads and others are discouraged from coming forward and becoming witnesses. How widespread is the provision of the witness waiting areas and what more can be done to make sure that when witnesses go to court, they are looked after properly?
    Mr. Leslie: A great deal of improvement is still needed to the magistrates and Crown court estate, but about 90 per cent. of magistrates courts now have separate waiting facilities for victims and witnesses. That is good, but we have still got a lot further to go. That is necessary not just to make the experience for witnesses more comfortable, but to minimise the risks of intimidation if witnesses are sitting with defendants.
    Mr. David Heath: Would it not be a great disincentive to victims and witnesses if they believed that their evidence was going to be televised and used as entertainment? The Lord Chancellor's recent announcement applies only to the Appeal Court, but can the Minister tell me by what means and on what basis section 41 of the Criminal Justice Act 1925 has been set aside? Will he assure me that, at least in the criminal court and the family court, there will never be a circumstance in which witnesses, victims, defendants or members of the jury will have their interests overridden by importunate demands by the media or, indeed, a prurient interest by the general public?
    Mr. Leslie: I understand much of the hon. Gentleman's concern. A debate has been going on about the pros and cons of televised court proceedings and the Lord Chancellor and I have been looking at the issue and are considering the consultation on it. I shall certainly examine whether we can share the details of the legal advice on the current pilot for the Court of Appeal with the hon. Gentleman. The issue merits wider public debate.
    Mrs. Claire Curtis-Thomas: What measures have been taken to ensure that victims of sexual abuse are protected and encouraged to come to court to give their evidence?
    Mr. Leslie: The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill, which has been progressing through Parliament recently, contains a number of measures, including those for a new commissioner for victims and for a statutory victims advisory panel, which I hope to attend again this month and at which we discuss in detail with those who represent, for example, the witness service and Victim Support the experience of people who have fallen victim to the sort of crimes that my hon. Friend describes. Funding for Victim Support has doubled since we took office, but I think that we can do more for victims, particularly those in vulnerable and sensitive circumstances. We are always interested in continuing a dialogue with them to see how we can improve services.

    Postal Ballots
    Bob Spink: What recent representations the Department has received on the report of the Electoral Commission on all-postal ballots. [187658]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): The Electoral Commission's report on the June all-postal voting pilots was published on 27 August, since when there has been some media comment but no formal representations made to my Department.
    Bob Spink: Given that the report found all-postal voting to be hopelessly flawed, unsafe and lacking in public confidence and support, will the Minister encourage the House to reconsider its decision for all-postal voting in the north-east and to go back to the tried and tested ballot box, which would be much more secure? He might find that the Electoral Commission would support such a decision.
    Mr. Leslie: I do not see the hon. Gentleman quoting verbatim from the Electoral Commission report, and that is not quite the understanding of that report as I read it. In fact, some interesting aspects of the report have not been aired, reported or commented on. For example, turnout was significantly higher, the majority of the public were satisfied, the majority—69 per cent.—found all-postal voting more convenient and there was no evidence of increased fraud perpetrated in postal ballots.
    John Cryer: Does my hon. Friend accept that millions of people want to continue to use the polling station, not to vote by post? Leaving aside for a moment the potential for abuse—which has been highlighted by the Electoral Commission not just recently, but in a succession of reports and comments from that body—can he guarantee that polling stations will be available in all elections, and if not, why not?
    Mr. Leslie: I certainly think that there are lessons to be learned from the all-postal pilots, one of which is that the public prefer to have convenience, but they also like a variety of options for how they cast their ballot. That is the direction in which the Government will be developing policy for the future.
    Mr. Peter Atkinson: Does the Minister realise that many of us in the north-east feel that we are being treated like second-class citizens? If an all-postal ballot is wrong for the north-west and wrong for Yorkshire and the Humber, why is it right for the north-east? May I give him a piece of advice? He should take the advice of his colleague, the hon. Member for Hornchurch (John Cryer), and make ballot boxes available in polling stations.
    Mr. Leslie: Of course, there will be assistance and delivery points—effectively the ballot box scenario—in that particular referendum. The Electoral Commission
    598
    considered that very question and concluded that there should continue to be an all-postal ballot in that referendum. That is the judgment of the Electoral Commission and I commend its report to the hon. Gentleman.
    Mr. Alan Duncan: Over the past few months, Ministers have been utterly complacent about their policy on all-postal ballots and they have derided us whenever we expressed well-founded concerns about the scope that exists for malpractice. My hon. Friends have been proved right: elections through the ballot box are trusted; elections through the post box are not. The Electoral Commission has totally disowned the all-postal ballot that the Government are foisting on the north-east in its regional referendum, and it is deeply perverse of the Government to insist on proceeding under a system that is both loathed and discredited.
    If the Minister is to act as the guardian of our electoral system and protect the integrity of our democratic processes, will he now confirm, as my hon. Friends have already asked him to do, that the north-east referendum will be either conducted under the tried and trusted system of ballot boxes at polling stations or, failing that, abandoned altogether?
    Mr. Leslie: I answered the question about the north-east referendum a few moments ago, in response to the hon. Member for Hexham (Mr. Atkinson). In respect of the other spin that the hon. Member for Rutland and Melton (Mr. Duncan) is engaging in trying—to denigrate the all-postal pilot, which was, after all, worth a try, as the Electoral Commission said in its report—the commission concluded in its ICM survey of public opinion in those pilot regions that the majority of the public were satisfied and found it more convenient, and even that the majority of the public wanted all-postal voting for future elections. We must consider that when looking at the report. My feeling is that the public like to have a variety of different options when they cast their ballot. That will be the direction of policy development for the Government.

    Magistrates Courts
    Mr. Henry Bellingham: What plans the Department has to support small magistrates courts in rural areas. [187659]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. Christopher Leslie): Section 30 of the Courts Act 2003 places a duty on the Lord Chancellor to have regard to the need for accessible courthouses for all people in each local justice area, whether rural or urban. As such, my Department has supported local magistrates courts committees as they enhance their facilities, with funding of almost £400 million in this financial year.
    Mr. Bellingham: I am pleased to hear that, but is the Minister aware that until recently, every small Norfolk town, and a number of villages, had their own magistrates courts? Many of those have now closed—under both Governments, to be fair—and justice has been removed from the local communities. Is he aware that morale among magistrates has now fallen substantially, and what will he do to try to reverse the situation?
    Mr. Leslie: Since 1997, the Government have opened 18 new magistrates courts. We have given to the hon. Gentleman's magistrates courts committee in Norfolk an extra £1 million to support local magistrates courts services. There is a balance to be struck in making sure that there is good, strong, efficient administration of justice and that everybody has the opportunity to have good access. We will continue to strike that balance.
    David Taylor: I declare an interest as a member of the Magistrates Association. Is the Minister happy that in counties such as Leicestershire, where the magistrates courts committee has just held its last ever meeting, the interests of rural courthouses will be protected, because decisions about their future will now be taken by civil servants and others with much less local input? Are we to be confident that the future of courthouses such as that in Coalville in north-west Leicestershire is assured for the medium term?
    Mr. Leslie: The new courts boards, which will open as a unified administration, comes on stream in April and will, for the first time, help to ensure that there is a strong local voice, as local representatives go on those boards to scrutinise and investigate area directors' plans for magistrates, county and Crown courts facilities in an area, and not just to consider magistrates' facilities. That is the best way forward.
    Mr. Tim Boswell: Will the Minister also consider in particular the implications of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in relation to the supply of court services? I am pleased to see him nodding. I have a constituent who has a severe latex allergy and who is unable to attend court in normal circumstances because of her inability to go anywhere near rubber substances. That is a difficulty, whether in a rural or urban setting. Equally, I hope that the Minister will acknowledge that there are obligations on the Court Service under the Act that comes into force in respect of premises next month. Will he confirm to the House that he will take that issue seriously in general?
    Mr. Leslie: As the hon. Gentleman has pointed out, the Government take seriously the disability discrimination obligations on us. We have quite an old stock of court estates, some of which are fine listed buildings, which we would like to continue to use. We must also recognise, however, that a modern Court Service, focusing on justice for all the community, must make sure that everyone can get in and out of the building and use the facilities. Certainly, I will consider any individual cases that he draws to my attention.

    Compensation Culture
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: If he will make a statement on the conclusions of the Better Regulation Task Force concerning compensation culture. [187660]
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs (Mr. David Lammy): Careful consideration is being given to the recommendations made by the Better Regulation Task Force, and the Government will respond shortly. We oppose strongly anything that contributes to a culture in which people believe that if there is an injury, there must be someone else to blame, and to pay.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that the conclusion of the Better Regulation Task Force was that there was no compensation culture, which was confirmed by the statistics from the compensation recovery unit last year, which showed a fall of 9 per cent. in the total number of claims? Is it not appropriate that the Government should promote knowledge of the law in this area rather than talk about compensation culture, and perhaps also promote safety culture rather than compensation culture?
    Mr. Lammy: My hon. Friend is right that it is important that people with genuine claims are able to enforce their rights. The Better Regulation Task Force made a number of recommendations and was keen to encourage the media and others not to talk up a compensation culture, because it did not believe that we had one. It is also right that we consider in detail its report and come forward with our recommendations and proposals shortly.
    Mr. Jonathan Djanogly: The compensation culture seems to mean that whenever something goes wrong, someone else must take the blame. I wanted to quantify that, so I wrote to the Secretary of State asking for a list of the total damages awarded for clinical negligence claims in each year since 1997. On 23 August, I received this response from the Under-Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs:
    "Owing to a fault on its computer system the Legal Services Commission is unable to provide information on the total value of damages awarded each year as requested."
    Do the Government intend to rectify the fault themselves, or to blame someone else?
    Mr. Lammy: I wish that the hon. Gentleman had bothered to read the recommendation of the Better Regulation Task Force, which suggests that those of us in positions of responsibility should not talk up a compensation culture. It is right for those who are genuinely injured to be able to seek recompense in the courts, but of course none of us wants a have-a-go culture or a blame culture. That is why we are looking at the recommendations carefully and will produce our response shortly.

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

    School Visits
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to make proposals to help schools outside London and the south-east of England with costs of visits to Parliament. [187671]
    The Deputy Leader of the House of Commons (Mr. Phil Woolas): I thank the hon. Gentleman for his question and for his interest in the subject.
    In its recent report on connecting Parliament with the public, the Modernisation Committee recommended an extension to educational facilities at Westminster—but it felt that as the vast majority of young people would not have an opportunity to participate in a school visit, the priority should continue to be to improve the parliamentary website and the outreach work.
    Sir Nicholas Winterton: I am grateful to the Minister for his reply. Has he seen an article in The House magazine, headed "Parliament's past for pupils"? It says:
    "Every schoolboy and girl is supposed to know that Parliament has been a central institution of the English, then British state for over 700 years."
    Does the Minister accept that not only should information be available on the website and from the excellent education unit in the House of Commons, but school pupils should be able to come and see Parliament here in London? It is easy enough, physically and financially, for pupils from schools in London and the south-east to be brought here, but it is very difficult in constituencies in the north and others many miles from London. What action will the Minister take to enable funds to be available to schools so that pupils can be brought to the House of Commons?
    Mr. Woolas: My right hon. Friend the Leader of the House will take firm action. I thank the hon. Gentleman for bringing the matter to the House's attention. Unfortunately, that magazine is still in the in-tray, not yet in the out-tray, but I will certainly read the article.
    This is not a case of either/or. There is virtue in improving and encouraging access for school visits, and the Government agrees with the hon. Gentleman that that is very important. However, there is also virtue in the outreach work and the website. The Modernisation Committee has reported on the matter and made suggestions and the House of Commons Commission is considering the recommendation for an increase in the education unit's budget. I am sure that we would all welcome that.
    Perhaps we will read in the Modernisation Committee's report of the excellent measures that have been taken in Wales. The budget has been increased by half a million pounds, and increasing our youngsters' knowledge of the work of Parliament is of course paramount.
    Mr. David Kidney: Given that Parliament has legislated for school pupils to learn about citizenship, is it not important for our wonderful education unit to work with the curriculum coordinators in schools to deliver a citizenship curriculum? Should not we in Parliament ensure that such assistance is given?
    Mr. Woolas: That is an excellent suggestion, and I acknowledge the role that my hon. Friend has played in the road show by encouraging greater interest among, and the education of, our young people. The Modernisation Committee report examined how we can ensure that the work of the Department for Education and Skills—which recommended that we re-examine the balance of a citizenship curriculum—of the education unit and of Parliament is co-ordinated to ensure that such information is passed on to our young people.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I very much welcome the Deputy Leader of the House's balanced response—as he says, this is not an either/or situation—but does he accept that in terms of cost benefit, easy access through the internet to this House and what happens here is surely our prime priority? Does he also accept that it is preferable, if we can, to take Parliament to the people, rather than expecting them to come to us?
    I illustrate the point by drawing the hon. Gentleman's attention to the approach of the Swedish Parliament—I visited it last week—which has a Parliament week and Parliament places in local libraries in different parts of the country. Would that not be a very suitable way for us to take Parliament to the people—perhaps in the week leading up to Guy Fawkes day?
    Mr. Woolas: My geography is not perfect, but my guess is that the hon. Gentleman's constituency is even further away from here than mine, so he speaks with some authority. [Laughter.] I am certain that it is further away—I was being polite, as hon. Members know. The website is being examined—it is a very good one, but it is now acknowledged that it needs improving—and, of course, the webcasting of Parliament's proceedings, which also improves access, is up and running. This issue is a priority—and as the hon. Gentleman has acknowledged it is not an either/or situation. Taking Parliament to the people, encouraging greater awareness of it and encouraging young people to vote are very much a part of my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House's strategy for reconnecting Parliament with the public.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: My hon. Friend is absolutely right: online services are mission critical to the development of modern educational methods and they should be welcomed. They have radically improved services and the ability of people in remote areas to access this place. However, in considering this important question, will my hon. Friend examine the impact that the changed sitting hours have had on the ability of young people who have to travel long distances to access this House—for example, those who have to travel from the constituency of the hon. Member for North Cornwall (Mr. Tyler)?
    Mr. Woolas: I thank my hon. Friend for that question. I am pleased to note that the House is debating how we can improve such education and access, rather than whether we should do so—an argument that we had 10 years ago. I can reassure my hon. Friend that my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House has had meetings with the visitors' manager, and that the central tours office has made changes to improve access for people from remote areas and for those who live in constituencies far away from the south-east. This is a gradual process, but things are moving in the direction that my hon. Friend wants.
    Mr. Oliver Heald: Websites are obviously an excellent thing and some of the other associated ideas are important, but there is something special about visiting this place, particularly for school students. I invite the Deputy Leader of the House to do a little work, to look at the scheme used in Australia and to provide the House, through the Modernisation and Procedure Committees, with a range of options and costings, so that we know what it would cost to give young people a little extra help and let them see what a living democracy is.
    Mr. Woolas: That is a very good suggestion, particularly the idea that I should study the Australian method; perhaps that could be arranged. But seriously, the shadow Leader of the House's suggestion is very good and my right hon. Friend will want to look at it.

    September Sittings
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: To ask the Leader of the House what plans he has to assess the September sittings of the House. [187673]
    The Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Peter Hain): The Modernisation Committee is considering September sittings as part of its inquiry into the sitting hours of the House.
    Mr. Dismore: Does my right hon. Friend agree that we really must consider whether it is a good idea for us to sit in September? Here we are—during good weather, when we could be doing work in our constituencies—in the middle of a building site because the building work
    604
    has not been finished. The work that we will be doing in the next couple of weeks is just a sop to the press and not really part of the parliamentary process. We could be doing far more useful work in our constituencies during this fine September weather, compared with the rain of August. Is it not time that we looked at this issue again and went back to the old pattern of sitting weeks?
    Mr. Hain: I understand my hon. Friend's point. Many representations have been made to me, as Chairman of the Modernisation Committee, by right hon. and hon. Members objecting to September sittings, for which the House voted almost two years ago. It is a matter that the Modernisation Committee is looking into and I am aware of the difficulties that the House authorities face in not being able to take advantage of this time. On the other hand, Parliament has been recalled during September at the request of Members in three of the last five years. The fact that we are back at this time is probably the reason why there was no demand for a recall during this summer.
    Equally, the House will have to face the certain prospect of reports from "that quarter" saying that we are attempting to return to a 12 or 13-week break. We all know that Members do much work during that period—when they are not on holiday they do constituency work—but there has to be a balanced argument and I am listening to both sides of it. I can assure the House that there will be a vote early in the new year on the general question of sitting hours and the question of September sittings will come into that.
    Mr. Andrew Mackay: Does the Leader of the House accept that many of us believe that the September return is a good idea? It is absolutely essential for the Government to be held to account, but if the recess is too long that becomes impractical. Notwithstanding the building chaos around us, it is right that we are here for these two weeks.
    Mr. Hain: The right hon. Gentleman makes a persuasive point against the arguments that my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) quite properly made. We have to balance that argument, and that is precisely what we will be doing in the Modernisation Committee inquiry, which is due to be concluded within a few months. The House will then have an opportunity to vote and the different arguments will be balanced.

Iraq
3.31 pm
Mr. Tam Dalyell: To ask Defence Ministers to make a statement on the military situation of the coalition in Iraq.
In candour, I should say that, had we not been sitting now anyway, my hon. Friends and I would have been among those asking for a recall on Iraq.
The Minister of State, Ministry of Defence (Mr. Adam Ingram): Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the House up to date in relation to the current military situation of the multinational force in Iraq. Before I do so, I am sure that the House would wish to record its wholehearted condemnation of the atrocious act of terrorism in Beslan. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary will no doubt return to it later, but I am sure that the House will wish to join me in offering our deepest sympathies to the families and community of Beslan.
Hon. Members will be aware that more than two months have passed since the sovereign Iraqi Interim Government assumed power in Iraq under the leadership of Prime Minister Allawi. Since then, UK forces have operated as part of the multinational force whose mandate was unanimously endorsed by the United Nations Security Council in resolution 1546. That terrorists did not disrupt the transfer of power is due, in no small part, to the skill, professionalism and dedication of the multinational force operating alongside the Iraqi security forces.
The role of the multinational force as outlined in UNSCR 1546 is to contribute to the maintenance of security and stability in Iraq in support of the Iraqi Interim Government. To that end, the multinational force has developed a security partnership with the Iraqi Interim Government and the Iraqi security forces, which enables close co-ordination between the two.
We recognise however that the Iraqi security forces must increasingly take responsibility for the security of their country, and so another important task for the multinational force is assisting in building the capability of the Iraqi security forces and institutions through a programme of recruitment, training, equipping, mentoring and monitoring. That programme is well advanced and there are already close to 90,000 Iraqi police officers. The Iraqi national guard—(formerly known as the Iraq civil defence corps)—is now some 35,000 strong and is being trained and expanded to take over guard and patrol duties. The facilities protection service, which is responsible for protecting Iraq's major strategic infrastructure, Government buildings and other nationally important sites, consists of almost 74,000 personnel. Two brigades of the new Iraqi army are now fully trained and operational. The remaining seven brigades are expected to be operational by January of next year.
Of course, it will take time for those organisations to develop the capability to operate independently, and the multinational force is helping to achieve that aim. For example, in the UK area of operations, UK military police and Iraqi police have been conducting joint patrols since April 2003. We are also mentoring the higher ranks so that a truly capable force can be developed.
606
The past two months have shown that there are those who wish to thwart the aims of the Iraqi Interim Government and the multinational force. Terrorists have continued to launch a series of vicious suicide attacks, a number of leading Iraqis have been assassinated, and foreign workers and journalists have been kidnapped and brutally murdered. Yesterday, a joint patrol of US marines and Iraqi security forces came under attack, with the loss of many lives. I am sure that hon. Members will join me in utterly condemning those dreadful acts.
Prime Minister Allawi and the Iraqi Interim Government have made it clear that they will not allow terrorists and insurgents to derail progress in Iraq. Prime Minister Allawi has also outlined robust plans to create special police units trained and equipped in counter-terrorism and insurgency. He has emphasised his commitment to creating capable security forces that will include members of the military, the police, the national guard and the border guard. Tightening border security is also a high priority, and we welcome the commitment from Iraq's neighbors to work with the Iraqi Government to achieve this.
Moqtada al-Sadr's rebellion in Najaf has posed an early test for the capability of the Iraqi security forces and the authority of the Interim Government. Prime Minister Allawi"s sensitivity towards the sanctity of the Imam Ali shrine for the Shi'a community, and his restraint in using force to quell the rebels, have been instrumental in bringing an end to the fighting. The Interim Government and Ayatollah Sistani and other senior religious leaders have shown that they do not accept violence, and that Iraq's future will be secured only through peaceful means. Ayatollah Sistani's successful peaceful intervention in, and resolution of, matters in Najaf deserve our praise.
Moqtada al Sadr's militia has also been responsible for attacks in the UK's area of operation, specifically in al-Amarah, in Maysan province. It is important to note that these people comprise an assortment of thugs and criminals. In no way do they enjoy the support of the majority of the local Iraqi people.
UK forces have been responding to these challenges in joint operations with the Iraqi security forces. As part of this operation, leaflets have been distributed across the city highlighting the fact that militia violence is preventing peace and that political dialogue is the way to bring change. British forces will continue to act robustly in responding to threats to legitimate authorities in Iraq.
It is vital that the Interim Government restore order so that the people of Iraq can live in peace and rebuild their lives. I am sure that hon. Members will agree that positive progress is being made, despite challenges from those who oppose the Interim Government. They know that their views are not the majority's, and that we will not let them prevail in the political process.
Mr. Dalyell: Has not the time come for a firm and early date for withdrawal? The alternative is chilling. Although the Minister has outlined the good efforts that our forces are making, those forces increasingly are seen as an army of occupation. The risks involved in

607
withdrawal may be less than those involved in staying longer. A balance has to be struck, but should we not consider giving a firm date for withdrawal?
Mr. Ingram: I know where my hon. Friend is coming from with that question, but he must also take what is happening into consideration. We have an Iraqi Interim Government, and we are moving towards establishing a democratic electoral process in the country. If Iraq's people and legitimately elected Government feel that a withdrawal date is required, surely it is up to them to make that request? It is important that we work alongside the Iraqi authorities to establish the peace and stability that most of the people in Iraq want. I do not know whether my hon. Friend is saying that he wants our forces to withdraw tomorrow, but I am sure that more mayhem would follow any such withdrawal.
Mr. Nicholas Soames: In praising the highly effective and determined gallantry of British servicemen and women at all ranks in the rebuilding of Iraq during the past few difficult weeks, will the Minister of State clarify for the House whether the rules of engagement in the multinational division south-east have been changed at all over the past two months? Secondly, what progress has been made by the NATO training implementation mission in Iraq? Where and when will training of Iraqi personnel start?
Mr. Ingram: The issue raised by the hon. Gentleman is important because of some of the controversy during the past few months. The rules of engagement have not changed, and the same rules will continue to apply. The hon. Gentleman knows only too well the difficulties associated with the type of environment in which our troops are deployed: they are trying to peacekeep as well as peacemake, and they sometimes find themselves in difficult firefighting engagements.
The NATO team was deployed to Iraq last month, and it is scoping the training requirement for the Iraqi security forces. A full report setting out the team's recommendation is due in the middle of this month. Clearly, the recommendations will be acted on quickly thereafter.
Mr. Stephen McCabe: What can be the logic of people who have previously argued that our troops should operate under a United Nations mandate but who now argue that the troops should withdraw now that their actions are governed by a UN mandate and are there at the request of Iraqi Government?
Mr. Ingram: I have already answered a question from my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), but my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Mr. McCabe) has perhaps just posed his question in the way in which I should have answered it.
Mr. Paul Keetch: May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the condemnation of the attack in Russia and the continuing attacks on
608
civilians and kidnapping in Iraq? The Minister is right to say that the people who do those things are nothing more than thugs and criminals.
May I ask two sets of specific questions? What other nations have offered troops to join the multinational force during the past few weeks? Have there been any additional contributions from other countries, and are negotiations in place with other countries to provide such troops?
Secondly, does the Minister consider that the existing force structure of the number of British troops in the British sector is sufficient? Are there any plans to send any additional troops from the UK to Iraq if necessary?
Mr. Ingram: On the latter questions, our current strength stands at just over 9,000 and our future deployment, come the roulement in November, will reduce that to about 8,500. There are no plans to increase the number. Clearly, however, in all theatres such as this one we must constantly consider the current situation. The deployments announced in June indicated our willingness to increase our presence on the ground in a very specific way. The situation is always fluid.
In terms of other countries' commitments, a sizeable multinational commitment exists, and there are constant discussions with other nations to encourage them to maintain their presence and to put a new presence into the country.
John McDonnell: Based on the professional advice that the Minister has been given by the military and by his own diplomatic service, can he advise us on the best estimate of the length of time for which British troops will remain in Iraq, and on what target date we should be aiming at for their withdrawal?
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that when Moqtada al-Sadr and the other insurgent forces in Iraq were involved in fighting with us, they would have loved to know the answer to that question. Although it should certainly be examined at all times, it is the type of question that really should not be asked—
Mrs. Alice Mahon: Why not?
Mr. Ingram: For the very reason that the minute we set down a time scale, we give a set of objectives to those who are still carrying out terrible acts of terrorism and aggression, not just against our troops and the multinational force but against the Iraqi people. We are about trying to establish peace and stability in Iraq, not about giving the country over to the thugs and criminals who are carrying out those terrible acts.
Mr. Robert Key: Does the Minister share my observation that any bad news in this country is reported as front-page news and is top of the news, while the objective work of British forces and British charities and voluntary organisations is simply not mentioned? For example, can he recall a single occasion in the past six months when he heard a British

609
Broadcasting Corporation report that objectively described what was happening in that country instead of always reporting the worst possible events?
Mr. Ingram: I know from my regular contact with our forces that they take a similar view. They think that there are many acts of commitment to bring about peace and stability in Iraq, and that what they are doing to create that new country and to help the people find a new future is often overlooked. The very many acts of individual and collective gallantry, which have just been recognised in the honours and awards announced today, should be a salutary lesson to those who report on the bad news, bad news, bad news, which they exploit to the detriment of those who are putting their lives at risk.
Mrs. Anne Campbell: Does the Minister agree that it is imperative that one of the British policy objectives must be to remove our troops from Iraqi soil as long as it is feasible and practical to do so?
Mr. Ingram: Yes.
Sir Teddy Taylor: Does the Minister agree that it is not simply about those who opposed intervention, but about the growing view that despite the loss of more than 1,200 British and American troops and massive intervention, we have simply established an area of chaos, where we meet ever-increasing hostility from the people of Iraq? Is not that a fact? If the situation continues to get worse, what will the Government do? Would it not help to resolve things if they gave an indication of when they think it would be appropriate for foreign troops to be removed from Iraq?
Mr. Ingram: I sought to set out the background to that. We are trying to establish the new Iraq, alongside the Iraqi people and their leadership. That is not an easy process. Many people fail to recognise how brave those local politicians are. Day on day they are met with a threat not only to their lives, but to the lives of their families. We really should recognise the commitment that they are giving. It is right that we should stand alongside them in achieving that new future, for which they are prepared—sometimes all too tragically—to make sacrifices. Clearly, we have to plan, alongside them, future points of withdrawal and removal of troops from Iraq. All of those things are part of the fluid process and those discussions will continue with the legitimate elected authorities in Iraq.
Mrs. Mahon: I put it to the Minister that the only people in charge of the military coalition are the Americans, not the United Nations. I repeat the request of my hon. Friend the Member for Hayes and Harlington (John McDonnell) that we get a date for the withdrawal of troops. The Australian Labour party has said that when it wins the election it will bring its troops home. The Spanish Socialist party has already brought its troops home. The idea is gaining support world wide and we would not be isolated if we said that we were going to bring our troops home. We are now seen more as the problem than the solution.
Mr. Ingram: I remind my hon. Friend that the House voted for the deployment in Iraq and has continued to monitor the situation. I recognise that there are those who think that the withdrawal of troops will make the situation better in Iraq, but they are living in a dream world. They have to consider that Iraq would descend into chaos. They are effectively saying, "Withdraw the troops now", but they do not have an alternative proposition. It is a knee-jerk reaction and does not add up to a substantial policy, and this Government will not accede to it.
Adam Price: Figures released by the coalition over the weekend show that August saw the highest number of attacks on coalition forces since the conflict began, averaging 87 a day. We know that we were misled into this war and we are now being misled about the aftermath, which is turning into a long, bloody conflict, with no end in sight.
Mr. Ingram: I think that the only person who is misleading the hon. Gentleman is himself. I constantly give detailed information, which is then twisted and turned, over-interpreted and misinterpreted. I explained that the situation has been bad during the past two months. That has to be dealt with. When I was asked whether that would require additional troops, I indicated that we are planning a reduction in troops. We are planning for a different scenario, but we have to manage the difficult situation. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is one of those who says that we should withdraw the troops, but what does he think would happen to Iraq if we did so?
Mr. Jon Owen Jones: In April, during a Westminster Hall debate, I queried the description by the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, my hon. Friend the Member for Harlow (Mr. Rammell), of al-Sadr as an insignificant rabble rouser. Was the Foreign Office so ill informed at the time, or was it an attempt to mislead the House?
Mr. Ingram: I am sure that it was not an attempt to mislead the House. I would have to read the Official Report of the debate to see the context in which those words were said. Moqtada al-Sadr has been carrying out terrible acts and, clearly, he has the support of a percentage of the people in the area he represents. However, the weight of opinion within his community is against him, and that side of the argument will prevail. The minority—that rabble rouser and dangerous man—will not prevail. The people of common sense and decency who want a new Iraq will prevail.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Does the Minister agree that it is difficult for Members of Parliament to determine whether the violence is decreasing or increasing? Will he agree to put into the Library a monthly written report identifying the degree of violence in the preceding month? The report could, for example, state the number of incidents, as best it is known, the number of casualties on all sides, and the degree of ordnance used. That would enable us to begin to form a view on whether the violence is increasing or

611
subsiding. If that cannot be done generally, in respect of the coalition as a whole, surely it should be done in respect of British servicemen.
Mr. Ingram: I am not wholly unsympathetic to that idea. My concern is about the exploitation of the information by people who are not of good will and who are not trying to establish a balanced approach to an undoubtedly difficult situation. Such information can be misused and misapplied—the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) spoke about the way in which the media report these matters. We can take a snapshot, but the situation could improve in the month following the report. We hold regular debates in the House and Ministers are held accountable, but I shall consider how best we might communicate the overall environment in the area and give better information.
David Winnick: Is there really much of a difference between those who are carrying out murderous attacks in Iraq, including the killing of children, and those who are responsible for the atrocities that have occurred in Russia in the past few days? Is there not a common theme between terrorists of various sorts?
Mr. Ingram: Terrorism of all types when it involves indiscriminate—or, in many cases, discriminate—acts against women, children and defenceless civilians has to be condemned in its totality. However, no two sets of circumstances are the same. Although we can sympathise with the Russian Government and people and give them our best advice, ultimately, they have to find their own resolution to their own problems.
There are increasing indications of international connections in terrorism. We have to get on top of that. Nations are showing increasing willingness to share intelligence and to take action to stop the movement across the globe of international terrorists and the materials they use.
Hugh Robertson: Events of recent weeks suggest that al-Sadr's army and other insurgents are extremely well organised and resourced. Is there any evidence that they are being helped by countries neighbouring Iraq, or does it remain likely that they are financed by money taken corruptly from the UN oil-for-food programme?
Mr. Ingram: I have no direct evidence of the terms in which the hon. Gentleman put his question. Clearly those people are getting funds, and part of the process of sharing intelligence is establishing where they are coming from. It is important to stop not only funds for the acquisition of weapons that come from individuals and organisations across the border and those collected in the country, but the movement of weapons. Sadly, there are many weapons in Iraq that the people may use, so funding may not be used for purchase if they already have access to all the equipment that they need.
Paul Flynn: Two of my constituents, Helen and Kevin Williams, have been doing humanitarian work in Baghdad for the past two
612
years. They report a recent deterioration of the situation, and in fact two of their fellow workers in the charity were killed last week. They say that there is increased violence and there are more no-go areas partly because of the actions taken by the Iraqi authorities. Is the Minister convinced that the actions of the Iraqis on policing and running prisons meet acceptable standards of international human rights?
Mr. Ingram: In my answer to the urgent question I indicated that we recognise that it will take time to make the Iraqi security forces fully capable. We should remember that it takes tremendous bravery for them to take action against the determined people whom they are up against, and many lives have been lost through their willingness to do so. Non-governmental organisations and those who work in such organisations on the ground can give us a better understanding of situations; so if my hon. Friend can get his constituents to write a detailed background of their experiences, I ask him to pass it on to me and the Foreign Office.
Dr. Vincent Cable: Given the evidence that the rebels are pursuing an increasingly successful campaign of sabotage against oil installations in the south of Iraq, what are the precise responsibilities of the British forces as regards the protection of production and distribution facilities?
Mr. Ingram: Our relationship with the forces has been set up precisely to protect the infrastructure, primarily the oil pipeline, processing plants and electricity plants. We work to try to apprehend people who do such things—if we can get there at the time they are doing so—and to take action against them. We have an important role to play on that because we have helped to rebuild the country not only through the money that we have put in, but through the many projects that we have commissioned using either our direct funding or international funds. We have a clear role that we shall continue to carry out to the best of our ability.
Jeremy Corbyn: What representations were made to the Government of Iraq following their banning of al-Jazeera from the country, thus preventing it from reporting to the Arab world what it believes to be going on in Iraq at present? Is the Minister worried about the attitude towards freedom of speech shown by the Iraqi Interim Government?
Mr. Ingram: Not that I am aware of, but I shall draw my hon. Friend's question to the attention of my colleagues in the Foreign Office, who might have better information on the matter.
Mr. John Redwood: How does the level of violence against Iraqi personnel compare with that against coalition personnel, and are the Government pledged to making sufficient resources available for training and helping the Iraqi security forces so that an early and orderly transfer of authority is possible?
Mr. Ingram: That is exactly what we are doing. We are training up many people not only in Iraq, but in neighbouring countries. We are bringing together the best experience from countries with a good knowledge of the Arab community and of how best to interface with it, as well as imparting our forces considerable experience gained from Northern Ireland, the Balkans and elsewhere throughout the globe. Of course, the terrorists will always go for the softest targets because that is the very nature of their planning and approach. As the security forces build their capabilities, they will become less soft and more able to look after themselves. I guess that the attacks will decrease over time because the response to them will be much more effective.
Alan Simpson: The Minister will know from his experience in other circumstances that one important distinction between a peace process and a terrorist movement or tyranny is a willingness to be held strictly accountable to international law. Does he have any intention of ensuring that British troops' activities will be answerable in the International Criminal Court? When does he expect to be able to tell the House that all those held by coalition forces will have access to legal representation, a trial in a court of law and unrestricted rights of access by the International Red Cross?
Mr. Ingram: There are a lot of implications to my hon. Friend's question that do not quite stack up. The International Red Cross has free access to our facilities, and has produced a number of reports. It continues to monitor the situation, and we continue to respond, if necessary, to its comments. There is no doubt in my mind that the Government have consistently applied a high standard of international law for years and even decades. We set an example to the rest of the world in the conduct of operations in the many countries in which we find ourselves, which is why many countries want to work alongside us when we deliver peacekeeping initiatives. I wish that my hon. Friend would reflect on
614
that for a moment and pay tribute to the 55,000 British personnel who have served in Iraq, instead of blackening their name every time he asks a question.
Mr. George Osborne: One of those personnel is my brother-in-law, who was on leave in August and told me about the good work that the British armed forces are doing in Iraq. Will the Minister join me in paying tribute to my local regiment, the Cheshire regiment, for their work? I agree that we must stay the course, but is he satisfied that the British Army is in a position to deal with a sudden upsurge in violence in, for example, Basra, similar to that with which the Americans have had to deal in Najaf?
Mr. Ingram: I pay tribute to the Cheshires and all the other regiments that have served in Iraq, as well as those that will serve there in future, as I have done time after time. Whether we are capable of meeting any upsurge in violence depends on its scale, but alongside that we must consider the international community's willingness to deal with the problem. There are a considerable number of international troops—admittedly, they are predominantly from the US and the UK—but in the past British troops and forces have shown the capability to deal with violence if it flares up. Yes, I think that we would be able to deal with any known increase in violence.
Mr. Andrew Miller: A young TA member, Sergeant Jones, told me on Friday of the unpleasant task that he had to perform with colleagues: uncovering a mass grave. Will my right hon. Friend consider, however unpleasant it is to do so, collating all that information in a single document, as there appear to be some people, particularly in the media, who do not understand the nature of the regime that has been toppled?
Mr. Ingram: There were many acts of barbarism, and we have probably only discovered the tip of the iceberg. My hon. Friend makes a useful and interesting point, and I should like to reflect on it to see whether we can collate information to help us achieve a better understanding of the problem.

Sudan
4.3 pm
The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the situation in Sudan. Before I do so, however, I should like to say something about Beslan.
This morning, on behalf of Her Majesty's Government, I signed the book of condolences at the Russian embassy to express our horror at the barbarity that befell the innocent children, women and men of Beslan, our profound sorrow at the grief of all those who lost loved ones, and sympathy for the injured. No cause justifies such bestiality in any circumstances. What happened was simply evil beyond reason or excuse, and we stand with the Government and the people of Russia at this terrible time of suffering.
I return to the issue of Sudan. After the House rose for the summer recess on 30 July, the United Nations Security Council adopted resolution 1556, which demanded that the Government of Sudan disarm the Janjaweed militias and apprehend and bring to justice their leaders and associates. The resolution further called on the Sudanese Government to facilitate international relief; to establish credible security conditions for the protection of the civilian population and humanitarian aid workers; and to resume political talks with dissident groups from Darfur. The Security Council imposed an arms embargo on the militias, including the Janjaweed, and endorsed the deployment of international monitors to Darfur, under the leadership of the African Union. The resolution was backed by the threat of sanctions in the event of the Sudanese Government failing to comply with its provisions. The Secretary-General of the United Nations was mandated to report back within 30 days on that compliance.
I visited Sudan one week before that deadline, on 23 and 24 August, to assess the situation for myself and to urge the Sudanese Government to comply fully with the terms of resolution 1556. In Khartoum, I met the Sudanese President, General al-Bashir, the Foreign Minister, Dr. Mustafa Osman Ismail, and other Ministers and political figures, along with the UN Secretary-General's special envoy, Jan Pronk, and representatives of non-governmental organisations. In the talks, I stressed to the President and to the Foreign Minister the international community's grave concern at the situation in Darfur, and the importance that we attached to compliance with the resolution and with the plan of action that the Sudanese Government had subsequently agreed. While there, I obtained undertakings from the Sudanese Government that visas would be issued to staff from Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch.
On my visit to el-Fasher in northern Darfur, I went to the Abu Shouk refugee camp, where I was given a tragically familiar account of atrocities and of attacks by armed militias that had forced people to flee their homes. The refugees spoke to me of their continuing fear of returning home until, and unless, their security was guaranteed. Abu Shouk is one of the better-run camps in the region, but many thousands more displaced
616
people across Darfur and in neighbouring Chad still receive insufficient assistance, or in some cases none at all.
I also visited the headquarters of the African Union ceasefire monitoring mission in Darfur. AU observers told me that they judged that the ceasefire between the rebels and the Government of Sudan is largely holding, and they also said that there had been no aerial bombardment of civilians by the Sudanese Government since the end of June, but they also judged that there were still repeated attacks on civilians and credible reports of continued atrocities.
The UN Secretary-General, Kofi Annan, reported last week to the Security Council on the extent of Sudan's compliance with resolution 1556. His report found that the Sudanese Government had taken some steps to comply with the resolution and with the action plan. Security has improved for refugees in some limited areas, additional police have been deployed and disarmament has begun. Talks between the Government and the rebels opened on 23 August in the Nigerian capital, Abuja, facilitated by President Obasanjo of Nigeria. Mr. Annan said that access restrictions for humanitarian relief had been lifted, and that the humanitarian situation was improving, although conditions in many of the camps remained poor. The Sudanese Government had committed themselves to a policy of no forced returns of refugees, and human rights monitoring and investigations by the Office of the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights had begun.
However, Mr. Annan's report also found that
"after 18 months of conflict, and 30 days after the adoption of resolution 1556, the Government of Sudan has not been able to resolve the crisis in Darfur, and has not met some of the core commitments it has made"—
most critically, on the question of security.
The House will wish to know that an atrocities documentation team led by the US State Department has recently returned from Chad, where it interviewed 1,200 refugees in camps concerning allegations of atrocities. In the past two days the US Government have shared some of their evidence with us. We are examining that and other evidence carefully. All this is extremely disturbing and further highlights for the international community the urgency of ensuring that all the evidence is systematically examined by an international commission of inquiry, to establish what international crimes have been committed, and by whom.
The Security Council is today discussing its response to the Secretary-General's assessment of the situation, and we hope that a decision on a new Security Council resolution will be made later this week. In the Security Council, the UK is calling for clear benchmarks detailing what steps the Sudanese Government must now take towards meeting their responsibilities and resolving the conflict, but the rebels too must abide by their commitments by ending violations of the April ceasefire.
In making our proposals for a new Security Council resolution, we shall press for an expansion of the African Union monitoring mission—we always work with the AU itself—to help stop the attacks and create a safer environment for civilians. We must get both sides to engage constructively in the political talks in Abuja, which alone offer the prospect of a sustainable solution.

617
Alongside the international effort to resolve the crisis, we are working hard with the UN, NGOs and our international partners to improve the humanitarian situation for the people of Darfur. Now that access for aid workers has improved, we need to get in as much help as possible and ensure that the UN agencies and NGOs have the capacity to deliver aid to those most in need. Some 500 international NGO staff are now in Darfur alongside 3,800 local workers. That is a significant improvement over recent months, but it is still not enough with the rains continuing to worsen the plight of refugees.
We also seek to consolidate support for the AU and its monitoring mission. The UK provided £2 million at the start of the mission in May, the first assistance from any donor, and the European Commission has provided a further €12 million. We continue to provide logistical support, including helping to fly in 155 Nigerian force protection officers over the past few weeks. The Government have made it clear that we are ready and willing to do more to support both the AU's current mission and an expanded operation, as and when it deploys.
Moreover, we must not let the pressures from the crisis in Darfur distract the Sudanese Government and the Southern Peoples' Liberation Movement from concluding the peace talks in Naivasha aimed at ending the 21-year civil war in the south. A settlement in that conflict would be an important achievement in itself, and it could provide the blueprint for a political settlement in Darfur. Much progress has been made so far in those talks and the parties have concluded a political framework agreement, but the talks must now reach a quick conclusion. Once, and only once, security and a political settlement are established across Sudan as a whole—north, south, east and west—the international community stands ready to ensure that all Sudan benefits from a long-term peace dividend. The EU has some €400 million waiting to be spent on longterm development, and the UK has already pledged £150 million, or €250 million, over the next three years for similar long-term aid.
The situation in Darfur has rightly shocked the world. For our part, we are determined to do everything we can to resolve the humanitarian disaster and help secure a political settlement across the country as a whole. We have had a special representative in Sudan, who works with our ambassador, concentrating on the peace talks for the past two and a half years. We are the largest cash donor of aid, having already provided £65 million—almost €100 million.
The Secretary of State for International Development has visited the country twice, in December last year and in June this year, and today he is in Nigeria, where he has been discussing the situation with President Obasanjo and working hard with the parties in the peace talks to try to get them to agree the next stage in any settlement. Our Departments are working closely together in a special joint Sudan unit, and the Minister with responsibility for Africa will go to Sudan next week. We continue to press our European Union and international partners to do more, as I did last weekend at a meeting of EU Foreign Ministers.
Ten years ago, the world turned away from the horrors of Rwanda and Bosnia, and we all know the appalling results. We cannot do everything in Sudan,
618
but we must do everything that we can to ensure that that vast country can at long last enjoy peace and stability, which have evaded it for so many years with such catastrophic consequences.
Mr. Michael Ancram:I thank the Foreign Secretary for his statement, and for giving me advance sight of it.
May I, too, start with a word about the outrage and tragedy of the events last Friday in Beslan in North Ossetia? None of us can have been immune to the horror, the intense grief and the justified anger arising from the inhuman and obscene violence and murder that was meted out by vicious terrorists to innocent children and their parents and teachers. We join the people of Beslan and, indeed, of all Russia in their mourning, and renew our own determination to continue to fight the scourge of terrorism wherever it occurs. While those horrifying pictures are fresh in our minds, it is right that we are discussing another area of brutality and evil inhumanity: the unspeakable atrocities and acts of genocide being carried out against the people of Darfur in Sudan.
I welcome the Foreign Secretary's recent visit to Sudan. In June, my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) went deeper into Darfur and saw the horrors at first hand. He informs me that those horrors continue today. Of course, I join the Foreign Secretary in welcoming the somewhat meagre improvements in the situation that have occurred in the past month—namely, improved access for aid and the tentative start of peace talks in Abuja. However, I am sure that he agrees that they do not go very far towards dealing with the continuing atrocities on the ground.
Did not the United Nations Security Council resolution 1556, passed at the end of July, require in effect that by the end of August the infamous Janjaweed should be disarmed by the Sudanese Government? That certainly has not occurred. Surely the international priorities are now clear: to provide genuine security for the swelling refugee camps; to facilitate and target the distribution of desperately needed aid; and to police a genuine ceasefire. Should not those be the clear and determined objectives of both the United Nations and ourselves? Yet violence and murder continue unabated. Indeed, have not some 3,000 people been driven from their homes in renewed violence during the past few days? Is it not disingenuous for the Sudanese Government to continue to argue that this situation is not of their making or is beyond their control?
Kofi Annan admitted last week that
"the violations of human rights and the basic laws of war… continue in a climate of impunity."
In the face of that, how can the international community wait while further atrocities are committed in Darfur and more people die? If aid workers are to be believed, every day of prevarication will cost another thousand deaths.
Three years ago the Prime Minister talked about a "moral duty to act". The moves that the Foreign Secretary has outlined today simply do not go far enough. He should start by pressing in the United Nations for an African Union peacekeeping force of sufficient size to deliver those objectives. The African Union military seem willing to undertake that task. Our

619
involvement, along with other non-African countries, should be to provide communications and logistical support, and possibly, if necessary, the wherewithal to enforce a no-fly zone over Darfur.
We are told, however, that such a peacekeeping force can be put in place only at the highly unlikely invitation of the Sudanese Government. Is that not in practice an unacceptable recipe for inaction? Such is the scale of the atrocities that if the United Nations Security Council is to mean anything in terms of the relief of human suffering it must find a way to intervene directly. I hope that the Council in its discussions today will seek to identify such a way. The British Government should in due course lead by moving the relevant resolution.
The current situation in Darfur is a test not just of the Government of Sudan: it is a test of the credibility of the United Nations and, ultimately, of the moral duty of the British Government. The time for inaction has passed.
Mr. Straw: I am grateful for the right hon. and learned Gentleman's words about the situation in Beslan. He spoke for the House in I hose remarks.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that the international community's priorities should be the disarmament of the Janjaweed, the safety and proper supply of the refugee camps and policing the ceasefire. I agree with those priorities, but add to them the need for comprehensive disarmament of all the paramilitary groups: the Popular Defence Force operates directly under the orders of the Government of Sudan; a large part of the Janjaweed also operates under their orders, and there are rebel groups. It is sad but true that atrocities continue to be committed by rebels, albeit on a lesser scale than those of the Janjaweed under the control of the Government of Sudan.
In addition to those four priorities, success in the political talks is crucial. The terrible conflict in Darfur, which goes back many decades, can be resolved only through a political settlement, along similar lines to that towards which the parties are edging in Naivasha on the north-south axis. The critical point about the Naivasha accords is that the Government of Sudan have already agreed with the rebels that there should be both devolution of power within Sudan and a devolving and sharing of the wealth of the Government of Sudan. I kept making the point to President al-Bashir, Foreign Minister Mustafa and others that those principles are sound and that if they want peace throughout Sudan, they must apply them in Darfur, too.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman mentioned the climate of impunity, which is a phrase that Kofi Annan used. We want an end to that climate of impunity and we therefore support proper international investigation of all the evidence about what international crimes have been committed—it is certain that such crimes have been committed—and by whom.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman also mentioned an African Union peacekeeping force. I believe that it is a matter of agreement in all parties that it is crucial, if we are to have any success, to work with the African Union. It has shown a high degree of responsibility. It must be borne in mind that there are
620
disagreements among its members, too, and it has to resolve them. However, we stand ready to provide all the assistance that we can to the African Union and I know that that applies to most other international partners.
On drafting the Security Council resolution, we already have drafts, which we are discussing privately with our Security Council colleagues. We want the strongest possible resolution. I understand everybody's impatience—I share it. It took us longer than I had hoped to get a Security Council resolution at the end of July. The right hon. and learned Gentleman said that it took too long and he is right. However, we wanted an international consensus and the result of working and negotiating with the Security Council was ultimately getting all three African members—Algeria, Benin and Angola—to support that tough resolution. That is crucial in pressuring the Government of Sudan.
Mr. John Battle:I welcome my right hon. Friend's genuine efforts to resolve the crisis in Sudan. He began by mentioning Beslan and I note that many financial appeals have been launched in the past few days as a compassionate response and practical contribution to the communities of Beslan. However, in the short term, I ask my right hon. Friend to re-emphasise that humanitarian resources are still desperately needed in Sudan now and that Beslan appeals should not overshadow those needs. Rather, we should all do and give much more to both international appeals.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my right hon. Friend. As he said, there are sufficient riches and resources around the world to provide fully adequate material relief to the poor people of Beslan and adequate humanitarian relief in the Sudan.
Sir Menzies Campbell:May I associate my right hon. and hon. Friends with the proper expressions of sympathy that the Foreign Secretary made to the Russian people at the outset of his statement? Nothing, but nothing, justifies the calculated brutality that we saw at Beslan. On such occasions, language sometimes seems insufficient to express the depth of horror and revulsion that we all feel.
May I commend the Foreign Secretary for his efforts in relation to Sudan and, in particular, for his visit there? Do the British Government accept the estimates that 50,000 people have been killed and that more than 1 million have fled their homes? Do the British Government consider that what has happened in Darfur amounts to genocide? If what has taken place there does not justify the description of genocide, how would the British Government characterise the killing, the rape, the forced displacement and the human rights violations?
Do the British Government accept the verdict of the United Nations special representative that
"no concrete steps have been taken to bring to justice or even identify any of the militia's leaders"?
What is the assessment of the degree of complicity of the Sudanese Government in these terrible events?
While accepting that, for the moment at least, there is no political will to authorise intervention and that neither sanctions nor an arms embargo have as yet

621
sufficient support, what can be done with Rwanda and Bosnia in mind—the Foreign Secretary referred to both—if the Sudanese Government persist in failing to meet their responsibilities?
Mr. Straw: I commend the right hon. and learned Gentleman for his remarks in respect of Beslan.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked me whether the figure of 50,000 killed was accurate. The answer is that I cannot say, but I have seen that estimate. I can say that at least 1,200,000 have fled their homes and are currently in properly registered refugee camps. Many thousands more may be elsewhere; another 200,000 are across the border in Chad.
One of the most extraordinary experiences on my visit to the Sudan was to stand on the top of a hill to look out at the rows and rows of huts in a camp that stretched to the horizon. Some 50,000 people, the size of a medium-sized town in this country, were housed in those huts and I reflected on the fact that the refugees we know about are contained in at least 24 more such camps.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman asked whether what has happened amounts to genocide. The answer is that there is evidence that clearly suggests that international crimes against humanity have been committed. Just before making the statement, I discussed the issue with Secretary-General Kofi Annan. The acting high commissioner for human rights, Bertrand Ramcharan, reported to the Security Council in the spring of 2004 that there was no doubt that there had been gross and systematic violations of human rights and of international humanitarian law. Mr. Annan said to me that we were all agreed that the parties in Sudan needed to act to ensure that these violations did not continue. The Secretary-General is keeping the question of whether what has happened is genocide under very close review, and so are we. We are examining the evidence that has been made available so far to us in confidence by the US Government. Of course, I will keep the House informed on that.
The right hon. and learned Gentleman's final point was about sanctions. The international community has not backed away from the possible use of sanctions. Indeed, operative paragraph 6 of resolution 1556 plainly lays down that, unless there is compliance, the Security Council will actively consider whether to bring in the sanctions—they are called "measures"—that are provided for under article 41 of the charter. It is our intention to see that point repeated in the new resolution. What I cannot say is the point at which we can persuade other partners in the Security Council that such action needs to be taken, but I can say for certain that it is only as a result of the strength of feeling and the resolve of the Security Council expressed at the end of July that the Government of Sudan, having resisted some improvements previously, have now started to make changes that are acceptable in themselves but do not go nearly far enough and are unsatisfactory altogether in respect of the security situation outside the camps.
Mr. Clive Soley:Does my right hon. Friend accept that the frustration and anger felt by so many people and Governments about the ineffectiveness of the Sudanese Government in this situation reflect the much wider
622
problem of failing states? When Kofi Annan's high level panel reports, which I think it is due to do at the end of this year, will my right hon. Friend make that a major debate and matter of attention in this country and other countries around the world, through the international institutions, because the international community's failure to have a coherent policy towards failing states led to us wringing our hands and looking on in horror at Rwanda, intervening ineffectually in Somalia, intervening effectively in Kosovo and now, I fear, having only a marginal impact in Darfur? The international community really has to do better than that, and that high-level panel is vital to the future of foreign policy and defence for this country and for others for years to come.
Mr. Straw: I agree with my hon. Friend about the importance of this; it was the subject of an excellent pamphlet written by him recently with my hon. Friend the Member for Cynon Valley (Ann Clwyd). I offered some perhaps more modest thoughts about this subject in a speech to Chatham House last Thursday. It is crucial that, once we receive Kofi Annan's report, we really deal with this issue, and we should.
There are some structural organisational issues that we have got to handle for the UN, but the worst thing in the world for the future of the UN is to get drawn into organograms or rebranding the organisation and avoid the central conceptual issue, which is in what circumstances in the world we live in today—where the threats come from terrorists and failing states, and not normally from functioning states—the Security Council takes action and how it ensures the same resolve today to deal with these new threats as the international community had in 1945 when the UN was established.
Tony Baldry:The Secretary of State cited Rwanda and Bosnia, but in respect of both the UN set up a war crimes tribunal to bring to justice those most guilty of perpetrating war crimes. Can he clarify what he meant when he referred in his statement to the international commission of inquiry to see what international crimes are being committed and by whom? Will that be conducted under the auspices of the Secretary-General of the UN and is it intended that, if those responsible can be identified, there will be a UN war crimes tribunal in respect of atrocities committed in Sudan?
Mr. Straw: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that such tribunals were set up, and are still operating, in respect of both the former Yugoslavia and Rwanda. Of course, roughly speaking, that was all the international community did: although it was a necessary step to take, it was too late and completely insufficient. I do not want to be there.
Our immediate concerns are security, proper supplies and humanitarian access, and a political solution. We are also concerned, as is Secretary-General Kofi Annan, about the climate of impunity. The only way to take away that climate of impunity is to ensure that there is a proper investigation of alleged crimes and a proper process after that.
The Government of Sudan have established their own national commission. If there were wider international confidence in the effectiveness of that commission, okay,

623
but Jan Pronk has already made clear his concerns about its adequacy. For that reason, we are looking carefully at what wider international commissions or institutions should operate. I cannot give the hon. Gentleman the detail he needs, because that has not been decided. It is something that we are discussing with our international partners.
Mr. Tom Clarke:In thanking my right hon. Friend for the excellent work that he is doing in a very complex situation, may I take him back to the meeting of 23–24 August when he met the President of Sudan? Were the President of Sudan and the Sudanese regime aware of the true anger in the international community, as well as in the House? What regard did he give to resolution 1556? Is there any evidence that, if a strengthened resolution is introduced, as we all hope that it will be, he will give it any regard? Was it made clear to him that, if he does not, the international community's patience is not inexhaustible?
Mr. Straw: I did everything that I could to stress to the President of Sudan the gravity of the situation and the intense concern of the international community. That is understood. Initially, there was almost a refusal to acknowledge the strength of the terms of 1556, and there were statements by the Government of Sudan that they were unwilling to implement it. After further pressure, however, not least from fellow African countries, they have said that they will implement it, and have signed up to the action plan that they put forward. They offered undertakings about what they will do in the 30-day period, some of which they have done, but by no means all. On those, above all, we must hold the Government of Sudan to account.
Mr. Andrew Robathan:Nobody pretends that there is an easy solution to this situation, but is it not the case that the Government of Sudan have form on this? They have form throughout the south during the civil war, in the Nuba mountains and elsewhere, and they have form on getting away with it with impunity. Furthermore, they have achieved their aim in the south to destroy the infrastructure and intelligentsia and their aim in Darfur to empty the region of black African farmers. Will the Foreign Secretary make it his policy with the international community that individuals in the Government of Sudan, from Bashir downwards, should be held responsible for their complicity in war crimes, that they will not have impunity and that they will be brought before the bar of international justice, wherever that may be, and held responsible for the awful crimes that may yet lead to the deaths of as many as 1 million people?
Mr. Straw: I have commented on the need for international investigation of those crimes. I will not anticipate the outcome of those investigations, except to say that it is clear beyond doubt that international crimes against humanity have been committed. The Government of Sudan have been engaged in peace talks in respect of the south and we are tantalisingly close to
624
complete agreement, which can produce peace and stability in the south. The sense that I got when I was in Khartoum was that something was holding the Government back, which is why I have worked hard with all my international interlocutors, including Secretary-General Kofi Annan, to impress on them, as well as the Government, that if we want peace and stability in Darfur, we must make rapid progress on the peace that is available today or tomorrow, in respect of the south, through the Naivasha accords.
Mr. George Foulkes:May I commend the Foreign Secretary, and the International Development Secretary, on the tremendous work that they are doing in relation to Sudan, compared with the previous Government's abject dereliction of duty in relation to Rwanda? In relation to the Foreign Secretary's preliminary remarks about the tragic events in Russia, will the Government examine the serious implications that they may have for security in the United Kingdom, and will they consider what my hon. Friend the Member for Walsall, North (David Winnick) described earlier as the common threads between events in Russia, Iraq and, perhaps, the Sudan that threaten us all?
Mr. Straw: I am grateful to my right hon. Friend for his remarks and he is right to congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, and all his staff, here and in the field. Our two Departments have been working together extremely closely to produce a higher level of effort by the British Government than by any comparable Government. We are proud to do that, but we also regard it as our duty.
On worldwide terrorism, it goes without saying that we are already seeking to learn the necessary lessons from the terrible atrocities that took place in Beslan last Friday.
Sir Patrick Cormack: May I endorse the remarks about giving help in both Beslan and Sudan made by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle)? In view of the Foreign Secretary's last remarks, can he assure the House that, although the Dutch hold the presidency of the European Union, the insensitive and intemperate remarks of the Dutch Foreign Minister are not endorsed by the British Government?
Mr. Straw: The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands has already explained the circumstances in which he came to make those remarks. I think that he explained that they were made ex cathedra and did not reflect the discussion that took place among European Foreign Ministers. I have set out our position this afternoon and on the radio yesterday. I believe that we must stand absolutely firmly with the Government and people of Russia, and—as I have said—not allow any excuse for what happened in Beslan.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:Order. For understandable reasons, the right hon. Gentleman referred to the situation in Russia at the beginning of his remarks, but it ought not to be taken up generally, because the statement is essentially about Sudan.
Mr. Hilton Dawson:I congratulate my right hon. Friend on a balanced and entirely sensible approach to a complicated issue. I urge him to continue setting that issue in the context of a tremendous diplomatic effort by the Government to help all parties to reach a comprehensive peace agreement across Sudan. As one who also visited Sudan recently, may I ask whether he is aware that many thousands throughout the country are now enjoying peace for the first time in 21 years? Does he agree that, in the attempt to deal with the desperate humanitarian situation in Darfur, it is essential that no encouragement whatever be given to the militias, rebel groups and special interests that would seek to undermine the comprehensive peace agreement that is now so close?
Mr. Straw: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend and commend his work as chairman of the all-party Sudan group over many years. He is absolutely right: the only future for the people of Sudan—as elsewhere throughout the world—is through politics and the putting aside of violence.
Mr. Roger Gale:This should be set in context. It is arguable that more people—men, women and children—are dying in Sudan every few days than died in one day of terror in Russia last week. That is not to belittle the terror of the latter event, but to highlight the enormity of the former. It means that every few days that the United Nations does not enforce sanctions, every few days that the African Union does not take action, every few days that the United Kingdom Government do not—as was suggested by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Devizes (Mr. Ancram)—provide support in terms of communications, more men, women and children will die. The United Nations is beginning to acquire a well-earned reputation for procrastination. When will the Foreign Secretary take some action?
Mr. Straw: I have just spelt out the action that we have taken. I understand the hon. Gentleman's impatience: I share it, and his frustration about our inability to do all that we would wish to, because of the atrocities and deaths that are plainly taking place. However, I do not think that much purpose is served by his thrashing around demanding action that we have already taken, or action that we have offered which requires the agreement of other people.
We have done virtually everything in our power. We are the largest cash aid donor, second only to the United States in terms of overall value. We have been hugely involved in facilitating the peace process in Naivasha, which we hope will have good results. We are also working very hard with the African Union. The hon. Gentleman mentioned communications equipment. We have provided the money for the African Union. When I was in el-Fasher two weeks ago, the problem was not our provision of money for communications equipment, but bureaucratic difficulties that we are now trying to sort out but which are quite outwith the responsibility of the United Kingdom Government.
As I have said, I understand the hon. Gentleman's frustration. If he has constructive proposals to make, I will of course—as ever—take them on board, from wherever they come. But given what we are doing, it is
626
wrong to suggest that we in the United Kingdom—the people, the Government or Parliament—are in any way evading our responsibilities, because we are not. We are fulfilling them, and we are also trying to get others to fulfil theirs; that is the crucial point. I understand some of the hon. Gentleman's frustrations with the international community, but if people want us to work through the United Nations—as I do—that is what we must do. Sometimes it takes longer than we would wish, but it is the only international organisation available to us with the legitimacy and power to enforce what we want to happen.
Mr. David Drew: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right to rule out simplistic causes of the conflict in Sudan and he is even more right to avoid considering pre-emptive intervention, which is potentially very dangerous. Indeed, we must be honest: it is simply undeliverable. Does he agree that we should consider issues such as environmental changes in that part of Africa, particularly desertification, which is one reason why the nomads have moved? Of course, that does not excuse the behaviour of the Janjaweed, and we must also consider the question of resources. One strong argument for the action taken by the Sudan Liberation Army is that it is trying to get in on the back of the north-south peace settlement to make sure that it has resources. What we need is a sustainable peace in the whole of Sudan.
Mr. Straw: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. There are many reasons for supporting the Kyoto protocols and for the world to get a grip on climate change, which is within our power, but one of the best is the political, social and humanitarian effects of desertification in Darfur and Chad. As I have said, the key to the Naivasha accords is the devolution not only of power but of wealth in resources. That is also the key to a political settlement in Darfur.
Angus Robertson: One course of action that has not yet been pursued is the imposition of sanctions, which was discussed at the European Union meeting in the Netherlands over the weekend. EU officials have been asked to draw up a list of possible sanctions and their implications. What is the UK Government's position vis-?-vis such sanctions? Do they support them? If so, but they are being braked by other EU member states, who is slowing this process down?
Mr. Straw: We actively supported operational paragraph 6 of resolution 1556, which specifies that the Security Council will consider imposing measures—sanctions—under article 41 if there is non-compliance with the terms of the resolution. That remains very strongly our position and no one is blocking the imposition of sanctions. The judgment that has to be made is whether sufficient progress has been made to justify delaying the imposition of sanctions for a further period. As I said in my statement, in our discussions in New York, which are taking place right now, we are seeking the establishment of very clear benchmarks—clearer than those in resolution 1556—and timelines against which the progress or otherwise of the

627
Government of Sudan, and of the rebels, can be measured. The clear warning should be given that if there is a major failure to meet those benchmarks and timelines, in our judgment the Security Council would have to impose sanctions at that stage.
Mr. Andrew Mackay:Rightly and inevitably, the shadow of Rwanda and Bosnia hangs over us, and the situation in Darfur is unbelievably dire by any standards. However, if at some point military intervention is desirable and advisable, it should come from the African Union. I cannot conceive of circumstances in which it would be right and proper for our troops, who are already heavily overstretched, to be in that particular theatre.
Mr. Straw: The right hon. Gentleman offers considerable wisdom to the House, and we are indeed working with the African Union. I spoke to one of the AU's leading Foreign Ministers at the weekend, and for most—but not all—members of the AU, there is greater anger at what has happened in Sudan than exists even in this House or in the continents of Europe and the Americas. There is real, profound anger—not only among the non-Arab African states, but among many of the Arab Muslim states as well. They see it as a great test of the African Union itself. We should not put them to the test, but allow them to make their own test for themselves and help them in every way that we can. We are doing so through provision of some monitors and the facilitation that we have already provided to move in, for example, Nigeria's armed forces—and not only a couple of companies, as we have said that we stand ready to provide for many more troops to be moved there. There are already troops from Rwanda and Nigeria in the country. If the African Union asks for our logistical or financial help, by God we are ready to provide it, as are many members of the European Union.
Mr. John Redwood: In view of the daily death toll, the murders, rapes and brutalities,
628
matters are urgent and there is a growing sense of anger throughout the House and outside it. Which are the countries on the Security Council that understand the need for urgent action by the international community. and which are the worst offenders that are holding it all back? I need to be able to tell my constituents why the Government are well intentioned but nothing happens.
Mr. Straw: It is not adequate, but a good deal has happened as a result of the passage of resolution 1556, as I set out in my statement. I am not here today to name names on a contingent basis: we have not reached the point of discussing the terms of the new resolution in open Council. I can tell the right hon. Gentleman that, as a result of intensive diplomacy by the United States Government and the UK, we managed to achieve a position on 31 July where 30 member states—all the European countries, American countries and all three relevant African countries—voted in favour of 1556 and two abstained. The abstainers were China and Pakistan, and he should seek their explanations for the way they voted—it is for them, not for me, to explain. However, it was not because they lacked concern about the situation, but for other reasons.
Andrew Selous: The Foreign Secretary referred to UN resolution 1556 as being tough when he spoke to the House earlier, but is he satisfied that it has sufficient teeth so that the necessary international action can be taken—for example, in policing a no-fly zone?
Mr. Straw: I am satisfied that it was tougher than the Government of the Sudan anticipated at the end of July, because it certainly came as a shock to them and put greater pressure on them. Resolution 1556, as the hon. Gentleman would see if he read the text, does not of itself lay down what sanctions are to be taken. It simply lays down in operational paragraph 6 that the Security Council is ready to consider measures under article 41. It remains to be seen what measures, including the policing of no-fly zones, would be taken. Any such measures would require further specific authorisation by the Security Council under chapter VII.

Points of Order
4.53 pm
Mr. Oliver Heald: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The standard practice is to give the House notice of two weeks' business in advance. So far, however, we have details of business only for this week, although it seems that every national newspaper has been briefed and reported what we will be dealing with next week. In those circumstances, have you had a request from the Leader of the House to make a business statement today? If not, will you confirm that that is not in accordance with the practice of the House and that the Leader of the House should make such a statement? Modernisation should not apply only when it suits the Government.
Mr. George Foulkes: Further to that point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Is it not the case that we should receive information about the subject for Opposition day debates two weeks in advance as well?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I am not entirely sure how far that supplementary point of order was helpful and I must say to the right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley (Mr. Foulkes) that that matter has been aired before Mr. Speaker in the past. It is a question of balance between topicality and longer-term planning.
I am sure that the hon. Member for North-East Hertfordshire (Mr. Heald) will appreciate that announcements on the business of the House are not a matter controlled by Mr. Speaker. No notice has been given of any intention to make a statement on next week's business any earlier than the usually predicted time. Indeed, it is the Chair's understanding that it is often the hon. Gentleman who receives earlier notice than anyone else of these matters.
Mr. Brian H. Donohoe:On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. In a previous life, I was a trade union official and took much interest in questions of health and safety. I must admit that, on returning to the House today, I would condemn the
630
conditions that obtain here and that I would not let anyone work in this environment. Worse still, staff have been expected to work here all summer, when the temperature in the offices has sometimes reached 38°C. Surely something must be done to protect everyone who has to work in this environment.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman giving notice that he wished to raise this subject. Obviously, it is a matter of great difficulty for hon. Members and for the staff of the House. Necessary long-term work has to be completed and hon. Members were given notice that there would be some inconvenience in the short term, and that it would be impossible to get the building back to normal in time for the September sitting. In certain instances, conditions may have gone beyond what is normally acceptable, but I obviously do not know the details. If the hon. Gentleman is aware of specific concerns, they should be brought to the attention of the Clerk of the House and the Serjeant at Arms so that they can be investigated. I am sure that the whole House will agree that everything possible must be done to safeguard the interests of our staff, and of those who are working on a temporary basis, and to put the building to rights. Ultimately, that will benefit us all.
Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I draw your attention to today's Order Paper, and to the 17 written ministerial statements listed on page 2374. Those statements are due to be given today, and they include two—Nos. 12 and 13—that are listed to be made by the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. However, my understanding is that that person resigned yesterday, so how can he make a statement?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: It is a constitutional feature that Secretaries of State are interchangeable. Indeed, legislation only ever refers to one Secretary of State, even though several in fact exist. However, I am sure that there are adequate deputies in the particular Department of State to which the hon. Gentleman has referred, and it may be that the statements will be made in their names on this occasion. I suspect that the large number of statements being made today is because there has been an accumulation while the House has been in recess over the past few weeks.

Disposals of Public Land and Property (Design Competitions)
4.58 pm
Roger Casale: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to require public bodies to hold design competitions when drawing up planning briefs in respect of the disposal of publicly-owned land and property.
The purpose of this Bill is to introduce a systematic and informed approach to the disposal of publicly owned land and property. Most hon. Members will know of cases where public land has been disposed of by central or local government, or by a public body such as an NHS trust. In some cases, that property will have been developed sympathetically, but in too many others, subsequent development will have been poor. Until this Government introduced stricter criteria for their disposal, many school playing fields were lost, and buried under anonymous, badly designed housing. We have all passed examples, and I am sure we have all thought, "Surely that could have been better designed. What a wasted opportunity!"
Such regret is pointless. It is rarely possible to remedy development mistakes, as to do so is always time-consuming and often expensive. The Government now plan to secure £30 billion from the sale of public assets. My Bill is designed to avoid future mistakes, and to make sure that the assets are disposed of in a way that enhances the quality of urban design and of our environment.
The Atkinson Morley hospital site in my constituency is currently owned by the St. George's NHS trust. In 2002 the hospital vacated the site to move to the new Atkinson Morley wing at St. George's hospital. The site comprises a large range of Victorian and more recent health buildings, standing in 17 acres of open land. Initial proposals were put before the local planning authority to convert the existing buildings into residential units and to add a number of new homes. That not only sparked enormous concern among my constituents in relation to the loss of precious open space, but gave rise to the feeling that the current proposals did not do justice to the site and that something better could be done.
I declare an interest as the honorary president of the Wimbledon civic forum, which has established a taskforce bringing together the trust, potential developers, the local authority and other interested parties. I am grateful to the forum for all its hard work, and in particular to its chairman Marcus Beale, an architect who gives me valuable advice on such matters. Marcus and our forum colleagues, including Sir Jack Zunz, established a taskforce that has worked with the London borough of Merton on drawing up a planning brief. I commend the local authority for listening carefully to our views, as well as to other Wimbledon residents and to amenity associations such as Lung and the Wimbledon Society.
In the face of that positive process, the former trust management launched an unsuccessful and expensive challenge to the planning brief and metropolitan open land designation, at a public inquiry held at enormous public cost. It commissioned its own architects to
632
develop proposals for the site, which were inappropriate. Eventually, those plans were thrown out and two years were wasted.
Like the civic forum and local residents, I want a solution that preserves the integrity of the land and achieves an appropriate development sensitive to local needs. The initial proposals from the trust met neither criterion. The overriding duty governing the disposal of public assets is surely the duty to secure best value. In the bad old days, that simply meant trying to get as much money as possible. Now, I am happy to say, a more enlightened spirit is abroad. Best value should be taken to encompass a range of other factors that are not always as readily measurable as pure cash, such as environmental quality, urban design, educational or cultural provision, and the enhancement of public space.
There are encouraging signs. In relation to general issues, the Government are pointing in the direction in which I would wish them to go. Their regeneration body, English Partnerships, has worked well with good developers to leave a mark of quality on former publicly owned land. The millennium village on the Greenwich peninsula, of which my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister and his colleagues are justly proud, is a great example of how the system can work well. Sadly, however, such cases—particularly those concerning local government assets—are usually the result of happy accident and rely too much on a senior figure who can champion good design being in the right place at the right time. In my constituency example, it was only when new management—a new chief executive and chairman—took over at the trust that new proposals were made that took better account of residents' concerns.
Communities are rarely involved in decisions about the disposal of public assets until it is much too late. There is a fundamental issue of legitimacy, and it is little wonder that local people feel disfranchised when public property is gobbled up by development that they have no desire to see, and in a process in which they seem to have no say. Is it any wonder that local people so often treat development in their community with suspicion? Is it any wonder that local people so often say, "We don't want this—not in my backyard."?
I believe that there is a desire within communities—often latent, but it certainly exists in my community—for better-designed buildings and public space. People want an improved sense of place, and this Bill can give them that. We cannot leave it to chance to answer that demand. We need a systematic approach, and that is what my Bill would seek to achieve in relation to surplus public land and property.
The public sector is one of the biggest architecture clients in the country, and its record as a client has certainly improved. In 2001, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister launched the better public buildings initiative and committed Ministers to seeking higher standards in public building programmes and becoming champions of good design. Thanks to the assistance of the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, a great deal of progress has been made, but the Government are also one of the UK's major

633
landowners, and informed disposal is a critical issue, alongside informed commissioning. My Bill would enable government at all levels to lead by example. It would avoid the sense of disfranchisement and frustration felt by many communities when local public amenities are disposed of, and it would avoid wasted opportunities to involve them at an early stage. Design competitions offer a flexible, well-structured, transparent and auditable process. Community representatives can work alongside other interested parties and experts in drawing up a competition brief, sitting on selection panels and aiding selections. A well-publicised and well-organised competition can include opportunities for the wider community to have its say through consultations, exhibitions and workshops.
The Royal Institute of British Architects runs the most respected and experienced architectural competition system in the country. Iconic buildings such as the Baltic Centre for Contemporary Art in Gateshead and the Evelina children's hospital across the Thames at St. Thomas's are the results of RIBA-organised competitions, alongside many projects of every size and type around the country. That is a record of success that ought to be spread as widely as possible. The competitive process can be used to throw up a range of innovative design concepts, master plans or detailed solutions for particular sites, involving the local community at every stage. Alternative visions can be set out, debated and discussed. By exploring possible options, we can avoid embarking on a course which all involved may later live to regret.
How would my Bill work in practice? There would have to be a trigger for a competition. First, the property would have to be on a public asset register of the kind that already exist. Thereafter I envisage a system analogous to the call-in powers enjoyed by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister in respect of individual planning decisions. Acting on advice from local planning authorities or other statutory advisers—either the CABE or English Heritage—the Deputy Prime Minister would then have the power to order a competition. The Secretary of State should have discretion, but for the most important or sensitive sites I suggest a presumption in favour of ordering a design
634
competition. Elsewhere, his decision would be affected by the weight of advice coming from his statutory and other advisers.
Some developers may resent and resist such an initiative, but enlightened developers are already welcoming public involvement and community ownership as important factors for the success of their project. My Bill is all about flushing out bad development, which should not go ahead, before it is too late. Surely a well-thought-out development would stand up to the public and critical scrutiny afforded by the design competition process.
Had the proposed measure been applied to the Atkinson Morley hospital site, a great deal of time and money could have been spared, the local community could have been properly involved in the disposal of a public asset, and we could have ensured that the resulting development was the best possible solution in terms of its design—something that we still hope to achieve. A good design, which made the most of the site and enhanced its setting, would deliver value and be seen to have done so in a transparent and accountable way. Such competition would not only add value to the disposal of sites but save money because the disputes that often occur as a result of divisions and contention over the disposal of a site can weigh heavily on the public purse.
In short, my Bill offers a systematic approach to delivering an informed and enlightened disposal system for public land. I commend the Bill to the House.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Roger Casale, Peter Bottomley, Mrs. Anne Campbell, Sir Sydney Chapman, Mr. Mike Hancock, Alan Howarth, Ms Christine Russell, Mr. Derek Wyatt and Richard Younger-Ross.

DISPOSALS OF PUBLIC LAND AND PROPERTY (DESIGN COMPETITIONS)
Roger Casale accordingly presented a Bill to enable the Secretary of State to require public bodies to hold design competitions when drawing up planning briefs in respect of the disposal of publicly owned land and property: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 15 October, and to be printed [Bill 148].
Orders of the Day

  Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords]
  Order for Second Reading read.
  5.9 pm
  The Minister for Industry and the Regions (Jacqui Smith): I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
  The Bill comes to us having been thoroughly and expertly examined in the other place. Their lordships debated the Bill for some 27 hours and made 67 amendments, many of which were, at least in part, in response to points made by Opposition parties. I hope that this House can continue to deal with the Bill in such a constructive manner.
  Good company law needs to provide the framework for enterprise—to provide a legal form for organisations to help them to do business, to build prosperity, and to create jobs and opportunity in our economy. Company law has a long history. Before Gladstone's Joint Stock Companies Act was passed in 1844, it was very difficult to form a company as a body corporate. Once it became possible to incorporate a company simply by registration, and especially when limited liability became available a decade later, the company form very quickly gained in popularity, and today there are some 1.8 million companies on the register in Great Britain.
  We all need to feel confident in our dealings with business. As investors, creditors and consumers, we need to know that our money is secure, and to have trust in corporate Britain. Our company regulation is designed to balance the freedoms that promote enterprise and wealth creation with the necessary minimum safeguards to protect investors, creditors and others who do business with companies. The law therefore requires companies to comply with certain requirements and make available specified information. Almost all companies also opt for limited liability, meaning that if a company becomes insolvent, its shareholders are liable only for the amount that they have agreed to invest in the company. Limited liability companies must therefore provide additional financial information, so that those doing business with them can judge their soundness.
  A sound system of company regulation is an important source of competitive advantage. By matching the degree of control to the amount of risk to the economy and society, a good system will encourage business start-ups and minimise regulatory burdens. It will ensure confidence in companies and financial markets and thus lower the cost of capital.
  Company law not only sets out the conditions for incorporation and limited liability. As the author of one book on company law puts it, there are
  "arguments for state-provided default solutions, so that each set of contracting parties"
  does
  "not have to re-invent the wheel".
  The Bill sits firmly in the tradition of statutes that facilitate the framework for enterprise and set the terms of the company bargain. Part 2 creates a new type of
  636
  company, the community interest company, as a tailor-made vehicle for social enterprise—for businesses trading with social objectives rather than to make private profit. We believe that social enterprises can play a distinct and valuable role in creating a stronger, sustainable and socially inclusive economy. They can help to drive up productivity and competitiveness, enable individuals and communities to work towards regenerating their local neighbourhoods, develop new ways to deliver goods and services, and encourage active citizenship. Social enterprises also help to drive innovation, not only in relation to their products and services, but in relation to the way in which they operate.
  Research by the Small Business Service found that social enterprises made both a substantial contribution to local economic development, with 86 per cent creating additional jobs, and a wider social contribution—for example, involving volunteers and providing training and experience for socially excluded people. Social enterprises include Bulwell Hall Community Garden, a business that provides training opportunities for the long-term unemployed and work placements in gardens and allotments; at the same time, it grows and sells healthy produce and creates community space. Bulwell Hall supported the principle of the community interest company and agreed that it would help to raise the profile of the sector and help others to understand social enterprises. That organisation and others in the social enterprise sector told us that they wanted the advantages of the company form but found it difficult and expensive to set up a company with the special features that they needed, such as safeguarding the company's assets. Thus, we are doing exactly what the textbook prescribes and providing a default solution so that people who start a company for social enterprise do not have to reinvent the wheel. That will make it easier to set up social enterprises and will, over time, encourage the development of the social enterprise sector, which has much to offer our communities and economy.
  The community interest company will be a new and additional choice for social enterprises. It is not meant to replace other options such as charities, or the industrial and provident society, which is the form used by many co-operatives. Indeed, the Government are committed to modernising all legal options used by voluntary and community organisations and helping people to choose their most appropriate option. The special value of the community interest company is that it will offer the flexibility of the company form, yet be more suitable for many social enterprises than existing types of companies. Responses to consultations show that there is about 80 per cent. support for the idea of the community interest company, and it is supported by bodies including the Social Enterprise Coalition, the National Council for Voluntary Organisations and the Association of Charitable Foundations.
  Again, the community interest company is based on the idea of a bargain, and part 2 of the Bill creates the legislative basis for that balance. The people who run a community interest company will voluntarily accept certain constraints and a higher level of supervision and, in return, the company will acquire a status that signals to customers, investors, employees and bankers that the business is run for the benefit of the community, that its profits are wholly or largely applied for the benefit of the

  637
  community, that its assets are protected for the benefit of the community and that it is subject to oversight from a regulator. The regulator will have the task of maintaining confidence in community interest companies and will also promote awareness of the potential of the new type of company.
  Bob Spink: Of course we are all in favour of social enterprise and want the new CICs to succeed. How many of the new companies does the Minister expect to be formed over the first year and over the first five years? What will be the cost of the regulator for such companies?
  Jacqui Smith: I genuinely do not know how many companies will be formed over the first year or five years. However, we have already received general support for the measure and from the sector, and specific requests for information from enterprises that think that the provision might be appropriate for them. Such enterprises range from educational companies to companies that provide community services, such as community transport companies. Many bodies think that the measure will be beneficial. As we made it clear in the regulatory impact assessment—I will correct myself if I am wrong—we suggest that the set-up costs will be about £500,000, that the cost of the regulator will be about £150,000 a year and that the cost of setting up an individual community interest company will be about —40.
  Part 1 of the Bill will strengthen existing provisions on company accounts and audit, on the regulatory system for auditors and on company investigations in the wake of the Enron and WorldCom scandals. Although those scandals occurred in the United States, they raised fundamental questions about the reliability of the accounting and auditing system. However, we did not rush to legislate here. Instead the Government, acting jointly with business and the accounting profession, reviewed the whole British system of controls on financial reporting in the light of lessons learned from the American problems. We reviewed our corporate governance, company law and the role of the auditor in a measured and inclusive way. We consulted widely, listened to experts and set up the co-ordinating group on audit and accounting to consider issues of financial reporting and auditor independence. Of course, our system comprises not only company law itself but those parts of the financial services regulatory system that set standards for companies listed on the stock exchange. The FSA's listing rules give legal force to the Financial Reporting Council's combined code on corporate governance, which was revised last year, with the Government's full support, following reviews by Sir Derek Higgs and Sir Robert Smith.
  Sir Robert Smith's report called for the strengthening of the role of the audit committee. In addition to recommending that all members of the audit committee be independent, Smith recommended that at least one member should have significant recent and relevant financial experience. Those recommendations, along with Sir Derek Higgs's proposals on the role and
  638
  strengthened effectiveness of non-executive directors, provide a sound basis for improvements in audit and in our boardrooms.
  Mr. David Drew: If my right hon. Friend does not mind my saying so, something is missing from the Bill, as the administration process needs to be made more transparent. Accountants and auditors play a specialist role in running companies in difficulties, but the lack of transparency means that the companies, their workers and pensioners are completely in the hands of the administrators. Would my right hon. Friend care to look at this matter to see if we can open up that secret garden, as insolvency practitioners can do enormous damage to our country—let alone individual companies?
  Jacqui Smith: My hon. Friend is right that that is not within the remit of the Bill, but I, like him, have dealt with constituency cases that demonstrated that we need to shed light on the process for the sake of people's jobs. I cannot undertake to look at that matter in this Bill, but as is the case in a range of areas in corporate governance and financial reporting, we will ensure that the greatest amount of transparency and information are provided so that we can serve the best interests of businesses and the people who depend on them for their jobs and livelihood.
  I was outlining the review process, which confirmed that the British system of company regulation was fundamentally sound. The priorities for change, however, were to build independence, transparency and high standards of corporate governance to keep Britain at the forefront of company regulation. Many of the recommended changes were aimed at companies and accountants and did not require legislation. Audit firms, for example, have agreed to rotate at regular intervals the lead and other audit partners working on a company's audit. Non-legislative changes, including the reform of the combined code I mentioned earlier, work with the targeted statutory provisions in this Bill to create a measured, well-considered and thorough response to the problems highlighted by Enron and WorldCom. The review ensured that there was wide consultation leading to much consensus, both on what should be done and how it should be done. In particular, there was much agreement that, wherever possible, transparency was preferable to inflexible rules.
  Lynne Jones: The Bill merely proposes rotating the partners of an auditing company. Is my right hon. Friend satisfied that that is sufficient, as it is hardly likely that a partner who replaces his colleague as auditor will criticise him?
  Jacqui Smith: We started from the belief that auditors are professionals who are committed to their responsibilities to company shareholders. My hon. Friend may be suggesting that an alternative is to make it a statutory or compulsory requirement to rotate the firm. No other European country has undertaken to do that.
  The emphasis on good practice already adopted by the profession, such as rotating the audit partner, is likely to bring about improvements. My hon. Friend says that that is the only thing the Bill does, but that is

  639
  not the case. We have taken non-legislative action, as well as legislative action in the Bill, to create a comprehensive range of improvements with respect to audit, in terms of the independence of the regulation of auditors, the recommendations that Sir Robert Smith made in his report, which are now enshrined in the combined code, and the rotation of audit partners, as I outlined. All those together help to build the improvements in the quality of audit which—I agree with my hon. Friend—we want to see.
  Bob Spink: With all due respect to the right hon. Lady, I hardly see how she can pass the Bill off as providing a comprehensive range of solutions to the problems in company law. The Bill simply tinkers at the edges. It would be far better to tackle the wholesale reform of company law, rather than introducing piecemeal solutions such as the Bill.
  Jacqui Smith: The hon. Gentleman accuses me of doing something that I do not think I did. I did not say that the Bill was a wholesale reform of company law. I said that, together with the non-legislative measures taken following the reviews that the Government carried out, it brought about a comprehensive change in the system of audit regulation and independence. That is what the Bill focuses on, particularly the role of auditors. It is right that we did that in response to the concerns raised internationally and certainly in the House after the Enron and WorldCom scandals. As I suggested, there is a fundamental need to ensure that we have faith in our financial reporting arid our corporate governance. Of course it is important that we also take action more broadly on company law reform. That is why we instituted the company law review and why we will introduce more fundamental legislation as parliamentary time allows.
  To build on what I was saying to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Selly Oak (Lynne Jones) about the scale of what is being changed with respect to audit, the Bill, in line with the principle of transparency, extends the requirements for disclosure of the non-audit services that a company buys from its auditors. It completes the review process by giving legal underpinning to many of the changes that have already taken place.
  Lynne Jones: My right hon. Friend is correct—as she would be, being the Minister in charge of the Bill—that there are many measures in the Bill, but are not most of them very weak? Again she mentions non-audit activities. The United States legislation passed in response to the Enron scandal, the Sarbanes-Oxley Act 2002, prohibits certain non-audit functions or requires the rest of them to be authorised by the audit committee. Why are our provisions so much weaker than those in the US?
  Jacqui Smith: Given the experience of the US and the fact that the Enron and WorldCom scandals happened there, it can hardly be argued that the basis of our regulatory system is much weaker than theirs. It is true that the changes made in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation with respect to non-audit services took a different route
  640
  from ours. That Act lists a range of non-audit services which it would be illegal for the auditor to provide. Interestingly enough, the list is not as wide-ranging as some believe—it does not include tax advice, for example. That is not forbidden in the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. We took a different approach, in line with our principles-based approach to company legislation, so that, for example, under the new ethical standards drafted by the Auditing Practices Board and currently out for consultation, it would not be appropriate in this country to provide alongside audit many of the non-audit services that are contained in the Sarbanes-Oxley Act. Alongside that, we have clarified the detail that companies must provide to their shareholders on types of non-audit services and money spent on non-audit services.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: I shall give way in a moment.
  We can take one of two approaches to audit regulation. We can take a rules-based, legislative approach, which was adopted in the United States, or we can build on the principle-based approach that we already have in the UK. My hon. Friends push for more legislation, but I ask them to consider which of those approaches has been most successful up to this point.
  Mr. Mitchell rose—
  Mr. Jim Cousins rose—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. It would help if the right hon. Lady gave an indication.
  Mr. Cousins: The Minister knows that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act does not contain a system of exemptions for British companies that are registered and quoted in the United States, so the provision about the separation of audit and non-audit services will be imported into the British system by that route. Has she closed her mind to a statutory provision on the separation of audit and non-audit services, because possible conflicts lie ahead if she has?
  Jacqui Smith: We have not closed our minds to anything, which helps us to improve confidence in both financial reporting and the quality of audit. My hon. Friend is right that the Sarbanes-Oxley Act has implications for the operation of UK companies, and it has potential implications for UK audit companies operating in the US. Nevertheless, that does not mean that the US and the UK must take the same approach to delivering the same objective. As I suggested earlier, evidence suggests that our approach has successfully achieved the objectives of effective auditing and confidence in financial reporting. Confidence in the quality of auditing depends on high standards for the training and supervision of auditors, high standards of practice and ethics and an independent system for investigating and disciplining auditors who fall short of those standards.

  641
  A clear recommendation from the reviews was that the regulatory regime for the accountancy and audit profession could be simplified, improved and made more visibly independent by combining the bodies under the Accountancy Foundation with those under the Financial Reporting Council. That has created a single, independent group of organisations responsible for the recognition and supervision of the professional accounting and audit bodies, the preparation of accounting and auditing standards and for ensuring that major companies' accounts comply with the law and accounting standards.
  That reorganisation has already taken place with the profession's full involvement and the Government's full support. The Bill makes the necessary amendments to legislation to support those organisational changes and bolster the independence of those arrangements. In particular, it requires that ethical standards, quality control and disciplinary action for audits of public interest companies be independent of the professional bodies themselves.
  The Bill also contains measures to help auditors do their jobs properly and effectively. It extends the range of people from whom auditors are entitled to obtain information and, in effect, requires directors to state that they have not withheld relevant information from auditors. We redrafted that provision in response to concerns expressed while the Bill was in another place, and it now sends a clear and useful signal to directors and auditors, while avoiding placing an unreasonable duty on, for example, non-executive directors.
  In addition, the Bill contains important clauses aimed at strengthening compliance with the law and standards on accounts, which, again, largely involves implementing recommendations from the post-Enron reviews. The Bill strengthens the body responsible for compliance—in practice, the financial reporting review panel, which is part of the Financial Reporting Council group. It will, for example, enable the Inland Revenue to pass to the panel information to help it in its function of securing compliance with accounting requirements. The panel will also be able to require information to assist it in its inquiries, and its scope will be extended to cover interim as well as annual reports.
  Of course, the vast majority of British companies conduct their business honestly and produce accurate financial reports. They will seldom, if ever, be subject to enforcement action by bodies such as the financial reporting review panel or the DTI's companies investigation branch. However, a very small minority of companies do seek to abuse the system and we need to take firm and effective action against them. Their misdeeds can harm not only their own customers, suppliers, employees, creditors and investors, but confidence in companies generally. That is why the Bill contains some amendments to the powers of company inspectors and investigators.
  In a typical year, the companies investigation branch receives more than 5,000 complaints about companies. All are examined to see whether they merit formal investigation. Some are passed to other bodies, such as trading standards authorities, the Financial Services Authority or the police. Each year, the DTI itself investigates some 350 companies out of the total of 1.8 million. Where an investigation reveals significant wrongdoing, further action can be taken. In 2002–03,
  642
  following DTI investigations, 80 companies were wound up by the courts, 17 directors were disqualified, and seven individuals were convicted of offences. Moreover, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State can disclose the otherwise confidential information resulting from investigations to a regulatory or professional body, such as the FSA, the financial reporting review panel or the Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board, so that it may take action where appropriate.
  The amendments in the Bill to increase investigators' powers—for example, to enter and remain on premises and require documents and information, including from third parties—are modest and remain subject to safeguards to protect human rights, legal privilege and banking confidentiality. But they are necessary to prevent a very small number of people from exploiting limitations in the existing law so as to frustrate investigations. That small minority gives companies a bad name. Indeed, victims are often other companies, as well as other organisations and individuals. These changes are therefore necessary and urgent, and it is right to include them in part 1, which is about maintaining and improving standards of financial reporting and preventing abuse.
  I turn to the subject of director and auditor liability, on which the Government published a consultative document in December last year. That was in response to calls from some quarters to change the law dating from the 1920s that prohibits companies from agreeing to limit the liability of their directors or auditors. We received more than 120 responses to the consultation, from a wide cross-section of British business. The Government are grateful to all those who took the time and trouble to respond to the consultation. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State set out our response in a written statement this morning. I do not intend to repeat that statement, but it explains that we propose to table amendments in Committee to tackle concerns that good candidates for directorships are being increasingly deterred by the risk of lengthy and expensive legal proceedings. I shall ensure that hon. Members on both sides of the House receive those amendments as soon as possible.
  The statement also explains why the Government do not propose to introduce a cap on auditor liability. However, we remain committed to improving the operation of the audit market. We will continue to consider any proposals, including the possibility of limiting liability on a proportionate basis by contract, which can be demonstrated significantly to enhance competition and to improve quality in the audit market. We urge auditors, business and investors to work together to examine whether proposals for a system of proportionate liability via contract are practical and desirable.
  Mr. Cousins: I apologise for interrupting my right hon. Friend's flow on an important point, which is at the heart of the Bill. She has outlined a system whereby audit liability could be limited by contract. That was in this morning's important statement. Do I understand correctly that any reflection of that in legislation will not be for the Bill but for a future date and that her

  643
  assurance that the Government have no proposals on restrictions or caps on auditor liability will remain in full for the lifetime of the Bill?
  Jacqui Smith: I said that we would not want to act unless there was evidence that that would improve quality in the audit market or support competition. However, the ball is now in the court of the auditors, business people and investors to ascertain whether that would be desirable or practical. The speed of the considerations and those of Government would determine when, if and in what legislation the proposal was presented.
  Mr. Mark Hoban: I am grateful to the Minister for clarifying the statement that the Secretary of State made this morning. Could she set out more clearly whether, if industry and the professions come together and reach a consensus on how to limit liability by means of proportion, the Government will accept their conclusions, subject to their being capable of translation into law? Is it down to professions and the industry to drive the process forward? Will the Government accept their conclusions?
  Jacqui Smith: I do not believe that the Government would ever give carte blanche and simply accept conclusions without careful consideration. We would want to put our objectives at the centre of that consideration. They are that companies in this country can find and get access to suitable audit, that the audit quality continues to be driven up and that we improve the competitive position in the audit market. If it is possible for us to find a route that enables us to deal with the auditors' concerns and support could be built for it with business and the investor community, I have undertaken to consider how, when and if it could be included in legislation.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I want to cover the matter in my remarks later. However, in view of the comments from the hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban), will the Minister explain why this morning's statement contained no clear analysis of the responses that were received to the consultation process? Will she make available to hon. Members an analysis of all the responses so that we can judge whether there might be the sort of agreement to which both hon. Members referred?
  Jacqui Smith: I shall ensure that, in the next couple of
  days, an analysis of the responses to the consultation is made available to all hon. Members. It is worth saying that the option was not presented in the consultation, but it has now rightly been proposed, so we need to examine it in detail. I undertake to ensure that the analysis of the consultation is made available to all hon. Members as soon as possible.
  Company law is fundamental to our economic success. It is a large and complex subject that has developed somewhat haphazardly in the past 150 years. It has been further complicated in recent years by the
  644
  addition of European legislation on some aspects, and the task of updating and, wherever possible, simplifying that body of law has proved challenging. We are now close to completing it and we intend to restructure the law in line with the principle that we set out from the beginning: think small first. Instead of complex and detailed provisions, coupled with exemptions and relaxation for smaller companies, often hidden away in different parts of the legislation, the law will start with the basic requirements for all companies and subsequently set out any necessary additional requirements for larger companies. That will help to make the law clearer and more accessible for all, but especially for smaller companies and their advisers. It will be a valuable reform and a good example of better regulation.
  As I suggested earlier, we are working to modernise company law in the light of the recommendations of the independent company law review. We intend to publish a draft Bill for consultation and then introduce it as parliamentary time allows. We are already consulting on a key element of the modernisation proposals, namely powers to reform and restate company law so that it remains flexible and accessible to business, especially smaller companies. We have also consulted on many other elements, as did the company law review itself. Topics include directors' duties, annual general meetings and the requirement for company secretaries, and we intend to consult on a new additional element, namely the implementation of the EU takeovers directive.
  The Bill makes some important improvements, facilitating a new type of company and giving further opportunities to the social entrepreneurs who are doing so much to build new ways of providing services and doing business. In improving our audit regime and our investigations powers, it will help to maintain and improve the integrity of financial reporting, further underpinning confidence and trust in markets, with higher standards and, importantly, an effective enforcement regime for when things go wrong. It will build on the remarkable success of the company form, which is the keystone of economies throughout the world, and ensure that this country's corporate structures and regulation remain one of our key competitive advantages. I commend the Bill to the House.
  5.46 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I draw the House's attention to my interests, which are clearly laid out in the register.
  In her most interesting speech, the Minister inadvertently emphasised the fact that this is a very disappointing Bill. In opening, she referred to the joint stock company and to what Gladstone had said about it. When the Bill received its Second Reading in the other place, Lord Sainsbury, quoting a recent publication, said that the joint stock company was
  "the greatest single discovery of modern times".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 8 January 2004; Vol. 656, c. 258.]
  It is certainly true that the company has a claim on such an accolade, but it has been severely let down by this Government.
  As my hon. Friend the Member for Castle Point (Bob Spink) asked in an intervention, where is the long-promised, comprehensive and much-needed reform of

  645
  company law? Did not the distinguished men and women who made up the company law review produce and deliver their two-volume report to the Department as long ago as 2001? Why are we abusing the parliamentary timetable with this partial and emaciated little Bill? How long does she think it will be before her Department is able to secure once again parliamentary time for such matters?
  The Bill in no way provides the comprehensive, much-needed and long-promised reform of company law. Despite the Secretary of State's assertion that
  "the law needs to change. It needs to modernise and reform. It needs to be fit for the twenty-first century and beyond",
  the Government have instead chosen to amend and add yet another layer of complexity to existing company law while tackling only a very small area of reform. Despite the excellent work of the 15 members of the company law review group, the Government have failed to tackle wholesale reform as promised.
  If the Government had devoted sufficient resources following the presentation of the report in July 2001, we would not now be debating the Bill. Instead, we would be tackling a Bill that would streamline procedures for all companies, especially smaller companies, making the law clearer, more accessible and responsive to developments, strengthening trust in UK markets and its companies and developing an even more effective UK corporate law and governance regime. Instead, more than three years later, we are dealing with a Bill that cobbles together bits and pieces and adds yet another layer of complexity and confusion.
  I draw the House's attention to page 19 and clause 15, which tackles the
  "Application of provisions inserted by sections 11 and 12 to bodies appointed under section 14".
  The entire page is comprised of references to the Companies Act 1985. It does not read as prose, but as a series of numbers so complex and inter-related as to obscure the implications and meaning.
  The second key point about the Bill is equally worrying. We remain concerned that the Government have no concept of the damage excessive regulation and bureaucracy do to UK plc and of the difference between the two separate concepts of fraud and risk. As a result, Labour continues to impose burdens on business that frustrate the honest and may not much impede the dishonest.
  Where the Government are targeting fraud and wrongdoing, we will, of course, support them, but when the Bill imposes burdens on business that are little more than box ticking and that discourage entrepreneurs and entrepreneurialism, we will oppose them.
  During the recess, hon. Members may have enjoyed a series of articles about the British economy by Anatole Kaletsky. He explains how its current strength is derived from a number of reforms, made principally, it has to be said, by the last Conservative Government, but also by this Government. However, with words that the Minister would do well to heed, he warns that red tape and bureaucracy—hugely increased and promoted by this Government—are seriously damaging the British economy, saying that
  "proliferating regulation, especially employment regulation, is now probably the greatest threat to the long-term growth of living standards in Britain. Over-regulation is also a greater handicap for
  646
  exporters than the value of sterling, the scale of the consumer boom or any of the other macroeconomics 'blunders' attacked by the manufacturing lobbies. Anyone concerned about the sustainability of Britain's balance of payments should forget about the Bank of England and Gordon Brown and worry instead about the threats to Britain's export earnings from heavy-handed regulation."
  Anatole Kaletsky is entirely right.
  The Government's failures in those two areas—delivering on company law reform and understanding the damage to business caused by excessive regulation and bureaucracy—are matched in part 2 by our third major concern, which is the cack-handed way in which they are seeking to introduce the community interest company. This new legal form for charitable and not-for-profit enterprises is peculiarly tacked on to an audits and investigations Bill, rather than forming part of the long-awaited Charities Bill, which is due to come before Parliament this very autumn and is now receiving pre-legislative scrutiny.
  It would have been far better to allow the major debate on charity law reform to run its course before engaging in this minor debate on CICs. We do not even know how CICs will fit into the new regime once major reform has taken place. I commend to the Minister the opportunity to study the charitable incorporated organisations—the CIOs—planned for the Charities Bill. This is yet another example of the cart being placed before the horse.
  I have the honour to sit on the Committee of both Houses that is examining the draft charities legislation under the able chairmanship of the right hon. Member for Darlington (Mr. Milburn). I hope that we can improve the draft legislation that the Government have helpfully already published, so what a remarkable decision it is to introduce the CIC in this Bill and at this time, rather than wait until the eminently sensible discussions and consultations on the wider issues affecting charities have been concluded. This is yet another example of Government incompetence, their abuse of the House of Commons and their failure to live up to their high aspiration for joined-up government.
  Fourthly, the Bill, which was introduced in November 2003 and imposes more liabilities on directors, completely pre-empts and makes a mockery of the Government consultation exercise on auditor and director liability concluded in March this year and on which they have only this morning rushed out a statement. Thorough consultation before the drafting and publication of the Bill would have been far more appropriate and would have led, one hopes, to a more tightly and better-drafted Bill that was less in need of correction and amendment.
  As the Bill is an amalgam of leftovers and add-ons, it is very difficult to appreciate the full impact that it will have. That is particularly true of the measures designed to strengthen corporate governance and audit practice, some of which the Minister mentioned. The Bill is only the tip of the iceberg—the tip that requires legislation—but there is a great deal going on elsewhere that does not require or has not required legislation.
  Paragraph 3 of the original explanatory notes states:
  "These legislative changes…are intended to complement a package of non-legislative measures designed to strengthen corporate governance and audit practice".

  647
  The non-legislative measures are very important. They include changes to the combined code on corporate governance in July 2003 following a review by Sir Derek Higgs of the role and effectiveness of non-executive directors, Sir Robert Smith's guidance on audit committees in January 2003 and the Financial Reporting Council taking over the functions of the former Accountancy Foundation.
  No one can be in any doubt about how very complicated these issues are, and especially about how the Bill relates to the wider package of reforms and changes. We need to ensure that the parameters of these legislative provisions are appropriate, given that wider framework. A great deal remains to be done. Not only do we continue to await wholesale reform of company law, but the Government still have not tackled issues such as auditor liability. I hope to say something about that at the end of my remarks that may even be helpful to Ministers.
  In the rush to push the Bill through Parliament, the Government have produced a measure that is deeply flawed and often poorly drafted. I am particularly alarmed that so many provisions rely on secondary legislation and additional and often undetermined regulations. There are no fewer than 81 references to further or existing regulations. Even in the smaller second part of the Bill, which tackles the CICs, further regulation is required under—at the very least—clauses 27, 28, 29, 31, 32, 33, 34, 44 and 55. We are all grateful to the House of Lords, and especially to Lord Hodgson and Lord Glentoran for their thorough scrutiny of the Bill, which led to much-needed amendments and clarifications. Here, at last, we can say something more positive.
  On reading the list of amendments accepted on Report in the other place, I was relieved to see that the Government have made several concessions, which go some way to improving the legislation. About half the Government amendments were a response to points made by the Opposition during consideration of the Bill. In particular, we are pleased to see the original clause 9 replaced entirely, in response to Lord Hodgson's argument that the original wording—relating to the statement of disclosure to auditors—placed an onerous and unacceptable burden on directors.
  We remain concerned, however, that the introduction of a new clause 9 does not go far enough. Although directors are now provided with some defence, there is not sufficient distinction between the role and responsibilities of executive and non-executive directors. Under company law, all directors are considered equally responsible for the company and therefore equally liable; new clause 9 does not undermine that. However, in reality a non-executive director does not play the same role as an executive director, nor is he as well informed about the operations of the company. He must rely on his co-directors, yet the Bill fails to recognise that.
  Any person who is thinking of taking on such a role will ask themselves, "If I am going to take on this non-executive role, what are the risks involved and possible costs?" If we want to encourage good-quality people to take on those positions, we must ensure that the risk
  648
  involved does not outweigh any potential reward. As the Bill stands, the role of a non-executive director will become increasingly undesirable.
  Picking on directors or auditors may excite the juices of some Labour Members, but there are very serious issues at stake. The potential personal liability of a director of a public company is out of all proportion to any rewards he or she may receive. That simply means that good people will not come forward to serve on major public boards. We are moving towards a situation where experienced independent non-executive directors will not be willing or available to come forward just when we are all agreed that company boards should have more independent non-executives on them to promote good corporate governance.
  As Lord Hodgson said in the other place, we are nearing the point when the only qualification for being a non-executive director is to know nothing about it. I shall come to auditors later, but our argument about capping potential liability of directors remains compelling, as the Government have begun to accept in their response to the consultation document today.
  We have also made some progress in other areas. We are glad that the Government have accepted the Opposition argument that co-operation between the FRC and the accounting profession is vital, and that clause 2 has been amended to ensure that co-operation is not misconstrued as compromising the independence of arrangements under the FRC structure. The original clause ran the risk of preventing senior members of the accounting profession from sitting on the council or its board of directors, providing much needed experience and advice. We can all agree that co-operation is essential for the smooth running of the new system.
  I will not tire the House with a full list of the changes that have been secured, but it will be a relief to those thinking of setting up a CIC to learn that clause 23 of the original Bill—now clause 24—has been amended, replacing the original and vague wording with a clearer and more precise concept of the CIC and the issues surrounding charitable status. They will also find a number of amendments accepted to clause 28, which places a cap on distributions and interest, creating an asset lock relating to restrictions on distributions; distribution limits, which are now to be set according to "descriptions" of CICs, based on sector or geographical area rather than each CIC; and the removal of specific powers from the Secretary of State relating to the manner in which the regulator is to review the limits on distributions. Furthermore, greater transparency will be achieved as a result of the Government's support for an amendment to clause 32, which will require that information on directors' remuneration must be included in the annual report of any CIC.
  That is not a complete list, but I hope that it might show that the Government continue to have an open mind about other necessary amendments, on which basis I advise my right hon. and hon. Friends not to oppose this Bill on Second Reading today. I can tell the Government, however, that our position on Third Reading will depend on whether the spirit of cooperation evident on Report in the other place survives the Bill's translation to Committee and Report in this place.

  649
  I turn now to our concerns about the Bill, and it might help the Minister to consider them before they are discussed in Committee. We remain particularly concerned about six aspects.
  First, on the independent monitoring of major audits, the Bill's scope is too broad. The aim of part 1 is to reinforce faith in the auditing and investigatory regime and to protect the UK economy from the impact of a crisis similar to that experienced in the United States. The Government would have us believe that that can be achieved only by introducing the independent monitoring of audits of all listed companies—excluding the alternative investment market—and other major companies. However—this point has been made many times in the Lords, albeit with little effect on the Government—the same protection could be achieved by limiting the compass of the term "major audit" to the constituents of the FTSE 350 index, which, after all, cover 96.5 per cent. of the whole market capitalisation.
  In that way, we may avoid excessive regulation and supervision where it is not warranted, and instead focus attention and resources on the areas where an audit failure is likely to have the most significant adverse effect and impact on the economy. That is not a choice between monitoring and not monitoring, but a choice between an independent body monitoring audits of major companies and the regulatory bodies continuing to regulate the audits of other companies. As the law stands, accountancy firms have a statutory obligation to carry out company audits in accordance with the rules set down by the recognised supervisory body, and that body has a duty to monitor it. That situation will continue.
  The imposition of statutory regulation under the FRC to complement the already existing self-regulation through the recognised supervisory bodies runs the risk of creating a complicated, multi-layered regulatory system. A more cautious and limited approach would be better and would achieve very similar results.
  Secondly, on the levy, there is a considerable danger that part 1 will overburden businesses, leaving them with little hope of redress. In particular, the ability of the Secretary of State, under clause 17, to increase the levy payable, without limit, to cover the costs of the FRC could see listed companies' contributions rise inexorably. The Government have already predicted a 400 per cent. increase from £400 to at least £1,600 by 2006.
  A safeguard is necessary in the event that the current funding arrangements, which are purely voluntary, break down. The voluntary arrangements have seen the running costs of the Financial Reporting Council
  "broadly shared by Government, business, and the professional accountancy bodies",
  but there is no guarantee that the Government will continue to pay one third of the FRC's costs. They may choose, particularly in a cash-strapped year, to pass the costs on to those that pay the levy, and there will be little that anyone can do to prevent it.
  We are particularly concerned that the levy may become an onerous burden for the smaller listed companies. Irrespective of their size in terms of turnover, all listed companies, simply because they are listed, will face the exact same bill as decided by the Secretary of State. The impact, however, will not be the
  650
  same. Selecting those that will pay the levy by relying on a criterion of being listed is incredibly crude. Lord Evans of Temple Guiting assured us in the other place that it is not the Government's
  "intention to use the levy power to change this balance of funding"—[Official Report, House of Lords, 22 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. GC242.]
  He can only speak for now, however; his word is not a safeguard against the future.
  Thirdly, a wider group of people could face serious criminal penalties for failing to provide necessary information—
  Mr. Cousins: To return to the hon. Gentleman's previous point, is the implication of his remark that he would want a cap on expenditure on regulation, and that he would want to build that into the Bill? That would be a very significant step.
  Mr. Mitchell: Indeed. However, I assure the hon. Gentleman that that is not my intention. I want to see the Government committed to paying their fair share, along with the business community. They cannot in one year decide that they are not going to pay it, and leave the cost entirely to the business community as a result.
  My third point relates to the wider group of people who could face serious criminal penalties for failing to provide necessary criminal information. There is concern that the correct balance has not been struck between strengthening the auditing regime—empowering auditors and investigators—and adequately protecting those against whom the powers may be exercised. For example, the original clause 9 required directors to state that not only have they given to the auditors any relevant information, but that each and every other director of the company has also given to the auditor the information that he or she should have. Directors were not only asked to take responsibility for the actions of their colleagues but were required to state that there was no information that had not been disclosed to the company's auditors—an extraordinary requirement.
  The problem has been dealt with by the introduction of new clause 9, following several amendments sponsored by Lord Hodgson, but officers and employees of the company remain relatively at risk under clause 8. Clause 8 empowers an auditor to require a very wide range of people—under sanction of serious criminal penalties—to provide him with information, including
  "any officer or employee of the company"
  or "a subsidiary". An auditor may require information from any and every employee of the company, irrespective of their role or position.
  There is a considerable risk that employees who have not had their duties explained to them in as much detail as directors might unwittingly fail to provide information, or sufficient information, and face considerable penalties and/or fines. It is possible to imagine a scenario in which a junior employee, perhaps on the accounts team, might have access to, or handle, relevant information, and yet he or she may not fully comprehend what is required of them by the auditor or the nature of the information to which they have access. There is a distinction between having information and

  651
  having knowledge. I have in my study an encyclopaedia, but that does not mean that I have encyclopaedic knowledge.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Is not the real problem not the hypothetical one to which the hon. Gentleman refers, but that someone who does give information—such as a tea lady reporting a conversation that she has heard in the canteen between directors, which indicates that something irresponsible is going on—is effectively a whistleblower, blowing a whistle to the audit firm, and will be dismissed? That kind of person needs protection.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: I look forward to discussing those measures with the hon. Gentleman in Committee. He is dealing with exactly the same problem as me: the role and position of a junior employee not being protected in the same way as that of a director.
  Similarly, an employee may handle aspects of company accounts without realising their import.
  The Bill fails to provide adequate grounds of defence. The defence allowed to an employee of the company is that
  "it was not reasonably practicable for him to provide the required information or explanations."
  That is insufficient.
  I therefore hope that the hon. Gentleman agrees with me that the Government have agreed to give an improved level of protection for directors but not for those further down the scale. It will therefore fall to the Conservative party, as so often before in Committee, to protect and enhance the position of ordinary people, unionised or not, whom Labour has forgotten.
  Fourthly, I turn to the issue of excessive investigatory powers. Provisions contained in the Bill, particular clause 21, place only the barest of limits on investigatory powers, and may well give rise to an abuse of power. Clause 21 empowers inspectors and investigators to enter and remain on premises, considerably extending their existing powers. Previously, they had no power of entry without a search warrant.
  I am not against giving inspectors and investigators power of entry, but I am firmly against allowing them entry when they only think it will materially assist their work. The House has rightly resisted the giving of powers to investigatory officials to go on fishing trips for information, and it should certainly do so again in this case. The inspector or investigator must reasonably believe that entering and remaining on the premises will materially assist him. That is particularly vital because there is no limit to the time for which he may remain on the premises. Is he to be allowed to sit in someone's house for any length of time, just because that person carries on a business from his home? The Government must offer clear legislative protection against abuse, rather than seeking to rely on administrative law and retrospective challenge.
  My fifth point relates to compliance with the European convention on human rights. Despite Lord Sainsbury's statement, under section 19(1)(a) of the Human Rights Act 1998, that the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the convention rights, the
  652
  Government appear reluctant to enforce ECHR article 6, which concerns the right to a fair trial. We fear that the Government will not prescribe in legislation how disciplinary hearings relating to public interest cases are to be conducted. We are informed by Lord Sainsbury that the representation of all defendants is too detailed a matter to include in the Bill, and is
  "best left to the arrangements".—[Official Report, House of Lords, Grand Committee: 16 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. 33.]
  Although we accept the Government's argument that if there were no access to representation the person or body exercising the recognition function would not agree that the particular disciplinary arrangements were "appropriate", there seems no good reason not to "set in stone" the rights of the defendant.
  It must be made clear that the hearings are to comply with the rights of the defendant in accordance with the ECHR—specifically article 6—and the standards expected in a fair trial. As all parties are agreed that representation is necessary, and the Minister has stated that the Bill is compliant with the ECHR, there is no good reason why that should not be confirmed in primary legislation.
  Let me say something about CICs, which the Minister mentioned. While we support the concept of the CIC, I feel that the introduction of yet another legal form for those wishing to set up a not-for-profit body or a social enterprise is unnecessary, and is contributing to the growing confusion of the wider public and those wishing to set up such enterprises. As I mentioned earlier, it seems very strange that CICs are to be introduced ahead of the Charities Bill, which promises wholesale reform of charity law, when that Bill is only now receiving pre-legislative scrutiny. It would surely have been sensible to keep the proposals on CICs until we could see how they would fit into the new regime following the long-promised overhaul of charity law. There may even be other models that would be preferable.
  In creating ad hoc new legal forms and tacking them on to any Bill, we risk confusing and discouraging both the wider public and people wishing to set up a not-for-profit body or a social enterprise. I doubt that there is a benefit in setting up an additional special legal form for non-charitable public interest organisations. In particular, I cannot see that CICs offer any real advantage over industrial provident societies, established in 1965 and reformed partially in 2000 and 2003.
  The "distinguishing" characteristics of a CIC, outlined in paragraph 161 of the original explanatory notes, are very similar to those of industrial provident societies, established by the Industrial and Provident Societies Act 1965. In particular, the justification for CICs has focused on the provision of an asset lock, but sufficient protection already exists for industrial provident societies. The Financial Services Authority will not register a community benefit society unless it has an asset lock-in, prohibiting the distribution of assets to any person or body other than another society with an equivalent rule or a charity, in its constitution.
  The problem that a society might convert to a company and some time later reverse the asset lock-in rule in its company constitution was tackled by the Cooperatives and Community Benefit Societies Act 2003.

  653
  The Act contained an enabling provision allowing the Treasury, through secondary legislation, to make provisions to permit IPSs whose business is conducted for the benefit of the community to commit their assets permanently for that purpose—in other words, an asset lock-in—subject to appropriate safeguards and supplementary provisions, thus giving community benefit societies the option of protecting their assets in perpetuity for a public purpose. All that is set out in the regulatory impact assessment.
  Rather than introducing yet another additional form, the Government should provide the much-delayed and much-needed secondary legislation. There are problems with the industrial provident societies, but it would be far better to amend IPS legislation so that one form is flexible enough to cope with differing circumstances than to create a plethora of new forms.
  Let me now deal with an issue that has attracted a great deal of public comment—auditors' liability. This is a glaring omission from the Bill. Large audit firms are in all respects, bar one, like any other commercial business. Every other business—I can think of no exception—can either limit its liability by way of contract with its customers, or obtain insurance to cover any residual risk that cannot be limited by contract. Auditors can do neither. They are unable to limit their liability by contract, because of the terms of section 310 of the Companies Act 1985; but they are also not able to obtain insurance in the commercial market to protect them from catastrophe. There is simply no capacity in the market. In other words, we have the bizarre situation that professional men and women are being asked to take on a risk that the insurance market, with all its resources, deems to be unacceptable.
  Mr. Cousins: Does the hon. Gentleman accept two things? First, does he accept that limited liability partnerships have been introduced to protect people involved with audit firms? Secondly, does he accept that the motivation behind the exclusion clause in the 1985 Act was the fact that those who remove financial hazards create moral hazards?
  Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman is right about the creation of a new form of company, but wrong in thinking that it works in these circumstances. If he will bear with me, I hope I will be able to carry him with me.
  There are only four auditors left who can audit our largest companies. It is therefore important not only to make sure in so far as we can that those four remain, but, if possible, to encourage new entrants to make the necessary investments to take on the audits of larger companies.
  The Government recognise that the problem is a real threat to the stability of the audit profession, and indeed to the UK corporate sector. Today, they have finally responded, very negatively, to the consultation on auditors. It is widely believed that DTI Ministers understand and accept that the liability must be capped, but are being restrained from taking the necessary action by their colleagues in the Treasury. In Committee the Conservatives will table a range of amendments for the Government to choose from, so that the Government can discharge their responsibilities to the UK corporate sector.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I do not want to restrain the hon. Gentleman's headlong rush into this folly, but does he accept that most actions against auditors are pursued by the insolvency arm of the big four, which is anxious to recoup fees and other money from the auditors of another arm? Where will this end? If we cap the liability of auditors, why cannot motor manufacturers or insurance companies, or any other section of society, say, "We want our liability capped?" Why should we give so much to a group that is making enormous profits from selling other services that often produce the problem?
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman did not listen to what I said earlier, which explained precisely that point. I can think of no other group of men and women who cannot go to the market to receive insurance to cover those risks, apart from the big four audit companies. The reality of section 310 of the 1985 Act is this: if, God forfend, there is another collapse and one of the auditors goes down, there will then be only three. There will certainly be no new entrants to the market. There will be a systemic failure in the governance of our major companies, with all that that means for the corporate sector, for savers, for pensioners and for others who depend on it.
  One of our amendments—I have made it clear to the House that we will submit various amendments—in the best tradition of the deregulatory agenda championed by the Conservative party, would amend or scrap section 310 of the 1985 Act. That would allow markets to reach a conclusion and would be a deregulatory and permissive measure, subject to negotiation between willing parties. There would almost certainly be a role for the CBI and the Financial Reporting Council in bringing together all the relevant parties, and there would also be full transparency in respect of any contractual arrangements.
  There are of course other ways of limiting auditors' liabilities, but the important point is that they should no longer be unlimited. Leaving the matter to a later date, as the Government's response today envisages, increases the very real risk of one of the large firm's failing, and of consequent damage to confidence in the UK capital markets. That, in turn, would cause huge damage to savers.
  We have a lot to examine in our two days in Committee and on Report. The Bill has already benefited from some improvement in the Lords, but we remain very concerned about the Government's failure to introduce the long-promised company law review, and about the way in which CICs have been tacked on to the Bill. Those issues are small parts of what should be two major and separate Bills, and we greatly regret the Government's failure to tackle the important issue of auditor liability.
  We are committed to ensuring that the UK is the best place in the world to do business, which means achieving the correct regulatory balance. The continuing delay in the overhaul of company law will certainly not improve the UK's competitive position. As in so many other areas, this Government have lost an important opportunity and failed to measure up to the challenges before us.
  6.21 pm
  Mr. John Battle: I generally welcome the Bill and I note in passing the Opposition's willingness to see it progress to consideration in Committee, despite their having serious reservations about it. The first part deals with the organisation and regulation of auditors of companies, and the second and substantial part, which consists of clauses 24 to 61, is concerned with setting up a new form of company, known as a community interest company. CICs will build on Britain's experience of social enterprises, which provide new kinds of mutual companies that offer support, goods or services to particular groups in our communities. I welcome and look forward to the setting up of these CICs.
  The Bill could provide a new instrument to help in the economic development of communities. In talking about community development, we often miss out the crucial word "economic". Such development is central, and vital in ensuring that our communities have a future. We can talk for ever about social work in the best of all senses, but without genuine micro-economic development our communities will have no future. So I welcome the introduction of another such instrument, and in that regard I do not take quite such a dim view as the Opposition.
  I hope that CICs will not be overlooked, not least because in the other place, gladly, most Members seemed to be satisfied with the detailed provisions relating to them. I would not like this issue to die through lack of interest in the House or in Committee, or for the real potential of CICs not to be recognised outside this place. The Social Enterprise Coalition welcomes the introduction of CICs, as does the new West Yorkshire Social Enterprise School. In her introductory remarks, the Minister talked about the difficulties associated with forming companies before Gladstone's Act. I should point out that, even now, it is difficult to set up companies. It can take up to a year for even a well-developed proposal to be turned into a business proposition that gains acceptance. However, CICs would cut through that difficulty, and well-developed proposals could get through in days. Encouraging people to set up more businesses more quickly is to be warmly welcomed.
  The CIC will be used primarily by non-profit enterprises that provide benefits to the community. Such enterprises will have to define what those benefits are. Traditionally, social enterprises provide community services such as child care, housing, services for the elderly, leisure services and community transport. As we know, existing social enterprises, like traditional private businesses, are usually companies limited by guarantee and share ownership. However, the new vehicle of the CIC will enable those working specifically for the benefit of the community to do so within the relative freedom of a non-charitable organisation; they will not be limited by the restrictions of charity law. Those of us who have been involved in charity law know how constricting such restrictions can occasionally prove. At the same time, a clear assurance of non-profit distribution status will be offered.
  I should point out to the Minister that we need to spell out to people—be it in Committee or at a later stage—what non-profit distribution status will actually mean, so that they can be encouraged to join in. In order to set
  656
  up a CIC, a proposed company will have to satisfy a new community interest test. It will have to show that it will pursue purposes beneficial to the community and will not serve a restricted group of interests, so the key test will be the provision of services to the community. That could prove incredibly innovative. New kinds of services and blends of services and goods could be provided. The primary interest will not be the promoting of a trendy name for a company and the floating of a new brand in order to see how it goes; nor will it simply be a question of keeping a good idea for a business ticking over, or of providing employment for those who work for the company. The focus will be not just on jobs for paid employees, but on how the business will benefit the community.
  CICs could prove a very innovative generator of micro-businesses. I accept that they will not wipe out the residue of unemployment, but they could spark some new ideas and ways of providing goods and services in our neighbourhood communities. They will be wider in scope, but simpler and clearer, than the traditional charitable test of public benefit.
  Some immediate benefits arise from CICs. When a proposal is put together, it will be easier for other investors, supporters and public bodies to back it. In other words, it will be easier to attract funds in the first place. At the moment, there is some haziness so far as charities considering their trading options are concerned. It should also be easier to engage individual people, who will be able to become economic participants in companies in their neighbourhoods. They will be able to buy shares in a community enterprise, which is to be welcomed. Such companies will be able to act like proper companies—pay their directors, change the nature of their activities—but they will also have to meet the reporting and accounting requirements associated with being a company. That is also to be welcomed.
  In the other place, the Minister emphasised that
  "CICs should resemble other companies as far as possible in terms of the way in which company law applies to them.".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 25 March 2004; Vol. 659, c. GC354.]
  So they will still be under company law, but we need to spell out not just the legal details of how to set up a CIC; we also need to give general advice on the benefits of a CIC to a neighbourhood. For example, what would be the gain in terms of regenerating our urban neighbourhoods in particular? What are the benefits associated with blending together workers and volunteers to provide goods and services locally? The new corporate vehicle that the CIC could become should make it simpler and easier to set up a local business whose profits and assets are used for the benefit of a given neighbourhood and community. That is why the special feature of the CIC's statutory lock—as we now refer to it in technical terms—on profits and assets is important. It sends a clear signal to ordinary people who might want to buy a share that their investment is safe. They are investing in their neighbourhood not to walk away as millionaires at the end of it, but to contribute to building up the community. That is where the lock on profits and financial assets as well as the cap on dividends is such a positive attribute of the CIC.

  657
  Basically, CICs will ordinarily be prohibited from distributing any of their profits to their members and I understand that, when the CIC is wound up, its residual assets will not be distributed to its members, but will remain in the community. If I understand it rightly, the assets will be passed on either to other CICs or to other charities in the neighbourhood, so the assets will remain in the locality. That is rather different from other co-operative ventures—the provident societies and other kinds of mutuals—to which the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) referred. Locking the assets into the community provides a different feature—an insistence that the assets are reinvested locally, even if the company goes under.
  There was a debate in the other place about the implications of charity law and charities, but we do not need to get bogged down by it. We need clarity and to be able to give good advice about what non-profit distribution status actually entails. Already some charities providing services that budget from month to month or hand to mouth are looking into the trading possibilities. They need to be clear about what the new option actually means. I know that there are further proposals to reform charity law, but we do not need to wait for them. I believe that we can get this vehicle up and running in the meantime.
  A letter from the charity commissioners supporting the Government's approach was quoted in the other place and is worth repeating. The letter said:
  "It is not always clear-cut when a particular form of object is charitable or not. That is, perhaps, particularly so in the area of social enterprise where many CICs are likely to operate, and where ideas as to what should, and should not, be regarded as charitable are evolving. Our understanding is that there is a demand for a form of company where the promoters can be certain that, notwithstanding the public interest element, the company will not fall within the framework of charity regulation."
  It is the freedom there that is important, without getting bogged down in the constraints of charity law. That is what we should focus on and emphasise at this point. I particularly underline the word "evolving" in that letter. I have dealt with charity law for many years, so I know that it has been evolving and I hope that it will continue to evolve, as will the nature of businesses, social enterprises and community businesses. It is right and proper to move forward and not hold back in the vain hope that we can fix all the law so that businesses will fall into line to suit the needs of the people in the future. It will not happen that way round.
  We therefore need rather more clarity about the status of a community interest company. It is not a charity, so a donation to a CIC will not attract tax relief, to give a practical example, whereas a donation to a charitable trust of which a CIC is a trustee will be eligible for relief. Those issues are important for people who deal with charitable status and they must have clarity at an early stage, so that they know whether to move into CICs or even whether to take an interest in them rather than be frightened off by them. If we do not provide more clarity about the relationship between CICs and the difference between them and charities, it might put people off.
  Transferring existing companies into CICs or setting up CICs for charities requires particular clarity in respect of the financial benefits. We must be able to spell out what it means when a CIC is established for a
  658
  charitable purpose without being a charity, as it states in the Bill, so that ordinary people who want to set up businesses are not frightened off by feeling that they are going into a morass of charity law or an enmeshing argument between business law and charity law. I want people to be enthusiastic, to see the benefits simple and clear and to move forward to have a go. We need the new legal entity to be as simple and as uncomplicated as possible so that it is clearly understood not only by people in communities that might get engaged in these companies, but—dare I add—by banks and other businesses that will deal with them and will also want to know that the rules of the game are clear. Let us remember that it is a new option for organisations seeking a flexible form that will not be restricted by traditional charitable status, so it should be of benefit to communities.
  As said in the other place, we should not see the new CICs—I am already falling into the acronym for community interest companies—as a brand for all social or co-operative ventures or mutuals. It is another form within that family, which we should experiment with and support. The difference in the Bill between the non-profit distribution service and charitable status benefits needs spelling out rather more clearly.
  I have already said that there was a debate in the other place about the difference between a community interest company and a charity, particularly the benefits or otherwise of charitable status. That relates to tax reliefs, mandatory reliefs and all the rest of it. The noble Lord Sainsbury spelled out that clause 23 is in the Bill to ensure a clear distinction between the new type of company and charities, but I have to say, in all honesty, that I do not fully understand the distinction. I doubt whether it has the practical clarity that he claimed for it. However, I understand and accept the intention to regard the CIC as a new instrument rather than simply a revision of charity law that will arrive later with the forthcoming Charities Bill. CICs should be regarded as an alternative or a new model that we should experiment with. They will be able to trade and behave in enterprising ways as other businesses do.
  My main point is that while it is right to focus on the regulation and the legal framework of the CIC, that should not overshadow encouraging people to set them up. I am in favour of making use of this new instrument and encouraging more people to set up new businesses—not the opposite. I do not want people to be warned or frightened off. There is almost a tendency to discuss getting the disposal of a CIC's assets right before convincing anyone that they should try to set one up. I welcome the establishment of a regulator and the forthcoming detailed regulations, but at this stage we should be advertising the benefits to convince people to have a go.
  My constituency of Leeds, West is a sort of pizza slice coming out from the city centre towards Bradford and the ring road. It is on the south-west of the city and, amazingly, if we examine the structure of cities in Britain, we find that small businesses often cluster in the south-west corners. The heavy industry tends to be, for some reason, on the eastern side of cities. In my neighbourhoods of Armley, Kirkstall, Wortley, Farnley, Burley and Bramley, there are more than 400 small businesses, most of which employ fewer than 10 people. I was surprised to discover how many small

  659
  businesses and family firms—some going back more than 100 years—have been based there. One or two have moved out nationally, but there could be an entrepreneurial gene in the water in west Leeds, which we should encourage and build on. We want more businesses to come forward.
  At the same time as small businesses are developing, the needs of the people are increasing, particularly in respect of care for the elderly, the sick and the young. We have good voluntary bodies working locally—whether it be Bramley elderly action, Armley helping hands, the Burley 2000 or the Farnley elderly group—but I see no reason at all why new mutual forms of business cannot be engaged in all that, particularly in view of the community focus. The introduction of Sure Start projects in Bramley and Burley is welcome, and a healthy living project supplements the work of the new primary care trust, but much more remains to be done, especially in the provision of caring services. Help is needed with shopping and gardening, and with the provision of nurseries and play services. I see no reason why that cannot be part of the structure of businesses formed through CICs.
  The decline of local family shops has led to units in community shopping parades being boarded up, but people still need fresh food, healthy eating options and even farmers markets. Where there is little in the way of entertainment for local people, the provision of cinemas, theatres and music venues could be part of the new initiative.
  Mr. Cousins: Jazz clubs.
  Mr. Battle: My hon. Friend suggests that jazz clubs could be provided, and I know that he is a great jazz fan. I see no reason why entertainment and leisure provision should not be part of the new companies' remit. A micro-economy is developed through the local provision of services and goods. New forms of social enterprise can meet local needs, and new community economic development can serve as the focus for the work of community development and rebuilding. In turn, that will lead to local people being trained in new skills. People will therefore remain in the community because they enjoy living there, as a result of having the access to the same services and goods as are available elsewhere.
  A recent report from the London Business School entitled "Social Entrepreneurship Monitor UK 2004" found that 7 per cent. of the UK population was engaged in some form of community work or social entrepreneurial activity. That is a start, but the figure is still far too low if we want to think about regenerating urban neighbourhoods. In the past, social enterprises that use business tools and techniques have resulted in co-operatives and housing associations being set up. Café Direct and The Big Issue are examples of that, but most social enterprise has been focused around London, as the LBS study found. I suggest that it needs to be spread around the country.
  We need more of it in west Yorkshire and in my neighbourhood. We must encourage people to have a go, and we will not do that if we do not sell the ideas
  660
  behind CICs. If people take on this new interest, the development of micro-businesses could be assisted. What is more, they could open up some innovative space and provide to their communities new goods and services that have not previously been thought of. That entrepreneurial imagination would be most welcome.
  There remains a need for quality jobs and training and for businesses to provide goods and services. That is certainly true in my constituency, but the provision must happen within a fully sustainable economy so that we can move into the future with some stability.
  I am enthusiastic about CICs and believe that they will have a role to play in the community economic development of the future. However, I urge the Minister to ensure that we get the solid legal framework right in our discussions in this Chamber and in Standing Committee. I hope that she and the Government will take a more proactive role in encouraging and supporting the development and growth of CICs, as soon as the Bill becomes law.
  6.43 pm
  Brian Cotter: Thomas Edison, the famous inventor, once said that opportunity is missed by most people because it is dressed in overalls and looks like work. When it comes to the question of reforming company law, I would certainly not accuse the Government of being workshy. An enormous amount of consultation has already been completed in this area, yet various proposals are still waiting to be enacted.
  Thus, for whatever reason, this Bill represents a major missed opportunity to carry out the extensive reform and simplification of the law that is so desperately needed. That point that was made eloquently by my noble Friend Lord Sharman in the other place when he criticised the Government for nibbling away at the edges of company law reform. My noble Friend mentioned the Enterprise Act 2002, which dealt with questions of bankruptcy and insolvency, but now we have this Bill, which devotes 17 clauses to the reform of regulation, five to improving company investigations, and 37 to establishing community interest companies.
  But what about other matters that have yet to be addressed? We still await draft regulations to require companies to produce an annual operating and financial review. This continued piecemeal approach to company law is causing immense frustration. Last month, Eric Anstee, the chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants told the Financial Times that, without action on both auditor and director liability, the initiative by the Department of Trade and Industry on the OFR was "doomed to failure."
  I now turn to this morning's statement announcing the Government's approach to director and auditor liability. I shall come to auditors later, but I give one cheer to the announcement that companies will be allowed to indemnify directors in terms of legal costs. That is a step forward, but will the Minister explain why the Government rejected the proposal from the Institute of Directors to cap director liability?
  The prospect for company directors is therefore bleak and, for the near future, it is evident that they will have no choice but to continue wading through successive

  661
  layers of company law many of which have become unfathomable as a result of continual change and amendment.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, if we are to cap the obligations of company directors, chief executives and the like, we should also cap their salaries? Their salaries can be raised to quite obscene levels, and the people involved use their positions to control and decide them.
  Brian Cotter: The hon. Gentleman raises a matter that is of great concern. The way salaries have been raised is absolutely appalling, but I do not think that problem falls within ambit of this Bill.
  A written ministerial statement made by the Secretary of State on 26 May 2004 announced new proposals to try and deal with this problem, promising the introduction of
  "new types of legislative power enabling company law in future to be amended by a special form of secondary legislation".
  That would make it easier to keep company law updated over time. The Secretary of State assures us that these new powers will be
  introduced as part of the major new Companies Bill…as soon as Parliamentary time allows."—[Official Report, 26 May 2004; Vol. 421, c. 78W.]
  Yet here we are in the meantime scrutinising another companies Bill. On behalf of all the company directors who are currently frustrated by the plethora of company law regulations, the first thing I ask the Minister is how much longer they will have to wait for the major reform and simplification that is promised.
  Although the Bill is a missed opportunity, it still has merits that the Liberal Democrats wish to support—as do those who sit on the Conservative Benches. The first part of the Bill aims to improve public confidence in companies and financial markets by strengthening the system of regulating auditors, tightening up the enforcement of accounting and reporting requirements, and strengthening the company investigations regime.
  That is very welcome in light of the recent Enron and Parmalat cases, and others, and I know that my noble friend Lord Sharman was able to offer his expertise to strengthen the Bill further, in respect of the provisions relating to auditing and investigations. Indeed, he has applied his expertise so rigorously that we are relatively content with this part of the Bill.
  We are all aware, as a result of what has been written in the pages of the Financial Times, of the arguments that have been raging between the Treasury and the DTI about whether a cap should be introduced to limit auditor liability. We found out today who won that particular argument.
  The Liberal Democrat party is concerned to ensure that the free market should be allowed to operate in this area. We currently have a unique situation in which statutory intervention will not allow an auditor and a company freely to negotiate the liability to be borne by either party. We know that auditors, lawyers and the business community have questioned the Office of Fair Trading's conclusion that a cap on liability would be competitively neutral and that they have claimed that the OFT's report is flawed.
  662
  At face value, those claims carry some weight. In Germany, where a cap is in existence, 67 of the top 300 quoted companies are audited outside the big four auditing firms, and the story is similar in countries such as Greece and Austria. In the UK, in contrast, all the FTSE 100 companies, and 248 of the FTSE 250 companies, are audited by the big four firms. Are the Government satisfied that these competition points were adequately addressed by the OFT? If agreement is reached, will the Secretary of State consider a legislative timetable in relation to auditors' liability so that we can look forward to legislation early next year?
  Does the Minister further accept that confidence is dented if the OFT gets so wrong the availability of personal indemnity insurance for auditors? In the statement issued earlier, the Secretary of State said that the Government would look closely at the option of proportionate liability by contract. We welcome that. It would ensure that auditors paid for their mistakes in an equitable way, which would, I think, carry the support of businesses and the auditing profession. I ask the Minister to clarify two points. First, what is the timetable for looking at proportionate liability by contract? Secondly, will the right hon. Lady make a commitment the effect that if agreement is reached between auditors, investors and business, the Government will quickly legislate to allow proportionate liability by contract?
  Mr. Cousins: In his apparent support for the idea of a contractual limiting of auditor liability between the auditor and the company, does the hon. Gentleman conceive of possible collusive relationships that might be built up?
  Brian Cotter: Yes. That is why we need a lot more consultation to arrive at the solutions we need. We certainly need a way forward.
  The second part of the Bill introduces the community interest company, which is a new type of company whose profits and assets will be used for the public good. The Minister quite rightly applauded that sector, and I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) who promoted CICs through his very constructive speech. For many years, we as a party were leaders in the co-operative field, and we therefore support community interest companies very much. When we reach Committee stage, I hope to deal with the important issues that the right hon. Gentleman raised. I shall certainly look at the Bill with renewed interest to ensure that it contains every encouragement for community interest companies to be effective and to provide a route for economic progress in many parts of the country. I have met a number of people involved in community interests of one sort or another—the right hon. Gentleman mentioned cinemas, but there are many others. I welcome the Government's saying that they will progress that part of the Bill.
  We have historically welcomed such things. Indeed, we argued that the Government's long-promised companies Bill should be used to create a public benefit organisation structure, which is very much in sympathy with the aim of the community interest companies that are now being proposed. However, we still have some concerns about the nature of the new companies. In the other place, Lord Phillips of Sudbury was able to use his

  663
  expertise in the legal and charitable sectors to argue that the Bill should not prevent charities from choosing to become community interest companies, which is what seems to be being proposed. As he said,
  "the law of charity has been distinguished by being a function of purpose and not a form or format."—[Official Report, House of Lords, 7 July 2003; Vol. 663, c. 848.]
  That principle has given charities maximum choice in allowing them to determine whichever form best allows them to carry out their work. The Bill represents the first step away from that flexibility. Although opinion is somewhat divided on the issue, we feel that there is an important point to which we shall return in Committee.
  Corporate governance is an area in which the general public increasingly look to companies to demonstrate high standards. Indeed, we would hope for high standards when it comes to remuneration and just returns as shareholders and stakeholders. My friends in the other place, Lord Sharman and Lord Razzall, attempted to mitigate the slow progress towards reporting details of social and environmental performance by tabling an amendment requiring the Secretary of State to publish standards in order to guide companies further in that respect. That may be an issue to which we will wish to return, as it is an important one. I have been involved in small business all my life, and when I came back to big business after many years of non-involvement, I was quite concerned about the lack of transparency.
  There is another issue of corporate governance relating to larger companies dealing with smaller suppliers. In particular, there is the issue of late payment of debt, an ongoing bugbear for British small firms, which according to some estimates are owed up to £20 billion by larger companies in payment for services and goods provided. The Federation of Small Business estimates that one in four business failures are as a result of cash-flow problems caused by the late payment of commercial debt. I very much supported the Bill on late payment brought in by the Government, and the FSB and the Forum of Private Business were instrumental in helping me and others to do our best to ensure that it was placed on the statute book. Clearly, there is a major problem, and despite the introduction of legislation allowing businesses to claim statutory interest on any overdue invoice, the situation has not improved as much as we had hoped. Further action is needed to tackle the culture of late payment.
  At least five pieces of independent research confirming that have been published since January. A Bank of Scotland survey this month found that almost half of small businesses had been forced to take legal action against late or non-paying ones. The FSB payment performance tables in April showed no improvement in the amount of time it takes plcs to settle their commercial bills. The latest survey, published in July by Experion, suggested that the amount of time it takes companies to settle their bills has risen to its highest level since 1998, which is very worrying. Unless the Government encourage and actively help the largest companies to lead by example, we will never achieve the culture change that is needed to eliminate the late payment that continues to plague Britain's small businesses.
  664
  Sadly, the Government are failing to lead by example, as my hon. Friend the Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) illustrated when he revealed this week that the Treasury is one of the worst culprits when it comes to late payment of bills. The Forum of Private Business has been particularly assiduous in pressing the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs to release the money that it still owes many foot and mouth contractors for work carried out during the crisis some three and a half years ago. It is hardly surprising that many large businesses still fail to pay small suppliers on time.
  Trying to identify in advance whether a large company is likely to pay on time is near impossible for small businesses. Under the Companies Act 1985, UK plcs are required to publish details of their payment performances in their annual accounts. Yet when the FSB was conducting research for its payment performance league tables, it was unable to find that information for 57 of the FTSE 100 companies. Following an investigation at my request, Companies House confirmed that all the companies had published the details, but the problem is that there are no standard requirements for reporting payment performance. The job of finding the information is rather like hunting for the proverbial needle in the haystack. Following my inquiries, Companies House admitted that it had taken
  "a considerable amount of time to examine each set of accounts"
  to check whether the companies had made the required disclosure. Clearly, there is a problem there. If Companies House cannot easily identify the information, how on earth is a small business person who lacks the necessary resources supposed to identify it?
  I hope that the Government will take the issue seriously. Liberal Democrats, the Government and others are committed to the measure, but there are clearly problems with the way in which it works. If a business cannot access a company's payment performance record, how can it make an informed decision about whether to enter into a contract to supply that company? Given that the law was introduced to help small firms, we must ensure that it does so effectively.
  Having addressed that point, let me say that I hope we can make progress on the Bill in Committee to ensure that small business and others have transparent information available based on strict and clear guidelines on what firms should include in their records. As Companies House has difficulty in listing the information, perhaps we can do something to clarify that situation. I look forward to addressing that issue and others in Committee.
  7.2 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I am surprised that the spokespeople for the two Opposition parties are so overwhelmingly favourable to the big four. It is an interesting revelation. They are both sycophantically grovelling at the feet of the big four, but it is no use: we have been so kind to the big four that they are probably about to affiliate to the Labour party, so there is no hope of attracting their support.
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) gave us the views of unregenerate accountants, greedy and irresponsible chief executives and indolent non-

  665
  executives—three small minorities in the business community—and erected them into an ideology for the Conservative party. Indeed, the longer he spoke, the more favourable I became to the Bill, which I did not favour in the first place. Having given that panegyric on the big four and that astonishing rant against a mild an innocuous Bill, he has given me the opportunity to welcome it. The measure is long overdue and has the potential for being improved in Committee. I know that there are doubts about the Whips' enthusiasm for putting critics on Committees, but I hope to contribute to those debates to produce an effective system of regulation of the business community. That is the strongest praise I will give the Bill, so I put it at the head of my speech.
  I want to deal primarily with part 1. It follows a long period of delay and obfuscation by the Department of Trade and Industry, which over the years has acted as the protector, friend and, alarmingly, sometimes the spokesperson for the big four. The DTI stands in awe of them. It must be frustrating for civil servants to have to put the views of the big four when they get much lower salaries than the partners of the big four, but that is the reality: hear no evil, see no evil, speak no evil.
  The measure goes back a long way. In 1992, my hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) and I, along with our advisor, Professor Prem Sikka, persuaded the then Opposition spokesperson on trade and industry, Mo Mowlam, to include in the manifesto a provision for the independent regulation of accountancy, like the Securities and Exchange Commission. In 1997, independent regulation of accountancy appeared in Labour's business manifesto and stayed there all those years, which is quite an achievement given the transformation that took place. However, when we sent our ritual delegations to the DTI to ask when we were getting the independent regulation, we were told, "Oh no. Sorry. There's no time for the independent regulation that we promised in the business manifesto. What we're going to do is create a foundation based on the Swinson report", which was a means of avoiding independent regulation. The Department would have put that foundation on top of the 23 other bodies responsible for regulating accountancy and auditing—a cherry on top of the pie. Lovely.
  We were told there was no time for legislation and that the foundation would do the job, but the Bill effectively kills off the foundation, which in reality was stillborn. It achieved nothing and was a waste of seven years. The big four, however, decided that that was not enough. They wanted limited liability partnerships, which they set about achieving by buying legislation in Jersey. They drew up legislation, which Jersey passed. That clearly concentrated the mind of the Government. Indeed, the senior partner of Ernst and Young said:
  "It was the work that Ernst & Young and Price Waterhouse undertook with the Jersey government"—
  they actually took over the job of the Jersey Government—
  "that concentrated the mind of UK ministers on the structure of professional partnerships… The idea that two of the biggest accountancy firms plus, conceivably, legal, architectural and engineering and other partnerships, might take flight and register offshore looked like a real threat…I have no doubt whatsoever that ourselves and Price Waterhouse drove it onto the government's agenda because of the Jersey idea".
  666
  By threatening to go to Jersey and getting limited liability partnerships past their Government, the big four forced the hand of our Government who, having told us that there was no time to legislate for independent regulation, immediately rushed through limited liability partnerships.
  The big four now want us to move a stage further. We are told that they want us to cap their liability. It appears from the report that I received that the Minister told the Institute of Chartered Accountants conference in July that the DTI would cap their liability. We are confused about what will happen and I want to encourage the Minister not to go ahead with that disastrous idea or anything like it. It is not simply that the European Union Commissioner, the American Government, the Office of Fair Trading and the institutional investors—all minor, unimportant people—are against it, but that it is daft. We could have a dual system, as the Americans do. They have a day-tripper auditor—an external auditor—plus the Federal Reserve audit of all financial institutions, which could be handled by the Financial Services Authority here.
  We are told that there is an issue of competition. In that case, why were all the mergers of the big accountancy houses allowed? If competition is now so restricted that we have to revive it and encourage it by capping liability, why did we allow the mergers in the first place? It seems a little illogical. We could introduce competition by using other sources of audit. Why should not the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise or the National Audit Office do audits? Why should not financial service groups such as Virgin or Marks and Spencer's financial services do audits? Either widen the competition or, having encouraged the concentration, break up the big four so that we get real competition.
  Most of the claims against auditors come from the insolvency arms of other big accountancy houses. The problem is self-perpetuating. The inflated figures that have been bandied around to create shock and horror take no account of the fact that the principle of contributory negligence was introduced in 1993. Deloitte used that in the Barings case to get a fine of £150 million reduced to £1.5 million on the basis that its negligence was only contributory.
  We also have to think of the knock-on effect on other sectors and industries. It is all very well for the Opposition to say that other firms can get insurance cover against their failures, but they might not want to because it becomes expensive. So why not cap their liabilities, as has been suggested for accountants? If we do it for one sector, we shall have to do it for others. It is ludicrous to argue that we would not because the companies can get insurance cover, because there is no guarantee that that will be maintained.
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: With the greatest respect, the hon. Gentleman is talking absolute nonsense. People might not like the cost of getting insurance, but insurance is available for them in the market, if they choose to take it. Can he name any other group in society that is in the position of the auditors, which simply cannot get insurance but are expected to take on the liability?
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Speaking from a higher level of nonsense than the hon. Gentleman, let me say that there is no need for it, because the claims are enormously exaggerated and hypothetical. In addition, the firms have not tried to get insurance cover, so we do not know whether they could get it; in any case, insurance cover could be arranged. There is no need to cap liability. Why should one sector, comprising the incompetent auditor, the failed auditor, and the auditor who has cut corners, be protected from the consequences of its failure? If the auditors' liability is capped and the public have no right to sue, why should the public not demand compensation from the Government who applied capping? Capping will lead to all sorts of legal complications, of which the hon. Gentleman took no account.
  Perhaps we should give up on the proposal. I am sorry to say that, because my right hon. Friend the Minister for Industry and the Regions, who spoke well today, has received us courteously and always listens to our arguments. However, I remember that when F. E. Smith claimed that something that he had said in the House of Commons had shocked the world, moved the Hottentots and frightened the Eskimos, the concluding line of Chesterton's poetic response was was, "Chuck it, Smith!" The same applies to limited liability, capping and the rest of my right hon. Friend's proposals for the big four.
  The Bill is the product of a review conducted by interested parties dominated by business and accountancy interests, and spatchcocked into it is our response to Enron, Global Crossing, Tyco International, Parmalat and all the other scandals. We have had our own share of scandals, including the Versailles accident group, Wickes, Slug and Lettuce—I am not sure which of them failed—Wiggins and Shell, as well as the endowment mortgage scandal, personal pension failures and Equitable Life. It is time that something was done to prevent further problems, but the pressure for action arose from the scandals in the USA. It is interesting to compare what happened in this country with what happened in America when both were faced with similar scandals and similar potential for business fraud.
  In the United States, the independent regulator had the strength and the independence to take powerful action—"perps walked," as they say in the USA. In this country, if they walked, they walked off to Switzerland or to the south of France with their retirement benefits. In the USA, fines ran into billions of dollars; here, they were pathetic in relation to the income of the accountancy houses. Even a company the size of Shell received only a small fine. In contrast, in the United States Andersens was closed down within five months, after the authorities launched criminal actions against it in respect of the frauds that had been carried out. In addition, 250 chief executives were prosecuted, at least 25 of whom were convicted and imprisoned, such is the strength of the sanctions available in the USA.
  All big four accountancy houses are now being pursued for various infringements by federal or state authorities—a study of auditing practices at PricewaterhouseCoopers revealed 8,000 violations of rules and ethics by that one firm in a single month, such is the scale of invigilation in the United States. Ten banks were charged in connection with fraudulent research, and 350 companies were forced to restate their
  668
  accounts. Ernst and Young was banned from new audit business for a year, the judge in that case saying that the company had shown no regard for the rules, for professional ethics or for morality.
  That is the treatment meted out by independent regulators in the United States to the big four accountancy houses—multinationals operating in this country as well. What happened in this country? Our first reaction resembled
  "going around the country stirring up apathy,"
  as Lord Whitelaw put it. It was to say that what happened in the US could not happen here—there was no problem. The British Government even lobbied for exemption for British multinationals from the Sarbanes-Oxley legislation. I had the pleasure of meeting Senator Sarbanes last year and I introduced myself as a British MP. He leapt back, saying "No!" When I asked him why, he said, "You are the latest in a long line of Brits and British companies who have come to me to ask for exemption from Sarbanes-Oxley. Well, you're not going to get it!" He is a good man who got through good legislation—earlier, my hon. Friends and I agreed that in this country, Senator Sarbanes would have been a member of the old Labour party. It is incredible that the British lobbied for exemption on the grounds that our accountants were better regulated, our standards higher and our accountants more honourable.
  The proposals in the Bill are weak. The Financial Reporting Council will now dance to a different tune and will be an independent regulator—one of 23 remaining regulators, not including the DTI. That will simply add to the confusion. No ombudsman is provided for appeals at the end of the process. Let us consider what the effect of the Bill would be on the type of scandal experienced in Britain and the United States.
  Four problems are common to all the big corporations that have been affected by scandals and, in some cases, collapsed because of them. First, corporate power is concentrated in too few hands—the classic example is the case of Robert Maxwell, where corporate power was focused entirely on him. The Bill contains no proposal to prevent such concentration of power in the hands of a few overweening individuals, who are able to serve their own greedy purposes, set their own salaries and rewards, and milk the companies like Lord Black milked Hollinger. The Bill contains no proposal for two-tier boards, which are an effective form of protection against concentration of power that enables one individual who is paid according to the company's profitability to hike profits by using creative accountancy in collusion with the accountants, thus enabling that individual to pay himself more and milk the company uncontrolled.
  The second common characteristic of such companies is that they have ineffective audit committees. Traditionally, such committees often comprise non-executive directors who are the directors' golf club pals, or the chief executive's mates. They hold too many non-executive directorships and do not bother themselves with getting to grips with the affairs of any one company, because they are waiting for the Rolls to collect them and take them to another board meeting at another company that has a different set of problems. They do not have time to focus on the issues. The Bill makes no provision for representation on audit

  669
  committees of stakeholders—people who invest their lives in the companies—or for election of the audit committee.
  The third characteristic common to the companies in question is that they all had extremely complex structures, which resulted in extremely opaque accounts. No one knew what was going on. No outside assessor was able to deal firmly with the accounts or to obtain a clear picture of what was going—on usually because so many transactions were channelled through tax havens and companies in other jurisdictions that no one could trace the money. Most FTSE 250 companies use tax havens and channel money through overseas companies to obscure their accounts. It has become a classic technique for News International because as most of its profits pass through companies in other jurisdictions, it does not pay tax here to any extent and its accounts cannot be effectively audited. Virgin does the same thing, but it restructures every couple of years, so no one can work out a clear trail of where the money has gone, the companies through which it has passed, who has done what and who has responsibility for it. Nothing in the Bill will stop that practice because it cannot be traced.
  We cannot control transfer pricing, transfers of capital or companies' activities if we do not know what is going on and, indeed, we cannot stop off-balance-sheet accounting. Private finance initiative projects in this country are financed by that practice, but the Americans have just banned it. Cable and Wireless indulges in hollow swaps with other telecommunications companies and treats debts as investments, which is the basis of the finance of British Nuclear Fuels Ltd., in which the Government are the only major shareholder. Capitalising interest is the basis of the finance of British Energy. All the practices that brought down American companies are available here. They are authorised by accountants and used by companies whose accounts are opaque and kept that way.
  The fourth common factor of such corporations is the longevity of their relationships with auditors. It is all very well for the Minister to tell us about rotating partners, but Maxwell's relationship with Coopers and Lybrand was so long standing that the partners must have rotated several times. However, that did not change Coopers' deference to Maxwell because it wanted to keep its other business.
  We must tackle the key problem that auditors are deferential because they make more than 70 per cent. of their money from selling other services to audit clients, but the Bill does nothing about that. Auditors are deferential because they want to sell more business. Ernst and Young has established a $4 million contract in the United States for cleaning lavatories. Accountancy firms will sell any services to audit clients to make a buck, but that creates a collusive and damaging relationship in which auditors authorise practices that they should not and treat things that are dodgy as safe without drawing public attention to the fact.
  The most telling quote about the problem comes from the senior audit partner of Coopers who was responsible for the Maxwell audit. He told his audit team:
  "The first requirement is to continue to be at the beck and call of RM"—
  670
  I give hon. Members three guesses at who RM is—
  "his sons and staff, appear when wanted and provide whatever is required".
  The senior audit partner told his team that it was its job to jump when Maxwell wanted it to jump and to do whatever Maxwell wanted. Dependent relationships produce such practice and the situation has not changed—rotating partners will not change it. It might be changed only if new auditors are brought in and the sale of other services to audit clients is banned—that is the key problem. The Government have not done that. Although they are holding a consultation on what should and should not be sold, only a total ban will work.
  A classic example of why the rotation of individual auditors in a company will not work comes from Andersen. Carl Bass, one of its auditors, began to have doubts about Enron's accounting practices in 1999. He voiced them to Andersen, but the firm did not say, "More power to you! Keep at it and we'll stop this." It simply moved him on to another account, thus getting rid of the man and the inconvenience.
  The sale of other services makes for complacent auditing, so the practice should be stopped. The Bill does not address such matters, so although it could be improved, it represents a lost opportunity. I could have understood that happening if the Bill had been introduced in 1997 because we were learning the job then, but we have now had seven years' experience of such practices and we have not done enough about them. The Financial Reporting Council will not be able to do much either. I tabled a question about the council and found that since 1991, it has required only 14 companies to restate their accounts, although some 350 companies were required to do that over six months in the United States. Only two such cases occurred in 2002, and two in 2003. The council is statute based, which I want, but it is insufficiently independent because it is made up of representatives of the big four and other corporate interests that dominate the scene and work with them and because it has no ombudsman. We could devise a more effective way of dealing with the problem—I hope that the amendments that I will move in Committee will do that—than such comparatively weak and inadequate measures.
  I am not impugning the integrity of auditors. We need audit because it represents the police force of capitalism. We need accurate reports and information for markets, shareholders and stakeholders. We must have good audit and if that costs more, the charge must be paid. No market can work without the accurate and honest information that is provided by independent auditors who are not brought into a collusive relationship with the companies that they audit.
  I look forward to a co-operative relationship with Ministers who will serve on the Committee on the amendments that I have in mind to improve and strengthen the Bill, which I welcome. I hope that my critical remarks about the DTI's relationship with the big four will not affect my impetuous enthusiasm to work with it for a better Bill.
  7.27 pm
  Mr. Mark Hoban:I rise with some trepidation because I am probably the only person in the Chamber who has worked for one of the big four firms

  671
  that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) called into disrepute. I am a non-practising chartered accountant, and I want to focus my speech on auditors' liability.
  The Minister was right to stand firm against the siren voices of her colleagues, especially the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, who called for more detailed regulations and rules on aspects of audit firms' operations, because a rules-driven approach has been shown not to work in certain jurisdictions. The principles that underlie UK accounting standards, rather than the rules-driven approach that underpinned US practice, explain why we have managed to avoid the great corporate collapses experienced in the States over recent years. It is important to stand behind the principle-driven approach on regulation and accounting.
  Having said that, it is a great shame that the Bill has not been used to limit auditors' liability by setting up rules for proportionate liability or capping the liabilities faced by audit firms—different approaches to tackling liability that, I suspect, would have different consequences for the market for audit services. It is especially disappointing that this morning's written ministerial statement used the cover of the Office of Fair Trading report as a reason not to proceed with limiting liability through the Bill. The report has come in for a fair bit of criticism from not only the accountancy profession but independent commentators, due to its relative merits, the time scale in which it was completed and its lack of a thorough investigation of the market. I hope that the Government will support and encourage the consultation process to which the Minister referred in her speech and the Secretary of State referred in the written statement so that the issue will not continue to fester for years to come.
  Limitation of liability is a problem for auditors for two reasons. First, the legal position is that an auditor held responsible with other parties for the loss suffered by a company, no matter how minimal its role in that loss, is liable as a consequence of joint and several liability to pick up the whole loss. People often sue audit firms because they believe that they have deep pockets. The hon. Member for Great Grimsby highlighted the fact that insolvency practitioners pursue firms of auditors to recover losses suffered by creditors and shareholders. It is right and proper for them to do so, as they have a duty to maximise the amounts that they secure for creditors. Sometimes, however, auditors are seen as an easy target, compared with directors, who may not have the resources of accountancy firms.
  Secondly, limitation of liability is a pressing issue because of the financial risk to which my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell) referred. Large firms of auditors may be unable to secure sufficient insurance cover for the financial risks that they face as a consequence of claims. If cover is not in place firms are exposed to the danger of a catastrophic loss, leading to the collapse of the business. That also acts as a barrier to other audit firms that may wish to enter the market for large audit clients—a point to which I shall return. As well lacking access to insurance cover an audit firm, by virtue of being a people business and a partnership, may lack ready access to capital. A big four
  672
  firm may have a £1 billion turnover in fees, but its net assets are a quarter of that sum. A successful claim against such a company could lead to its collapse.
  We need to think carefully about the consequences of not implementing limitation of liability. Audit firms will continue to tighten their client acceptance and retention procedures, which determine whether or not they take on or retain a client. When I worked for an audit firm, there was a distinct tightening of risk management. Audit firms are focusing much more on risk in a range of different areas, especially client acceptance and retention. In recent years, their procedures for doing so have become more rigorous, and as the risks faced by auditors increase as a result of the growing size and complexity of their client companies, they will adopt an even more rigorous approach to client acceptance. Auditors will look more carefully at high-risk factors and companies, and decide whether or not they want to be exposed to the risk that such companies bring. They may start to show the independence that the hon. Member for Great Grimsby wanted them to show by turning such clients away. That process could start if limitation of liability is not implemented.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: Does the hon. Gentleman think that that careful scrutiny of clients is more common than the widespread practice of low-balling—putting in a low bid to get the audit contract? We have heard several examples of things that firms have done to get their foot in the door and get the contract, so that they can sell other services. However, they have to reduce the quality of the audit, perhaps by using unsupervised and untrained staff, and cut corners so that the audit meets the cost given in their bid.
  Mr. Hoban: The hon. Gentleman's intervention demonstrates the weakness of his case, as he tends to overstate the extent of low-balling and collusion. In her written statement today, the Secretary of State referred to the reputation of audit firms, which they know they risk if they produce poor quality audits. The value that they place on their reputation stops them cutting corners and risking the quality of their audit work. In overstating his case, the hon. Gentleman does himself an injustice, as earlier he made a powerful argument about problems that need to be tackled.
  There is a risk that some clients will be turned away and will not find an auditor to audit their accounts. At the weekend, one newspaper referred to the prospect of companies in the financial services sector being unable to find an auditor, which would create a serious risk for capital markets and shareholders. Auditors must engage in a debate about the financial risks that they are prepared to accept when taking on clients and the extent of their financial exposure. Reluctance to limit auditors' liability could also restrict the work that they do. In the past few years, as I saw when I was in the profession, more and more information has been included in company accounts. In addition to financial data, there are reports on corporate governance, internal controls and, as was said earlier, operating financial reviews. Much of that information is non-financial and is not audited. Auditors are required only to give a true and fair opinion of financial statements, so a large part of the accounts that shareholders receive includes information that the auditor has not looked at. I looked at a copy of

  673
  an audit report earlier today, and the auditors clearly differentiate between their work to test the accuracy and integrity of financial accounts and their work on non-financial data. They do not pass comment on the quality of a company's systems, on which the directors themselves report. They do not say whether those controls are adequate or inadequate—they simply say that a board has published a statement, and do not comment on the effectiveness of corporate governance or risk and control procedures.
  I should have thought, however, that many investors would like the auditors to comment on those internal controls and corporate governance procedures. The risk to which audit firms would be exposed if they made such a report restricts to the minimum the scope of the comfort that they can give. If we want better-quality information to be given to shareholders, and if it is to be validated and verified by accountancy firms, we must look at their liability, and decide whether we want to restrict it to enable auditors to undertake more services of genuine value to investors and shareholders. The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) referred to the comments of the chief executive of the Institute of Chartered Accountants, Eric Anstee, who said:
  "A fair liability regime encourages more transparent corporate reporting and enables auditors to exercise professional judgment on matters that go beyond the statutory audit requirements."
  That is a valid point—if the Government want auditors to comment on the operating financial review and non-financial data and accounts, they must look at the liability faced by auditors in producing such work and consider whether they should restrict it to enable them to provide much greater assurances.
  Another consequence of a failure to tackle limitation of liability in the Bill is a restriction of the number of firms willing or able to audit large companies. I became an accountant in the mid 1980s, when I joined a big eight firm. Those firms have now been reduced to the big four, which, as has been said, dominate the market for large audits, auditing every single FTSE 100 company and 97 per cent. of FTSE 250 companies. A catastrophic claim against one of the big four could restrict those firms to the big three. It could be argued that that creates an opportunity for someone to enter the market and pick up audit work, but under current conditions that is not possible, as Steve Edmonds of Grant Thornton pointed out:
  "The OFT's report has not addressed the consequences of the marketplace if another Big Four firm were forced to seek protection from enormous professional indemnity claims. Were the Big Four reduced to a 'big three', it is highly unlikely that Grant Thornton or another mid-tier firm would seek to take the place of the former Big Four member in such a risk segment of the audit market."
  Eric Anstee said of middle-tier firms:
  "These firms wrote to the DTI at the time of the original consultation indicating they wished to audit larger public companies but were reluctant to do so either because they could not get insurance or because the potential exposure was too great."
  There we have it. If we are looking to support the existing structure of the market or to support competition between audit firms, we need to reconsider the limitation of liability for audit firms. If we wish to move away from the big four and encourage middle-tier
  674
  firms to audit larger clients, we need to limit liability for their sake, to reduce their exposure. Comments have already been made about the much greater dilution of power in some of the overseas markets where there is already limitation of liability. In Germany and Austria a larger number of companies are audited outside the big four because those smaller firms feel confident, given the existence of the cap on liability.
  The principal argument against the limitation of liability is the concept of moral hazard—that if we start to restrict the liability of auditors, they will reduce the standard of their work and, in the words of the hon. Member for Great Grimsby, cut corners. I am not sure that that would happen. I have done work that was subject to unlimited and limited liability, and I do not believe that my standard of professionalism dropped between different types of assignment. One tackles all assignments with the same degree of care and the same sense of the importance of one's work for the firm's reputation.
  The Government have made a mistake by trying to kick the issue of limiting auditors' liability into the long grass. By setting up an open-ended consultation process and by not tackling the issue in the Bill, they are creating the potential for a further concentration of the audit market down to the big three, and a situation where audit firms will turn away clients whom they consider to be too great a risk for them to bear. That will lead to a restriction in the type of work that audit firms will consider. I hope that the Government will take advantage of a short Committee stage to think again and take some positive action to tackle the issue of auditors' liability.
  7.42 pm
  Mr. Jim Cousins:I intend to be extremely brief, so I shall do nothing other than comment on the part of the Bill that refers to the creation of community interest companies, except to say that I thoroughly support the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) in his excellent exposition of the case for such companies and the service that might be provided by them. I shall not dwell too long on aspects of the Bill that I wholeheartedly support, such as the creation of new rights for auditors to demand papers and to demand replies of the companies and services that they audit. That is extremely sensible.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) draws to the attention of the House the problem of the new grandees of our economic life—the big four accountancy firms. The Bill does not address that issue. It is one thing for a Parliament to decide that it does not wish to address some matter. It is another thing for a Parliament to give the impression that it is happy and satisfied with the matter. Of course, Parliament and Government have important relationships with the big four accountancy firms. More than £100 million in the past three years was commissioned in contracts by Government Departments. That does not include the cost of the beginnings of the implementation of the identity card scheme by the Home Office, which has been placed by one of the big four accountancy firms, nor does it include the Department of Health, for the remarkable

  675
  reason that the Department of Health cannot tell us the extent of its contracts with the big four accountancy firms, which is not good news.
  For that reason, I share with my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby great concern about the connection between audit and non-audit services. We should recognise that the value of non-audit services now far exceeds the value of audit services. That offers the possibility that audit services become a loss leader to attract non-audit business. It is true, as my right hon. Friend the Minister set out, that it is open to the Auditing Practices Board to lay down guidance and rules about limitations on audit and non-audit services, but that would mean Parliament farming out its duties to another body. I regret the fact that the Minister did not offer any guidance to the Auditing Practices Board on how it should seek to exercise its powers in that respect.
  The House should recognise that it is no longer its own master with regard to these issues. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act—the new regulatory legislation in the United States—will apply to a great many British companies if they list and are quoted on American stock exchanges. Parliament cannot simply pass such matters over to some other body. It would be entirely wrong for Parliament to leave these issues to be determined by the US Congress. When we see in the American legislation that, for example, audit firms are banned from outsourcing internal audit functions, it is hard to say that that is not right. When we see that the American legislation bans audit firms from supplying investment broking services to the companies that they are auditing, it is hard to say that that is wrong, or that we would not want to consider that for our own legislation.
  The Minister said that tax advice was not part of the limitations of the American legislation, and that audit firms can carry out tax advice as part of their non-audit services to the same firms. That is true, of course, but she did not tell us that that was one of the most hotly contested issues in Congress, and that many in Congress bitterly regretted the fact that there would be no ban on tax advice being given by firms that were supplying audit services to the same companies.
  The Minister also did not tell us that those in Congress who wanted passionately to see that limitation introduced were successful in requiring that audit firms that offered tax advice should have the specific approval of the audit committee for the tax advice that they were giving, issue by issue, contract by contract. These issues are being raised in the US Congress and put into American legislation, and they will apply to UK companies, yet Parliament expresses no view about them. What an incentive, what an encouragement to all the proactive prosecutors in the United States to take their revenge on our companies for our failure as a Parliament to address the same and similar issues.
  What a pity, too, that we have offered no guidance to the financial reporting review panel on what duties it should regard itself as having. The Bill increases the panel's powers and allows the Inland Revenue to talk to it. That is good, but we have not provided any guidance on what duties we see the panel carrying out or how it should report to Parliament or the outside world. We have left the impression that those activities are simply
  676
  the property of a small collection of key stakeholders and that they are not a matter of public interest and public debate. That omission is important, and British companies will pay a heavy price for it at the hands of prosecutors in other jurisdictions.
  On a cap on audit liability, the Companies Act 1985, which has already been referred to, specifically provided that no cap on auditor liability should be introduced. That was not an oversight, because Parliament considered the matter in 1985 and decided that it did not want to go down that route. Why did the 1985 Act provide that no cap on auditor liability should be introduced? It was because Parliament sought to strike a balance between financial and moral hazard—by increasing financial hazard, moral hazard is reduced, which provides the need for regulation.
  If Opposition Members who want to remove the cap on auditor liability go down that path, they will change the debate, and the issue of Parliament itself providing statutory regulation for the resulting moral hazard issues will be on table. I invite them to consider that the shift is not one way—if they shift the debate in that way, they will shift it in other ways, too.
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: The same point applies to limited liability partnerships. If the liability of one particular partner is reduced, the tendency for all partners to invigilate each other in order to protect the whole firm's reputation diminishes, which weakens corporate strength in the big accountancy houses.
  Mr. Cousins: When Parliament conceded limited liability partnership legislation and provided the framework, it was a great shame that it did not also address the inevitable issues concerning regulation. That was a failure, but in politics it is pointless to dwell on battles lost, because one is likely to lose current battles. I simply say that we should not compound that mistake.
  I welcome this morning's statement by the Department of Trade and Industry. When I asked my right hon. Friend the Minister whether the closure of the issue of a cap on auditor liability applies to this Bill, however, I did not get a clear answer. I wonder whether the Government will return to that issue during the passage of the Bill, and I therefore need to make the point that such a return would be unacceptable to many Labour Members.
  I do not regard allowing a system of contractual limitation of liability agreed between companies and their auditors, which was outlined and suggested in this morning's statement, as a comfortable or satisfactory way in which to proceed, because it opens the way for collusive relationships between auditors and those whom they audit, the prevention of which is a company audit's entire purpose.
  I am extremely concerned about those issues. I will not dwell on them now, but I remind the House that if it fails to grasp them, it will not kick them into touch, but it will leave British companies wide open to legislation in other jurisdictions, such as the United States of America. On the strength of tonight's debate, the land of the brave and the home of the free is more courageous than this House on the regulation of enterprise and auditors.
  7.55 pm
  Mr. Andrew Mitchell: With the leave of the House, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Given the nature of the subject, the debate has been interesting. With regard to my contributions, I hope that the Minister feels that there is no party political division on much that we have discussed. We both paid tribute to the good work that has been done in the other place on reforming the Bill and I pay tribute to the way in which the Government have listened to the Opposition and framed a number of their amendments around our concerns.
  Broad strategic agreement exists on both sides of the House about where we want to go. I say to the hon. Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) that I agree with their desire to ensure that the law punishes wickedness and holds to account people who do not behave as they should.
  I shall make a couple of points about this morning's statement and I hope that the Minister will comment on them in her winding-up speech. On directors' liability, we must consider her remarks carefully, but, on the face of it, the measure looks rational and hopeful, in so far as it goes. I am sure that we will return to that point in Committee when the Minister tables her amendments, which she kindly says that she will make available to the Opposition parties.
  Will the Minister explain why her Department has decided that capping for auditors is wrong, but that capping of directors' liabilities to protect them from third-party claims is right? Does she intend that companies that make such arrangements with their directors should get their shareholders to approve them?
  Why have the goalposts been moved on auditor liability? In the consultation document, the Government refer to their determination to ensure that a "competitive market is maintained". In today's statement, they say that they want to see "significantly enhanced competition". How does the Minister think that enhanced competition and new entrants into the market can be achieved while maintaining unlimited and uncapped liability?
  The Minister has kindly said that she will ensure that Opposition parties receive an analysis of the responses to the consultation process. However, the vast majority of respondents said that action was urgently needed, and most respondents, including the Association of British Insurers and Hermes, favoured some form of proportionality. How can hon. Members form a proper view without seeing an analysis of the views that were received? What possible justification can there be for further delay? More than three years ago, the company law review recommended that serious action should be taken, and the Minister's Department must take the necessary action.
  The right hon. Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) spoke with his usual passion and commitment—his credentials are very strong too—about the charity sector. Conservative Members agree with his point about the need to support such community enterprises. Our reservation, with which I think he will agree, is that the structure that he described is confusing.
  The right hon. Gentleman rightly pointed out that the failure to introduce secondary legislation to deal with the lock-in in the industrial provident society legislation
  678
  is extremely important. This Bill introduces the community interest company and the draft Charities Bill introduces the community interest organisation. I venture to suggest to the House that the CIO will be successful, but I suspect that the CIC will be much more challenged in meeting the objectives that the right hon. Gentleman set out for it and that Conservative Members fear that it may well not meet. I share his enthusiasms; I hope that he shares my reservations on the nature of the format.
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) largely agrees with Conservative Members on the nature of the Bill. He wants its remit to be extended significantly, not least to deal with the vexed subject of late payment. I have no doubt that we can explore that in Committee.
  The hon. Member for Great Grimsby, whose accusations against international capitalism are far too hot for me to handle, inveighed against indolent non-executives, overpaid chief executives, fat cats, friends of the big four, and—rightly—Robert Maxwell, a former member of his party. The hon. Gentleman described the audit partner's relationship with that company, which he and I can agree was an absolute scandal.
  In relation to clause 8, the hon. Gentleman said that he is anxious to protect those people who were forgotten by the Government in the Lords. I look forward to tabling what might come to he known as the Mitchell amendment in Committee to deal precisely with the point that we both raised in that respect.
  From the vantage point of expertise, my hon. Friend the Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban) made a wise speech in which he stressed that in every other business sphere, a business man or woman can limit their liability either by contract with their customers or by obtaining insurance. He flagged up the real danger that a major company might not be able to secure an auditor. We want a fair liability regime, and that is what we should be working towards.
  The hon. Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central talked about the danger of collusive relationships in the sphere of auditor activity. He is right: that is precisely why the legislation—not that passed in 1985, but much earlier in the last century—sought to deal with the issue of collusive relationships between companies and their auditors. I wish to propose in Committee a relationship that deals with the serious issues that I discussed in my opening speech—one that does not fall into the moral hazard that was suggested by the hon. Members for Great Grimsby and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central, but that tackles it in the interests of a competitive market where many of the abuses about which the hon. Member for Great Grimsby is so concerned would be dealt with.
  Conservative Members are not prescriptive, but we strongly believe that the Government must measure up to their responsibilities to the corporate sector and come up with a proposal for handling the problem. We will try to table the widest possible range of amendments to deal with that. We do not have the resources that the Minister has, with her fine body of civil servants, and if our drafting is defective we will of course defer to her, but we hope to carry her on this point. Something needs to be done, and we will come up with some ideas that we hope will find favour.

  679
  We are concerned about three aspects of the Bill. The first relates to its diminutive status. The Government have missed the opportunity to address the excellent work done by the 15 members of the company law review, which has been on the Minister's desk since the middle of 2001. We are disappointed that the DTI has not taken this opportunity to bring forward that much-needed legislation.
  Secondly, we are worried by the Government's failure to understand the effect of this level of regulation in terms of stifling initiative and entrepreneurialism. It used to be high tax that killed off enterprise in this country; now, the spirit of enterprise is being strangled by red tape, regulation and bureaucracy. The Government must have a care to ensure that they do not allow that to persist.
  Thirdly, on the community interest company, we are worried that the Bill as it stands will not meet the aspirations expressed by the right hon. Member for Leeds, West. We hope that we can improve the situation by probing and questioning the nature of the CIC with the Minister in Committee.
  As the Minister knows, we are concerned about directors' liability, although we will look carefully at what she said today. We are concerned about auditor liability and about the difference between directors and non-executive directors, with all the risks and dangers for our system of corporate governance that result. We are worried about the levy and seek assurances from the Government on that. We are worried about the extent of the independent monitoring of major audits and fear that it may be excessive. We want to protect the rights of the individual, about which this House has always been concerned, in relation to excessive investigatory powers. We want to reassure the citizen that the powers that we give to officials and enforcement authorities are really necessary.
  Conservative Members do not wish to divide the House tonight. We hope that the spirit of co-operation shown by Government Front Benchers on Report in the Lords will persist in Committee and on Report here. On that note, I rest our case.
  8.5 pm
  Jacqui Smith: With the leave of the House, Madam Deputy Speaker.
  We have had a useful debate that was probably more interesting than some people thought that it was going to be, although it ranged a little wider than the Bill. I am pleased that the House has had the opportunity to devote some attention to the subject of company law. Companies are an essential feature of our lives and it is crucial that we do not leave this area solely as the preserve of specialist lawyers—or even accountants, notwithstanding the very good speech by the hon. Member for Fareham (Mr. Hoban).
  I want to respond to some of the issues that hon. Members raised, but we will return to some of the more detailed points in Committee. Several Members asked about the progress that we are making on the company law review. As I said in my introduction, we are the Government who undertook that review, which spelled out the comprehensive nature of the reform that is
  680
  necessary. Let me be clear that we are working on and will make proposals that will enhance shareholder engagement, foster a long-term investment culture, help to ensure better regulation, enshrine the principles of "think small first", make it easier to set up and run a company, and ensure that the law remains flexible for the future.
  As the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) said, we have already started our consultation on the new powers to reform and restate company law. Taking forward that detailed work is no small task, but we will ensure that we get it right by drawing on expertise in business and elsewhere to help us. We will legislate as soon as parliamentary time allows and publish a draft Bill beforehand to allow for further full consultation.
  Several hon. Members referred to the operating and financial review, which represents an important opportunity to develop the information that is available to shareholders and the market and to enhance financial statements to allow much broader discussion and analysis of the business. We consulted widely on that. The consultation closed on 6 August, and we received more than 130 responses. We will soon introduce regulations to ensure that we make progress on that important aspect.
  Interestingly, almost all hon. Members commented on audit liability. The voices of the hon. Members for Sutton Coldfield (Mr. Mitchell), for Fareham and for Weston-super-Mare, on one side of the House, and of my hon. Friends the Members for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central (Mr. Cousins) on the other, identified the difficult challenges involved in taking that matter forward.
  I am somewhat averse to calling the hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield a Johnny-come-lately to this issue, but not so averse that I will not. It was this Government who undertook the review that led to the changes that brought in limited liability partnerships, and this Government who undertook the consultation to which we have received several detailed responses. Although some respondents will have asked for confidentiality, I will ensure that those responses that we can make available are placed in the Library. Subsequently and rightly, we asked the Office of Fair Trading to consider the competitive impact of proposals for a cap on auditor liability. Let me reiterate our objectives for progress on that: to ensure access to high quality audit provision for our businesses; to ensure that we continue to drive up the quality of the audit; and to ensure competition in the audit market. I believe that I am—dare I say it—the voice of reason in the discussion. We shall keep the objectives at the centre of our consideration.
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State made clear in the statement, we will not ignore the advice of the independent OFT, which has made clear its view that the proposals for a cap on auditor liability as proposed in the consultation may be competitively neutral. However, we shall consider seriously ideas for limiting liability proportionately by contract. As I said earlier, the challenge is for us all, including auditors, investors and business, to come together to ascertain whether that would work, whether it would be desirable and whether it would deliver the objectives that I outlined.

  681
  The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield mentioned directors' liability. Our objective is to maintain the necessary pool of expertise to direct our businesses. He asked some specific questions. He asked why we were changing that law but not the law on auditor liability. As I said earlier, changes should be considered on their merits. There is stronger and clearer consensus that the need for reform is more urgent in respect of director liability and greater agreement exists on the proposed reforms, which are not a cap on directors' liability but provide the ability for businesses to indemnify some of the costs that might confront directors when facing action.
  On shareholder approval, the proposals will provide shareholders with information. They will not require prior shareholder approval specifically because we do not propose a cap on liability in the way in which the hon. Gentleman expected.
  The hon. Gentleman criticised us both for not taking action quickly enough and for bringing forward action on community interest companies in advance of the Charities Bill and the proposals for a charitable incorporated organisation. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West (Mr. Battle) ably pointed out, the introduction of the community interest company is an important part of the Government's programme for support for social enterprise and will complement the other available options. Work is well advanced on it and many community and social enterprises will benefit from its introduction. It is therefore right to take that forward.
  Charitable incorporated organisations come from a different direction, although both they and community interest companies were recommended by the strategy unit and both were supported in consultation. As my right hon. Friend said, although charitable incorporated organisations provide some of the restrictions, they come from the charity sector and are therefore subject to some of the restrictions of charity law, whereas community interest companies come from the enterprise end, take the form of a company and therefore do not have some of the restrictions but bring with them other responsibilities. There is a distinction between the two and it is therefore logical to bring forward community interest companies in a way that will help to promote social enterprise and create many of the benefits that my right hon. Friend rightly identified.
  The benefits include communities' ability to develop not only socially but economically, therefore facilitating the establishment of the asset lock and ensuring that entrepreneurs do not need to reinvent the wheel when determining an asset lock. The hon. Member for Sutton Coldfield appeared to suggest that they should have to do that on each occasion. We believe that the measure will help us to help entrepreneurs and to develop the social enterprise sector.
  I agree with my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, West that we need clarity about non-profit distribution and to encourage and support growth. I hope that we can discuss in Committee, and when we consider the Department's action to promote social enterprise, how we can ensure that we not only put in place the legal framework but that CICs deliver the benefits for our communities and our economy that he ably spelt out.
  682
  The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare mentioned, among other things, late payment. It is a serious issue, albeit outside the Bill's remit. Of course, the Government are aware of the problems that late payment causes small firms in particular. That is why, as he pointed out, we legislated on that basis. We shall study his remarks carefully and are always open to suggestions to help smaller businesses and encourage enterprise.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby continued his crusade, possibly against auditors and accountants, although he claimed to recognise the important role that auditors play. I look forward slightly to the time when the comments of one A. Mitchell are confused with the comments of the other A. Mitchell.
  My hon. Friend made several important points. I agreed with some and disagreed with others. He mentioned competition among the big four auditors. I have already mentioned competition in the context of auditor liability. The OFT reviewed the competitive position of the big four in 2002. It concluded that the market for audit and accountancy is highly concentrated and announced its intention to keep that under review. In addition, the European Commission has announced that it intends to progress such work. We do not disagree about the importance of competition in the market for audit, but we possibly disagree about how we get there.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend's comments about the nature of the regulatory structure. The Bill makes the regulatory structure more independent and coherent. The new financial reporting council will be a more effective regulator with the four clear responsibilities that I set out.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Newcastle upon Tyne, Central was worried about whether we had abrogated our responsibility to the Auditing Practices Board on how to frame standards. The co-ordinating group on accounting and audit, which was not dominated by professional interests but made up of Government regulatory bodies and independent experts, gave much attention to precisely the sort of standards that my hon. Friend mentioned. The Auditing Practices Board has made constant reference to that report. There has also been the report by Sir Robert Smith on audit committees and the European Commission recommendations have been borne in mind. There has been considerable input, including considerable independent and lay input, into the progress that needs to be made in developing audit standards.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby mentioned the enforcement of financial reporting requirements and suggested that we had not strengthened them sufficiently. The Bill strengthens the role of the financial reporting and review panel in three important ways. Clause 14 allows it to consider interim as well as annual accounts. Clause 12 grants the panel the power to require information so that it no longer relies on voluntary co-operation and opens an information gateway to enable the Inland Revenue to notify the panel in the course of its normal business when it becomes aware of instances of mis-accounting.

  683
  On top of that—this does not need the Bill; it is already happening—the panel is taking a more proactive approach to the scrutiny of accounts. That is important in turning the spotlight on to accounts to ensure that they maintain the high standards that we expect.
  A general theme outlined by some of my hon. Friends is that this package of measures does not go far enough to improve audit independence and quality. I repeat my contention that the UK system of core principles and safeguards has already proved itself to be more effective than an American-style set of rules and prohibitions. We are putting in place a whole range of measures to address auditor independence. As a result of that, the co-ordinating group report deals with the problems from various angles—those of the auditor, the company and the oversight body. That is why there will be tougher ethical standards on independence and objectivity and they will be binding on the profession. That is why the standards setter, the Auditing Practices Board, will be independent of the professional accountancy bodies. That is why the new standards will require audit partners to be rotated more frequently and will introduce a two-year cooling-off period before an auditor can be employed by a client.
  Firms themselves will ensure that there is a much stronger role for the company's audit committee. Clause 7 builds on that by increasing the transparency of the non-audit services provided to permit the market itself to decide when the company audit relationship may be inappropriate. When the legislative and non-legislative measures are taken together with the independent body that is being set up through the FRC, they will provide a UK approach as well as a strong and independent approach to ensuring the quality of audit that we all want.
  Whether as Governments, businesses, investors or individuals, we all have a role and a responsibility in taking forward the strengthening of the environment within which businesses operate in the UK. I strongly believe that the UK continues to offer an attractive environment for companies to operate in. It is an environment in which our regulation does not overly burden businesses and in which change is driven forward by consultation and mutually agreed solutions. This enables investors and markets to prosper, enterprise to thrive, communities to develop and jobs to be created in the knowledge that a secure supporting structure is in place that is flexible enough to respond to the concerns as they arise.
  That approach is taken forward in this carefully targeted Bill. It responds to important issues that have been raised in the context of company law. It contains the legal changes identified as priorities in the light of Enron and similar scandals, and it contains measures to promote the creation and development of social enterprises that can bring significant benefits to local communities and more widely.
  On Third Reading in another place, one of the Opposition spokesmen said that
  "we now have a Bill that is workable and will be of great benefit".—[Official Report, House of Lords, 14 July 2004; Vol. 663, c. 1297.]
  684
  I cannot put it better myself. I commend the Bill to the House.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read a Second time, and committed to a Standing Committee, pursuant to Standing Order No. 63 (Committal of Bills).

  COMPANIES (AUDIT INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE) BILL [LORDS] [MONEY]
  Queen's recommendation having been signified—
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills),
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the payment out of money provided by Parliament of any expenses of the Secretary of State under that Act.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMPANIES (AUDIT INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE) BILL [LORDS] [WAYS AND MEANS]
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 52(1)(a) (Money resolutions and ways and means resolutions in connection with Bills,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise—
  (a) provisions enabling a levy to be imposed on bodies or persons specified, or of a description specified, in regulations for the purpose of meeting expenses incurred (or treated as incurred) by a grant-aided body within the meaning of those provisions, and
  (b) the payment of sums into the Consolidated Fund.—[Joan Ryan.]
  Question agreed to.

  COMPANIES (AUDIT, INVESTIGATIONS AND COMMUNITY ENTERPRISE) BILL [LORDS]
  Ordered,
  That, during proceedings on the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill [Lords], the Standing Committee on the Bill shall have leave to sit twice on the first day on which it shall meet.—[Joan Ryan.]

  HEALTH
  Ordered,
  That Mr Paul Burstow be discharged from the Health Committee and Mrs Patsy Calton he added.—[Mr. Bob Ainsworth.]

PETITIONS

  Antennae
  8.24 pm
  Bob Spink:As you know, Madam Deputy Speaker, from debates, petitions and late nights, I have been campaigning for more controls on mobile phone and other masts for some years. The

  685
  rights of communication companies to put masts where they want with total impunity with respect to the views of residents must end. We must listen to local people's views and need a policy that empowers local people to control and protect their own environment. We must take the precautionary approach to the possible health impact of antennae.
  To add yet another six antennae to a mast in a residential area that already has 30 or so would be lunacy until we are sure that the cumulative effect of all that radiation from those masts going into people's homes will not harm them and their children. I encourage Castle Point borough council to throw out the application in the way that the petition requests.
  The petition states:
  To the honourable the Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland in Parliament assembled.
  The humble petition of Mr. and Mrs. Pownall, Jeff Stanley and concerned residents of Castle Point sheweth
  That there is strong opposition to the proposed installation of the six antennae, six equipment cabins and a feeder gantry to the existing mast at the NTL transmitting station, EDF Energy Substation at Rayleigh Road Thundersley as this will adversely affect the character of the area and street scene and, most importantly, will increase the serious potential health risks to residents and especially to children, particularly since there is no firm evidence that such equipment does not pose an increased health risk and that therefore the long term health risks are unknown.
  Wherefore your petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Castle Point Borough Council to reject the planning application CPT/572/04/FUL.
  And your Petitioners, as in duty bound, will ever pray, etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Scottish Regiments
  8.26 pm
  Mr. Peter Duncan:The future of my constituency's local regiment is close to the hearts of the people of Dumfries and Galloway. For its future to be in doubt is simply unbelievable. The King's Own Scottish Borderers have served with valour across the globe for generations while providing a local source of opportunity for our region's young people. For the Government to suggest massive cuts in our armed forces now is sheer folly. These are the same troops who are ready to serve in the dispute and conflict zones across the world and who provided a vital resource during the foot and mouth outbreak.
  The petition reads:
  To the House of Commons
  The Petition of residents of Dumfries and Galloway and others,
  Declares that the distinct and historic Scottish regiments, including the King's Own Scottish Borderers, have served with distinction over generations; and that any change to the structure of the regiments would severely weaken their valuable links with the local community.
  The Petitioners therefore request that the House of Commons urge the Government to reverse its plans to abolish the Scottish regiments.
  And the Petitioners remain. etc.
  To lie upon the Table.

  Wartime Civilian Prisoners (Far East)
  Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Joan Ryan.]
  8.27 pm
  Mr. Andrew Dismore: This debate's full title is "Compensation for former civilian prisoners of the Japanese in the Second World War". Perhaps a better title would have referred to lack of compensation for former civilian prisoners, because that is really the theme of the debate.
  I became involved in this issue at the instigation of some constituents—two families in particular—to whom I shall refer later. Little did I know when I began to put their cases forward that I would end up as chair of the far east prisoners of war all-party group, and to some degree spearheading a campaign that I know has support from all quarters of the House.
  The historical background is pretty well known. After the attack on Pearl Harbour on 7 December 1941, the Japanese invaded east and south-east Asia and many British nationals were captured: 50,000 members of the British armed forces were taken prisoner and an unknown number of civilians interned. The conditions in which they were held were appalling; their treatment was utterly cruel. One in four prisoners of war died in captivity at the hands of the Japanese. Of course, many films and television dramas have been produced and many books written, but none can accurately or fairly reflect the absolute horror experienced by our fellow citizens over 60 years ago.
  In 1951, a peace treaty with the Japanese was concluded at San Francisco, which made arrangements, among other things, to pay compensation. A pittance was made available—£76 10s, in old money, for military prisoners of war and £48 10s for civilian internees. To qualify for that scheme, one had to be a British national over the age of 21 on 8 December 1941, normally resident in the United Kingdom before internment, and to have returned to the UK before an application for compensation was made. Approximately 8,500 civilians received compensation under those arrangements.
  Of course, many more were left out, and subsequently efforts were made to persuade the Japanese to provide additional compensation—so far, and I think for the foreseeable future, fruitlessly. The Japanese simply would not reopen the issue; they claimed that the matter had been settled under the 1951 treaty. The attitude of the Japanese can be compared very unfavourably with that of Germany, which has for example reopened the issue of compensation to holocaust survivors. A significant effort has been made to provide proper restitution in respect of assets seized from families who died in the holocaust and to provide compensation as a result.
  Over the years, successive Governments here have been lobbied on the issue by the Royal British Legion and, more recently, on behalf of the Association of British Civilian Internees, Far East Region—commonly known as ABCIFER. I pay tribute to the efforts of its chairman, Ron Bridge AFC, and his predecessor, Keith Martin, for their persistency and consistency in putting forward their case.

  687
  After so many years, this Labour Government acted. On 6 November 2000, a scheme was announced. A statement was made to the House on 7 November by my hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie), then Minister for Veterans, who said that the Prime Minister
  "initiated a reconsideration of the long-standing policy…towards …far eastern prisoners…as a result of the review, the Government have decided to make a single ex gratia payment of £10,000 to each of the surviving members of the British groups who were held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war, in recognition of the unique circumstances of their captivity. In cases in which a person who would have been entitled to the payment has died, the surviving spouse will be entitled to receive it instead."
  My hon. Friend continued:
  "We estimate that up to 16,700 people may be eligible for the ex gratia payments, which will accordingly cost up to £167 million to make."
  He concluded by saying that
  "the country owes a debt of honour to them. I hope that I am speaking for everyone…
  —am sure he was—
  "when I say that today something concrete has been done to recognise that debt."—[Official Report, 7 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 159–60.]
  I thought, on behalf of my constituents, that we had finally cracked it and got a result. I was very pleased by the announcement and I even issued a press release for my local newspaper:
  "This is something on which I have campaigned since I was elected to Parliament. I am delighted that Labour has put right this longstanding injustice…It is a timely reminder in the run-up to Remembrance Sunday of the suffering endured by those held in captivity in Japan under the most brutal of conditions. I hope this payment will go some way to making life a little easier for the survivors."
  Hindsight shows that I spoke a little too soon, although that is not to say that the scheme has not been successful. It has been very successful. There have been 8,430 payments to former prisoners of war, 1,882 payments to former internees and 12,973 payments to spouses of deceased prisoners or internees, which is a total of 23,285 awards. However, that is 6,500 more than originally expected.
  The original estimate was based on figures from the Royal British Legion of 6,500 POWs and 6,500 widows of POWs, and from ABCIFER, on behalf of the civilian internees, of 2,500, which provided for a range of 2,100 to 3,000 survivors. It did not make an estimate of the number of widows.
  ABCIFER's figure was actuarially calculated, based on the original Japanese statistics relating to the numbers they held, and it has proved remarkably accurate in that there were 2,922 claims on behalf of the civilians, taking into account those that were rejected for reasons other than that for which we are here tonight. Unfortunately, that for service personnel was significantly underestimated. That is why I say that the scheme has not been an unqualified success. Initially, the Gurkhas were excluded, but in November 2003, they were accepted after they brought a case to the courts, over race discrimination, on the basis that they should
  688
  have been paid out. I am pleased to say that the Government accepted the findings of the court and agreed to include them.
  My main concern relates to the excluded civilian internees, whose suspicion is that the rules were changed when, owing to the number of cases, the cost turned out to be higher than expected. That is the real issue at the heart of this debate: the introduction, it appears ex post facto, of the qualification known as the blood link.
  The original claim form, published in November 2000, came out soon after the announcement. I have a copy of it with me, along with the explanatory notes. It states:
  "This leaflet describes the new scheme that will be administered by the War Pensions Agency…and explains how to make a claim. Who can claim the ex-gratia payment?…(d)—
  I will not list those categories that are not relevant—
  "surviving British civilians who were interned by the Japanese in the Far East during the Second World War; and (e) the surviving widow or widower of a person who would otherwise have been entitled… providing they were still married at the time of death."
  There is no reference in the explanatory notes, or on the claim form, to the place of birth of the claimant, the claimant's parents, or the claimant's grandparents. On the face of it, there is no reason why there should be, because the assumption, based on the original statement in the House, was that if one was British enough to be interned by the Japanese in those appalling conditions, one was British enough to receive compensation.
  The nationality rules at the time of the second world war were that a person inhabiting a colony or dominion of the Crown was British, independent of whether they or their parents or grandparents had been born in the United Kingdom. They became a British subject when the colony was annexed, or having moved there and become naturalised, or having been born there. That is under the British Nationality and Status of Aliens Act 1914. There was a single and equal status of British subject throughout the United Kingdom and dominions. Such persons were entitled to a passport issued by the Crown describing them as British subjects. They owed an allegiance to the Crown. They had the right of abode in the United Kingdom and throughout the Crown colonies.
  Claims were being processed pretty rapidly after that initial announcement in November 2000. By 1 February 2001, some 14,000 payments had been made. By March 2001, however, ABCIFER started to realise that some claims were being unexpectedly rejected, and it took that up with the Government. On 21 March 2001, the interdepartmental working group, which had been involved in producing the scheme, decided to restrict the scheme to claimants born in the United Kingdom or to those who had a parent or grandparent who was born in the United Kingdom. The Government say that there has been no change in the rules, and that that was what was always intended. I have no reason to suggest to the Minister that that is not necessarily true. Whether or not it is true, however, bearing in mind that that expectation was raised, the effect has been to create both a feeling of unfairness and a series of anomalies when the new rules are combined with the way in which the system is administered. I will refer to some of those anomalies shortly.
  ABCIFER has been tenacious in challenging this ruling. It has referred the matter to the ombudsman, whose report we are still awaiting, and the matter is in

  689
  the hands of the Commission for Racial Equality, because the rule discriminates unfairly against certain ethnic groups. ABCIFER also took a legal action in the courts for judicial review. Unfortunately, however, that case failed, not on the substantive issue but on relatively narrow points of law. It is worth while quoting not the ratio of the Court of Appeal's conclusions, which were on those narrow points of law—judicial review is difficult to achieve in relation to an ex gratia scheme, as the court said—but the overall conclusion:
  "Naturally, we feel very great sympathy for all those who suffered appalling ill-treatment at the hands of the Japanese during their captivity. We also well understand that many civilians had their hopes of receiving compensation raised by Dr. Moonie's announcement of 7 November 2000, and that they have been extremely disappointed, and indeed angered, by what they see as a subsequent and unfair change of heart on the part of the Government. But anyone who seeks to challenge as unlawful the content of a non-statutory ex-gratia compensation scheme faces an uphill struggle. We do not think that the introduction of this scheme was well handled by the Government."
  That is the real issue.
  Clive Efford: The great-grandparent of one of my constituents went to the far east to represent the Government. There was no question about his nationality, that of his grandparents or that of his own parents; but having been born abroad and then spent a period of internment as a result of the occupation, he is refused any form of compensation—despite having spent a great deal of his formative years in internment. That clearly is not fair on him, and I think he is entitled to some kind of recompense.
  Mr. Dismore: I entirely agree, and I shall be giving a number of similar examples.
  Let us examine some of the anomalies. First, there are those who have been paid. Under the grandparent rule, foreign nationals who were never British themselves have been paid. Stateless people and United States citizens have received money. People who have renounced British nationality have been paid. People who have never set foot in the United Kingdom have been paid. So far there have been 847 payments to overseas residents. Irish citizens who can show a grandparent link before 1922 have been paid. Some can do so, although all the records were destroyed in 1916, by reference to birth announcements in local newspapers. Birth records relating to the period between 1860 and 1886, when the grandparents would have been around, were destroyed.
  I have heard of the case of a man whose father was born in Shanghai. Although there is no grandparent link, he has been paid because under the 1860 treaty with China, at the time of his birth British law applied extra-territorially. In 1860, Shanghai was classified as British. That seems a bizarre anomaly. People who have not been detained or interned have also been paid. Anyone covered by the 1950s scheme, whose rules I mentioned earlier, has been paid. A good example is that of diplomats put under house arrest by the Japanese. They were never put in internment camps, and in the summer of 1942 were freed in return for the repatriation of Japanese diplomats. Although they had not been interned, they were paid.
  Then there are children under five with mixed parentage. I know of an example of someone with a Chinese mother. It was Japanese policy not to intern
  690
  those under five who were born of mixed parents. Such people have been paid. People who were resident in Red Cross camps, not interned but usually dependants of people who were—generally wives and children of mixed marriages—were not detained, but free to move around freely in the camps. I am thinking of, for example, the Dominican monastery at Rosary Hill in Hong Kong and the camp at Bahau in Singapore. Although never interned by the Japanese, they have been paid.
  Perhaps there is a fear of a "floodgate" rule—a fear that if we allow people who may not have a European background to qualify, there will be a huge rush of claims. There will not. In Shanghai, police constables were mainly Indians and Nepalese, and in Hong Kong and Singapore mainly Indians and Chinese. They were never interned by the Japanese; in fact, they were used to maintain the police service under Japanese—and in the case of Shanghai, French—officers. Given those anomalies, there is no risk of large numbers of claims.
  Mr. Roger Gale: I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate. Like us, he knows that this is not a party political issue; we are all here to represent relatively few constituents. I am sure he would not wish to suggest, however, that those whom he has just listed should not have been compensated. Does the fact that they were compensated not indicate that in November 2000 the Government intended to be generous? Is that not borne out by the letter from the Prime Minister to Keith Martin, Ron Bridge's predecessor, in November 2000? In that letter the Prime Minister wrote:
  "I am so glad that we have been able, at last, to give proper recognition to the terrible experience of the civilians interned in the Far East".
  I am sure that is what the Prime Minister meant at the time, and it seems a matter of great sadness that the scheme has been sullied by this relatively parsimonious restriction.
  Mr. Dismore: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. He is right: the intention was to be generous and an enormous amount of money has been spent, yet we are spoiling the ship for a relatively small amount of tar. I do not want to deny any of those people whom I have quoted the right to compensation; I simply want to contrast their cases with my next series of anomalies concerning people who were rejected.
  I referred earlier to Shanghai. The birth certificate of a father who was born in Bombay was virtually identical to that relating to the Shanghai case, yet the claim was rejected. I should have thought that, in the days of the British empire, Bombay was regarded as rather more British than Shanghai. That is a complete anomaly. Let us consider some other cases that were rejected. Women who obtained their nationality by marriage, stuck by their husbands when they were interned and were interned themselves, have received no compensation. People—usually of European parentage—who were naturalised before the last war and served in the British Army in the first world war, or in the colonial administration, have not received payment. We should also remember those born in colonies such as British India; indeed, I have already referred to one such person.

  691
  Irish people who cannot produce a copy of their local newspaper to show that their grandparents were born in Ireland have been rejected because the records were burned in 1916. The British far east Jewish community is almost entirely excluded; indeed, the two cases in my constituency to which I referred fall into that category. Some 314 UK residents—people who have lived in the United Kingdom and contributed to its economy for most of their lives since the war—have been rejected under this bizarre ruling.
  This issue arose during Defence questions in November 2001, and a few such examples were given. My hon. Friend the Member for Luton, North (Mr. Hopkins) referred to the case of Dr. Mark Erooga, who was naturalised in 1940, swore allegiance to the King, served in the Hong Kong defence reserve and was interned in 1941 while working at Kowloon hospital. After the war and until his retirement, he worked in the national health service from its inception, yet he was not compensated. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Tim Loughton) referred to a Mrs. Leeson, who was interned as a child in Singapore, where her father died. She lost her documents while fleeing from the Japanese. There was also the case of Mrs. Pyett, who was separated from her parents and interned in Singapore at the age of seven. Her stepmother received compensation, even though she did not marry Mrs. Pyett's father until 1947. Mrs. Pyett received no compensation.
  Let me turn to cases in my constituency. Mr. Isaac Shalom Abraham was born in Shanghai on 12 October 1934; by then, Shanghai's status had changed. His paternal grandfather was born in Baghdad under the Ottomans, but he had a UK passport; his paternal grandmother's birthplace was unknown. His maternal grandfather was born in Russia, and his maternal grandmother was born in Russia, or in Poland under Russian rule. His father was born in British Bombay in 1891 and his mother was born in Russia. His parents took him as a child to Shanghai in 1910, where he married. He was arrested in Shanghai and interned on 5 April 1943 until August 1945.
  Mr. Abraham and three of his siblings now live in London. He remained in the camp in Shanghai until March 1948, as a British citizen under British administration. He came to Britain in November 1949, having been evacuated by the RAF from Shanghai to Hong Kong on 16 May 1949. After qualifying here, he worked as a schoolteacher for nearly 30 years, and he worked for a further 10 years within the Jewish community. He has lived in Britain all his adult life. He was interned because he was a British subject, and he finds it impossible to understand—as do I—why he has been excluded from the compensation scheme.
  The second case from my constituency concerns Mrs. Sophie Sopher, née Hardoon, who was interned by the Japanese in Stanley camp. Nothing is known of Mrs. Sopher's grandparents. Her mother was born in Baghdad under the Ottoman empire. Her father was born in Bombay in British India, and Mrs. Sopher herself was born in British India. Mr. Hardoon, her father, had been working in Hong Kong, where he was detained by the Japanese. The family were interned until 1945, and they were then repatriated to Bombay, in
  692
  British India. Mrs. Sopher's father, Mr. Isaac Hardoon, died soon afterwards in Australia. Mrs. Sopher came to the UK in June 1964, and upon her marriage she became a UK citizen in 1969. Her sister, Mrs. Elias, provided a graphic account of her wartime experience, in which she said:
  "The Japanese had already been to the British consulate to get a list of British passport-holders. They came to our house and told us to get into a van. They hit my father because he was not quick enough. We were all taken to the camp. When we came out four years later, ill and malnourished, our house had been pulled down. We all suffered from beri-beri, typhoid and diphtheria. My brothers had been beaten. My father was so ill that he could not be treated and he died a few months later."
  What makes the case even more bizarre is that although Mrs. Sopher and her sisters have not been compensated, their two elder brothers have been, even though they had exactly the same parents. That seems to me to be an utterly bizarre anomaly in the administration of the scheme—and these people cannot understand why. It is not surprising that they have a sense of grievance. The Hardoon family believed that they would be paid out, but they have not been.
  The problem is compounded by evidence that has recently come to light about the failures of successive Governments to reopen the 1951 treaty with the Japanese—despite our right to do so in the 1950s and subsequently. I have with me a Foreign Office paper, FO 371/115281, of 25 May 1955. It is headed, "Claims against Japan" and it states:
  "Article 26 of the Treaty of Peace with Japan states that, should Japan make a peace settlement or a war claim settlement with any State granting that state greater advantages than those provided by the San Francisco Treaty, those same advantages shall be extended to the parties to the San Francisco Treaty…Japan has recently signed a Peace Treaty with Burma…which gives Burma greater advantages in respect of reparations than those enjoyed by the parties to the San Francisco treaty…Japan has also recently signed a War Claims Agreement with Switzerland which…constitutes a greater advantage".
  Under the heading "Discussion", it states:
  "Those states which are parties to the San Francisco Treaty are thus entitled to claim from Japan benefits similar to those stipulated"
  in the new treaties. It continues:
  "The Japanese realised the risk of that happening when they were negotiating the agreement with Switzerland…In agreeing to the San Francisco Treaty Her Majesty's Government waived a very large proportion of their just claims against Japan".
  Under the heading "Recommendation", it states:
  "It is recommended that we should not invoke Article 26"—
  meaning the right to reopen the treaty—
  "Nor should we do so in regard to any similar Article of any Peace Treaty or reparations agreement which Japan may conclude with another country in the future unless there is a material change in circumstances. We should not of course give any publicity to this decision."
  It is signed by Mr. Crowe on 25 May 1955.
  Since then, at least 12 countries have signed peace treaties with Japan that give far better terms than under the San Francisco treaty. On 19 December 1955, however, it was decided that we should not reopen the treaty. That was confirmed in a document signed by Mr. Coplestone of the Treasury, which stated that
  "the Financial Secretary has accepted the conclusion…on general grounds of foreign relations, despite the possibility or domestic political embarrassment in connection with Allied

  693
  prisoners of war… no publicity should be given to the decision… we retain our freedom to use this legal entitlement to claim on Japan…as a bargaining counter in negotiation or other claims against Japan."
  That cynical approach betrayed former prisoners and internees of Japan.
  If the Government are not prepared to examine the scheme further, pressure to reopen the San Francisco treaty of 1951 will continue. In 1998, the Government reviewed it and said that it was time-barred, as it was so long ago. That argument has been refuted by a series of four legal opinions obtained by former POWs and internees, most recently from Professor Ian Brownlie, QC—an extremely eminent international lawyer, of whom I suspect most hon. Members will have heard. He argued a similar point successfully in an international law case in Australia. I have a post-graduate degree in international law myself, albeit a long time ago. Having read these opinions, I believe that there is a strong argument for reopening the treaty.
  What is the way forward? We should either reopen the treaty with Japan and seek reparations similar to those negotiated with Germany—we should at least use further legal opinion to check whether that is an option—or the Government should compromise on the strict rulings made in the schemes.
  There are two possible compromises. First, the Government could pay those who claimed before 25 June 2001, when the blood link rule was first announced to claimants who were then rejected. That compromise assumes that the people involved claimed correctly as internees and British nationals. Of the 851 cases that were rejected, some were rejected on grounds other than the blood link, so the correct figure would therefore probably be below 600. The maximum cost of that approach would be about £6 million.
  A cheaper compromise for the Government would be to pay out on the basis of residency in the UK. Claimants who had resided in the UK after the war for 20 or 25 years, and were still resident here, would be eligible for payment. That would cover the relevant people in my constituency, and those referred to by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford). The maximum number of people involved would be 314, and in fact the number would probably be rather lower, as some would be rejected for other reasons under the scheme. The total payment would amount to nearer £2 million than £3 million. That is a small amount compared with the overall cost of the scheme.
  The Government were extremely generous when they set up the scheme, as was noted earlier. However, that generosity has been tarnished by the exclusion of such a small number of deserving cases. The problem has been compounded by the anomalies raised by the people who have been covered by the scheme in rather questionable circumstances. We are talking about a few hundred people at most, to whom this country's debt of honour remains unpaid.
  The far east campaign used to be known as the forgotten campaign. The former internees are mostly very old now, but they will not allow themselves, or their suffering, to be forgotten. They will not go away. Next year is the 60th anniversary of VJ-day. It is time for these people to have closure in this matter, and for justice to be done. It is time for us to pay these poor internees their due.
  8.56 pm
  Mr. Austin Mitchell: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing this debate, and on his powerful advocacy of his case. I am grateful to have the opportunity to make a short contribution, of which I have made both the Minister and my hon. Friend aware. There is no need for a longer speech, as the case is both simple and straightforward, as my hon. Friend said.
  This matter began with a great and magnanimous gesture by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. In the 1955 peace treaty, the Foreign Office did not pursue the matter of British prisoners, so as not to complicate the negotiations. My right hon. Friend was made aware in 2000 of the fact that the Foreign Office had kept quiet about the problem. He was told that preparations were in hand to bring a case before the European Court of Human Rights, which would be heard in May 2001. He realised the difficulty of the situation and understood the failure of the Foreign Office in the matter, and he agreed that such a case should be prepared.
  On 7 November 2000, my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a statement in the Army museum that prisoners of the Japanese would be paid compensation. He also said that civilians who were interned because they were British citizens would benefit from that compensation. That was a magnanimous and wise gesture. My right hon. Friend said that the matter involved a debt of honour—as, indeed, it does.
  A meeting of the relevant departmental officials took place in the Cabinet Office on 27 November 2000 to rough out how the compensation was to be paid. The minutes of that meeting state that
  "there was nothing to suggest from this initial response to the announcement that the original estimates of the numbers of"
  Japanese prisoners of war
  "were wide of the mark."
  The minutes also stated:
  "UK nationals' should be defined as those civilian internees who were British at the time of their incarceration; those who became British citizens only subsequently would not be eligible for payment."
  That was the position. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made a clear announcement and a magnanimous gesture, which was followed by a clear statement—by him and by officials—that the compensation would be paid to people who were interned because they were British at the time. However, matters went downhill from there.
  The War Pensions Agency had led the earlier meeting to which I have referred, and it supported the wider definition—that compensation should be paid to all those who were British at the time. However, the agency was subsequently transferred to the Ministry of Defence, which took a different view of the matter. It was the MOD that introduced the notion of a blood link with the UK. It is important to note that that was not the case at the time. These people had British passports, were British citizens and were interned by the Japanese because they were British citizens. At the time, it was totally accepted that they were British.

  695
  The Ministry of Defence introduced the later concept of a blood link to the United Kingdom. That was an irrelevant thing to do. Migration and movement patterns are complicated, but those people were children of empire, and it was an empire that sprawled across the continents. There were Jews who went from South Africa to India and then further east to work as British citizens, holding British passports. There were civil servants, and the children of civil servants who had gone perhaps a generation or two before to work in the Indian civil service or on the concessions in China. Those children were born in the place where their fathers and mothers acted as officials. Children of empire are a race in themselves in a sense, scattered as they are over the globe. At the time, though, they were entitled to British passports and were recognised as British citizens. They were interned by the Japanese for that reason.
  The later decision was irrelevant, and it was hurtful. People—most of them very old—who have been proud of being British have suddenly been told in the evening of their lives that they are not British. "No," they have been told, "we want nothing to do with you, and there is no compensation for you because you are not British." They have been told that, even though the fact that they were British was why they were interned.
  It is a cheapjack decision. I am not sure how many people have been excluded—400 or 500, I just do not know. Perhaps the Minister can tell us. We will save perhaps 500 times £10,000 by taking this hurtful decision, which is peanuts.
  The decision is also racist: many of the people concerned are of mixed racial origins, particularly women who married British citizens. My hon. Friend gave several examples of people of different races born in the British concessions in China. The decision is arbitrary. It is unreasonable. The Court of Appeal, of course, found it perfectly legal: it would, because the scheme is an ex gratia, and Government Departments can do anything they want with ex-gratia payments. They can decide they should go to Fred and not to Joe, and it is up to them to define whom the payments go to. The court did say, however, that the whole business had not been well handled, and that is putting it fairly mildly. The fact that the scheme is legal does not make it right. It is wrong. It is immoral.
  Adjournment debates are not the occasion for Damascene conversions, and my hon. Friend the Minister has had to put up with long letters from me and other Members—
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin)indicated assent.
  Mr. Mitchell: I see the Minister nodding vigorously, but I do not expect him to get up and say, "My God, you are right. Why did we not think of all that at the time? Policy will be changed immediately." Adjournment debates are not famous for that, and I do not think that I have ever produced that effect myself. I hope, however, that my hon. Friend will think seriously about the points that we have made. I hope that he will realise that a wrong has been done to a small number of people who have suffered because they were British and who should
  696
  not now be deprived of the compensation that is their due. I hope that he will accept, too, that we shall not give up. This argument will go on and on; we shall raise it along every available path, and several are still open and in play. We shall continue to fight until the Government give way on this point of honour.
  9.4 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Ivor Caplin): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore) on securing a debate on such an important subject. A number of right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House have shown a significant interest in it, and that is demonstrated by the number of them in the Chamber tonight. My experience of Adjournment debates is that they are usually attended by you, Madam Deputy Speaker, me and the hon. Member whose debate it is.
  I also welcome my hon. Friend's chairmanship of the all-party group on parliamentary far east prisoners of war and civilian internees and all those hon. Members who are members of it. I have said before in the House that I would be happy to meet the group if it had a point to raise that had not previously been considered. However, let me establish the history of the subject as this is the first time that the House has had the opportunity to debate it formally since the initial announcement.
  The Government established the far east prisoner of war and civilian internee ex gratia payment scheme in November 2000. My hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie) announced that in the House on 7 November that year. The scheme was intended as a tangible recognition of the unique circumstances of the captivity of those held prisoner by the Japanese during the second world war, something that is recognised by the whole House. Under the scheme, those former prisoners of war and civilian internees who qualify, and the surviving spouses of those who had died before the scheme was announced, receive an ex gratia payment of £10,000 each. Nearly 24,000 payments have been made, totalling nearly £240 million to date, and claims continue to be received. It is important that I make it clear that there are no financial constraints. We will continue to pay out on all valid claims and we have, as I have said, already exceeded the initial budget that was allocated, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon.
  The scheme has been the subject of legal challenge concerning the eligibility of both former Gurkha prisoners of war and civilian internees. I intend to concentrate initially on the issues raised for civilian internees, which was the thrust of my hon. Friend's remarks. The scheme is and has always been intended to be for those who had close links with the United Kingdom at the time of their captivity. For former prisoners of war, that link is demonstrated by their service as part of our armed forces. For former civilian internees, the connection is demonstrated by their having been a British subject who was born in the United Kingdom or who had a parent or grandparent born here. I must emphasise that there has been no change in our view of those who should be eligible for the scheme.It was, however, necessary early on to clarify

  697
  the meaning of the term "British" in the context of civilian claimants, and the criterion agreed was the birth link to the United Kingdom.
  I thought that it would be helpful to place on record the legal process that has occurred. The birth link requirement for former civilian internees has been challenged in the courts by the Association of British Civilian Internees, Far East Region. The association was granted permission for a judicial review in 2002 and in October that year the courts found in favour of the Ministry of Defence. The association then appealed against the judgment. The case was heard in March 2003. The Court of Appeal, however, again found in favour of the Ministry of Defence and the appeal was dismissed. The association was refused leave to appeal to the House of Lords and this lengthy process finally ended last summer in a rejection of their petition seeking leave to appeal to the House of Lords.
  The birth link criterion and the way in which it was introduced were most carefully considered by the courts. The Court of Appeal examined both the limitation of eligibility for the scheme
  "to those British subjects who had close links with the UK at the time of their internment"
  and the use of the birth link to establish those close links.
  Their lordships also concluded that it was impossible to say that the close link criterion was irrational, or that it was irrational to introduce the birth link criterion to demonstrate a close link to the UK. Their lordships concluded that different criteria could have been devised to demonstrate the close connection: for example, one way would have been to follow the example of the Australian Government, whose equivalent scheme requires claimants to have been domiciled in Australia immediately prior to internment. In this country in the 1950s, only those British civilians who were "normally resident in the UK" before captivity and who had taken up residence in the UK after their release were eligible to receive compensation payments made in connection with the San Francisco peace treaty.
  For the present scheme, the Government chose to apply a more generous criterion than those used for the administration of the 1950s scheme by adopting the birth link criterion. Their lordships dismissed the argument that the chosen criterion was irrational because it ignored the close links that some former internees had developed with the UK since the war. Government policy was to pay only those who had close links with the UK at the time of that internment, and that policy was held to be rational.
  The birth link requirement was designed to give scope to the original intention of the scheme. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister confirmed in May 2002, in a letter to my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell),
  "It was never the Government's intention to extend the Scheme to civilian internees without a close link to the UK at their time of internment."
  Mr. Gale: The Minister is hiding behind legality. Will he tell the House why the people in question were interned by the Japanese?
  Mr. Caplin: If the hon. Gentleman will forgive me, let me point out that tonight's debate is about the
  698
  Government scheme for civilians who were interned. I am taking this first opportunity to lay out the whole process that has occurred in the past four years. I hope that by the end of my speech, which is very technical and legal in nature, he will accept that our reasons are obvious.
  I have mentioned the legal challenge concerning former Gurkha prisoners of war. The House will be aware that following a successful legal challenge, the ex gratia payment scheme has been extended to include those former Gurkha soldiers held prisoners of war by the Japanese who were Nepalese citizens at the time of the negotiation of the peace treaty with Japan in the early 1950s.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hendon referred to article 26 of the 1951 peace treaty concluded between the allied powers, including the United Kingdom, and Japan. It has been suggested that the Government seek to reopen the peace treaty under article 26 on the issue of compensation, as a means of obtaining payments for those former civilian internees who do not qualify for the ex gratia payment scheme. Many hon. Members have written to me about that matter. It is claimed that the Government's decision not to seek to reopen the treaty in the 1950s deprived former civilian internees of compensation from the Japanese.
  As my hon. Friend said, the matter has been considered. In 1998, the Government's position was made clear: we did not believe that there were viable legal grounds on which to seek to reopen the 1951 peace treaty. Officials from the Ministry of Defence and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office have looked again at the matter, but we still hold to that view. When negotiating the peace treaty, the Government of the day, as one of the allied powers party to the process, were negotiating as a sovereign state about its claims against Japan under international law. Exceptionally, the peace treaty made specific provision under article 16 to indemnify those members of the armed forces who had been prisoners of war, but no such provision was made for other individual citizens of the belligerent powers. However, payments were made to former civilian internees in the 1950s by the British Government using the Japanese assets that they received under article 14 of the treaty, which, it should be remembered, were for them to use as they decided.
  The question of who might have benefited, and how, if the British Government had tried to re-open the peace treaty is purely speculative. Article 26 speaks of greater advantage being received by any state under a subsequent agreement, but does not provide for a comparison to be made between sums paid to individuals. The agreement that Japan subsequently reached with Burma was negotiated along the lines of article 14, but it went further by agreeing that Japan would provide products as well as services to Burma. The agreement made with the Swiss Government covered a different category of damage that was not explicitly covered by the peace treaty, and of course Switzerland, a neutral country, was not one of the allied powers.
  The comparison sometimes made between the amount of money paid to individual Swiss citizens and the amount received by civilians paid by the British Government is, I have to say, not valid. Britain's decision to make payments to former civilian internees

  699
  did not arise from an express provision in the peace treaty. It was the British Government's decision, and the amounts available to be paid to individuals were in direct relationship to the value of the Japanese assets held that were available to be liquidated and the number of those eligible for payment under the scheme that was established. Former prisoners of war received a payment under article 16 of the treaty, which was overseen by the International Committee of the Red Cross, and a further payment from the sale of the Burma-Siam railway. When the British Government decided to use the money that it received under article 14 to make payments to individuals, it divided it to make additional payments to former prisoners of war and also to former civilian internees. The eligibility criteria for the civilian internees covered British adults—initially only the head of the family, but subsequently both parents, if both were interned—who were normally resident in this country before internment and who returned here after their release. Children who had been interned were not eligible to receive such payments.
  That is why we made the right and proper decision to establish the ex gratia payment scheme. It recognised the unique circumstances of those detained by the Japanese and that the schemes set up in connection with the peace treaty in the 1950s provided a good and effective model for our scheme. In the case of civilian internees, the eligibility criteria of the current scheme were set wider than those of the 1950s scheme so that, unlike then, those interned as children were included and normal residence in this country before internment, and return to this country afterwards, was not required, as it was in the 1950s.
  There are many people who are not eligible for payments under the scheme for a number of quite different reasons. My predecessor and I have said many times that their strong feelings and disappointment are appreciated and understood. Any scheme of this nature, however, must have boundaries, and, wherever those boundaries are set, those just outside them will feel that they have not been recognised. The Government have, however, set what we feel to be reasonable and fair boundaries for the scheme and, as I said earlier, nearly 24,000 people have already benefited from it.
  I know that the House is always interested in detailed statistics about the number of payments made to specific categories of civilian claimants and the numbers of claims that have been rejected. My hon. Friend has shown specific concern about issues connected with residence in this country since the war and the date by which claims were made, and my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby also referred to that. I also
  700
  know that there is concern that we have not always been able to supply the figures that hon. Members have sought. I confirm that where the figures are available, we have provided them, and I refer the House to replies to several parliamentary questions that were answered on 8 April 2003, 26 January 2004 and 1 July 2004. However, in some instances, the information sought is not available without checking many thousands of claim forms.
  Many claims come from the surviving widow or widower or the person held by the Japanese. In the statistics held, claims from surviving spouses are listed together for all groups and not broken down according to the category of the person imprisoned. Requests for statistics on former civilian internees cannot always be broken down. In other instances, the information now asked for was not required as part of the process of validating the claim and was not sought from claimants, so it is not held by the Department.
  I appreciate the concern of my hon. Friend the Member for Hendon and the arguments that he advanced about why and how some people should and could be included in the scheme. I understand his view that the number of people he seeks to include in the scheme could be relatively small. I am afraid, however, that the introduction of new criteria such as those that he suggested this evening would leave us open to complaints of unfairness from former civilian internees who still fell outside the scheme because they met neither the existing nor the new criteria. It would also leave us open to complaints from other groups who would like new eligibility criteria to be introduced for the scheme so that they, too, could be included. Ultimately, the result would be to call into question the integrity of the whole scheme, and I do not believe that that is the House's intention.
  I said earlier that I would of course examine new issues that any Member of the House wishes to raise. I noted the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Eltham (Clive Efford) and I will certainly study the detailed points made by my hon. Friends the Members for Hendon and for Great Grimsby to see whether a further response would be appropriate.
  Richard Younger-Ross rose—
  Mr. Caplin: I am afraid that I will not give way.
  In conclusion, I am afraid that I cannot consider any suggestions that effectively seek to reopen issues that have been settled by the judicial processes of the United Kingdom.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Adjourned accordingly at twenty-two minutes past Nine o'clock.

Preamble
[SIR NICHOLAS WINTERTON in the Chair]

Road Safety
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Jamieson.]
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I welcome you all back after part of the summer recess and express the hope that you are duly recharged and rested and that we can look forward to some excellent, constructive and responsible debates in Westminster Hall?
9.30 am
Mr. Richard Bacon: I am pleased to have this opportunity to raise the issue of road traffic deaths and road safety, which is of concern to many in the House, as is attested to by the attendance this morning. The United Kingdom has a good road safety record compared with many other countries. The Minister would probably agree that we are one of the world leaders. The latest figures from the Department for Transport show that in 2001 the UK suffered 3,598 road deaths whereas France, which has more than twice the land area, suffered 8,160. In Germany the comparable figure was 6,977 and in Italy 6,410. In Japan the number of deaths exceeded 10,000, which is horrendous. The United States has a larger population, but none the less the figure was a staggering 42,000. However, we have no reason for complacency.
Road traffic safety has undoubtedly risen up the agenda in recent months after being eclipsed by issues such as schools, hospitals and crime. I see that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) is in his place. Just before the House rose for the summer recess he introduced an excellent ten-minute Bill, the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Bill. I am sure that he will refer to that in his own contribution, should he be fortunate enough to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
A number of serious cases have come to my attention since I became an MP. There is a wide range of issues to which one could refer in relation to road traffic safety and road traffic deaths. We could have a whole debate on rural speed. There is no doubt that while the Government have made progress in tackling speed, they have made more progress in urban areas than in rural. In a rural constituency such as mine, which has 122 parishes and where half the population live in a village of well below 1,000 people, casualties and accidents on rural roads remain a hugely significant issue.
I could spend much of the debate talking about motor cycles. Indeed, two of the cases to which I shall refer later concern motor cycle accidents. A constituent, who, I am pleased to say, is a safe motor cyclist, has drawn my attention to the problem of people who as teenagers or in their early 20s have experience of riding a low-powered motor cycle. Later in life, perhaps when they are more prosperous and have a family, they return to motor cycling after some 20 years and buy extremely powerful machines. They think that they are as adept at
182WH
riding such a machine as they were at riding, for example, a Yamaha 125 when they were 17 or 19. They are not. Many accidents are caused in that way.
Not only the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety but the Motor Cycle Industry Association has called for a review of direct access to high performance motor cycles. I come from the more libertarian wing of politics. I do not like unnecessary controls on people, but that is something that should be considered. Indeed, one case to which I shall refer involved a motor cycling instructor, whose capacity as a safe motor cyclist was not in question, yet tragically he was killed in a head-on collision with another vehicle.
I could talk about seat belts at some length. The campaign in the 1970s and onwards for people to wear front seat belts is being backed up by an ongoing campaign for belting up in the back, which most people support.
Drink-driving remains another area of concern. A not uncontroversial proposal has been discussed to reduce the alcohol content in the blood limit from 0.8 to 0.5 mg. That is of particular concern in rural areas, where often the only safe way to get to a pub is by car. The proposal is controversial, not least because most fatal alcohol-related accidents involve those who are way over the limit, not those who are around and about it. The Department for Transport has suggested that 50 lives could be saved if the limit were reduced to 0.5 mg. I suspect that that is within the margin of error.
I intend to concentrate on two issues. The first relates to the law in relation to road safety and fatal road traffic accidents. The second is speed cameras. I do not think that I could speak in this debate without at least referring to speed cameras, which are hugely controversial, not least in Norfolk right at the moment. The most prominent recent case involves my constituent, Mrs. Jenny Mason. In January 2003, Mrs. Mason's 42-year-old son Andrew was killed in a head-on collision with a car that had been attempting, unsafely, to overtake a lorry on the A1066 in my constituency. Mr. Mason did not have a chance. He flashed his headlights twice. He braked hard and veered into the verge. Unfortunately he crashed into the car. He was catapulted into the air, struck the roof of the car and landed in the middle of the road. He was a motor cycle instructor and had an advanced driving certificate. He had been due to give his daughter away at her wedding four days later. His wife, Mairi, describes the impact of his death simply:
"His mum lost her eldest son; I lost my husband and our three daughters their father. It has blown our lives apart."
Charles Wright, the 90-year-old who was driving the car involved in the accident, was charged with careless driving. He did not attend court for his prosecution because he claimed he was too frail, although he was obviously not too frail to get behind the wheel of a motor car. Originally he was given a £150 fine, ordered to pay £200 costs and disqualified from driving for 12 months. One can find many similar cases in different parts of the country. Indeed, were I to go through all the cases I have come across in preparing for this debate, there would be no time for any other contributions. No matter where one looks, one finds similar stories of people causing a death and being given a sentence that, in the eyes of most reasonable people and particularly in the eyes of the victims' families, is simply not just.

183WH
There have been a number of calls over the years in different Adjournment and other debates and most recently in the Motor Vehicle Manslaughter Bill proposed by the hon. Member for South Dorset for a change in the law. When the Minister addressed the Select Committee earlier in the summer on the proposals for a road safety Bill, he declined to propose a change in the law. One of my purposes in initiating this debate today is to give him the chance to reconsider whether a change in the law is now justified and apposite. My own feeling, looking at the various cases around the country, is that a change is now justified.
I will mention just one other case in passing because it comes from Norfolk, although not from my constituency. Mrs. Bridget Wall chained herself to the railings outside the House of Commons in late July before we rose because of the death of her son Adam, who died from head injuries received in a collision with a van that pulled out of a junction in front of him as he rode his motor cycle along the A47 at Walsoken in Norfolk. The driver later appeared in court, where he admitted driving without due care and attention; he was fined £180 and given six penalty points. In the Eastern Daily Press on 17 July, Mrs. Wall made a point that has been made by many other victims:
"I want people to be aware that the Government has violated human rights by not acknowledging the people killed. I cannot begin to mourn Adam until something is done about this gap in our legislation and until I have won this fight."
My constituent Mrs. Mason would echo those words. I am pleased to say that, as a result of her persistence, I was able to arrange a meeting between her and the chief constable of North Wales, Richard Brunstrom, who leads on road safety issues for the Association of Chief Police Officers. It was a very constructive meeting, and I thank Chief Constable Brunstrom publicly for meeting my constituent. That still leaves the question of what the Minister will do when the Bill comes before the House—I hope this autumn—because it is not clear that the Government have got the balance right.
At present, the law on this issue fails. There are several offences on the statute book relating to dangerous or careless driving. The first is causing death by dangerous driving, which requires the prosecution to show that the driving of the accused caused the death of another person, that it fell far below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way was dangerous.
The second driving offence is dangerous driving, without causing death, which requires the prosecution to show that an individual's driving fell below what would be expected of a competent and careful driver and that it would be obvious to such a driver that driving in that way was dangerous.
Then there are the careless driving offences. Under such an offence, an individual can be prosecuted for driving without due care and attention, and a prosecution will generally be appropriate when their driving shows serious miscalculation or disregard for road safety. Under the same section of the relevant legislation, an individual can be charged with driving without reasonable consideration, which is appropriate
184WH
when their driving behaviour amounts to selfishness, impatience or aggressiveness, or causes inconvenience to others.
Then there is an offence of causing death by careless driving while under the influence of drink or drugs, and I stress the reference to drink or drugs because one of the central issues is that there is no simple offence of causing death by careless driving. The nature of the offence of dangerous driving means that the burden of proving that driving was dangerous results in prosecutors being reduced to offering a charge of careless driving, which has much weaker penalties. With such a charge, the magistrate must consider the seriousness of the carelessness or the lack of consideration that constituted the offence. The basic offence of careless driving—leaving aside the issue of being under the influence of drink or drugs—completely ignores the fact that a death has been caused, which is one of the most serious problems with it. As the law stands, no account is taken in many cases that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service bring before the courts of the fact that a death has been caused. That is the central issue, which I want the Minister to address.
What will the Government do to acknowledge the widespread feeling among our constituents, of all parties and in all parts of the country, that the law needs to be able to take account of the fact of a death, irrespective of other circumstances?
Peter Bottomley: Most of us will have had such constituency cases. In my case, a constituent called Callum Oakford died when a driver drove carelessly. My hon. Friend may want to invite the Minister to say whether the Government, if they have no solution, are prepared to allow a free vote on an appropriate Bill to make it possible for the effect of dangerous driving to be made known to the court. Most grieving families do not necessarily want a punishment, but they want acknowledgment of what has happened. That matters just as much whether the driver has been drinking, taking drugs or driving carelessly.
Mr. Bacon:My hon. Friend is right. The lack of acknowledgment is the central problem. I do not pretend that legislation can provide an easy answer, but he makes an interesting suggestion. If the Government are not prepared to introduce proposals, perhaps they will allow a free vote on the issue. I would like the Government to consider introducing a charge of negligent driving—an intermediate offence between careless driving and dangerous driving—to allow courts to take account of the fact that a death has been caused. Recognition is the most important issue for families.
Mr. Andrew Robathan: Is it not the case that driving under the influence of drink or drugs is dangerous in itself? Surely there must be a presumption that anyone driving under the influence of drink or drugs should be charged with dangerous driving, whether he has caused an accident or not.
Mr. Bacon:I agree with my hon. Friend. As he has no doubt seen, the sad truth is that there are many cases in which it is not in dispute that people were under the influence of alcohol—in some cases it is not in dispute that they were banned from driving—but they are still

185WH
let off with what most members of the public would view as a cursory slap on the wrist. If someone is driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol, or driving without insurance or when they are banned, there ought to be a presumption that those factors are taken into account in determining the penalty. In all events, a death, no matter how it was caused or the extent of the culpability of the driver, should be taken into account.
One must be able to imagine circumstances in which a death is caused in an accident but the driver is not culpable. I happen to know of a case in which someone driving through a green light, with a passenger seated to the left of them, was hit by someone coming from the side, killing the passenger. The person who hit the car was on a red light. In that case, the driver was not culpable and yet he was driving a vehicle in which someone was killed. It is not a given that the fact of a death should render the driver liable to prosecution. In the case that I have just cited, the other driver was probably liable. The facts should be available to the court, so that it is able to make a full, informed decision, because families of victims need acknowledgment of what has happened.
It should be possible, though not always necessary, to take full account of the consequences of drivers' actions in sentencing. It ought to be possible to define an offence of negligent driving, which would explicitly recognise that serious injury or death had been caused, by defining a duty of care that, if breached, would render the driver liable to more severe penalties such as imprisonment, disqualification or community service. I am not a lawyer, and the hon. Member for South Dorset might say that if we introduce an offence of negligent driving we might encounter the same problem that we have with dangerous and careless driving—namely, defining the degree of dangerousness or carelessness.
I do not stick rigidly to the idea that the offence should be called negligent driving. It is possible that a better route would be to define an offence that takes into account the fact of death rather than the quality of driving, as in the proposals made by the hon. Member for South Dorset for an offence of motor manslaughter, and a further offence of aggravated motor manslaughter. I am agnostic about that, and I am interested to hear what the Government have to say. There must be a method of changing the law to get the acknowledgment, which is lacking, into the courts.
Mr. Barry Sheerman: I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman says, but I hope that he will return to his starting point. The crucial matter is to reduce the number of deaths and serious accidents involving motor cyclists. Much of what he says about changing the law is absolutely right, but I hope he will stress the fact that we must not allow people who have been off a motor cycle for many years to go back on one without being fully trained. That is probably the cause of most motor cycle deaths today.
Mr. Bacon: I look forward with interest to the hon. Gentleman's speech. The very first thing that I was sent when I arrived at the House of Commons three years ago was a little pen pot from the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety, showing down the side statistics for the number of deaths and serious injuries per 1 billion passenger miles on different forms
186WH
of transport. I vividly remember that the figure for travelling by air was 0.1 deaths and serious injuries per 1 billion passenger miles, the figure for travelling by train 0.7, the figure for travelling by car 40-something, the figure for travelling by bicycle in the 800s, and the figure for travelling by motor cycle about 1,400. There is no question but that motor cycles are the most lethal machines on the road.
Given how phenomenally fast motor cycles are, and how great their acceleration, there is a case for saying that if someone wishes to have a very powerful Ducati, BMW or Harley Davidson, they should undergo special instruction. I am sure that Mrs. Mason, whose son was a motor cycle instructor, would support that. I look forward to the contribution of the hon. Member for Huddersfield (Mr. Sheerman), who was quite right to say that we must focus on accident reduction in all possible ways.
Other hon. Members wish to speak, so I shall refer to just one further subject: speed cameras. They have become controversial recently. Perhaps the truth is that everyone would like a speed camera outside their house or near where they live, but does not want the inconvenience of speed cameras elsewhere. If they are being reasonable, most people accept that speed cameras have a role to play.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson)indicated assent.
Mr. Bacon: I see that the Minister agrees. I suspect that most people would also agree, however, that speed cameras are not sited purely according to safety criteria. I wait to hear him laugh and nod just as vehemently as he did at my previous point, but he does not. That is because the Government maintain what most people do not believe—that there is no question of speed cameras being sited on any ground other than safety. They maintain that speed cameras are purely about safety and that the motive of revenue simply does not enter people's heads. The Minister might be right about that, or he might be wrong, but I support the call of my hon. Friend the Member for Ashford (Mr. Green) to have a review of the position of speed cameras, and I would like to have a sensible debate on the basis of facts.
I gave an interview on my local radio station this morning, which cut to a report from someone standing next to a speed camera on Grapes hill in Norwich that is perhaps the most notorious in East Anglia. There is no evidence at all of a cluster of collisions there. The site is a major urban dual carriageway that goes downhill, and I have been informed by Mr. Barry Parnell of the average speed at which motor cars are clocked there. He was the chief executive of the Norfolk safety camera partnership until he resigned earlier this summer following the issue of a report, still not made fully public, commissioned by the chief constable of Norfolk, Andy Hayman, on the criteria by which safety cameras were being installed. Mr. Parnell has since said, however, that his resignation was for entirely unrelated reasons.
The camera has now been turned off, although it is still in situ and may be turned on again. Most residents of Norwich and people who visit it from outside, including the many who live in South Norfolk but work

187WH
in Norwich, are bewildered as to why the camera is there. As I have said, the road is not the site of a collision cluster or an accident blackspot. I tabled a parliamentary question to try to find out how much revenue had been raised by the speed camera, because allegations were floating around, although I do not know whether they are true, that that camera had raised revenues of many hundreds of thousands of pounds, if not more.
It seems to me that the way to get round the problem is to make quite clear, and to publish on a website, the safety criteria used for each speed camera and the revenue that each raises.
Mr. Jamieson: The information is there.
Mr. Bacon: It is there now, is it? I am grateful to the Minister for telling me that, because when I tabled a parliamentary question not long ago, I was told that the information was not collected in that form. If that is correct, it is a welcome advance.
The Minister and the Government have not yet succeeded in bringing people all the way with them. If asked, most people say that there is some merit in speed cameras. I think that most people who question the placing of speed cameras on some sections of the highway would still acknowledge that cameras have a role—particularly, for example, outside schools.
In my constituency, I am pleased that, following pressure from me, the local district councillor and the school, the county council has agreed to introduce a speed limit of 30 mph in a small lane parallel with the A140—but some miles to the east—just outside Shelton with Hardwick community school, in what was a 60 mph zone. That limit was plainly unsuitable outside a small rural school where at 8.30 in the morning—I have stood outside to watch—a large volume of traffic avoiding the A140 on the way into Norwich comes round a corner at high speed, to meet school buses and parents dropping off their children. Some juggernauts come the other way, also to avoid the main road. I am pleased that the council has seen fit to introduce a new speed limit there.
In a conversation a few weeks ago, the Minister pointed out to me that counties have the capacity to introduce any speed limit from 20 mph to 70 mph on roads under their control, subject to the national speed limit—those were his words. When I talk to local county officials, I sometimes get the feeling that they tend to blame central Government, and when I talk to central Government I sometimes get the feeling that they tend to blame local government. The Minister said—and I take it that he is correct—that the power exists for counties to exercise much more latitude than they are sometimes willing to. Too often, they seem to be waiting for further guidance from central Government when they have the autonomy and capacity to act in many cases. I am grateful to him for that point.
All I say about speed cameras is that a policy that allows, encourages, permits or requires a speed camera on Grapes hill in Norwich, where there is no accident or collision cluster, but that does not require one outside Shelton school—as a matter of common sense, most
188WH
people who visit that site would say that it was a good idea to force cars to slow down before they reach Shelton school—is plainly in need of adjustment. The plain fact is that the Government have not finished their work in making the case to the public on the issue of speed cameras. If they are to bring the public with them, they need to be more open and straightforward than they have sometimes given the impression of being. For a Government who have been dedicated to the proposition that perception is reality, there is a little way to go. I hope that the Minister will agree.
In conclusion, let me reiterate my central point. I want the Minister to address the issue of road traffic accidents where a death is caused and to consider the possibility of making a change in the law, by introducing either an offence of negligent driving that allows the fact of a death to be taken into account, or an offence of motor manslaughter, so that the families of victims in many different constituencies throughout the country, who have felt so aggrieved and let down by the justice system, feel that they get their day in court.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Deputy Speaker: May I help the House before I call the next speaker? There are 14 Back Benchers present, of whom eight have applied to speak. The winding-up should begin at 10.30, give or take a minute or two, so we have slightly more than half an hour to get at least eight speakers in. That is up to the House.
9.59 am
Mrs. Alice Mahon: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on obtaining this important debate. As joint chair of the all-party group on road safety, I know only too well the cost to families and communities of deaths and injuries on our roads.
The Government have done much to tackle road safety issues, not least by radically expanding the number of speed cameras. I very much welcome that because it has been hugely successful in reducing the number of accidents, as has the legislation on using mobile phones. Of course we all welcome the Government's commitment to bringing in a road safety Bill.
However, in this Room we all recognise that there continue to be more than 40,000 largely avoidable deaths and accidents on our roads every year. That is why so many people have turned up for this debate. In addition, in this country we must recognise that dangerous driving is endemic. When last recorded, the UK had the fourth worst record in western Europe for child pedestrian deaths. However, I am pleased to congratulate the Government again because, to their credit, they have committed themselves to reducing child deaths by 50 per cent. by 2010.
A great deal more must be done. If we are to achieve our aims, we must listen to people working in road safety. I recently chaired a meeting held by Brake, the road safety charity. It has launched a campaign entitled, "Watch Out, There's a Kid About!" calling for the Government to get tough with dangerous and speeding drivers. I shall return to that later.

189WH
I must say that I was disappointed with the recent announcement of a reduction in penalties for speeding motorists and I do not think that it was welcomed by the vast majority of road safety campaigners. In the neighbouring constituency to mine there is a very good campaigner—a woman who set up the charity, Support and Care After Road Death and Injury, after her 27year-old son was killed by a drink-driver. She was absolutely disgusted that the Government had come up with such an idea. She believes that
"the Government are sending out a very mixed message to the public."
In Halifax, the Calderdale road safety officer said that, although there might be a case for graded penalties,
"I do take issue with some of the gradings. I mean for example, the new rules would mean that speeders who travel between 31 and 39 mph in a 30 mph limit would be given two points and a £40 fine. Compare this with the fact that a pedestrian hit by a car travelling at 30 mph has a 50–50 chance of survival, but if they are hit at 40 mph, 19 out of 20 pedestrians will be killed."
Brake's chief executive, Mary Williams, who is well known to the Minister, went even further:
"We are shocked and appalled at this proposal, which flies in the face of the facts of speed."
She went on to give some examples that are already well known to us all. There is a lot of opposition to the Minister's proposals to bring in the grading system. It is also sad that the proposals were announced only five days after Joshua Berrill, aged two, was dragged to his death by a hit-and-run driver in Birmingham and was left lying in the road outside his grandparents' house.
The "Watch Out, There's a Kid About!" campaign is all about trying to do something about the issue. I shall briefly go through some main points of the campaign that are well worth supporting. First, we would like increased penalties for speeders, because we believe that they are ridiculously low. Some fines are less than one would get for littering, and many of us believe that they should be raised and that more points, not fewer, should be put on the licences of speeders. It must be said that the limit is not just the limit; it is the law. It is certainly not a target speed that drivers are allowed to exceed.
The second point is that we would like motor murder charges to be brought against hit-and-run drivers who kill. There should be a maximum sentence of life for the worst offenders. Thirdly, it is crucial that there should be 20 mph zones around all schools, and 10 mph home zones in heavily residential areas. Presently, they occur only in little pockets around the country and are not standard, which leaves many communities furious about fast roads—the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) graphically outlined an example in his constituency near a school. We are right to demand reduced driving speeds in vulnerable areas.
Fourthly, the campaign calls for a scrapping of restrictions on the placement of speed cameras, which say that four deaths or serious injuries must have occurred before a camera can be put up. That is a shocking rule if one considers how the parents of little Joshua must feel; at least three more people must be sacrificed on that danger spot before a camera can be installed.
190WH
Fifthly, the campaign calls for something that many road safety people are seeking: automatic number plate recognition cameras.
Mr. Jamieson indicated assent.
Mrs. Mahon: I see that my hon. Friend is nodding so I hope that we are on to a winner. Such a measure would catch unlicensed, uninsured joyriders, whom we all have in our constituencies. They travel at the most excessive speeds and cause many tragedies in our communities. We want these practical and do-able measures implemented. They are sensible and would help to further the Government's laudable campaign to reduce child deaths on our roads.
I want briefly to address sleep disorders and their effect on driving, which is a road safety issue that I have recently been campaigning on. I welcome the Government's think tank that focuses on the dangers of driving while tired. It is doing some very good work and I hope that sleep disorders will be included in the future. To a certain extent, that issue has been neglected. According to the British Medical Journal, 20 per cent. of all motorway accidents are caused by excessive sleeplessness and more than 300 people a year are killed as a result of drivers falling asleep at the wheel. Some of those accidents are caused by people who have an undiagnosed sleep disorder. Clinical remedies are available for such people and, therefore, there must be joined-up thinking between the Department for Transport and the Department of Health to educate the general population. More money should be made available for sleep centres, and for treatment, which is cost-effective. However, it is a matter for the Department of Health.
It is estimated that sleep disorders, such as obstructive sleep apnoea and narcolepsy, affect about 770,000 people in the UK. That is a similar number to diabetes or people who suffer from severe asthma, yet it is overlooked. Such disorders may be easily treatable. The Royal College of Physicians points out that there is a particularly high incidence of sleep apnoea among professional drivers, as it is more common in middle-aged men who are overweight. A survey of 35 professional drivers at one depot found that nine were at an extreme or high risk of that condition and four were at risk of other sleep disorders. Therefore, the matter is well worth examining and I hope that the Minister will take that on board.
I want to allow other hon. Members to speak, as it is important that they highlight what is happening in their communities. I thank the Government for what they are doing and say to them that we want more.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I make a further plea for brevity.
10.8 am
Mr. Andrew Robathan: I have listened to your plea, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and if I speak for longer than five minutes, I am sure that you will let me know.
I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing this important debate and on the extremely sensible points that he made. I want to dwell on the safety of vulnerable road users—

191WH
pedestrians, riders and, in particular, cyclists. I have been championing cycling for many years in the House. I am sure that hon. Members remember the Cycling Safety Bill of 1993 that I introduced—perhaps not. I was persuaded to be the chairman of the all-party group on cycling and I am still its vice-chairman. I will not dwell on the benefits of cycling.
This summer the Government have been ranting on about obesity and I have therefore noticed it. The British population are getting disgustingly fat—never mind obese. One can see it when one wanders around. The Minister looks surprised, but that is what his Government have been talking about and they are right. The benefits to health of bicycling and of taking exercise are well known. Anyone who went to work today knows how congested our cities are and there are also leisure aspects of cycling.
I applaud the Government's 2000 White Paper, which said that they wished to see cycling—the number of cycle trips—trebled by 2010. That is a good idea and I would love to see it happen. Unfortunately, in the first two years after the Government's White Paper the number of cycling trips decreased. Indeed, the Office for National Statistics found that
"25 per cent. of people who can ride a bicycle, do so less often than they did two years ago."
A third of people walk less than they did two years ago.
There has been a reduction in cycling accidents, but that has been accompanied by a reduction in cycling. I have not been on a bicycle since over an hour ago. I do not wish to sound pious; cycling is the easiest way for me to get to the House of Commons from my house. I took my children—they are only seven and five—cycling on Sunday, and they adored it; we went on a 3-mile ride. That is great from a leisure point of view.
Motorists find cyclists an irritation, particularly on the tiny lane near where I live. Motorists whizz past and terrify my small children and me. Some of them do not even slow down to 40 mph on that small lane, although they should not be going faster than that. Things are similarly bad in cities.
Why do people not cycle? The question is simple, and can be answered in one word: danger. Cycling is very dangerous and people fear the danger. The Office for National Statistics found that almost three quarters of people agreed, and 47 per cent. strongly agreed, with the statement:
"The idea of cycling on busy roads frightens me."
It frightens me, too. People are frightened, and the attitude of drivers—including those of us in this Chamber who can drive—is to blame. We cannot wait, we are in a hurry; we are perhaps late for an appointment or want to go out to dinner. Whatever the reason, we rush past and do not give people the time that we should, and we do not slow down as we should.
Of course, the problem is not just the fear but the reality of danger. A cousin of mine was killed in a bicycle accident on Clapham common about 14 years ago. I was talking to a journalist from the Gallery only yesterday who was limping and on crutches, having fallen off a bicycle—although that was through no fault of a driver. She said that she expected to be hit about three times a
192WH
year by cars in London. That is pretty serious. I do not get hit so often, but perhaps that is because I am rather larger than her and eyeball the motorists.
My hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk said how dangerous cycling is, and made the point that there are 800 deaths and serious injuries per billion passenger miles among cyclists. But how do we make cycling safer? We used to be told in the highway code:
"All drivers should give a pedal cyclist a wide berth of at least six feet."
That advice was dropped some 20 years ago—the Minister will correct me if I am wrong—but, in any case, I assure hon. Members that that never happens. One is lucky to get six inches, let alone six feet.
To return to the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk, if one hits, knocks off and kills a cyclist, the charge is most likely to be careless driving. However, hitting a cyclist is in itself a dangerous act, and there should be a presumption of dangerous driving. I understand that if one is found guilty of dangerous driving one automatically loses one's licence for two years. If the accident is the cyclist's fault, the motorist would not be found guilty, or the charges would be dismissed. I would like to make all motorists, including those in this Chamber, realise the seriousness of the issue of vulnerable road users, who are outside the little metal box in which we motorists are rushing to our appointments. We motorists should understand that we can be lethal.
The consequences of dangerous acts must be brought home to people. I suggest that there should be guidance—I do not think that the matter needs legislation—for the police or the Crown Prosecution Service to say that motorists who hit cyclists should be charged with dangerous driving.
If any of us were caught driving while over the limit—I am sure that none of us would ever do that—we would lose our licence. We may not even have seen another road user. Any motorist who has struck a cyclist, pedestrian or horse has already endangered life, if the accident was his or her fault. We have today already heard of several tragic deaths. Road safety for vulnerable road users could be improved if the CPS and police took such occasions more seriously, instead of wondering whether they would get a case through, and if Government guidance said that anyone who hit a vulnerable road user should be charged with dangerous driving.
10.14 am
Jim Knight: I congratulate the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on securing this important debate.
My interest in road traffic deaths and road safety results from the tragic deaths of three constituents since I was elected in June 2001. Anthony Wakelin was killed in October 2002, Tom Dowdney died a year later, and Claire Clements died last April. All were killed due to, at best, the carelessness of drivers. None of the victims' families received any justice in the courts following those tragedies, hence my ten-minute Bill introduced on 13 July, to which the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred. It aimed to introduce new offences of motor vehicle manslaughter and aggravated motor vehicle manslaughter. I have since received a very positive

193WH
response to my proposals from people all round the country. I hope that the Government, and particularly the Home Office, are listening. The Minister has given evidence to the Select Committee, and we have heard about the Department for Transport's proposals for graduated speeding penalties and the Police Federation's proposals for an offence of using a car as a dangerous weapon. However, we have not heard anything from the Home Office in response to the Halliday consultation. If nothing else, I am here today to encourage the Department to respond and to take action.
The Government's record is generally good. As I think my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) told us, the number of deaths or serious injuries is down by 20 per cent., and for children it is down by a third. We all welcome that, and I applaud the general approach of prevention and trying to change driver behaviour. I welcome the 20 mph speed limits that we are increasingly seeing around the country, including in the village where I live. We now have cushions, humps and indeed the full chicanery running through the village. It is not attractive, but it works and sadly it is necessary.
As long as drivers take the car for granted as our own private space, regard it simply as a means of getting from A to B and forget that it is a lethal weapon, we will need ugly traffic calming in villages, speed cameras—however unpopular they may be—and tougher penalties for drivers who kill. That is the missing element in the Government's approach: they are not coming forward with tougher penalties. There was a minor change in the Criminal Justice Act 2003 to the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving, but we need to go much further, which is why I am impatient about the Home Office dragging its feet.
Mr. Gwyn Prosser: Yesterday was the second anniversary of the tragic death of Jessica Leigh who, at the tender age of 14, was knocked down and killed by a young motorist who was speeding but walked out of court with just a £300 fine and six penalty points and who is still driving. Does not that sort of case cry out for the measures that my hon. Friend is advocating?
Jim Knight: Certainly, and I am sure that that case echoes many that we have heard about at our surgeries and through our postbags. The problem that the Crown Prosecution Service and the police have in proving dangerousness means that the charge becomes one of carelessness, hence the very lenient fines and the injustice felt by the families when the person can continue driving. It is that gap that the hon. Member for South Norfolk referred to.
I will not regurgitate everything that I said when I introduced my ten-minute Bill because it is on the record, but I want to respond to what the hon. Gentleman said about that gap. I am flexible about the solution to the problem of bridging the gap. He has made proposals that we need to consider. Currently, I agree with the charity RoadPeace that defining words such as "dangerousness", "carelessness" and "negligence" is difficult and provides a field day for solicitors and barristers. Such definitions focus first on the nature of the driving and not on the death. I propose
194WH
a charge of motor vehicle manslaughter because it would make the death the starting point for the investigation and the legal system's consideration.
However, whatever the solution, as long as drivers such as James Boffey get away with a £200 fine for killing the likes of Anthony Wakelin in my constituency, and as long as victims and their families fail to receive justice and the Home Office continues to drag its feet, I and many others will continue to raise the issue in this House.
10.19 am
Mr. Henry Bellingham: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on his excellent speech. I will be brief.
Norfolk is a fairly sparsely populated county, but it covers a large geographical area and contains a large number of small country roads. Cars and motor cycles are getting more sophisticated and much more powerful, and public transport is notoriously sparse and inadequate. As my hon. Friend has pointed out, there have been a significant number of high-profile road traffic fatalities in Norfolk and some have involved motor cyclists. He referred to a case in his constituency and also touched on the Adam Wall case, which took place in Walsoken on the A47 in my constituency, although Bridget Wall—his mother—is a constituent of my right hon. Friend the Member for South-West Norfolk (Mrs. Shephard). I have been involved in the case, in which a van pulled out of a minor road on to the A47 as it was getting dark. There is no question but that its driver was driving dangerously, and when he pulled out, the motorcyclist had no chance whatever. Adam Wall was tragically killed, which has devastated his family.
There is undoubtedly a gap in the legislation in this country. Relatives are asking not for revenge but for recognition in the law of the victim's rights and an acknowledgement of the fact that someone has died. When someone is convicted for careless driving, with just a fine and points on their licence, it often leaves the victim's family angry and bitter. It does not enable them to achieve closure.
I can talk from personal experience. My stepfather was killed in 1978 when driving south on the A1. A lorry had crossed over the southbound carriageway and was squatting in the central reservation, but had left part of its trailer just in the fast lane. There were no lights on that section of road, my stepfather's headlights would have been dipped, and he tragically went under part of the trailer and was killed instantly. The driver was convicted of careless driving and fined about £40. That obviously left us with a sense that there had been no recognition of the fact that someone had died, never mind that the outcome had a profound impact on the insurance situation.
That was a long time ago, and the A1 has become safer. There are fewer gaps along it, and lorries now have lights on their trailers. As I am sure the Minister will tell us, road safety is improving all the

195WH
time. However, my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk has made a compelling case for a change in the law. In my judgment as well as his, we need a new offence of causing death by negligent driving. At the very least, there is a need for an intermediate offence between careless and dangerous driving. I support him 100 per cent. in his campaign, in the same way that I support the excellent campaign by Bridget Wall, the mother of my constituent.
Finally, I endorse what my hon. Friend said about speed cameras: yes to them outside schools, in residential areas and at accident blackspots, but no to them on open stretches of road where there is no history of accidents.
10.23 am
Mr. Liam Byrne: I add my congratulations to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on raising this vital issue, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) for introducing the case of Josh Berrill, a young boy who was knocked down and killed in my constituency on Burney lane—a road that the Minister knows.
Josh was just two years old and was due to start back at his toddler group on Monday. The hearts of everyone in the city went out to his mum and dad, and I must praise their fortitude and courage in championing a campaign for change. I praise, too, the Birmingham Evening Mail, which has added its voice to the campaign. The parents are determined to ensure that something good will come out of the tragic incident, because the fact is that young Josh was not the first but the third boy to die on Burney lane. The fact is that a child a week is knocked down and hurt in and around Washwood Heath, and the fact is that, nationally, children from less privileged backgrounds are five times more likely to be hurt by cars.
The Government have worked hard in the area and given a substantial amount of money to Birmingham city council. However, it is now clear that a cheque is not enough to deliver change, and I hope that the Minister will support the work of local residents in pressing Birmingham city council to fast-track road safety improvements in and around my constituency. Road safety is not just vital for rural areas, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk has highlighted, but a live issue in our major cities and towns.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: A commendably brief speech. I call Mr. Mark Lazarowicz.
10.24 am
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I also pay tribute to the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) for securing this important debate and to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) for highlighting in a moving way the consequences that a death on the roads has for families in our constituencies. That reminds us that although we may have a good record compared with other countries in Europe, last year 3,400 families experienced the personal tragedy that
196WH
arises from a death on the roads. Although we may never reach a zero death rate on our roads, we should aim for that, and take forward positive measures to improve safety for all road users, whether pedestrians, drivers or cyclists.
In the limited time available to me, I want to make three points. First, I endorse what my hon. Friend the Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight) said about the need to move ahead with the Halliday review on driving offences. It was commissioned in 2003 and was meant to appear in the new year of 2004. It is now some way past the new year and hon. Members will be aware that the review arose from a wider interdepartmental review of traffic penalties, which started in 2000 and concluded in 2002. It is now four years since the review process began, so it must be concluded quickly.
Secondly, there is the issue of drink-driving. One of the most worrying recent trends has been the way in which, after more than two decades of significant advances in combating drink-driving, casualties from drink-driving have begun to rise again. In 2002, there was an increase in fatalities and serious injuries of some 10 to 20 per cent. compared with four years previously. That is extremely worrying. A number of measures have been proposed to tackle that rise, and it is time to consider greater use of random testing and intelligence-led breath testing. In the UK, we conduct a breath test for only every 67 drivers, whereas the average European probability of being breath tested is one in 16. It would be worth considering a change to that policy.
Thirdly, I agree with the concern expressed my hon. Friend the Member for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) about the consultation on speeding penalties, and particularly the suggestion that there should be a reduction in the penalty for lower levels of speeding. That sends out all the wrong messages, and underlines the view held in some quarters that a little speeding does not really matter. That is a dangerous attitude and I hope that the Government will resist invitations from certain quarters to follow that line. I understand the case for increasing the penalties for exceeding speed limits by a high amount, but reducing the current level would be a bad step. One of the problems is that speed limits are not effectively enforced, or rather that offences are not always pursued for speeds below 40 mph. That must be tackled, so it would not be right to reduce the penalties at the lower level.
On the positive side, it is possible to make a difference to road safety. I am pleased that in my own area in Edinburgh there has been effective work between the city council, the police and various other agencies, which has had a real impact on deaths and injuries on the roads. One particularly important statistic is that last year, for the first time since records have been kept, not a single school-age child was killed on the roads in Edinburgh. It may be difficult to maintain that record, but I hope that we can, combined with reductions in other deaths and injuries on the roads.
The effective use of a combination of measures such as education, traffic engineering, 20 mph zones and traffic calming can make a difference, along with the use of speed cameras. The police in Edinburgh have said that the package of measures has made a major contribution to the general reduction in deaths and injuries on the roads in the city. As other hon. Members have said, the number of deaths on the roads has fallen

197WH
during recent years, although there have been worrying trends in more recent years. Nevertheless, every death and injury on our roads is a personal tragedy for the families of those involved, and any measures to make a significant reduction in the toll of death and injury are to be welcomed. The Government are going in the right direction. I urge them to continue along the lines that they have taken in recent years, and to resist those who spread urban myths about speed cameras being a means of raising revenue and the rest of it.
I do not want to spoil the all-party bonhomie, but I have to say that it is a bit rich that some Opposition Members contribute to the spreading of urban myths and so help to denigrate the important effect that speed cameras can have in reducing deaths and injuries on the roads. I urge the Government to continue with their programme, and to resist robustly any attempt to reduce the effectiveness of measures designed to deter speeding drivers.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: On the assumption that he will speak for no longer than three minutes, I call the hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan).
10.31 am
Mr. John Grogan: I shall make three points in three minutes, Mr. Deputy Speaker. The first is to do with driver tiredness. My constituency will long be associated with the Selby train crash, which was ultimately caused by driver tiredness. I congratulate the Minister on the many activities in the Department that have highlighted that issue since that time, particularly the "Think!" road safety campaign and its publicity on driver tiredness. A summer radio campaign integrated with publicity about speeding and drink driving has just finished. There is a whole array of different advertising now, which is planned throughout the year, and that campaign is a model of its kind.
However, I want to press the Minister on an issue related to driver tiredness that was highlighted in the Yorkshire Post during the summer—the idea of French-style rest areas, which was floated by Ministers in 2002. They would be something less than service stations, but have basic toilet and rest facilities and play areas for children, perhaps. I understand that by 2006 there will be an experiment with rest areas on motorways, although there may be planning problems. There are arguments both ways on this issue; the facilities have to be reasonably substantial to have real effect. I would appreciate it if the Minister said something about that.
I turn to the issue of motor cycles. I live in a constituency not dissimilar to that of the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon), who introduced this debate with such intelligence. It is a big, rural constituency in the biggest rural county in England, North Yorkshire, on whose roads 28 motor cyclists were killed last year. The county has no speed cameras at the moment. People will want to scrutinise the road safety proposals for the county that the police and the county council will bring forward at the end of the year. If the police do not decide to go down the path of speed cameras, rigorous questions will be asked about the notion that there are no sites that justify the placement of cameras in North Yorkshire at the moment.
However, the police have been involved in many good initiatives. The "Handle it or lose it" campaign, centred in Sherburn in Elmet, provides a plan on the web of
198WH
accident blackspots that motor cyclists should avoid, which has been very good. I support the hon. Gentleman's proposal to have another look at the law in relation to middle-aged men, whom The Sunday Times has referred to as men aged between 30 and 60, which includes most of us here today. Under-21s have to spend two years riding lower-powered bikes before graduating to higher-powered bikes—should that not be the same for everyone?
I shall make my final point in just a few sentences, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Although a cheque is not sufficient to ensure road safety, it is necessary. I have 88 villages in my constituency, and, as the hon. Member for South Norfolk said in introducing the debate, speed and road safety are the No. 1 issue in rural areas. In Selby we have the Selby bypass, and the Minister has been involved in the Bilborough Top works on the A64. None of that would have been possible without public expenditure. I hope that in summing up for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope) will say what assurances he has from the shadow Front-Bench Treasury team that road safety and highways will be a priority should there ever be a Conservative Government again, because it is important to maintain expenditure on road safety for many years to come.
10.35 am
John Thurso: I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on introducing the debate in an extremely thoughtful and serious way. The topic has brought out a degree of unanimity in the Chamber, which is one of the best reasons for coming back from the recess for this short period.
Several hon. Members, including the hon. Member for South Dorset (Jim Knight), have spoken about the need to change the law, and I would certainly favour such a change. Two options have been proposed. However, as I think the hon. Gentleman said, the main point is not which option is right, but that one of the options should be implemented. I slightly favour the view that the starting point should be that a death has occurred and that the charge should be based on that, but the views expressed by the hon. Member for South Norfolk could equally be the answer. I would support any change in the law based on either option, and such a change is urgently needed.
It is worth putting what we are talking about into context. The 2003 figures, which I obtained from the Department for Transport, show 3,508 deaths and 33,707 serious injuries. Of course, those figures do not include many lesser injuries that go unreported. As others have said, the total is roughly equivalent to a Hatfield and a Potters Bar incident in the United Kingdom on a daily basis. If those events were taking place on the railways, in aeroplanes or on any mode of transport other than our roads, there would be a public outcry. One of the most shocking parts of the statistics is the number of child deaths: 4,100 in the last year, 58 per cent. of which—some 2,381—involved pedestrians. Quite apart from the huge personal distress that all those cases will have caused—instances of which have been described by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber—it is estimated, according to the Government's own figures, that road accidents cost the economy some £3 billion and the NHS some £l billion.

199WH
Several hon. Members talked about trends in road safety, and it is true that for most of the post-war years things have been steadily improving year on year. A number of factors are responsible for that. One is the education of drivers, which has been improving through the driving test mechanism and through education on television and in other ways. Secondly, there has been an increase in legislation. Thirdly and very important, there have been huge improvements over many years in the safety of cars—improvements that have not yet manifested themselves to the same degree in other vehicles. Road engineering has also been an extremely important factor in improving safety.
Above all, there has been a change in public attitudes. Thirty years ago, the attitude to drink-driving was, "Oh, what a shame you got caught"; today, no one would think that a drink-driver was anything other than an antisocial criminal. It is, however, worrying that in recent years the trends have started to slow down and, as the hon. Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz) pointed out, have in some cases even reversed. Drink-driving is an example. During the recess, I had a meeting in my constituency with the area commander for Ross-shire. Incidentally, talking of large constituencies, I can safely say that mine is the largest represented in this Chamber today. The commander told me of a very worrying trend, which is an increase in the number of drink-drivers. It is being seen in two groups. One is middle-aged people—people of about my age, in other words—and the other is very new, very young drivers. Drivers in their 20s appear to have taken in the message about drink driving very well, but the commander has noticed that that is not the case for those other two groups.
In addition, we are talking about not people just over the limit—the chap who had two drinks that were slightly bigger than usual—but those who are two, two and a half or three times over the limit and serious transgressing. We need to look again at how we can combat that. The commander's view is that the problem is coming back because there is less advertising and, perhaps, less concentration on drink-driving because to a certain extent we had won the fight in the past. Reducing the limit for alcohol in the bloodstream from 0.8 to 0.5 mg will continue the campaign of awareness, although it will not affect those people who drive when they are two or three times over the limit.
My second point is about speed. I have never particularly liked the slogan "speed kills", although it is perfectly accurate. People of my age think that they are experienced drivers who transgress just a little bit and that the slogan does not apply to them. When they are told that speed kills, their immediate impression is of a boy racer in a souped-up little car who is driving many miles an hour over the limit.
I travel every week—sometimes many times—on the A9. I have often come up behind respectable-looking people in respectable-looking cars that potter along at 50 mph—I sometimes wish that they would go a bit faster on the open road—but then disappear from my view when the road goes into a town or village and I slow down to 30 or 40 mph, whichever is the limit. It is clear that the driver has not slowed down at all. There is a
200WH
huge gulf in the understanding and awareness of such so-called experienced drivers as to what speed does and how it kills.
I am concerned about the Government's proposals, particularly as they relate to the 30 mph limit. Frankly, the difference between 30 and 39 mph is literally that between life and death. I accept the principle that a more serious offence should result in more serious punishment, but I am very concerned that relaxing the penalties will send the wrong message about what we want to achieve, remembering that 58 per cent. of children who are killed are pedestrians, most of them probably in an area with a 30 mph limit.
I would like to have covered many more points in this comprehensive debate. My last point is about uninsured drivers. It is reckoned that they are 10 times more likely to have been convicted of drink driving, six times more likely to have been convicted of driving an unsafe vehicle, and three times more likely to have been convicted of driving without due care and attention. I urge the Government to give full and immediate attention to the Greenaway report, which was published recently. Having listened to all the considered contributions of hon. Members today, I suggest to the Government that the time really is right for a road safety Bill that deals with all these matters. May we please look forward to one in the Queen's Speech?
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I commend the Liberal Democrat spokesman for his brevity.
10.43 am
Mr. Christopher Chope: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on introducing this very important debate. When we had a Conservative Government, we had a full five-hour debate on road safety on the Floor of the House almost every year. The hon. Member for Selby (Mr. Grogan) asked what priority a Conservative Government would put on road safety. By our very actions we demonstrated when we were in government that we took road safety extremely seriously.
It is a pity that so many hon. Members who wanted to participate in today's debate have been unable to do so. My hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Peter Bottomley), a distinguished former road safety Minister, was here and would have liked to participate. The remarks of many others have been cut short because of the time constraints. The first thing that the Minister can deliver is a guarantee that we will have a full day's debate in Government time on this important subject.
Of course, the Government's problem is that their record is not very good, unlike that of the Conservative Government, under whom the number of deaths on the roads fell by thousands. The number of people killed on the roads fell by more than 1,000 when I was the road safety Minister for two or three years in the early 1990s. More than 1,000 fewer people were killed on the roads each year as a result of Conservative policies. The most recent statistics show that more people were killed on the roads in the United Kingdom in 2003 than when the Government took office in 1997. It is hardly surprising that the Government do not want to debate the matter, because they know that they are on the back foot. They

201WH
have alienated thousands of motorists by insensitive enforcement through speed cameras, while ignoring the serious issues that affect so many road users, whether pedestrians, cyclists or car drivers.
The number of people killed on our roads last year was more than 3,500. In the period 1984–93, deaths on our roads were reduced by 32 per cent. In the 10 years since 1993, deaths have gone down by only 3.8 per cent. That shows that more than 1,000 deaths on the roads each year are attributable to the Government's failure to maintain the reduction in fatalities on the road that was commonplace between 1984 and 1993. There are many reasons why we had a successful policy during that period, but there is no time to go into them today.
What is going wrong? Why are we in this situation? There has been a vast increase in the incidence of driving while under the influence of drugs, which is associated with the Government's failure on drugs policy in general. There has also been an increase in the number of people driving under the influence of alcohol. The number of people killed and injured in crashes involving a driver over the alcohol limit has risen to 20,000—the highest since 1990. Meanwhile, the number of traffic police has fallen by 11 per cent. since 1996. Fewer breath tests are being carried out, there are fewer prosecutions for driving without due care and attention and fewer bad drivers are being brought to book.
There is an epidemic of driving without insurance and without a licence. People talk about penalties and the need for more disqualifications, but so many people who are disqualified immediately get back behind the wheel. There are many people driving without road fund licences, and the rising incidence of people failing to stop after an accident is a worrying trend. They leave people dead or dying in the road and drive off, and there is far too much of it. In my constituency, as I am sure is the case in other hon. Members' constituencies, there are too many horrendous examples of that. Road safety is in dire straits, and the Government are far too complacent about it.
People have rightly concentrated on fatal accidents in which the victim was blameless, but let us also consider those fatal accidents in which the road user was at fault but death was a disproportionate consequence of their error of judgment. The Department for Transport's road safety research report on dangerous driving and the law identified 5,780 fatal accidents for which information was available. Of those, 2,581–44 per cent.—showed that the driver at fault was killed. In 1,171 cases, or 20 per cent., the pedestrian at fault was killed. It is no consolation to us to say that they were at fault. They did not expect their error of judgment to result in their death. Just outside my constituency, a pedestrian walking across the road using her mobile phone stepped out in front of a newly qualified young driver, and there was nothing he could do to avoid the impact. That pedestrian did not deserve the consequence she suffered.
Would we not be better off with more education? I ask the Minister to take up the message about education and, particularly, the campaign by the Institute of Advanced Motorists, of which I am proud to be a member. I joined when I was the Minister with responsibility for road safety. Indeed, it should be compulsory for all road safety Ministers and transport Ministers to pass the Institute of Advanced Motorists
202WH
test. Furthermore, it would set a really good example to the country if all Members of Parliament took the IAM test.
I shall conclude by quoting the advice given by Bryan Lunn, the IAM chief examiner, in the current edition of Advanced Driving, the magazine for advanced motorists:
"I would like to see driver and rider education given a much higher profile in the Government's Road Safety Strategy. Engineering and enforcement can only achieve so much and are, in the main, negative strategies. The third and fourth road safety Es—education and encouragement—are much more positive. The truth is that some current engineering solutions and enforcement campaigns to support the Government's Road Safety Strategy are frustrating or alienating large sections of the motoring public. We need the full support of drivers and riders if we are going to achieve a reduction in the number of people killed and seriously injured on Britain's roads each year. By giving education and encouragement a higher profile in the Road Safety Strategy, we are much more likely to get that support."
I heartily endorse that important message and I hope that the Government will take some action.
10.51 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. David Jamieson): I am glad that we have had the opportunity of kicking off this short part of the parliamentary timetable with such an important debate. I wish to start by congratulating the hon. Member for South Norfolk (Mr. Bacon) on his sensible, thoughtful and mainly consensual approach to the issue. It was in contrast somewhat to the approach taken by the hon. Member for Christchurch (Mr. Chope), although he highlighted the importance of the issue to all Members of Parliament—as have many contributions to the debate. We all know of examples of incidents in which children have been killed and know of families who have lost fathers, mothers and loved ones. All of us have experienced such consequences at some time or another.
I wish to put the debate into context from the Government's point of view. We need to correct some of what was said by the hon. Member for Christchurch. It will be impossible for me to answer in detail all the points that have been made, but I shall endeavour to correspond where appropriate. Car ownership in the country is growing. The number of vehicles on the road is increasing by about 1 per cent. per year. There are more vehicles on the road throughout the world. In fact, last year there were nearly 1 million deaths as a result of road accidents in the world. As the hon. Member for South Norfolk said, given the number of vehicles on the road, this country has a good road safety record. Other countries, not only in Europe but throughout the world, are looking to see how we have been so successful. I emphasise to the hon. Member for Christchurch that we have been successful over many years—for probably 30 or 40 years. As a result of several measures, Labour and Conservative Governments have been successful in gradually reducing the casualties on our roads.
Four years ago, we published our road safety strategy entitled "Tomorrow's roads—safer for everyone" in which we set out targets of a 40 per cent. reduction in the number of people killed or seriously injured and a 50 per cent. reduction in child casualties because, although our record is good overall, the record for deaths of and injuries to children is not as good as it should be. It does not compare with that of one or two of our European partners. We were also aware that children who live in

203WH
disadvantaged areas are especially vulnerable. As my hon. Friends the Members for Halifax (Mrs. Mahon) and for Birmingham, Hodge Hill (Mr. Byrne) said, such children are particularly at risk.
To put the matter into context for the hon. Member for Christchurch and to get it on the record, I want to explain that the 2003 casualty figures show a continued progress downwards in the number of road casualties. The total number of deaths or serious injuries is 22 per cent. below the baseline that we took from the year 2000.
Mr. Chope: What about the deaths?
Mr. Jamieson: I will come to that in a moment. There has been a 22 per cent. reduction. There has been a 40 per cent. decrease in deaths of and serious injuries to children. In three years, we are more than three quarters of the way to the 50 per cent. reduction, which is not a catalogue of failure. I am sorry that the hon. Gentleman tried to make some sort of party political point out of the matter.
We are being successful. That success is not due to the Government alone, but to local authorities controlled by all three parties—and, in Scotland, perhaps also by other parties—working together with us and taking those issues seriously.
The hon. Gentleman made a point about the number of deaths. The number of deaths on the roads has remained at a plateau of approximately 3,500. Over the years, the numbers of deaths and serious injuries fell in parallel, but four or five years ago the number of deaths reached a plateau, whereas the number of serious injuries continued to decrease. That trend has also been observed in other European countries. We are not entirely sure why it has happened. Half those casualties are people inside vehicles, so despite all the work that we have done on issues such as seat belts and on making cars safer, the number of people killed in cars has remained static.
Another contributory factor to the deaths is two-wheelers—an issue raised by several hon. Members. We have considerable concerns about people on two wheels; we want to encourage motor cycling, but we want it to be safe. We set up the Advisory Group on Motorcycling, which has been meeting for some time and which, for the past year or so, has been under my chairmanship. The group has recently made a number of suggestions and recommendations, which we are examining closely to see how safety for motor cyclists can be improved without discouraging people from taking up motor cycling.
The hon. Member for Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross (John Thurso) may have made a slip of the tongue when he said that there were 4,100 children killed
204WH
each year on the roads. I think that he meant to say "killed and seriously injured". Only 171 children were killed on our roads, but that is a lot of children—the equivalent of a medium-sized primary school. Nevertheless, those numbers are being driven down each year, which is to be welcomed.
The hon. Member for South Norfolk raised the issues of motor cycling and of drink-driving. The latter is still a matter of concern to a number of hon. Members. The number of people who are drink-driving is probably increasing again. The vast majority of people in the UK, young and old, take that matter very seriously. However, there is a group of people—younger men and, to some extent, younger women, in the 20 to 30 age group—who cause those casualties. That is a matter of concern, and some of our advertising and effort has focused particularly on that group. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the appalling deaths of his constituents, and other hon. Members have experienced similar situations. They focus our minds on the issue.
The announcement of the outcome of the preferred options on the review of traffic penalties was made in July 2002. One of the consequences of that review was that the penalty for causing death by dangerous driving was raised from 10 to 14 years' imprisonment, which came through the Criminal Justice Act 2003. Other changes will also be made, when parliamentary time allows. I cannot predict what will be in the Queen's Speech, but I hope that there will be a road safety Bill. It is possible that I may still be the Minister who sees that Bill through, but that will be determined by events this week. Such changes will include proposals for a separate review of road traffic offences, and will deal with the problems of dangerous and careless driving. We will shortly be consulting on those issues.
Mr. Deputy Speaker, it looks as if time is running out. A number of issues remain to be discussed about cameras and their placement. I assure the hon. Member for South Norfolk that we received reassurance from the partnership that the cameras in that area were all placed in locations where there had been casualties. If hon. Members have any doubt about such issues, they should get the figures from their partnerships, or look at the Department's website, which contains most of the material and deals with some of the more detailed issues.
This has been a short debate; I hope that we can have a longer debate on the issue another time, because there are so many enormously important matters to be addressed.
Mr. Deputy Speaker: I thank the Minister for his measured reply and I congratulate the House on the quality of the debate. We now move to our second debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda).

Parental Leave
11 am
Mr. Parmjit Dhanda: I welcome you back from the summer recess, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and hope that you and other hon. Members have had a good break.
I am delighted to have secured this debate on an issue of direct importance to 12 million parents and their dependent children. All parents have a responsibility to provide financially for their families through work; however, parenthood is about not just time, but emotional support and practical help when times get tough. The debate is of great significance to many hon. Members, as well as to those outside Parliament; my predecessor stood down after one term in the House because, as is well recorded, she had a young family.
I shall be brief, as in addition to spokesmen for the opposition parties, other hon. Members wish to contribute. I shall outline the background, assess the effectiveness of the legal framework and offer suggestions that I hope the Minister will find helpful about the steps that can be taken to enable parents to fulfil their responsibilities to themselves, their families and the wider society.
First, I pay tribute to the hard work of colleagues such as my hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones), who is keen to try to come and play a part in this debate. She has tabled a number of questions on this topic, and I shall say something about them and about the answers that she has received. Secondly, I pay tribute to the trade unions—I know that the Minister will wish to do the same—especially my union, the Union of Shop, Distributive and Allied Workers, which has campaigned tirelessly on the issue, and Connect, the union for professionals in communications, of which I am also a member and a former employee.
The Equal Opportunities Commission, too, has played a leading role in forming a coalition of almost 40 organisations, all calling for greater support for parents and carers. They have campaigned actively for working parents to have the opportunity to achieve a sustainable work-life balance, and their campaigns are more relevant now than ever before.
The context of the debate is one in which millions of mothers and fathers constantly juggle their responsibilities in an attempt to achieve a semblance of a work-life balance. Thanks to this Government's policies since 1997, approximately 10 million parents are in work, including 58 per cent. of women with pre-school children and 78 per cent. of women with children aged between six and 13. There may be more people in work, but that has thrown up a number of new issues. A third of fathers work more than 50 hours a week and 14 per cent. of fathers work 60 hours or more a week.
As hon. Members on both sides of the House recognise, what is at issue is not just the need of parents to spend quality time with their children. We must also acknowledge that there are unforeseen and unpredictable circumstances in which parents need time off, such as when a child or child minder is sick, or when a child has to be taken for an emergency medical appointment. In addition, there are routine occasions such as meetings with teachers, sports days, assemblies
206WH
and so on, and times when children just need extra time and support from their parents. As is well documented, those who do not receive such support can go on to develop serious behavioural problems. Much of the work that the Government have tried to do over the past seven years has aimed to create that bond in the early years so that parents and children can enjoy that nurturing experience that it is to be hoped will make society a better place for tomorrow.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): My hon. Friend will acknowledge the Government's attempt to deal with the long hours culture by signing up to the working time directive. We have an argument about the opt-out clause, but the directive restricts people to working 48 hours a week.
Mr. Dhanda: I certainly do. My hon. Friend makes a good point. I was working in the trade union movement when we signed up to the directive. It was one of those champagne moments of the Labour Government. I will talk later about that directive and other European directives that are particularly relevant to parental leave.
What is the Government's role in this whole area of parental leave? At one end of the spectrum is the view that parents' responsibility to their children is an entirely individual matter, that there is no need for Government support and that any obligation on business will be inherently detrimental to enterprise and the operation of a free market. I strongly oppose that view, and I would like to think that hon. Members on both sides of the House do too. At the other end of the spectrum is the argument that able parents should be entirely free to stay at home while drawing a full income from their employer or the taxpayer and that this obviates the need for them financially to support their families themselves. I will not subscribe to that position either. However, sometimes parents need help and support for their children.
The Government should not take on parents' duties for them, and I do not think anyone argues that they should, but they should enable parents to fulfil their duties. That is important. Parental leave provides one such avenue, but the issue is much wider than that. Since 1997, the Government have taken a holistic approach. My hon. Friend the Minister mentioned one of the measures that have been introduced—the working time directive. In 1999, the Government introduced provisions of the European directive on parental leave, which entitled parents who had worked for the same employer for at least a year to 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave if their child was born on or after 15 December 1999 and had not yet reached the age of five. Subsequently, as my hon. Friend will be aware, the TUC challenged the ruling and the scope of the directive was widened so that it applies to all parents with children under five who get a proportion of that paid leave. I hope he agrees that that was a welcome measure.
Each parent of a disabled child under the age of 18 for whom disability living allowance is paid is entitled to 18 weeks' unpaid parental leave. Parents also have the right to take time off for dependants, although it is unpaid. As with all these forms of parental leave, that is a stumbling block for low-paid workers—a point on

207WH
which I shall elaborate later. The measures have none the less been a great stride forward since 1997. It is also important to recognise that these policies fit into a much wider approach to families, of which child care is one part.
Since 1997, more than 920,000 new child care places have been created, benefiting well over 1.6 million children. Free part-time nursery provision has guaranteed education for all four-year-olds and now all three-year-olds too. The 524 new local Sure Start programmes for families living in disadvantaged areas have made a huge difference, not least through the five programmes in my constituency. I know that those programmes have made a huge difference throughout the country.
Let us not consider parental leave in isolation; there are many ways in which different Departments are striving to make work-life balance a reality. Many of the provisions that came into being in 1999 under the European directive on parental leave—particularly the ones I have described— apply to children under the age of five. It is the view of many in this House, and of trade unions such as USDAW, that those provisions should be extended. The Government should consider extending them to those above the age of five, and even to those up to the age of 16.
The Government make the good point that we need to invest more in the early years to invest in our society's future. I agree with that, but in dealing with society today, we find that a great deal of legislation is focused on antisocial behaviour. Any parent will say that one of the most difficult times to be a parent is when one's child is a teenager. I see the Minister nodding. I am happy to give way to him; he can tell us of his experiences.
Mr. Sutcliffe: The reason why I had my head in my hands is that I have a 15-year-old son, so I know exactly what my hon. Friend means about the difficulties of teenage years. He is a wonderful son. I have two other sons, aged 31 and 29, and it does not get any easier.
Mr. Dhanda: I will take the Minister's word for it. I got married only last year, and I do not have any kids yet, so it is not a direct problem for me.
I want to talk about the take-up of paid and unpaid parental leave. Figures produced by the Department of Trade and Industry in 2001 showed that just 3 per cent. of parents had exercised their right to take parental leave. In a written answer on 15 June, my hon. Friend the Minister stated that take-up was 8 per cent. of eligible female employees and 10 per cent. of eligible male employees among those whose employers provided parental leave. However, that figure was based on employees who were aware that their employer provided parental leave.
According to a Department for Work and Pensions survey, barely a third of eligible men and women were aware that they were entitled to parental leave. Only a quarter of mothers and fathers were fully aware that they had the right to take 13 weeks' unpaid parental leave after working for the same employer for one year. Interestingly, awareness and take-up of the right were much higher in higher paid, more highly educated
208WH
groups and in workplaces with more pro-work-life policies and trade union recognition. I am sure that the Minister will have something to say about that, because it is particularly relevant that there is a greater awareness where there is trade union recognition.
Such a level of take-up will be considered unacceptable by many people in this House, including me, and especially those of us with a passionate interest in the welfare of people facing low pay and poor conditions. I would be grateful if the Minister advised us of the steps that his Department will take to increase take-up.
The problem is replicated in the take-up of paid leave as well. Some employers provide payment for parental leave and take-up is much higher among employees who are entitled to partly or fully paid leave, particularly among men, who are paid disproportionately more than women. We have talked about how low take-up can be in respect of unpaid, but there is a significant increase in the case of paid leave. If we consider some of the statistics in relation to take-up, we find that 22 per cent. of women took the opportunity to have parental leave when it was partly paid, and 40 per cent. when it was fully paid. When we examine the figures relating to men, we see that take-up of partly paid leave goes up to 34 per cent., and for fully paid leave among men it is a whopping 57 per cent. That is hugely significant. It shows the much greater demand for parental leave if the financial sacrifice can be alleviated, especially among men, whose salaries are usually greater—although I know that the Government are looking to introduce measures to equalise the gender pay gap.
However, relatively few parents take that entitlement to paid leave. Awareness of entitlement is much higher among women than among men. Statistics purely on awareness show that three times as many women as men are aware of part-paid leave but that the gender gap reduces to half in respect of fully paid leave, of which far more people are aware. Those findings suggest that payment for parental leave could be a means of significantly increasing its take-up. I will welcome the views of my hon. Friend the Minister on that.
My office has done a lot of work with the House of Commons Library to find out what is going on with parental leave around the world. There is already provision for paid parental leave in many countries. In Austria, a flat-rate allowance funded by the state is available for working couples during parental leave. In Canada, parental leave is paid by unemployment insurance, where a family is eligible for unemployment benefits. In Denmark, parental leave is paid by the state at a flat rate equivalent to unemployment benefit. Such a system can work, and has worked, elsewhere. USDAW is urging the Government to build on their successes by extending paid parental leave, and I would appreciate the comments of my hon. Friend the Minister on that issue. Is his Department actively considering that approach, and what work has been carried out to establish the effectiveness and feasibility of paid parental leave? What conclusions, if any, has he drawn from any such analysis at this stage?
An understandable concern is that putting further obligations on businesses could harm their ability to make profits and create jobs. Those of us from a trade union background are all familiar with that argument. It should not be dismissed lightly, but neither should it

209WH
be taken as a given. There is a strong business case for paid family leave. It can help to reduce sickness absence. Claims of unwarranted sickies have been in the headlines recently, as they often are, but they are not just about stereotypical malingering workers wanting a day off. When a child is sick, parents put them first and take time off work to be with them. If the only basis for them to do so is to take sick leave, they will choose that option, as a recent survey by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation has shown. I understand that the Government's research confirms that where there is some form of paid family leave, there is less unauthorised absence and less unplanned lateness.
In addition, the Industrial Relations Service has found that two thirds of employers said that recruitment, retention and employee commitment and motivation had all improved following the introduction of family-friendly working practices. Paid parental leave could therefore aid the health and stability of businesses.
Looking at the bigger picture into which parental leave fits, I want to consider other ways in which the Government could improve the work-life balance for parents. I know that some such measures fall outside the DTI's remit, so I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister to speak in detail about them, but it is important to raise them because this is a cross-Government matter. I want to highlight the fact that this is a wide issue that requires the support of many Departments and other agencies. For example, longer school opening hours to provide wrap-around education and child care could help working parents enormously. The Department for Education and Skills has already released funding for 250 fully operational wrap-around schools, which will be set up by 2006. Two thirds of schools offer some kind of out-of-hours support for parents; extending that provision will enable us to maximise the potential of children while helping parents to go out to work.
I have already mentioned the EOC, which has been campaigning on the highly relevant issue of pregnancy discrimination. That term refers directly to any disadvantage a woman can face at work that is caused wholly or partly by pregnancy. Each year, up to 1,000 women in England and Wales take legal action claiming that they were sacked because they were pregnant. Others have faced pay cuts, demotion or hostile treatment—and not just at the hands of the United Kingdom Independence party. I want there to be more support for families and also to provide more support for employers by making them aware of the law and giving them the help they need to prevent pregnancy discrimination. I would welcome any information that my hon. Friend could give about what the Government plan to do in this area.
My message is a positive one. Parental leave is not a zero sum game between the rights of parents and the needs of business. Bosses benefit from productive, motivated and happy employees. Children benefit from having parents with the time to nurture them. Making it easier for parents to take leave can aid the stability of business and the emotional development of children, and support the strong families on which our communities and our society rest.
11.22 am
Beverley Hughes: I greatly welcome the opportunity to contribute, and I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on his foresight in seeking a debate on this very important topic and on his success in securing it. I also join him in acknowledging the work of USDAW in representing the interests of people—mainly women—in the retail sector, for whom this is a very important issue.
Balancing the care of children with paid employment is a daily problem for many working parents, as most of us who have been there recognise. Parents do not want just to juggle those things in the precarious way that many of us have had to do. They want to ensure the best possible care for their children. Many families want to enable both parents to keep a toehold in the world of work and need to do so in ways that maximise their family income.
Trying to achieve those three objectives presents many parents with challenges on a scale that they find overwhelming. As family structures are diversifying and employment patterns, particularly for women, continue to evolve, it is unsurprising that the tension at the interface of these two worlds has become ever more acute for many parents.
We should disabuse ourselves at the outset of any impression there might be—not here, but outside this place that this is a difficult issue only for professional parents juggling children with two well-paid jobs. It is of course an even more difficult issue for lone parents and parents with limited earning power; for them, the options are even more limited. This matter is as much about social justice and extending opportunities to lower-income parents as anything else.
Some may still argue that this is essentially a private matter, and in terms of the particular arrangements that individual parents make, I agree that it is. However, I want to construct most of my arguments around the belief that what happens in practice when parents try to arrange child care and juggle it with work matters particularly profoundly in three areas that I hope nobody would disagree are very important parts of public policy.
The first area is outcomes for children. Children's experiences during their earliest years have profound and enduring impacts on their life chances and opportunity for social mobility later on. Their performances in tests at 22 and 42 months, before they even get to school, are very strong predictors of educational attainment by the age of 25 or 26, when life chances and social mobility are largely set. So in those early years, the quality of the care that young children receive—how stimulating and emotionally responsive it is—is critical. That is one of the important issues that justify the Government's role.
The second issue, of course, is gender inequality at work. The pay gap has been mentioned and it is perhaps the clearest example of employment inequality, although there are others, including career progression for women. In large part, the gap is due to mothers' role in the labour market and the highly gendered division of labour that flows from it in the domestic sphere. We all agree that this area of public policy needs addressing,

211WH
and the extent to which we help parents—not just mothers, but fathers, too—to share child care and paid work is critical.
Last but not least, it is bad for UK productivity and, in particular, for individual businesses if those businesses must lose valued employees simply because options for combining child care and work are limited. Those three social and economic issues—outcomes for children, gender inequality at work and the success of British business— are crucial, and no responsible political party can ignore them. The Government must provide a range of options from which parents can construct their own arrangements, while promoting progressive, modern solutions to those social and economic issues.
I congratulate the Government on their progress so far. They are the first Government for many years to have put such issues centre stage in a programme of policy. All three and four-year-olds are now guaranteed a publicly funded nursery place, and take-up is high. The extension of Sure Start and the development of children's centres will take that provision further.
Women's participation in the labour market is among the highest in Europe, with 65 per cent. of mothers in paid employment, usually part-time. Maternity leave has been extended, and provision for two weeks' paid paternity leave has been introduced. A small but increasing number of fathers choose to work part-time. Parents now have the right to ask to work flexibly. New tax credits and, of course, the minimum wage help lower-paid parents with their family finances.
I agree with my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester that there is a lack of clarity about some details, particularly regarding parental leave arrangements, but a recent ICM/Guardian poll showed that about 70 per cent. of parents had a good overall grasp of the wide range of Government reforms. Interestingly, however, 66 per cent. wanted the Government to go further, which reflects the continuing difficulty that many parents have in squaring the circle, although things have got better. The problem is particularly acute for parents with very young babies, who want, ideally, to opt for home-based care until their children reach nursery age. Recent research has questioned the suitability of group care for very young children and babies, whose needs are arguably best met by parents or by one or two consistent, emotionally responsive carers at home. That goes back to the argument about the quality of arrangements for children.
The present arrangements have gone a considerable way to helping parents, but it is still difficult for many parents to juggle their responsibilities. That has led to a situation in which there are limited options for age-appropriate child care, particularly when children are very young. Mothers also tend to work part-time, exacerbating the gender pay gap, which is already among the most significant in Europe. Furthermore, men are restricted differentially to full-time, long-hours jobs, when many are calling for fathers' distinctive role to be recognised. That makes it more difficult for businesses to retain women employees.
212WH
On the basis of the Government's progress so far, people are ready for and want another step change, in addition to what has already been achieved, to extend choice to working parents. If we are to achieve it, we must embrace several objectives. I realise that they are not all in this Minister's province, but as my hon. Friend said, we need a cross-Government approach if we are to hit all the right buttons. First, we need high-quality and age-appropriate arrangements for child care. Secondly, we need improved satisfaction, pay and career progression for women at work. Thirdly, we need opportunities for child care to be shared between both parents and a distinctive focus on fathers. We need establish the wider business case for flexible employment practices.
If we can address those issues, we will need to do a number of things. On child care, we must try to see whether we can diversify and improve the quality of the arrangements that are made, particularly for young children. I think—hon. Members may well share this view—that it is hard to contemplate leaving a young baby with somebody else. It is a wrench that many people go through. That view may reflect my position, because 25 years ago, when I had my first child, my husband and I both worked part-time for about eight years until our third child went to nursery, and it was much more difficult for him than for me. I would like to think that that is now an easier option for some parents to consider, but we must make it easier for fathers to follow such arrangements with their partners.
The quality and diversity of arrangements for child care must be addressed, including home-based care for young babies, nursery care and education for three to five-year-olds, and much more wrap-around provision for children at school. We must also address the quality assurance of child care, because parents need to know that the place where they are leaving their children is safe and high quality. One of the greatest fears is what is happening when the children are out of sight, and how they are being spoken to and the quality of interaction between them and their carers. Most child care is high quality, but each parent needs to know that the child care that they have is high quality.
Secondly, support for parents at work must be extended, and we have introduced extensions in paternity and maternity leave. The issue of the level of pay during leave is important. There is some evidence, as cited by my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester, that if pay increases, so too does the take-up, particularly for people from poorer families. I would like to see the introduction of some extended paid parental leave entitlement, on an equal basis for men and women. The lessons in Norway are instructive, because take-up by fathers increased dramatically when they were given a specific entitlement on a take it or lose it basis.
I welcome the Government's arrangements for people to have the right to request flexible hours. If I remember rightly, the monitoring in the first tranche showed that 80 per cent. of such requests were agreed. That is a great step forward. However, that still presumably means that one in five were turned down, and I wonder what those parents had to do. I would welcome it if the Government continue to monitor that provision to see whether it needs to be strengthened.

213WH
The third area that we must address is making employment practices father friendly as well as mother friendly. That means reinforcing the attitude that a father's involvement is important in its own right, for children and men, and not just as a support for mothers. There is a range of options, including flexible hours, annualised hours and term-time working for men and women. If such arrangements were more the norm, they could transform options for parents and benefit many employers by reducing sickness absence, unauthorised absence and lateness, and by improving recruitment, retention and productivity. Nobody works harder than a part-time worker in my experience, having been one for many years.
As a precursor, as the variants of such a package are considerable, it would be welcome if the Government, employers and trade unions could work together to evaluate the options and talk to parents. That should include the potential impact—real or perceived—on other employees of extending rights to working parents.
Mr. Dhanda: I am in total agreement with my right hon. Friend on the packages that are out there working and delivering. Does she agree that part of the difficulty is ensuring a level of equity between different social groups' ability to buy into the packages? Unfortunately, the way things are and the way in which knowledge tends to be dispersed to those who can afford it means that the greatest beneficiaries tend to be those with better pay and conditions. One of the things that we need to do is find other mechanisms to reach out to ensure that those on lower pay benefit from some of the measures that she outlined.
Beverley Hughes: I agree absolutely. I remind my hon. Friend that I started my speech by saying that, for me, the issue is one of social justice. If we are serious about extending opportunities to all, we must make sure that such provisions reach the people who, arguably, need them most and not simply those who are better informed and able to access them. That must be an important part of the equation.
It is important to demonstrate and establish the business case and the wider social and economic case for the measures. I suspect that the benefits may go well beyond the more limited benefit of enabling parents to work and care at the same time. I think that the potential benefits for children—potentially for boys and girls differentially—of living in families in which both parents are being seen to share the care and work could be profound.
In conclusion, I welcome the progress that we have already made in taking the arrangements into a new dimension. I hope that we can now work on the next steps, along the lines that my hon. Friend has been addressing. If we can, I think that we will not only do the best by children, but address gender inequality in the workplace and help British business to make the most of the talents of all our people in the interests of the British economy.
11.37 am
Brian Cotter: I thank the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) for initiating the debate, which is very important. There are
214WH
many difficulties that still need resolving, and one cannot say merely that they are black and white and let that be the end of it. I thank him for the clarity with which he drew attention to the issues and pressures that people have in their lives nowadays that are different from how things used to be.
Child care places have been referred to, as has the importance of early years—an issue that, in particular, the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) addressed. There are many such issues and questions. The question of how to juggle our personal lives with our daily working commitments is becoming increasingly pressured in today's modern society, when financial pressures on both parents are to the fore. Moreover, young women are no longer trapped by the old-fashioned stereotype that once confined them to the home in the role of full-time housewife and mother. Society has rightly moved on, so that both men and women can pursue the career of their choice and increasingly tend to share the practical responsibilities of parenthood.
In discussing the changing needs of working parents, we must remember the wider debate about the value of flexible, friendly working patterns for others. With an increasingly elderly population, many people are stepping in to fulfil the state's traditional role and are providing much-needed care for elderly and sick relatives. The Prime Minister has indicated that he wishes to consider that area and how to balance those needs with existing employment commitments. The debate is welcome, as it deals with an important issue that is becoming an increasing concern to many people in society. In responding to those new challenges and needs, it is imperative that we achieve co-operation and consensus among employers, workers and the state. Without such agreement, we will fail to create a competitive and flexible labour market that reflects Britain's 21st century needs.
Until recently, before I entered Parliament, I ran a small company. I was at the sharp end and I have experienced the need for flexibility, understanding and co-operation. It is important to change the old business culture of "them and us" and "You're on the shop floor and we're up here." I have had to address those problems, and I could give examples of other difficult issues that I have had to solve. This is an important matter, which is not black and white. We must work co-operatively.
I shall put the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing) in the spotlight, perhaps unfairly, since I have no quotation that refers to her, but I must point out that the Conservatives' usual dismissal of family-friendly policies is particularly unhelpful in view of what this debate is about, as it fails to address the changing nature of the British workplace. At last year's Conservative party conference in Blackpool, the then shadow Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the hon. Member for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo), said that a Conservative Government would consider repealing newly won rights to extra maternity and paternity leave, prompting the chair of the Equal Opportunities Commission, Julie Mellor, to question whether he was
"completely out of touch with public opinion."
Considering the results of last month's ICM poll, it seems that the Conservatives are out of touch with public opinion. The poll showed overwhelming

215WH
sympathy for young families trying to balance work-life responsibilities, with 66 per cent. of respondents arguing that the Government should allow either parent to take up to six months' paid leave.
I wonder whether the hon. Member for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), who is unfortunately not present, but speaks on behalf of the Conservatives on small business, would want to reconsider the categorical statement he made in the latest issue of the journal, Business Adviser, when he pledged that there would be absolutely
"no more work-life balance initiatives or employment legislation"
under a Tory Government.
There have been many announcements over the summer break from the official Opposition, and it is plain from this debate that some clear statements have been made in the past. Whether they will be changed I am not sure. Although there is an argument for questioning how well current legislation is working, I hardly think that refusing ever to take any further action, as if the world will stand still, will help working parents or employers to cope with sociological and cultural changes affecting how we work.
I modestly and quietly suggest that the Conservatives should remember that we no longer live in an era in which men go off to work in cloth caps, leaving women at home to put a meal on the table and look after the children. None the less, it is right to highlight the problems that small businesses have in implementing employment law, particularly given the increasing burden of red tape in recent years. Under Labour the burden has soared.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way, as I cannot let him continue without asking this obvious question: which of the employment regulations introduced since 1997 would the Liberal party remove?
Brian Cotter: I have made it quite clear that as a party we are not into repealing sensible employment regulation; we are into ensuring that there has been proper consultation beforehand and an assessment of how Bills will impact on businesses and others. Since I entered Parliament, I and other colleagues have identified that issue. I credit the Government with having improved their impact assessments, but a lot of legislation has been introduced without being properly assessed and adjusted accordingly.
Legislation disproportionately presses down on small businesses. An Office World report published in July 2003 found that 36 per cent. of small business owners with up to five employees reported a negative effect on their health as a result of complying with employment regulations.
Returning to the poor Conservatives, we should not forget that, for all their claims about getting rid of regulation, in their time they piled on as many if not more regulations as this Government have done. We will perhaps hear more about that. It was a Conservative Government who first transferred the cost of statutory sick pay from the state to the employer, and John Major's Government were actively considering
216WH
switching the full cost of funding maternity pay from the state to employers in summer 1995. Those are just some examples that we should be concerned about.
It is clear that many small businesses are having problems complying with parental leave regulation. Godfrey Bloom, the UKIP MEP, is quoted as saying:
"No self-respecting small businessman … would ever employ a lady of child-bearing age"
because it is too risky. That may be a grossly outdated and offensive view, but it struck a chord with many small business people none the less.
As politicians, we owe it to both parents and employers to address any problems that small businesses are having in dealing with parental leave requirements. Parents should not be punished if unnecessary bureaucracy is standing in the way of small business owners fulfilling their role as reasonable employers. Young women should not be discriminated against because small employers are deterred from hiring them due to overburdensome maternity leave regulations. I say to the Minister that there are problems that need to be addressed: he nods and agrees, as we all do.
The latest report published by the Equal Opportunities Commission makes particularly alarming reading. "Tip of the Iceberg" found that more than 1,000 women take legal action each year claiming that they have been sacked for being pregnant. Like many statistics, that figure stands on its own but has behind it lots of different issues with their pros and cons. I know that that is the case, and I will not take up too much of the House's time on the matter. I had to deal with such an issue when I was an employer, and it was difficult, so I am not saying that such things are easy.
I am pleased that the EOC is consulting various groups as part of a wider investigation of the issue, including the question whether the state should provide support to small firms, spread the costs of pregnancy and remove some of their fears. I hope that the Government will study the conclusions of the investigation carefully.
Small firms should not face crippling costs or burdens on their business due to the lack of resources that they have in comparison with larger firms in implementing parental leave regulations. One small business owner complained in The Sunday Times at the beginning of August that he was struggling to reclaim from the Inland Revenue the maternity pay that he had given to his employee. For small businesses, which often have a limited cash flow, such a situation is unacceptable, and it is important that such cases are examined. I do not know the detail—I am simply highlighting something that has been said—but it is deplorable if firms cannot claim back promptly and easily the maternity pay that they have paid out.
Administrative burdens in implementing the regulation need to be as light as possible, and small firms need easy access to guidance on the law. If small firms continue to have problems with red tape on parental leave, the Government must address the matter so that parents do not end up losing out as a result. Statutory requirements must be of a pace that can be absorbed at every level, which might even require the Government to provide financial assistance to small businesses. I put that forward just as a "might".

217WH
It is also vital that the 2006 review of employment law does not merely focus on extending the various parental leave measures introduced in 2003, but considers how well they are working in practice and how to iron out any difficulties that small firms are having. If the Government fail to address problems associated with red tape, the inequality between the rights of employees in small firms and those in large firms will be most obvious.
To return to family-friendly policies, only last month the right hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), the leader of the Conservative party, referred to the important role that fathers play in the development of their children. He drew a connection between their involvement and reducing crime. It is therefore a mystery why the Conservatives have tended to be so critical of various parental leave measures, given that benefits such as paid paternity leave encourage men to play a greater role in the child's life. We must all address that issue.
As the hon. Member for Gloucester said, there are concerns about take-up and awareness. I hope that this debate will help to publicise benefits that are there to be taken up. Many people argue that statutory leave after a birth requires examining, and my party agrees.
Finally, the one thing that really makes a dramatic improvement in the lives of working parents is provision of decent and affordable child care. I will not say more about that, except that it is a big concern. Liberal Democrats believe that money from the Chancellor's child trust fund, for example, should be diverted towards child care. That is a political issue about which I shall make just that small point, but there are many concerns about child care, as I learned when I went around my constituency during the summer.
In conclusion, we must recognise that the patterns of work and family life are changing. That is why this debate is so very important.
11.52 am
Mrs. Eleanor Laing: I congratulate the hon. Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) on securing this debate and on introducing it at such an excellent time—the beginning of the political year, when everyone is agog to know what we are talking about. I am absolutely delighted that this very important subject is being aired here on day one.
I agree with much of what the hon. Gentleman said, although he might be surprised to hear me say it. He has clearly given a great deal of thought to the question, which is one of balance. The issue affects almost every family in this country. The right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) is absolutely correct in saying that the whole issue of parents in the workplace, mothers, maternity and parental leave and the work-life balance affects everyone at every level of employment. We are seeing high-profile cases in which ladies in the City are taking expensive legal action— enormous amounts of money are at stake—in cases of unfair dismissal, discrimination and so on. At the same time, we all know of women who want to go out to work, but who simply cannot do so after they have children because child care costs take up almost all their earned income after tax. I completely agree with the right hon. Lady that the matter affects people at every level of employment.
218WH
I am grateful to the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) for throwing down the gauntlet on my party's policy on these issues. It gives me the opportunity to clear up a few misunderstandings. I shall have a word later with my hon. Friends the Members for South Suffolk (Mr. Yeo) and for North-West Norfolk (Mr. Bellingham), but I make it absolutely clear that my party is examining many aspects of work-life balance and the difficulties that people in a modern society have in balancing their duties to their families, including not only their children, but their parents. Carers of elderly, disabled and infirm people have just as much difficulty as parents, and sometimes more, in balancing their work life and their home life. If someone has a small child, they at least know that they have small child to care for, but people's parents can become unwell very suddenly. At some point or other, we have all had to balance these great difficulties.
It is simply wrong to say that the Conservative party is not aware of these issues and is not addressing them. We most certainly are addressing them in our development of future policy. I must make it absolutely clear that we are not against parental leave, and I shall speak about that in more detail later. Without any doubt, we recognise that producing, nurturing and educating future generations is an extremely important role. The role of parent is not just incidental to the rest of life; it is vital. It sounds so obvious that it hardly needs to be said, but I feel that I have to say it because the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare has quoted some articles from journals that have put the wrong emphasis on certain things that may or may not have been said by some of my hon. Friends. I am not blaming him. He has quoted the media, and we all know that they are not necessarily 100 per cent. accurate.
Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate the calm and measured way in which the hon. Lady is making her points. She makes a point about quoting the media, rather than referring to things that have been said directly by spokespersons. When she goes away from this debate and meets people on her Front Bench who are directly involved in formulating the policies in this area, she might remind them that it was the last-but-one leader of her party who said at the Dispatch Box that he would do away with Sure Start. In the same calm and measured way in which she has handled herself in this debate, I urge her to go back to her colleagues to tell them not to propose policies that would repeal some good measures that have been introduced since 1997.
Mrs. Laing: I appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point, but time moves on and whatever was said by the last-but-one leader of the Conservative party does not necessarily stand today. Some aspects of the Sure Start scheme now work reasonably well. I was very sceptical about it at the beginning because all I could see were glossy orange and yellow brochures, lots of money being spent and not an awful lot of results for the people who really needed them. However, as the scheme has settled down, I can see that there are some aspects that are not necessarily wrong. I hope that that satisfies him for the time being.
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare, who would have been considering his remarks before he arrived today and wanting to suggest that the

219WH
Conservative party is out of touch with public opinion on these matters, must have been rather disappointed to see me sitting here. I can assure him and the House that I am most certainly not out of touch with public opinion on balancing work life with motherhood and family life.
I entirely welcome the excellent report by the Equal Opportunities Commission. It is an investigation of discrimination against new and expectant mothers in the workplace. When I was an expectant mother some three and a half years ago, it occurred to me that I might consider telling the electorate of Epping Forest as the general election approached that I would not be mounting a campaign because I was statutorily entitled to maternity leave. Despite my doctor saying that it was time to go home and put my feet up, however, I did exactly the opposite by fighting and, as is obviously evidenced by the fact that I am standing here, winning a general election campaign exactly one week before I gave birth to my son. That was pretty bad timing, but such matters are in the hands of the gods and the Prime Minister and were not my fault. I am happy to report that my son was and continues to be very healthy. At the age of three and a bit he continues to need an awful lot of care from his mother. He sometimes disapproves when mummy leaves him to go to what he calls "tick tock", otherwise known as the House of Commons. So I am far from out of touch on these matters, as indeed is the Conservative party.
I welcome the Equal Opportunities Commission report that was published yesterday, which was extremely good timing. It makes four key recommendations, most of which I will be happy to support. It is perfectly reasonable to suggest that a
"written statement of rights and responsibilities"
should be provided
"to every pregnant woman and her employer."
That is a perfectly reasonable suggestion that should be followed through.
Secondly, the report suggests that there should be a
"practical toolkit for employers, underpinned by a statutory Code of Practice to clarify the complicated jigsaw of existing law and help with planning."
I am always reluctant to call for something that requires legislation, and a statutory code of practice would do that. Since it seems that over the next few weeks—I quote the newspapers—we will spend most of our time in Parliament talking about foxhunting, I would not call at this point for anything that requires primary legislation because it will be ages in coming. It would be much better if we could get on with it and have a voluntary code of practice.
We could also consider
"an extension of the three-month time limit for filing a pregnancy-related employment tribunal claim to give more women access to justice, as many women find it difficult to go through this process around the time of childbirth."
That would be absolutely correct. I would have to look into it in greater detail before asking the Minister to carry it out, but it is certainly worth considering.
Finally, the Equal Opportunities Commission report of course mentions better child care. I think that we are reaching a party political consensus on child care. The
220WH
Opposition are examining policy on child care, and especially on supply side measures, and the Government and Liberal Democrats are doing likewise. When I ask working women what we can do to make their life and their family's life easier, 90 per cent. of the time the answer is child care. We pay attention to what people tell us around the country. I look forward to examining the Equal Opportunities Commission's investigation in more detail, as I am sure the Minister does, because it contains a lot of important material.
When considering parental leave and issues of family and work, it is important to achieve a balance. There must be a reasonable balance between the employee and the employer. In speaking up for the employer, as I often do, especially in respect of small businesses that are less able to cope with more Government regulation, one is not necessarily criticising the employee. I stress that it is a question of balance. If the pendulum swings too far in one direction, it is not fair to the parent, the family or the child. If it swings too far in the other, it is not fair to the reasonable employer. I do not want over-regulation.
Mr. Sutcliffe: I do not doubt the hon. Lady's sincerity, and her contribution leads us to a crucial point. In intervening on the hon. Member for Weston-superMare, I asked which regulations his party would withdraw. Warm words are fine, but on that issue of balance, which of the existing employment rights affecting maternity or paternity would the Conservative party remove?
Mrs. Laing: The Minister is right to put me on the spot about that issue. I refer him to announcements that have been made during the past few weeks by the shadow spokesman on industry, my hon. Friend the Member for Eddisbury (Mr. O'Brien), who has examined these matters in great detail, because we recognise that parts of British industry are finding it difficult to operate to the best of their ability because of regulation and red tape, which, I am sure the Minister will freely admit, has emerged from his Government by the tonne.
My party will do nothing to undermine the position of parents, and mothers in particular, in the workplace. We recognise that the work-life balance is vital. Of course, we must have regulation to protect women in the workplace. However, if in seeking to protect them, the pendulum swings too far in favour of overbearing regulations and those regulations are too strident, the otherwise reasonable employer will simply not employ women of child-bearing age. That is the last thing that I want and it would be quite wrong. That is why getting the balance right is so important, and that is what we are striving for.
I am worried about some of the high-profile cases that are being brought by City women, because the position of women of the next generation who are striving to break through the glass ceiling, as the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston has done and as I strive to do, will be more difficult if employers are afraid of employing women of child-bearing age or, indeed, of employing women at all. I do not want that to happen.
However, it is without a doubt in the interests of good employers to protect their own investment in human capital—the employees. Training and

221WH
experience at all levels of employment enhances human capital. Where a woman comes into an employer's work force in her mid-20s, works, gets promoted, learns the ways of the company, increases her experience and her ability, and then, in her early-30s, has children, surely the best business case for that employer is to welcome her back into the workplace, because she will still have the 10 years of valuable experience that she had before her children were born.
I can assure hon. Members that a woman's brain does not deteriorate because of childbirth, as I am sure the right hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston agrees. If any hon. Gentlemen wish to disagree, we can discuss the matter when we do not have to be quite so polite to one another. There is no such effect, however, and let us be reasonable about it. We therefore have to encourage employers to protect their own investment in human capital, and indeed to enhance it by being reasonable about parental leave for both mothers and fathers.
Women producing children should not be criticised. They should not be told that, if they have a child, that should be their only priority and they should not do anything else. Of course one's child is always one's first priority—there is no doubt about it—but women who are producing children and are also in the workplace should be congratulated, because they are doing two vital jobs at once. Once we recognise that, all other policy in this matter will flow from it.
It simply does not make sense to give equal opportunity in education to girls and boys, and then to young men and women, and to invest our society's assets and taxpayers' money in highly educating women, and then to say that, when they have children, their education is not worth as much as that of a man. Of course it is, which is why the delicate balance of protecting the employer and employee must be respected. As a society, we invest in the 52 per cent. of the population who are women, and it would not make sense not to recognise their full potential value in the workplace.
My party and I are in favour of parental leave. We believe in keeping that delicate balance, encouraging the productivity of British industry and helping companies do the best they can, while also helping them to treat their employees as well as they possibly can, because that is in everyone's interests—the interests not only of the economy, but of families and future generations.
12.12 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe): I welcome you to the Chair, Mr. Deputy Speaker, in our first trade and industry debate after the summer recess. I am delighted that my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester (Mr. Dhanda) has secured the debate, and I am grateful that he has raised this issue. I have had many good times with my hon. Friend on the football field and elsewhere, and I know that he is passionate in everything he does.
This has been an important debate, which has covered many issues that I would like to address. I thank all Members for their contributions. I do not doubt the sincerity of the hon. Members for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter) and for Epping Forest (Mrs. Laing), and I will return to the substance of their points. However, I cannot let this part of the debate go by without answering the political points that have been raised.
222WH
The hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare said that there is too much regulation from this Government; he went on to say, rightly, that the last Tory Government had produced more regulations. However, the warm words and the experiences that he portrayed have to be measured against what his party says. His party wishes to do away with the Department of Trade and Industry. It made announcements this morning about its plans to fund future pension schemes through the demise of the DTI. That begs the question how and where the work on employment rights would continue. The hon. Gentleman will want to give me an answer, and I am sure that he will do so in a later debate.
I pose the question on regulation to both Members because we keep hearing this attack on over-regulation, burdens on business and red tape. However, each of the political parties then says how wonderful it is because of the work carried out by the Equal Opportunities Commission, the Government and various other bodies. The question will continually be raised which of the regulations passed by the Government either party does not want to pursue. I was interested in the comments of the hon. Member for Epping Forest on the work-life balance; we look forward to the proposals that I am sure will be made in the not-too-distant future. I particularly welcome the broad support for the EOC; the Government will look at the outcome of the report and respond in due course. The leader of the hon. Lady's party and the shadow Chancellor have already told us that there will be reductions in public spending, so the hon. Lady will have to be careful about how she balances those choices.
I come to an issue that is clearly important to all involved in this debate: how we help working parents to balance work and family life. That is important to us all, because we have all been involved in that in some way. We were grateful to hear the experiences of hon. Members, and particularly those of my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston (Beverley Hughes) and the hon. Member for Epping Forest, who spoke on the issues of women at work and childbearing.
I accept the point that was made on child care—quality of child care is important. As a parent and grandparent, I know that that is the major factor when people are deciding whether to take the risk of leaving children with others.
I join my hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester in expressing support for, and congratulations to, all the bodies working on the subject, notably the trade unions that he mentioned, USDAW and Connect, the Equal Opportunities Commission and an organisation for which I have presented awards, Parents at Work, which makes the business case for greater flexibility as regards leave and greater involvement in the issue in the workplace.
Today's debate has essentially been about parental leave but, as my hon. Friend said, the issue should not be seen in isolation. It is one of a wide range of policies that we have introduced to help parents to participate and remain in the work force. Those policies give parents more choices in balancing their work and family life, enabling women to stay in their jobs and fathers to take a bigger role in parenting. I agree with hon. Members that the role of the father is important.

223WH
Before 1999, provision for working parents was limited to 14 weeks' maternity leave; there was no provision at all for fathers or adopters. I am glad that we have come a long way since then. In 1999, we began to introduce a series of new rights and entitlements that support working parents as they balance their work and child care responsibilities. As my hon. Friend said, we introduced a "day one" right to time off for dependants, which allows all employees to take time off to deal with an emergency and make any necessary longer term arrangements. Of course, we also established new rights, which give parental leave to fathers as well as mothers and to adopters as well as birth parents.
Parental leave gives parents the right to time off to look after their child, make arrangements for the child's welfare or simply spend more time with their children. They can take time off knowing they have the right to return to their job at the end of their leave. They can concentrate on family life without having to worry about whether there will be a job for them when they return.
Parents are entitled to 13 weeks' leave for each child, which can be taken up to the child's fifth birthday. Initially the right benefited only parents of children born or placed for adoption on or after the date when the right was introduced, but, as my hon. Friend said, in January 2002 we extended parental leave to parents of all the children under five on that day. For parents of disabled children we increased the leave to 18 weeks; that leave can be taken up until the child's 18th birthday.
Parental leave was designed to be flexible. Employers and employees are encouraged to agree on how the scheme will work for them. For example, some companies offer a period of paid parental leave or widen the scheme to include more parents. Unions can also negotiate collective agreements on parental leave with employers. We want that balance to work, and we want schemes that meet the requirements of particular workplaces, but where there is no such agreement, we have to use a fall-back scheme. That provides key elements of how parental leave will work, including how much leave can be taken in a year and what notice should be given. It is intended to support parents without disadvantaging their employers.
Parents must give their employer 21 days' notice of their leave. That provides both employer and employee with a degree of certainty and helps them to plan for the absence. Leave can be taken only in blocks of a week, although parents of disabled children are able to take leave a day at a time. Employers can postpone parental leave for up to six months if the employee's absence would unduly disrupt the business.
The fall-back scheme was designed to balance the needs of parents with those of employers. As hon. Members have said, that is always a difficult balancing act, but I think that, across the range of family friendly measures, we have made the right decisions. We are helping parents to remain in the work force.
I want to consider the mother gap, which is a key issue. The mother gap is a term to describe the difference in incomes between childless women and those with children over their lifetimes. The reasons for the mother gap include fewer years in employment, shorter hours
224WH
due to part-time work, lost experience and the part-time penalty. A mother gap in earnings of £140,000 is experienced by a typical mid-skilled mother of two throughout a lifetime.
The mother gap is narrowing because more women than ever are returning to work within a year of childbirth. We know that returning to the same job is key to reducing the mother gap. To succeed in that effort, we have made parental leave one of the options open to mothers who wish to return to work. However, as I have said, parental leave is only one part of the picture. The Government introduced paid annual leave as a statutory right for all workers, and all workers are now entitled to four weeks' paid holiday. That entitlement begins from their first day of employment and gives parents a further option for taking time off to spend with their children.
In April 2003, following extensive consultation with parents, employers, unions, charities and other interested parties, we introduced the biggest ever package of legal changes to help parents to balance work and family life. The changes are compatible with business and business supports it. They include paid paternity leave; the biggest increase in statutory maternity pay since it was introduced in 1948; an increase in maternity leave to one year; the right to request flexible working for fathers as well as mothers of young and disabled children; and, for the first time, comparable rights for parents who adopt.
Paid parental leave was one of the possible options considered in the working parents Green Paper and the consultation exercise in 2000. Although paid parental leave was supported by some employer representatives and family groups, as my hon. Friend said, employers of all sizes maintained a high level of opposition to its introduction on the grounds of cost and the impact of absence from the workplace. Parents themselves gave a higher priority to other options. We believe that we are likely to be more successful if we continue the route that we have chosen to develop awareness.
Mr. Dhanda: I appreciate what my hon. Friend is saying. When he returns to his Department, will he take on board the points that have been made during the debate about what is happening in Austria, Canada and Denmark, where they have made a fist of it and where such action has not been detrimental to businesses in those countries or to the economy?
Mr. Sutcliffe: I will do that. My hon. Friend will know that, as we discuss the manifesto that will be put to people in the United Kingdom, my colleagues in the DTI and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will consider the whole range of options that are available to us in respect of family friendly employment and women at work. I clearly undertake to examine the points made in the debate and the evidence that my hon. Friend and others will produce on what happens elsewhere.
My hon. Friend referred to the number of people who do not take up such opportunities and use their rights, and asked what the Government are doing to increase take-up. Throughout 2003, the Department ran a series of newspaper advertisements to raise awareness of the new laws that cover parental leave. We spent £2.7 million on the campaign. At the beginning of this year,

225WH
we directly mailed nearly 250,000 employers of small and medium-sized businesses with information on the new laws. Again, that covered parental leave. Information is also available on the DTI website. I agree with my hon. Friend and ACAS that we must ensure that we get the message through to people about their rights.
As my right hon. Friend the Member for Stretford and Urmston said, initial evidence shows that many parents are already benefiting from the new laws. In the past year, almost a million parents have asked for a change in their working hours, which is a quarter of all parents with children under the age of six. We have made huge strides in supporting parents in the workplace. They now have more opportunity to choose how and when they spend time with their children. It may never seem enough time, but it is a vast improvement on what was available in 1997.
As has been said, however, such action is only part of what we have done for families. Six million families are benefiting from the new tax credits, and 524 Sure Start programmes offer services to about 400,000 under-fours in disadvantaged areas, including a third of all those living in poverty. There are more than 1,200 neighbourhood nurseries providing more than 43,000 day-care places.
We are committed to providing, by 2008, an additional 100,000 child care places, through the Sure Start and children's centres, offering integrated early education, child care, and health and family support services for the 20 per cent. of wards that are most disadvantaged and for many pockets of deprivation outside those areas.
Our approach has always encompassed more than legislation to establish minimum fair standards in the workplace. Since 2000, the Government have led a concerted effort to change the culture and to create a consensus that work-life balance and flexible working opportunities benefit everyone: employers and employees.
226WH
Many employers tell me and my colleagues that it makes good business sense to provide flexible working opportunities for their staff, as well as assisting the demographic situation. It helps them to retain skilled staff, raise staff morale and decrease absenteeism. They are convinced that it is best business practice.
My hon. Friend the Member for Gloucester said that parents still struggle to balance work and family responsibilities. We must therefore continue to examine where we can go next. In April, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State launched a debate to look at what more we could do to support families. We have been listening to the views of parents and carers on how they juggle work and family responsibilities, and to employers' views on how they respond to increasing flexibility in the workplace. With input from a citizens jury, analysis of research and other evidence, we will look closely at the options that work for families and for business.
We made a commitment that we would not make any changes to the 2003 employment laws for three years, and we will stick to that commitment. However, we want to begin to examine what we could do, and that will include an examination of parental leave. We have to make tough choices, because we cannot do everything.
This has been an important debate on an issue that relates to the world of work both now and in the future and how people react to it. Mention was made of the ICM poll—it is clear that people want to see a change in working practices. That change will benefit the UK's productivity, and it will benefit businesses and families. The general debate will continue, but I hope that the contribution from today's debate will mean that parents in the UK will be able to juggle the difficult task of bringing up their children while ensuring that the UK stays ahead in productivity.
12.28 pm
Sitting suspended until two o'clock.

Mark Day
12.30 pm
Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am very grateful for the opportunity to raise a case in my constituency in which I have taken a long-standing interest and which has caused me a fair amount of grief in the last few years.
I say at the outset that I do not believe there to be any sub judice issue at stake in the case, since all the appeal processes have been exhausted and what remains is a question for the Parole Board and related activities. I do not believe either that there is any case of the House trespassing on the courts, whether or not the courts pay attention to the possibility of trespassing on our concerns, but that is a matter for another debate, which I suspect would take even longer than this one.
The background to the case is that on 1 August 1992, my constituent Mark Day, then a 19-year-old of previously good character, was out with a group of friends in Kingston upon Thames. Although he had been drinking, he was not drunk; indeed, later that evening he passed a breathalyser test. After the bars had closed, he and his friends, whom he had known for only a short time—they were not of long standing—joined a queue at a burger bar. There was an altercation between Mark and a Mr. Patrick French, who was goading Mark and remarking on his youthful appearance. Mark punched Mr. French, but as an act of self defence, as he feared that he was going to be hit by Mr. French. It is unclear exactly what happened next, but it appears that others in the group attacked Mr. French, who was tragically killed in the ensuing melée.
Mark has never denied being involved, but has always maintained that his involvement was minimal and almost accidental, and that at the time of the fatal blow he was in a fight with another man, Damien Chapman. On 26 March 1993, Mark and two others were convicted of murder on the basis of common enterprise, although to this day he protests that it was not he who inflicted the fatal blow. Indeed, I am told that his co-accused, Scott Steer, admitted to a prison officer that he was responsible, and the appeal court took the view that the trial jury
"recognised the strong possibility that it was Steer who inflicted the fatal blow".
Mark was sentenced to life imprisonment, with an initial tariff of 12 years, subsequently reduced to 11 years, although his appeal against conviction has been unsuccessful; it was rejected most recently in April last year. Those are the bare facts of the case in which a brawl lasting a few minutes cost the life of one man and deprived three others of their liberty, when they should have been able to enjoy the early years of adulthood.
However, Mark Day's difficulties have been compounded by astonishingly incompetent legal representation, which reflects extremely badly on the profession. On the night of the tragic incident, the duty solicitor who represented Mark was Gerald Bate. He considered that he was not sufficiently experienced to handle a murder case and sold the case to another firm of solicitors on a fee-share and commission basis. However, for the next six months, Bate fronted the case, and Mark's parents had no idea that he was merely a cipher acting as undeclared agent for a firm of solicitors.
228WH
During the relevant period, the relationship between Bate and the firm. Whitehead Devereux, ended in acrimony. It is argued that Mark's interests were severely damaged during the identification parades and the subsequent magistrates court and committal proceedings when Bate was charged with the responsibility for Mark's case, not because he was the right man for the job but because that was the financial deal between the lawyers.
In addition to that disastrous and unprofessional arrangement, the solicitors failed to instruct a QC in good time, despite the Day family's increasingly desperate pleas. In the end, Mr. Roy Amlot, an eminent Queen's Counsel and later chairman of the Bar, was instructed just four days before the trial began in March 1993, and he had only one conference with Mark. Furthermore, he was called away to another case during the trial, leaving a junior to hold the fort. Unbelievably, Mr. Amlot recommended that Mark should not give evidence in his own defence—we all know what view we take of people who are not prepared to speak up in their own defence.
I am setting all this out for the Minister's benefit, so that he can understand why I have been pressing this case for a number of years. What happened on that August night 12 years ago was a tragedy for Patrick French's family, but it was also, albeit to a much lesser degree, something of a tragedy for the Day family, and Mark's problems have been compounded by the way in which the Home Office has subsequently handled his case.
According to the rules as I understand them, on the basis of a tariff of 11 years, Mark should have been eligible for parole in August last year. Most lifers have to spend time in an open prison before their release, so the normal practice is that the process of case review begins some three to three and a half years before the tariff expiry date. In theory, that review considers only the issue of release, but in reality it concentrates on a possible transfer to an open prison. If the prisoner is successful, he will have his second Parole Board review at his tariff expiry point and, if successful there, will be released at that date.
In Mark's case, that implies a first review in August 2000. However, although reports were prepared, the review simply never took place, as the Home Office has admitted. As a consequence, a move to an open prison did not take place either. Altogether, that was a significant error that could well have cost Mark years of liberty to which he was otherwise entitled.
The first Parole Board hearing did not take place until November 2003, when Mark was still being held at Kingston prison, near Portsmouth. It was arguably more than three years later than it should have been and certainly three months after the tariff expiry date. The board held that Mark's behaviour in prison had generally been "good" and that he had
"worked hard and well in the gardens in the last 5 years".
As an aside, let me say that reference to Mark's use of drugs illustrates how the Prison Service has failed to deal with that issue—here was a young man whose introduction to the world of drugs appears to have come from within a Government-run institution.
The panel was critical of Mark's alleged failure to accept his guilt, suggesting that his preoccupation with his appeal in the early years prevented him from doing

229WH
offence-related work, but given the background to the case, we must ask which one of us, in similar circumstances, would not have sought to exhaust every possible avenue to secure our freedom from incarceration.
The panel concluded that until Mark had
"addressed the issues outstanding the risk remains too great for release. The panel considered that the work remaining to be done could be undertaken in what the panel would hope would be a relatively short time in open conditions".
Of course, had the Home Office followed the standard procedure, the release planning process would have begun in 2000–01, but Mark was still in a category B closed prison. Did the Home Office then move to make up for lost time? No. Mr. Simon Alderman, senior executive officer in the relevant department, accepted in principle that Mark should be transferred to open conditions, but such a move would he subject to Mark being reassessed and, if necessary, completing the reasoning and rehabilitation course in closed conditions. However, such a course was no longer available at Kingston prison, because the Home Secretary had scrapped it to save money.
Following the Parole Board review last November, the Home Office agreed to move Mark the following month, but again there was a delay and Mark was not moved to Standford Hill open prison on the Isle of Sheppey until 27 May this year, less than a month before he secured a successful outcome to his application for judicial review.
At last, progress appears to be being made, and I thank the Minister for the part that I believe he has played in securing it. Mark seems to be doing extremely well. He is working outside the prison. He has been on escorted town visits and, recently, on an unescorted visit. He is due to have his first home visit shortly, some four months earlier than originally planned. Most importantly, he has completed the enhanced thinking skills course, the assessment of which is expected soon.
This is all good news at last, but why has it taken endless representations by me, and finally a judicial review, to secure that to which Mark Day is entitled in law? Why was Mark denied his first Parole Board review at the required point? Why did the lifer review and recall section of the Home Office not seek answers from the Kingston prison governor for that failure in the process? Why did the Home Secretary force Mark to seek judicial review knowing that the Home Office had failed to provide for a timely Parole Board review, all of which constituted an additional burden on the taxpayer? Finally, why was Mark's transfer to open prison delayed by six months, despite the recommendation of the Parole Board and Mr. Alderman's acceptance of the need to move him?
The sense of injustice in this case stretches back all the 12 years. Mark got a raw deal from the legal profession at the outset, as I have explained. That injustice has been exacerbated by the fact that Scott Steer, who is generally reckoned to have inflicted the fatal blow, has been at liberty for two years, whereas the young man whose behaviour in prison a Home Office official described in a preliminary review as
"exemplary, blemished only by a few breaches of discipline early in sentence"
has been held in custody and remains there today. The Minister tells me that he cannot comment on the Parole Board's handling of another case, and I understand the
230WH
niceties of that, but the fact remains that Steer and Day were both convicted on the basis of common enterprise; they were both involved and the court appears to have taken the view that, without being specific as to who inflicted the fatal blow, the three—there was a third party—were guilty of bringing about the death of Patrick French. If they were convicted on the basis of common enterprise, why has Steer been at liberty for two years while Day, with his unblemished record and previous lack of any bad behaviour, is still languishing in jail?
Mark comes from a stable home. He had no previous offending history, save for a possible caution. He has remarkably forbearing, loving and patient parents and he has the offer of a job—possibly more than one job— awaiting him on his release. The Day family and I look to the Minister to answer the questions that I have posed but, perhaps more importantly, I also request him to do all in his power to ensure that Mark's preparation for release continues to be expedited in the way that it has been in recent weeks.
Tragically, nothing can bring back Patrick French, but no purpose is served in delaying the rehabilitation into society of a young man who has more than paid the price for his part in that tragedy.
12.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department: I congratulate the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) on securing this debate. He began by explaining that he has assiduously followed the case over the years; from the correspondence and parliamentary questions tabled in his name that I have seen, I can confirm that.
I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will understand that I am not able to comment on the competence or otherwise of the lawyers who acted in this case. However, I can agree that when an offence takes place there are a number of victims. Tragically, in this case the victim was killed. The family of that victim will also have been affected. I agree, too, that the families of the offenders are affected. The hon. Gentleman spoke about the impact on one such family, and I am sure that they gain some confidence from the fact that, as their MP, the hon. Gentleman comes to the House and raises these issues on their behalf.
It may help if I set my remarks in the context of how Mr. Day came to be serving a life sentence. I should first underline that my starting point has to be that the convictions in this case are safe. The finding of the court was that in the early hours of 1 August 1992 Mr. French, a young man of only 22, and his friend Mr. Chapman stopped to buy hamburgers at a stall. Without any apparent provocation, they were set upon by Mark Day and his friend Scott Steer, who had both been drinking. Mr. Day and Mr. Steer punched and kicked Mr. French repeatedly, even when he was on the ground, and Mr. Steer kicked him in the head. Mr. French died as a result of the attack, and in March 1993 Mr. Day and Mr. Steer were convicted of murder. They both received a life sentence.
Each life sentence includes a period intended to satisfy the needs of punishment and deterrence. That period is commonly known as the tariff, and it is the minimum term that the lifer must spend in prison. Except in the

231WH
most exceptional compassionate circumstances, he or she cannot be released before the tariff period is completed. Once a lifer has served the tariff period, however, there is still no automatic expectation that they will be released. The legislation makes it clear that public safety must come first, and lifers may not be released until it is considered safe for them to rejoin the wider community.
These days, as the hon. Gentleman will know, the Home Secretary no longer makes such decisions. Indeed, to ensure objectivity and independence, and to meet the requirements of article 5 of the European convention on human rights, decisions about the release of lifers are now made by the Parole Board. However, it is not entitled to release a lifer unless it is satisfied that confining him or her is no longer necessary for the protection of the public. In that respect, case law in the European Court of Human Rights makes it clear that what must be taken into account is the risk to life and limb posed by the individual lifer. The emphasis on that risk is important because the Parole Board cannot refuse to release a lifer into the community for a trivial reason.
To determine the risk posed by the lifer, the Parole Board will rightly look at several issues, including the progress that he or she has made in addressing the factors judged relevant to his or her risk. Therefore, two co-defendants, who are given life sentences for the same offence on the same day, may quite easily and understandably serve different periods in custody. First, they may receive different tariffs. Secondly, and just as importantly, they may make progress towards rehabilitation at different rates. In the cases of Mr. Day and Mr. Steer, both those factors have come into play and help to explain why Mr. Steer is on licence while Mr. Day is still in custody.
First, after exhausting all the avenues in the tariff-setting process, Mr. Day was given a tariff of 11 years, which expired in August 2003, while Mr. Steer's tariff was 10 years and expired in August 2002. Secondly, the Parole Board decided that Mr. Steer had made sufficient progress in addressing his risk by the expiry of his tariff and that it was no longer necessary to confine him. He was therefore released in October 2002. So the tariff was different, and the Parole Board's risk assessment was that it was safe to release Mr. Steer when his tariff expired.
Mr. Howarth: The Minister may not have this information to hand, but can he say when the Parole Board review process was initiated in respect of Mr. Steer? Was it in the three years before the expiry of the tariff?
Paul Goggins: I am not able to confirm that now, but I will be happy to write to the hon. Gentleman if I am able to disclose that information, although there may be issues of confidentiality.
On 3 November 2003 the Parole Board considered Mr. Day's case. The hon. Gentleman asked why that review was not held sooner. I understand that there are two reasons. There is no disguising the fact that there was an administrative error on the part of the Prison Service, but the situation can also be partly explained by
232WH
the fact that Mr. Day did not wish to engage in some of the offence-related work or the sentence planning that would be required of him during his prison sentence. He was reluctant to engage in that while his appeal was outstanding. As I am sure the hon. Gentleman appreciates, that work is important in helping to inform the Parole Board on the degree to which the individual has been able to reduce their risk.
In any event, despite what may have appeared to have been a delay, when the review was held and the Parole Board had given the matter careful consideration, it decided that it was not entitled to direct Mr. Day's release, because there was more work to be done to address his particular risk factors. In particular, it concluded that he needed to do more to develop his understanding of those factors that may increase his risk of violence, and that he needed to increase his understanding of the effect of his behaviour on his victim's family. The Parole Board did, however, recommend that he be transferred to open conditions to complete that work.
I should add here, and it is important to convey this point to the hon. Gentleman, that the decision to transfer a life sentence prisoner to open conditions is entirely a matter for the Secretary of State; indeed, that responsibility has been confirmed by the courts. The Secretary of State, and the officials who act for him, accord a great deal of weight to the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions, but in the end it is his decision.
In this case, officials in the then lifer unit of the Prison Service, acting on behalf of the Secretary of State, decided that further assessment was needed to determine how best Mr. Day should address the risk factors that had been identified. Bearing that in mind, the finding of the Parole Board's sifting panel, which operates prior to the main oral hearing, was that Mr. Day should carry out more work on his cognitive skills. It was thought probable that he would be suitable for the reasoning and rehabilitation programme, which is a cognitive skills-based course available only in closed conditions. It was determined that he should be assessed for that course, and if found suitable, he should complete it.
Mr. Howarth: The trouble was that in Kingston prison Mr. Day did not have the opportunity of undertaking that course, because it was no longer available. It had been superseded by the enhanced thinking skills course. Surely, given the Parole Board's recommendation that the case be expedited, the imposition of the requirement that he should attend the course was not fair when it was not available in Kingston prison.
Paul Goggins: If the hon. Gentleman will be patient a little longer, I will explain the withdrawal of the reasoning and rehabilitation programme. It is important to emphasise that in the circumstances of the recommendation, it was open to the Secretary of State to reject the Parole Board's recommendation for transfer to open conditions altogether, and to direct that Mr. Day should remain in closed conditions pending the assessment and the completion of any necessary work. Had that course of action been followed, the Parole Board panel that was conducting the review would not

233WH
then, of course, have had the benefit of seeing how Mr. Day had been able to cope in open conditions. Bearing that in mind, officials acting on behalf of the Secretary of State decided not to reject the recommendation outright, but to await the outcome of the assessment.
If the reasoning and rehabilitation course was needed, Mr. Day would remain in closed conditions until he had completed the work. He would then be transferred to open conditions without the need for a further review. If the course was not needed, he could transfer to open conditions straight away, to work on his offending behaviour needs there. In either event, the plan was to set a date for the next review that would allow Mr. Day plenty of time to complete the work and to be tested in open conditions.
As the hon. Gentleman said, the Prison Service decided to withdraw the reasoning and rehabilitation programme before Mr. Day could be assessed for it. The decision not only related to Mr. Day but was a wider decision relating to the provision of offending behaviour programmes across the Prison Service. As the hon. Gentleman said, those prisoners who would have been required to complete the course were directed instead to the enhanced thinking skills programme, which is also a cognitive skills programme but less intensive. It is proving to be more cost-effective. Since that course was available in open conditions, there was no longer any reason to delay Mr. Day's transfer, and he was transferred to open conditions in May and began the enhanced thinking skills programme in June.
Having made those arrangements, it then fell to the officials acting for the Secretary of State to set a date for Mr. Day's next review. The maximum time between reviews, as set out in statute, is two years. European Court of Human Rights jurisprudence dictates that referral to the Parole Board must be speedy. That means that review periods longer than a year must be demonstrably necessary and proportionate in all the circumstances. In Mr. Day's case, he would first need to complete his offending behaviour programme—the enhanced thinking skills programme. His progress on that course would have to be reviewed, and then it would be necessary to monitor his progress in open conditions to ensure that he was able to apply the lessons from the programme in real-life situations.
A lifer in open conditions is also expected to spend a period on a community placement—for example, in paid work or some volunteering activity—to test their
234WH
coping skills in the community. The offender is also expected to undertake periods of resettlement leave and to devise, under the supervision of the probation service, a realistic release plan. In Mr. Day's case, it was thought that all those activities would take about 21 months. It was therefore decided to conclude the review of his case in August 2005. Admittedly, the period is towards the limit of what is permitted in statute.
Mr. Day challenged the decision at judicial review. He also challenged the Secretary of State's power to set the review date, arguing that the power was properly one for the Parole Board rather than the Secretary of State. The court found against him on the latter point, stating clearly that the present system was ECHR-compatible provided that the Secretary of State referred cases in a speedy manner. However, the Court did find that such a long period was not necessary in Mr. Day's case and that the next review should conclude more speedily after completion of the enhanced thinking skills programme. Mr. Day's review is now due to conclude in December with a Parole Board panel, which may be an oral hearing if the Parole Board, Mr. Day or the Secretary of State think that an advisable course of action. The hearing will consider the case as soon thereafter as practicable.
However, it is important to emphasise that even at that point the outcome is not automatic one way or the other. The Parole Board may consider that Mr. Day meets the test for release—that is, his detention is no longer necessary for public protection—but, on the other hand, it may determine that the risk has not been sufficiently reduced. If that is the case, Mr. Day will be subject to a further review at whatever interval the Secretary of State deems lawful and reasonable in the interests of public safety.
I hope that the explanation that I have offered the hon. Gentleman is helpful in understanding how Mr. Day's case is being dealt with and that decisions about his release are properly made. Mr. Day has served his tariff period but he will be released only if the Parole Board considers it safe.
Mr. Howarth: Can the Minister say when the Parole Board hearing will take place? He said "as soon thereafter as practicable" after December. Can he give me a date?
Paul Goggins: It is not possible for me to give the date today, but as soon as I am in a position to confirm it, whenever that may be, I will let the hon. Gentleman know. With that response, I conclude my remarks.

Water Industry (Price Review)
1 pm
Mr. David Heyes: I am pleased to have secured this short debate on what I know is a matter of great and immediate concern to many of my constituents. The timing of the debate is fortunate, as it comes as the process of the periodic review of water prices in England reaches a critical phase and moves towards its conclusion in December, with the new price regime and inevitable price rises to be introduced from next April. We are expecting a response from the water companies next week to the draft determination of price limits published last month by Ofwat. Other consultation responses will be received until 13 October, and the final determination of price limits will be made known by Ofwat on 2 December. When the Secretary of State published the principal guidance to Ofwat at the start of the process, she acknowledged that she was concerned about the effect of water bills, especially on those least able to pay. It is precisely that concern that has excited the interest of many of my constituents, and it is on that aspect of the price review that I will concentrate most of my remarks today.
At the time of the last periodic review, Ofwat gave some comfort to water consumers by forcing a cut in the apparently remorseless price increases that had taken place since privatisation in 1989. However, to judge from the current aspirations of the water companies we can expect a return to significant price increases over and above inflation for each of the next five years. Even though the regulator has cut back on the 30 per cent. plus claims of the companies, most consumers can expect increases of 13 to 15 per cent. above inflation in the years until 2010. The local supplier for my constituency, United Utilities Water, has been told to plan for increases of about 18 per cent. above inflation. Inevitably, potential price rises on that scale will conjure memories of fat-cat salaries and the huge profit hikes that characterised the industry in the 1990s, which did so much to undermine public confidence in the claims of the industry's leaders.
One way or another, water customers can expect a big increase in their bills over the next few years. I recognise that there is a need for investment to implement directives on water quality and environmental improvements, and I shall not challenge that need. Questions could be raised about the failure to make progress on some of those fronts since privatisation, especially in the light of the constant upward movement in profits. Questions could also be raised about whether the funds for such investments should be raised only from the consumer and not from the owners of the businesses—the shareholders. Indeed, on the issue of environmental improvements, some have raised challenging questions about the extent to which the polluter should pay. However, given the limited time available today I shall leave those questions hanging and turn instead to my main purpose, which is to urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use the opportunity of the review to bring forward proposals to help water consumers who cannot pay their bills and who will struggle even more if prices continue to escalate.
The situation today is so bad that about one in five households are in arrears with their water bills. The latest figure, provided for me today by United Utilities
236WH
Water, is that in the north-west about 600,000 households do not pay a proportion of their water bill. More than 4 million households are thought to spend more than the widely recognised affordability threshold of 3 per cent. of income on water. Many benefits recipients spend more than 10 per cent. of their income on water bills.
According to figures produced by Ofwat, which were derived from the water companies and released two years ago, unpaid bills totalled more than £750 million, with more than £400 million outstanding for 12 months or more. I have been unable to find any evidence of a fall in those figures since then. Self-evidently, the round of price increases we look set to see over the next five years can serve only to make the situation worse. Just last year, the chief executive of United Utilities Water told the Select Committee on Environment, Food and Rural Affairs that he expected the number of his customers having difficulties in paying their bills to rise broadly in line with the rise in prices. I pause to pay tribute to the excellent work of the Committee on water pricing, which is continuing. I am sure that the Minister will take proper account of its deliberations and recommendations.
How should the issue of water poverty be addressed? I shall start by referring to the encouraging progress being made through the reform of the tax and benefits system. The long-term aim is to eradicate poverty, and family credit and pension credit are important first steps on that road. They are the route to bringing household income up to a level at which utility bills are affordable, but we are not there yet, and if the experience of my constituents is anything to go by, we have a long way to go.
The more immediate question is about the adequacy of the existing systems to help people in genuine water poverty, whose situation is likely to get worse as a result of the probable outcome of the current periodic price review. I fully support the Minister's principal guidance to Ofwat in March, which stated:
"The policies contained in this guidance are strongly informed by the interests of customers."
My hon. Friend went on to repeat the Secretary of State's concern about the effect of water bills, especially on those least able to pay, and undertook to review the way in which lower income households are helped with their water and sewerage. One way in which he will do so is through the ongoing review of the vulnerable customers scheme. It is welcome that the review is being carried out in parallel with the periodic price review, which seems likely to lead to big price increases and hence to higher indebtedness and greater numbers of people in water poverty.
I am sorry to have to tell my hon. Friend that the present provisions for tackling the problem have been desperately ineffective. The vulnerable group regulations were very tightly drawn; they apply only to consumers who are on a metered water supply, with three children under 16, a specified medical condition and a specified welfare benefit. At best, the scheme can do no more than cap their water bill at the average in their home area. Very few water consumers know about the scheme, and, not surprisingly, take-up has been abysmal, with fewer than 2 per cent. of those who might be eligible taking advantage of it. To cap that, the

237WH
scheme costs more to run than is being paid out to consumers. For example, United Utilities in the north-west has 2.7 million water customers, of whom 472,000 are in metered properties; of those, only just over 1,000 customers meet the stringent requirements of the vulnerable customer tariff.
The review of the scheme is welcome and there has been widespread consultation on the proposals of the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs. An announcement about a new scheme can be expected soon, although some people are scratching their heads wondering when that might be. However, I am sorry to say that even if all the suggested improvements to the scheme were adopted, it would still apply only to a tiny minority of consumers and would make no noticeable contribution to tackling the huge and growing problem of water poverty.
The inadequacy of the present system to help vulnerable customers had led to the emergence of a hotch-potch of voluntary and charitable schemes being set up or supported by the water companies. In the north-west, for example, United Utilities' hardship scheme will assist customers who can satisfy criteria requiring that they should be recipients of income support, have a disability, be longer-term unemployed, be a pensioner or have multiple debt. For every pound that the customer pays towards their water debt, the company will write off a further pound. A recent big push by United Utilities has increased the number of beneficiaries under the scheme to more than 6,000, which is commendable, but they are little more than 1 per cent. of its customers who have difficulty paying their water bill each year.
A recent announcement by United Utilities brought news of a plan to join the growing band of water companies that have set up and sponsored a charitable trust to help those having difficulties paying their water bills. It is hard not to interpret that as a response by United Utilities to the inevitable backlash that will result from the Ofwat proposals, which would entail an increase in real terms of almost 18 per cent. in water bills, by an average of £47 to £315, over the next five years. Although full details of the United Utilities-backed charity are awaited, it seems unlikely that the £15 million that the company has pledged to the charity over the five years will assist more than 3 per cent. of its customers who experience serious water bill difficulties. Frankly, the growing trend towards water companies sponsoring charities as a solution to the problem of water poverty has an unpleasant whiff of Victorian paternalism and the concepts of the deserving and undeserving poor.
The rules around such charities tend to be tightly drawn. For example, the Anglian Water Trust Fund says:
"Grants are given solely at the discretion of the Trustees depending on the person's circumstances. They are not available to 'claim' or given as an 'entitlement' for people in difficult circumstances."
It also notes:
"Each week, the Trust gets asked for about three times as much money as it has available. This means that we cannot help everyone and Trust staff have to make very difficult decisions about who they can help."
238WH
Bizarrely, it adds:
"Sometimes the application shows that applicants have more money going out than they have coming in".
I would have thought that that was the definition of water poverty, but the trust continues:
"In such cases, the Trust is unlikely to make a payment".
Other schemes have equally illogical constraints, such as:
"If you receive an award from the Trust, you cannot reapply to the Trust for two years."
All those things suggest that charitable trusts are an inadequate substitute for a welfare assistance scheme that is properly funded and administered by the state. To return to United Utilities, the combined benefits of its vulnerable customers scheme, its hardship scheme and the proposed charity will, even on an optimistic projection, reach little more than 5 per cent. of customers in potential bill-paying difficulties.
What are constituents who might be struggling to pay their water bills to do? First, and most important, they need not fear having their water disconnected. Nowadays, thanks to firm action by the Government, water companies are not allowed to disconnect, and that policy must continue, if only in the interests of public health. Equally, any attempt to reintroduce pre-payment meters must be opposed. They are simply an invitation to self-disconnect and give rise to the same worries about wider public health consequences.
There is little evidence that the Government's policy decisions have encouraged the non-payment of water bills; on the contrary, the non-disconnection policy is little known, and those who are genuinely struggling to meet their utility and household bills tend to give highest priority to paying the water bill because of the widely held and continuing fear of disconnection. Given the lack of a benefits-based solution, however, the problem is that the costs of the non-payment of water bills accrue year by year. Eventually, the additional cost must be borne by those water consumers who can pay their bills.
Significant numbers of households are struggling, and in many cases failing, to pay their water bills. That situation is likely to worsen in the short term, given the latest round of price rises. The lack of an effective mechanism to provide assistance to deal with water poverty results in an accumulating debt burden, initially for the companies but ultimately for paying customers. In time, the Government's core aim of reducing and eventually eradicating poverty through work and the tax and benefits system should resolve the problem of water bill affordability. However, that will not happen in the current five-year water price review period, even on the most optimistic projections. In the meantime, the Government, the regulator and the companies must decide how to tackle the issue of affordability in the foreseeable future.
In the current round of price reviews, the Secretary of State's initial guidance to Ofwat suggested that its deliberations should give due weight to the economic and social effects of policies, and especially the impact of water bills on vulnerable consumers. Affordability must be more central to Ofwat's considerations than has hitherto been the case in price reviews. If necessary, the Secretary of State's guidance to Ofwat must be clearer and stronger in that respect.

239WH
It is clear that the draft determination that Ofwat published last month gave too little weight to such concerns. I hope that my hon. Friend will take the opportunity, in his final guidance to Ofwat, which is imminent, to give it a robust reminder of such factors and to urge it to take a further critical look at the affordability of bills against the setting of water companies' continued and accelerating profitability. It is also clear that the Government need a more thorough and far-reaching review of the support scheme for vulnerable consumers than is promised by the proposals under consideration. It would be nice if the water companies were obliged to introduce more effective proposals for customer assistance than those in their inherently timid and constrained charitable trust schemes. What about a levy on their still considerable profits, following the precedent set by the windfall tax? I am sure that that would pay for a comprehensive scheme.
I am convinced that co-ordinated action of this sort by the Government, the regulator and the industry can bring about an early solution to the problem. It is time for the pass-the-parcel approach to dealing with water poverty to stop.
1.15 pm
The Minister for the Environment and Agri-environment: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Heyes) on securing the debate. He raised several serious points about the affordability of water. Water is a basic need that the Government take very seriously, and there was a great deal of concern during privatisation because of its importance. We campaigned very strongly for the obligation, unique among utilities, not to disconnect people because of the essential role of water in relation to health. The Government have played an important part in recognising the needs and rights of consumers, and in ensuring effective regulation of prices.
My hon. Friend has made a powerful case concerning those who have difficulties with affordability. I was impressed by his detailed figures relating to United Utilities in his constituency and the impact felt by local people. He raised some important factors that the Government are trying to address. I shall come to those points in a moment.
The key issue in tackling the problem of affordability is recognising that it is important to everyone. We start on the basis that we do not want any more price increases than are necessary to provide improvements in infrastructure and to invest in environmental and quality improvements, which people recognise are important. They are an important part of the early investment process in the water sector. There is a system of periodic reviews of water price limits that takes into account all those factors. I pay tribute to Philip Fletcher, who has done a very professional job in going through the companies' draft plans and producing his current determinations, which await ministerial guidance and response from the companies. He will then produce his final guidance towards the end of the year.
The role of Ministers is limited to giving guidance on the quality programme. Ofwat published its draft price determinations for consultation on 5 August,
240WH
containing numbers substantially below those in the companies' draft plans. I know that my hon. Friend will welcome that. The national headline figures that came out of the regulator's proposals showed that average household bills would rise by £33—a 13 per cent. increase—from £249 to £282 before inflation, over five years. That compares with the companies' proposals for an average increase of £70. Price limits stood at 3.1 per cent. per year for five years, which is roughly half the increase sought by companies. An increase of 7.6 per cent. in price limits is proposed for 2005, to reflect the build-up of customers' costs, tailing off to 1.2 per cent. in 2009. The companies sought an increase of 13.4 per cent. in 2005, so there has been a substantial change if one compares the regulator's proposals with what the companies asked for. The regulator has rightly challenged the companies' figures and looked very carefully at the costs. The process has been thorough, and it involved all agencies. As my hon. Friend rightly states, we are near the end of that process, with the final price determinations due to be published on 2 December. Those price limits should be sufficient for the companies to undertake the minimum programme consistent with delivering the policies and outputs required, but they should be no higher than they have to be. That is an important consideration.
My hon. Friend concentrated on affordability, and I understand his case. He has made a persuasive argument, and there are sections of the community for whom water is an issue of affordability. That is a key concern, and the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs Committee and the Environmental Audit Committee have encouraged the Government to review the ways in which lower-income households are helped with their water and sewerage charges. We have responded to that request and a review, led by a cross-Government steering group, is under way. We have sought the views of interested parties outside the Government, and a well-attended seminar was held on 18 June involving a range of stakeholders. Since then there has been a series of bilateral meetings with those stakeholders to develop and consolidate their comments and ideas. We will respond to that consultation shortly, and put out our response to the discussion.
Of course, my hon. Friend is right to say that what we can do for vulnerable groups in the regulations covers a comparatively small proportion of customers. I do not want unduly to raise expectations, because that is not likely to change. He understands that the more concessions we make on prices, the more we will have to put up prices for customers across the board. We are concerned to ensure that prices are kept as low as possible for everyone, while recognising that there are vulnerable groups who require special consideration. Those are people who could suffer real hardship because of prices, and in some cases because they need to use a lot of water. That is why the regulations are drafted in a fairly restrictive way. They recognise that there are special circumstances, which are not common but do affect some people. We must acknowledge that.
The regulations apply to people who are on a meter, and the number of people on meters is increasing. About 15 per cent. of United Utilities customers in my hon. Friend's area are on a meter, and there is considerable scope for that figure to increase. Many people who have not yet asked to go on to a water meter would find that it

241WH
was very much to their advantage to do so. For example, meters are likely to benefit pensioners. Many people find that their bill goes down right away when they move to a water meter, which is installed free of charge under the regulations that we have put in place.
Mr. Heyes: On that point, the people who are transferring to a metered water supply in increasing numbers tend to be those who live in larger properties—households containing just a single person or a couple. There are significant savings to be made as a result of making such a transfer, which is obviously sensible for them. However, because the costs are borne entirely within the industry, is it not the case that the overall effect is to increase the financial burden for the people who remain on the existing system?
Mr. Morley: Ultimately, that could be the case and there will have to be adjustments in the pricing regime at some point, when the proportion of people on water meters passes a certain threshold. The regulator is sensitive to that, but at the moment there is considerable scope for people who have not yet transferred to a meter to consider doing so. That has the effect of reducing water use; there are also other ways of doing that, promoted by the Environment Agency and the water companies themselves. Those are matters to take forward.
We do not want to see families on low incomes cutting down on essential water use to make ends meet, and we want to offer protection in such circumstances. We have put forward for consultation proposals for the regulations on vulnerable groups, and the Government's response to those will be published shortly. It is intended that vulnerable customers will be protected from being disadvantaged by having to pay for an unduly high volume of water. We want to offer the alternative of an average of the metered charge so that the water company removes the disadvantage.
In the consultation paper launched in 2003, the Government also proposed a further extension to the vulnerable groups scheme. Any changes made to the regulations as a result of the consultation will come into force in April 2005—the same time as the introduction of the new price limits. In deciding what extensions we might need to make, we must bear it in mind that the scheme is there to protect customers with high essential water use.
The Water Industry Act 1999 also introduced assistance to protect customers from disconnection and from having to cut down on essential water use. In providing essential services water companies occupy a prominent position in the community, and I take my hon. Friend's point that they should demonstrate their
242WH
regard for the interest of all stakeholders in their businesses. When devising tariffs and payment methods, water companies should bear in mind their poorer customers. They have a range of options apart from the regulations on vulnerable groups: they can offer a frequent payment option as well as appropriate tariffs, and they can take a proactive stance in informing customers of the choices available to them. That is an important part of the service.
My hon. Friend mentioned charitable trusts to help customers in genuine need. Some companies have had those for a long time. If my memory serves me right. Severn Trent Water had such a trust pre-privatisation. My hon. Friend the Member for Mansfield (Mr. Meale) holds a long connection with that trust, and it works very well. There is a role for trusts—although they are not the answer and I would not want to pretend otherwise—in a range of measures to help vulnerable groups, and I welcome the fact that United Utilities is taking that into account.
I understand the point that my hon. Friend the Member for Ashton-under-Lyne makes about financial support and the benefit system, but it is a matter for the Department for Work and Pensions. The Government's preference has been to raise living standards generally, and we have had considerable success. Since 1997, families with children are on average £1,350 a year better off as a result of the changes introduced by the Chancellor. Families with children in the poorest fifth of the population will be on average £3,000 a year better off, which reflects the Chancellor's targeting of those on lowest incomes. Pensioner households will be on average £1,300 a year better off—about £26 a week. The poorest third of pensioner households will have gained £1,750 a year. The tax credit system and the targeting of benefits have been successful in lifting out of poverty the poorest sections of our community.
I would not want to suggest to my hon. Friend that we should not worry about the impact of water prices on vulnerable groups; we recognise that there is a real issue to take into account. However, we must consider overall incomes for average families, and rent and child care costs, which can constitute a much larger proportion of costs, although they are part of an accumulative approach.
My hon. Friend has made a persuasive and powerful case for taking vulnerable groups into account in water charging. I am pleased to see that charges have been tempered by robust and effective regulation, and I am sure that he will welcome some of the changes to the regulations on vulnerable groups. I accept that they will be targeted at a small percentage of the population, but it is more important to keep down prices for everybody, while ensuring that there is adequate investment in our water services.

Post Office Closures (Edinburgh)
1.30 pm
John Barrett: On 22 July, the last day of Parliament before the summer recess, my constituency office in Edinburgh received a much anticipated package. After two years of waiting, Post Office management finally gave me their post office closure plans for the city of Edinburgh. That is a process that I, and others, have expected for some time. It is 23 months since the House voted for the urban reinvention programme, and since then my constituents and I have waited anxiously for Post Office plans for our city.
I was grateful to get one week's advance notice of closure plans before they were made public. It gave me an opportunity to speak not only to representatives of the Post Office but to the affected sub-postmasters. I was able to meet Postwatch Scotland, to which I pay tribute. I am particularly grateful to people such as Tricia Dow, Tom Begg and Peter Wilson, whose assistance and advice during the last few weeks have been invaluable.
When I considered the closure plans, I had no doubt that, when published, they would spark outrage among people in Edinburgh. After all, what Post Office management are proposing is the closure of 21 post office branches—one fifth of the city's remaining post office network. I say "remaining" because the closure proposals come after some branches have already closed in the last couple of years, such as the one on North Junction street, Tynecastle, Polwarth gardens, Newcraighall and Hope Street post office in the city centre.
The reaction of people in Edinburgh has indeed been considerable. More than 1,000 of my constituents have contacted my office to express their anger, concern and genuine worry. I have received many letters and telephone calls from people outside my constituency and Edinburgh's Evening News has run regular stories and printed letters about the plans on a near-daily basis. The strength of opinion in my constituency alone prompted me to organise two public meetings, although I was unable to attend them for last-minute family reasons. Both meetings were packed and included many people who said that they had never been to a public meeting before. It is clear that concern about the proposals not only runs through Edinburgh but runs very deep indeed.
So why are so many people so angry? What we were promised by the Government and by Post Office management was a strategic look at the post office network in Edinburgh. What we have been given falls far short of that. Rather than getting a strategic review, we have seen Post Office management effectively ask sub-postmasters, "Who wants out?" Closures have been picked from those who subsequently raised their hands.
I do not blame sub-postmasters; one can only sympathise with people who run post offices and who have to deal with a Government who are dramatically reducing their customer base. Who can blame them for wanting to take the two and a half year salary to leave the network and run?
244WH
However, we cannot have a strategic look at the overall post office network if we pick out the branches only from those where the sub-postmasters have shown a desire to get out. Nobody likes compulsory post offices closures, but Post Office management cannot have their cake and eat it. They cannot say that they have conducted a strategic review if they have not conducted a review of the whole post office network. That is something that Postwatch Scotland is also concerned about.
That most basic mistake makes me believe that the process is fundamentally flawed. What makes me and people in Edinburgh so angry is that if Post Office management had taken a strategic view, I have no doubt that they would never have come to the conclusion that post office branches such as the ones in Clermiston, Joppa and Stenhouse Cross should close.
What I hope may yet happen—I hope that the Minister will impress it on Post Office management to do this today—is that we go back to the drawing board and do what we were all promised. Post Office management must consider areas that need post offices, those that have too many branches and then—and only then—come forward with a credible list of closures and alternative branches. That is what I had always taken the urban network reinvention process to be, but so far my constituents and I have been greatly disappointed.
So what have Post Office management done? They have put forward 21 branches for closure, after staff were sent to investigate the terrain, public transport and viability of the receiving branches—those that would take the customers from the closed post offices. If those investigations took place—although I have some concern about that—it makes the conclusions reached by the Post Office management all the more incredible.
I shall give two examples. East Craigs post office, a branch that was not only successfully saved from closure four years ago, but which serves three sets of sheltered housing for the elderly and one for disabled people, is one of the branches proposed for closure. The supporting documents argue that Barnton post office is a realistic receiving branch—a realistic alternative. That is partly based on the argument that people can use the No. 24 bus to get there. However, anyone who knows East Craigs will know that there is a problem in getting to the No. 24 bus stop. Someone wanting to get that bus must walk, in some cases along roads with no pavements, to a main road completely outside the East Craigs estate—a walk of about half a mile. To reach the bus stop they must then cross the busy Maybury road, a dual carriageway with traffic moving at about 60 mph, which has no pedestrian crossing. They can then take the half-hourly bus service to Barnton. If they have managed to stay alive in their journey to the post office, they have an equally threatening journey back. And yet the Post Office management seriously presented that to the elderly and disabled people in East Craigs as a realistic alternative.
Similarly, in the supporting documents for the closure of the East Craigs and Clermiston branches, Duart Crescent post office is put forward as the alternative. The paths between East Craigs and Duart Crescent are narrow and poorly lit; they are paths that even the most able-bodied people would do well to negotiate in the winter. Moreover, probably the

245WH
steepest hill in my constituency lies between the Duart Crescent and Clermiston post office branches. Even if we ignore those two factors and assume that my constituents in East Craigs and Clermiston get to the Duart Crescent branch, we find that they will then be met with an extremely small and already very busy post office. On pension mornings, there is a queue out of the door of the Duart Crescent branch—pensioners wait in the rain.
I could not understand how that small branch would cope with the custom from two other post offices, so I looked at the supporting documents to see what plans the management had to help the Duart Crescent branch deal with the increased demand and customer base. The document states that as proposed improvements
"a handrail is to be installed"
and
"an external bell push is to be installed."
That post office needs a handrail for elderly and disabled customers, and later this year it will have to have a handrail and proper access for the disabled. I am sure that those improvements will make all the difference. For those of my constituents who are still not convinced, the document finishes reassuringly by saying:
"We will also install an approved fascia and lozenge."
I say to the Minister that this would all be comical if it were not so serious. The idea that those improvements—if that is the right word to use—will solve the unquestionable capacity problems at Duart Crescent is ridiculous.
I could go on. Corstorphine post office has also been put forward as an alternative to the Clermiston and East Craigs branches, although that would involve customers travelling past the St. John's Road post office, which, for some reason, has not been put down as a receiving branch. It is unbelievable that customers would pass a post office on the way to the alternative branch. There are serious flaws in that document.
The branch at Stenhouse Cross, a lifeline for people in Stenhouse, has been lined up for closure less than one year after an original plan for closure was reversed following a public outcry and an objection from Postwatch. The branch at Saughtonhall was closed and cleared out—there are no post office facilities—even before the consultation period began. The alternative for Murrayfield post office, a branch that serves five sets of accommodation for the elderly, is proposed as Blackhall post office, despite the fact there is no bus service connecting the two. On the road from Corstorphine to the city centre, the post office at Saughtonhall has gone, the one at Murrayfield is under threat and the Haymarket Terrace branch closed many years ago. A huge journey into the city centre is therefore needed.
Mr. Mark Lazarowicz: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for agreeing to take an intervention. As he is now approaching my constituency in his tour of Edinburgh,
246WH
I invite him to agree with me that we need more new and modernised post offices, such as the ones in Stockbridge and Leith Constitution street, which have recently been reopened. Does he agree that we need to make a good case against a closure when it is proposed? In connection with that, would he back the efforts that I am making on behalf of my constituents, who are very unhappy at the proposed closure of post offices in Newhaven village and Albert place? Many of my constituents have concerns, as I am sure many of his do, about the proposed closure of Comely Bank post office, which, although in another constituency, serves many of our constituents.
John Barrett: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that intervention. I agree with much of what he says, in that if a proposal is made to close a post office, the alternative must be, as the Post Office said, bigger, brighter and better. However, that is clearly not the case, and minor improvements are not good enough for his constituents or mine. Equally, constituents using a post office such as Comely Bank, or others that are just across constituency boundaries, have no concern as to which constituency the post office is in if it is their neighbourhood post office. I would certainly back campaigns by the hon. Gentleman to ensure that our constituents have decent and reasonable access to a local post office.
How the Post Office management were able to stand up at two public meetings in my constituency and keep a straight face is beyond me. When local residents pointed out many flaws at the most basic level in the management's conclusions, they were met with puzzled faces on the platform. I therefore hope that, before this consultation process ends and certainly before any final decisions are taken, the management will revisit the branches that they plan to close, walk between them and try to use the public transport. I believe that, if they do so, they will see for themselves why so many people are so angry at what is proposed.
That said, it would be wrong to single out the Post Office management as the only people to blame. My views and those of my party on the Government's push towards direct payment are well known and I do not want to rehearse them here. However, the Minister should be made aware of the anger among older people in my constituency. Many were happy with their pension book and trusted and understood that system. They are not only being forced into a new, more complicated system, but are being blocked from obtaining their first preference: the Post Office card account. I have already written to the Minister for Pensions to raise those concerns. No wonder post office business is on the slide when it is so difficult to open a Post Office card account. People should be able to expect their Government to do everything they can to keep post offices open. In reality, many feel that the Government are doing the exact opposite and are doing everything they can to close as many post offices as possible.
The supermarket company Morrisons also deserves a mention in the debate. As the Minister will know, it has taken a blanket decision not to continue running post offices in the Safeway stores that it has taken over. Because of that, the busiest post office in my constituency, which is in the South Gyle shopping

247WH
centre, is also set to close. After I inquired as to the reason behind the decision, Roger Owen of Morrisons wrote to me on 9 August:
"It has never been the policy of this company to run post offices within its stores…we quickly discovered that due to the pure bureaucracy of Post Office Limited, we were effectively prevented from running this service at a level which would be profitable to the company."
After my own experience with the Post Office over the past few years, I am quite sympathetic to the view expressed by Morrisons, but I must also say that there is for the company such a thing as corporate and social responsibility. For a company that is predicted to make £320 million in profit this year basically to say that it can make more of a profit by closing a vital post office that occupies a small site in its Gyle store is pretty irresponsible. That says to its customers that selling tins of beans is more important than providing an important public service, which is pretty bad public relations for a company that is trying to break into a new market in Scotland.
That is not to let the Post Office management off the hook. I believe that they have an opportunity and, indeed, a responsibility to find an alternative site for the post office somewhere in the Gyle shopping centre. After all, it is a profitable post office that is used by many people from throughout Edinburgh and across Lothian. Certainly the people who run the Gyle centre have been sympathetic to the need for a post office on site and, with a new wing opening, there are a range of available units in which a post office could be sited. However, yet again I have received excuse after excuse from the Post Office management as to why that cannot happen. It is all too typical of the "can't do" attitude of the Post Office—an attitude that I and many others find increasingly frustrating.
It is vital that the consultation that we are in the midst of is genuine, open and thorough. I have spent much of my summer contacting those affected and encouraging them to object to the Post Office's proposals and copy their objections to Postwatch. However, those who have already objected often receive responses that repeat the reason for closing the branch in question rather than address the concerns. I do not expect the Post Office management to respond in detail to each comment, but I—and, I am sure, the Minister—do expect it to not only listen to what people throughout Edinburgh are saying, but to respond to those views. If a guarantee cannot be given on that point, it will make a complete mockery of the whole process.
The package of closure proposals presented to post office customers and the people of Edinburgh is inconsistent and based on a number of odd assumptions. The Post Office management has picked some of the last post offices that people ever thought would be threatened with closure. Even at this stage, I hope that the Post Office, with the Minister's influence, will look at the entire issue once again. I want, and the people of Edinburgh deserve, exactly what we have been promised for two years: a serious, genuine consideration of the post office network in Edinburgh. The residents of Edinburgh, particularly the elderly and less mobile, must have access to a
248WH
decent post office network throughout the city. That is all they are asking for. That is only fair, and they should get nothing less.
1.46 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry: I congratulate the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West (John Barrett) on securing this debate. I also want to add my heartfelt concern and sympathy for him, his family and new granddaughter. The thoughts and best wishes of the whole House are with him.
For decades the Post Office was neglected, and it has been left to this Government to make fresh investment to secure a Post Office service fit for the 21st century, as many other countries—also with shrinking numbers of post offices—have been doing. I want to thank all Edinburgh's sub-postmasters who wish to retire as part of that process for their service to our communities in south and west Edinburgh, and indeed the whole city and Musselburgh. I also want to thank those running the remaining 80 and more Edinburgh sub-post offices for their dedication to their customers.
It is to secure a service and make it as accessible as possible that we are investing massive sums in the Post Office. Some £480 million of Government money has computerised every post office, and £450 million is supporting the rural network. Some £210 million is devoted to urban post offices, with grants of up to £10,000 being made to modernise and adapt post offices, as we have heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith (Mr. Lazarowicz), and there are compensation packages for retiring postmasters. We have written off £726 million of Post Office debt to free income for such vital investment. Altogether, in the past seven years this Government have given the Post Office £1.9 billion for those improvements and to cover multi-million pound losses. There were losses of £119 million last year, £194 million the year before and £163 million the year before that.
Our twin strategy of investment and subsidy is something new after decades of under-investment. With £500 million of support, the Post Office has computerised every single post office, in one of the UK's largest ever IT projects. Now 20 million customers of banks and building societies have full access to their accounts at post offices, and 1.7 million people have opened new Post Office card accounts, which the Government introduced. Those accounts have helped those who have never had a bank or savings account.
A universal banking service has been created to enable people to use any post office to collect their allowance or pension. That has been applauded by Help the Aged and Mind. The Post Office will continue to cater for the small number of people who still rely on the pension book system. The hon. Member for Edinburgh, West attacks us for moving from payment books to bank accounts, but he refuses to attack Liberal Democrat-run councils such as Aberdeen, which have withdrawn council tax and rent collection from local post offices to save money. The Government have to spend some £500 million every year on printing and issuing payment books. That is £1.47 on every transaction, as against 1p for a direct payment of the sort that Aberdeen council has adopted.

249WH
In Holland, which the Liberal Democrats single out as the model for how they would like to run post offices, 99 per cent. of pensioners have their pensions paid directly into their accounts. That is part of an inexorable trend. In 1984, half of, or fewer, senior citizens had bank accounts; by 1994, two thirds had bank accounts. The figure is now more than three quarters, and two thirds of senior citizens are opting to have pensions paid directly into their accounts.
Indeed, Citizens Advice congratulated the Government and Post Office in its publication on financial inclusion:
"The ambition to enable all people to own the most basic of financial services—a bank account—is one we share."
Paying pensions directly into accounts helps to eliminate fraud, which costs more than £70 million a year. Every week more than 100 senior citizens have their pension books stolen, and many are mugged. Perhaps that is another reason why 99 per cent. of OAPs in Holland have their pensions paid directly.
The Liberal Democrats ignore the fact that the number of post offices is falling in every country as millions more people use cash machines, buy stamps in ordinary shops, order online and rely on e-mail and phone text messaging. Germany, a much bigger country than Britain, used to have 30,000 post offices; it now has only 13,000–3,000 less than the UK. A recent survey revealed that only Sweden has more post offices per head of population than the UK.
The British post office network has been contracting since the 1960s. Even before the recent expansion of electronic technology, the Conservative Government saw 3,500 post offices close. What they did not do was provide a policy for the future or a vision of a modern service in the 21st century. The Labour Government have faced up to that challenge. In 2000, the performance and innovation unit's report, "Modernising the Post Office Network", made 24 recommendations for the future, all of which the Government accepted, initiating the most comprehensive investment programme for a generation.
The subject of this debate is the proposal to close selected post offices in Edinburgh, and people want to know how the Post Office singles out a specific post office for closure. It works with the Federation of Sub-Postmasters to identify the post offices in difficulty and considers whether more direct investment would make a difference and where the nearest alternative post office is. Sometimes the present postmaster wants to retire or close the office, and even popular post offices can struggle to find a replacement.
If there are too many sub-post offices, none can make a decent living. As one of my local sub-postmasters told me recently:
"This area does not get enough business to sustain three post offices. I am happy to go since this boosts business for the other two post offices which are half a mile and three quarters of a mile from me."
The consumer watchdog Postwatch is notified of any proposed closure and carries out its own evaluation. The proposals for Edinburgh went out for consultation on 29 July, and Postwatch, the public and hon. Members have eight weeks to comment.
Today we have heard my hon. Friend the Member for Edinburgh, North and Leith and the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West raise some issues in respect of post
250WH
offices in their constituencies. I can tell them that Post Office Ltd. is duty-bound to consider all the points, including the one about Morrisons and the application to close. The comments count. Already 110 proposals have been reversed as a result of representations, and a further 185 have been frozen so that more work can be done.
It is not only the Government, with our £1.7 billion of support, who can help local post offices. I pay tribute to the councils who also play their part. For instance, my Labour colleagues in Edinburgh have been working closely with the Post Office to maximise the income and viability of local post offices. In Edinburgh, we can pay our council tax, rent, business rates, home help charges, business waste disposal bills and other service bills in the post office. City of Edinburgh council pays for that service. Sadly, other councils, such as Aberdeen, which the Liberal Democrats run, have turned their back on post offices. We can pay our council tax in Edinburgh post offices, but Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. We can pay our rent in Edinburgh post offices, but Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. We can pay business rates in Edinburgh post offices, but the Liberal Democrat councillors withdrew that service in Aberdeen. For some post offices, that Liberal Democrat decision was their death knell. It robbed local post offices of vital custom and income.
The Liberal Democrats in Westminster, where they are not in power, want the Government to spend £500 million so that people can collect their pensions in post offices. However, where they do have power, as in Aberdeen, they do not want to pay post offices so that people can use them to pay their council tax, rent or business rates. That is why the Post Office tells me that 20 per cent. more post offices are closing in Aberdeen than in Edinburgh. That is the Liberal Democrats' track record: neglect it, boycott it, close it—promises are made before an election and broken after it.
Nationally, the Liberal Democrats are even worse. The Liberal Democrat policy document on this issue is called "Policy Paper 59: Setting Business Free"; it even has an ISBN number. The authors are the Liberal Democrat trade and industry spokesperson, the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable), his deputy, the hon. Member for Weston-super-Mare (Brian Cotter), and Nick Clegg, the Liberal Democrat MEP. The policy is set out clearly on page 16, which says that
"we are increasingly coming to a view that a privatised Post Office.. on Dutch lines could have a better chance of succeeding than the present structure."
Perhaps the hon. Member for Edinburgh, West should have read that before he issued the press statement attacking his predecessor Lord James Douglas Hamilton for supporting Lord Heseltine's drive to privatise the Post Office a decade ago. The House will judge the hon. Gentleman, perhaps harshly, on his use of the word "hypocrisy" about a distinguished former Member.
What have been the consequences of the Dutch-style privatisation promoted by the Liberal Democrats? The Netherlands has experienced a faster rate of closures than the UK—faster than France, Germany, the USA or Australia, according to the Triangle report. In short, the Liberal Democrats' Dutch-style privatisation could

251WH
force up to 30 post offices in Edinburgh to close—one third of the network, not the 21 that are the subject of this debate.
However, this Government have rejected the Liberal Democrats' Dutch-style privatisation for another reason: we do not see post offices in purely commercial terms. Post offices perform a necessary public service to 29 million customers every week. Our 16,000 sub-post offices outnumber all the banks and building society outlets put together. The Post Office is striving to ensure that at least 95 per cent. of Edinburgh residents have less than a mile to travel to their nearest post office; in urban areas, 50 per cent. have less than half a mile to travel.
This is an Adjournment debate, but the hon. Gentleman told the Evening News earlier this year that he was the only Edinburgh MP to vote against national plans for post office closure. That is simply untrue. He refers to a motion tabled on 13 January. I have a copy of his communication to a constituent confirming that. This was a Conservative motion, which deplored the programme to close post offices but specifically failed to demand either an end to the closures or more Government subsidy than the £1.7 billion that we already give. Unlike the Liberal Democrats, the
252WH
Conservatives are smart enough to realise that we will expose any extra spending promise as an unfunded commitment.
The same thing happened with the Conservatives' second Opposition day debate on the Post Office in July, when, I understand, a fifth of the hon. Gentleman's hon. Friends could not stomach joining him and the Tories in the Lobby. However, at least the Tories cared enough about the Post Office to call for a full-scale debate on it. I have looked at all 10 Liberal Democrat Opposition day debates in the past two and half years; not one was on the future of the Post Office.
Out of power, the Liberal Democrats want to lecture us on how to spend more money. In power, in Aberdeen for instance, they are the cost-cutters who are closing the post offices. A prudent Government have to face issues and find the best solution for all. We reject the privatisation option that the Liberal Democrats support because such a move would not be in the best interests of customers. We want to preserve the best features of our sub-post offices, not waste resources that could be more profitably used to benefit our citizens. It is time for the hon. Gentleman to tell his electors and the public the truth about Liberal Democrat policies.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Two o'clock.

MINISTER FOR WOMEN

  Beijing Platform for Action
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister for Women what her plans are for involvement in the Beijing Platform for Action, known as Beijing +10. [187535]

  Ms Hewitt
  The celebration and evaluation of the 10 years since the Beijing Platform for Action will be an integral part of the UK Government's work on gender equality in 2005. The 49th Session of the Commission for the Status for Women (CSW) at the United Nations in March 2005 will review and appraise the implementation of Beijing over the last 10 years. The cross-Whitehall UK Government delegation will actively participate at CSW. We have already begun feeding into this process, completing a United Nations questionnaire on progress made since 1995 in the UK (available at www.womenandequalityunit.gov.uk), which will feed into the UN Secretary-General's report. During the UK Presidency of the EU, July to December 2005, we will host a major European conference and a Ministerial Informal meeting to consider best practice across the EU in relation to national implementation of the Beijing Platform. The UK Government are a strong advocate of the Beijing Platform for Action and UN initiatives to further gender equality.

LEADER OF THE HOUSE

  Divisions
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Leader of the House if he will seek to amend the practice of Divisions to allow abstentions to be recorded. [187676]

  Mr. Woolas
  I have no plans to do so.

  Sitting Hours
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Leader of the House when he expects to publish proposals for revised sitting hours of the House. [187672]

  Mr. Hain
  The Modernisation Committee, which I chair, is conducting an inquiry into the sitting hours of the House. I hope that it will report its findings to the House by the end of the year.

  Parliamentary Publications
  Mr. Truswell
  To ask the Leader of the House what representations he has received since 27 April from the Plain English Campaign regarding the language used in parliamentary publications. [187674]
  938W
  Mr. Woolas
  My right hon. Friend has received no representations from the Plain English Campaign since March of this year, when representatives of that organisation met with the Modernisation Committee as part of its inquiry into Connecting Parliament with the Public.

SCOTLAND

  Immigration
  Pete Wishart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met the First Minister to discuss Scottish immigration issues. [187632]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I have regular meetings with Scottish Ministers and the Home Office to discuss the Government's asylum and immigration policies. I last met the Minister for Citizenship, Immigration and Nationality and the Minister for Communities on 2 June this year.

  Infantry Regiments
  Mr. Alan Reid
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has held with the Secretary of State for Defence regarding the Scottish infantry regiments. [187633]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend and I have had recent discussions on a range of issues including the Scottish infantry regiments.

  Consumer Debt
  Mr. Carmichael
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the level of consumer debt in Scotland. [187634]

  Mrs. McGuire
  Growth in personal debt across the United Kingdom is slowing down. Estimates of Scottish consumer indebtedness are not readily available. However, at the end of July 2004 the total UK personal debt was £1,014.5 billion.

  Post Office Closures
  John Barrett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the number of post office closures in Scotland. [187635]

  Mr. Darling
  My right hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State for Scotland and I have regular discussions with the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about a variety of issues.

  Civil Service Relocation
  Tony Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the dispersal of Government jobs to Scotland. [187636]

  Mr. Darling
  Decisions about the relocation of jobs within Government Departments have yet to be made but will be based on Departments' operational needs and individual business cases rather than the particular
  939W
  needs of specific areas or geographies. However, I have made quite clear to other Government Departments the advantages Scotland offers as a location.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the impact of the Lyons review in areas in Scotland not named in the King Sturge report; and what active role his Department is taking towards public sector job relocation to Scotland. [187638]

  Mr. Darling
  Decisions about the relocation of jobs within Government Departments have yet to be made but will be based on Departments' operational needs and individual business cases rather than the particular needs of specific areas or geographies. However, I have made quite clear to other Government Departments the advantages Scotland offers as a location and have encouraged them to consider Scotland when reviewing relocation plans.

  Small Business Regulation
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received from small business organisations regarding regulation. [187637]

  Mr. Darling
  I met representatives from Chambers of Commerce throughout Scotland yesterday when a number of regulatory issues were discussed. Furthermore, my hon. Friend., the Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, is a member of the Small Business Consultative Group chaired by the Scottish Executive and all meetings of this group have a standing agenda item on regulatory issues. The Government and the Scottish Executive are committed to ensuring that businesses do not face unnecessary regulatory burdens.

  Scottish Parliament
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will take steps to provide an opportunity to enable the people of Scotland to decide whether they wish to retain a Scottish Parliament. [187639]

  Mr. Darling
  No. The Scottish Parliament represents the settled will of the Scottish people expressed convincingly in the referendum of 1997.

  Postal Services
  Mr. Weir
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received regarding postal services in Scotland. [187640]

  Mrs. McGuire
  My right hon. Friend and I receive a wide range of representations on Scottish matters.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187322]
  940W
  Mrs. McGuire
  The Scotland Office has one room set aside for smokers. No rooms are currently set aside for worship or for nursing mothers and pregnant women and no requests for such rooms have been received, but appropriate arrangements can be made if necessary.

  Parliamentary Boundaries
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what indications he has received from the Boundary Commission for Scotland as to when it expects to deliver to him its report on Parliamentary Boundaries in Scotland. [186383]

  Mr. Darling
  It is a matter entirely for the Boundary Commission for Scotland when, before December 2006, it reports to me. The Commission is aware that, following the Scottish Parliament (Constituencies) Act 2004 receiving Royal Assent on 22 July, it is no longer under a duty to review the regional boundaries for the Scottish Parliament. In light of its progress so far, it seems likely that the Commission will report much sooner than its deadline, but the timing is a matter for it.

WALES

  Departmental Staff (Upper Age Limits)
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether his Department has(a) a set retirement age that applies to all or most personnel and (b) a maximum age beyond which applications for employment will not be considered; and what the age is in each case. [186089]

  Mr. Hain
  Staff working in the Wales Office before June 2003 were on secondment or loan from other Departments—predominantly from the National Assembly for Wales. Their home departments therefore set the retirement age and any retirement taken would be from the home department rather than from the Wales Office.

  Since June 2003 the Wales Office has operated the retirement policy of the Department for Constitutional Affairs for those staff who are not on loan.

  Devolved Government
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales when he next plans to meet the First Secretary of the National Assembly for Wales to discuss the future of Devolved Government in Wales. [184032]

  Mr. Hain
  I have regular meetings with the First Minister to discuss a number of different issues that effect Wales, including the future of Devolved Government.

  Public Relations
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales what the salary costs to the Department were for employees working in public relations and publicity in each year since 1997. [183845]

  Mr. Hain
  The Wales Office does not have the executive responsibilities which would generally require publicity or public relations expenditure.
  941W
  The Wales Office does employ three Press Officers, whose basic salary scales currently range from £23,764 to £31,003, £26,688 to £35,214 and £42,999 to £56,737.

  Referendum Threshold
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Wales whether it is his policy that a turnout threshold be included in plans for a referendum on granting tax-raising powers to the Welsh Assembly. [183390]

  Mr. Hain
  No.

ENVIRONMENT, FOOD AND RURAL AFFA#RS

  Automotive Emissions
  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what information she has sought about the emissions level that has been established for the automotive sector under the(a) German, (b) French, (c) Spanish and (d) Italian national allocation plans; what this represents as a proportion of actual emissions in 2002; and if she will make a statement. [186276]

  Mr. Morley
  We understand that the French, Spanish and Italians are proposing to adopt a narrow interpretation of the scope of the Directive that will exclude, inter alia, installations in the automotive sector from the scheme in those member states. We have already raised this issue with the Commission and will continue to press for them to resolve this issue as soon as possible.

  The German allocation plan does not contain information on sectoral or individual installation allocations so it is not possible to provide an assessment of the emissions levels for their automotive sector. We are pressing Germany and other member states to publish the details of the projections used in their allocation plans to improve transparency in the assessment process.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs when she last met representatives of the automotive sector to discuss the UK implementation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme. [186277]

  Mr. Morley
  Officials from Defra and DTI have met with representatives of the automotive sector on a number of occasions, including a meeting with the Society of Motor Manufacturers and Traders (SMMT) in February to discuss the draft National Allocation Plan. Defra officials have attended meetings of the DTI-led Vehicle Industry Policy and European Regulation (VIPER) meetings to discuss the implementation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme (EU ETS).

  Representatives of the automotive sector have also attended numerous Government seminars covering a range of issues related to the EU ETS.

  Officials from Defra, DTI, Treasury and Number 10 are also due to be meeting with SMMT officials in early August to discuss the EU ETS.

  Departmental Accounting Practice
  Mr. Bacon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs who the Finance Director of(a) the Department, (b) the Office for Water Services and (c) the Forestry Commission is; what accountancy qualifications each Director holds; and on how many occasions there has been a qualified opinion on (i) the resource accounts and (ii) other accounts of each in the last five years. [183427]

  Alun Michael
  Defra was formed in June 2001. Currently the Finance Director is Andrew Burchell who took up his post in October 2001. He is a career civil servant who does not hold any CCAB recognised qualification.

  Audit opinion on the Core Department's accounts for the last five years has been as follows:

  Since the formation of Defra, the NAO's Opinion on published accounts has been as follows:

  Resource account

  Vote account

  2001–02

  Qualified opinion

  Not applicable

  2002–03

  No qualification

  Not applicable

  2003–04

  Audit not yet completed

  Not applicable

  Ofwat's Finance Director is Roger Dunshea (joined Ofwat 1998) who does not hold any CCAB recognised qualifications. There have been no qualified opinions on the accounts in the last five years. The 2003–04 audit has not yet been completed.

  Emissions Trading
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what steps she is taking to(a) maintain UK emissions targets in relation to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme National Allocation Plan and (b) incorporate a proportion of benchmarking into allocations for individual installations under these proposals; and if she will make a statement. [186254]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK emissions targets in relation to the EU Emissions Trading Scheme National Allocation Plan are set out in the plan that was notified to the Commission in April 2004. We have pointed out that the figures in the plan are subject to further change for a number of reasons, including final updates to the emissions projections.

  Generally, the allocation to incumbent installations (those in operation prior to 1 January 2004) is calculated based on historic emissions. The allocation to new entrant installations (those in operation subsequent to a January 2004) will be calculated using a standardised benchmarking methodology.

  Mr. Trimble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs whether the percentage allocation of emission permits under the European Union's Emissions Trading Scheme to Northern Ireland's power stations will be at the same level as the Great Britain average. [186306]

  Mr. Morley
  The UK National Allocation Plan that was notified to the European Commission in April, stated that the UK had yet to make a final decision on whether the particular characteristics of the electricity
  943W
  supply industry in Northern Ireland made it appropriate to split the power station allocation prior to distribution to installations.

  We are continuing to discuss this with officials from Northern Ireland and intend to make an announcement later this year.

  Richard Burden
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what assessment has been made of the impact of UK implementation of the EU Emissions Trading Scheme on the competitiveness of vehicle manufacturing in the UK. [186278]

  Mr. Morley
  In the UK National Allocation Plan, sectors that are subject to international competition have been allocated according to projected need. The impact of the scheme on these sectors is expected to be similar to that of existing national policies. In those member states where more effort needs to be made to reach Kyoto targets, the impact of the scheme is expected, over time, to be that much greater.

  We are aware of different proposed implementation in the French and Spanish allocation plans, which would result in the vehicle manufacturing industries in those member states not being included in the scheme. We are continuing to press the Commission to resolve this issue as soon as possible. The UK has also been lobbying the Commission to ensure their assessment of allocation plans is robust, consistent and transparent.

  Flood Defences
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs what specific resources have been allocated to river and coastal flood defences between 2005–06 and 2007–08; and if she will make a statement. [186569]

  Mr. Morley
  Defra funds most of the Environment Agency's flood defence activities and provides grant aid on a project-by-project basis to the other flood and coastal defence operating authorities (local authorities and internal drainage boards) to support their investment in improvement projects to manage flood and coastal erosion risk.

  The Department plans to invest at least £564 million each year between 2005–06 and 2007–08 in the management of flood and coastal erosion risk and related expenditure. The amount for flood defence projects (as opposed to projects primarily for coastal erosion or other activities such as fu#ding of the Storm Tide Forecasting Service) will be decided later this year.

  Landfill
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs how many(a) complaints, (b) court actions and (c) fines against landfill sites for problems related to (i) odours, (ii) water pollutions, (iii) air pollution and (iv) human health impact there were in each year since 1995, broken down by region. [184862]

  Mr. Morley
  The Environment Agency holds information on reported incidents of pollution on the National Incident Recording System and information on court actions and fines, separately on the National Enforcement Database. It is not possible to present the 944W
  data in the form requested so a document setting out the available information will be deposited in the Library of the House.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Venezuela
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support the British Government offered to Venezuela following the floods in Caracas in December 1999; and if he will make a statement. [186412]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID provided over £770,000 to Venezuela following the floods in December 1999. This was mainly through the World Health Organisation, the United Nations Children's Fund and the British Red Cross. These funds went towards providing emergency assistance for those affected and initiating long-term rehabilitation for up to 10,000 families.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187316]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's two main UK offices at 1 Palace Street, London, and Abercrombie House, East Kilbride, both have a smoking room, a room set aside for worship (not designated for any specific faith) and a nursing mothers room. The provision of facilities such as those for religious groups and nursing mothers is a small but important contribution to our Commitment to creating a workplace which embraces diversity, one of DFID's core values.

  Kenya
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what proportion of the international aid budget was spent in Kenya in each year since 1997. [187409]

  Hilary Benn
  The Proportion of DFID's total aid budget which was spent in Kenya in each year since 1997 is set out in the first column of the following table. The second column gives the proportion of DFID's bilateral programme spent in Kenya. In addition to the funding disbursed under DFID's bilateral programme, we estimate that about £10 million is disbursed annually to Kenya through the contributions which we make to multilateral institutions.

  Expenditure in Kenya is percentage of DFID programme

  Percentage of

  Percentage of

  total programme

  bilateral programme

  1997–98

  1.4

  2.8

  1998–99

  1.4

  2.9

  1999–2000

  1.0

  2.0

  2000–01

  1.8

  3.7

  2001–02

  0.9

  1.8

  2002–03

  1.3

  2.4

  2003–04

  0.7

  1.3

  945W
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions he has had with the Kenyan Government on aid from the UK in relation to corruption with in Kenya. [187410]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID is in regular contact with the#Kenyan Government on the issue of corruption and its impact on our development assistance. DFID's Kenya Country Assistance Plan recognises that poverty reduction budget support is the Government of Kenya's preferred form of aid. It also makes clear that the level of British aid to Kenya, and whether or not we will provide bilateral poverty reduction budget support, will depend on the pace with which the Kenyan Government implements its Economic Recovery Strategy, especially in tackling corruption, preparing and implementing budgets that benefit the poor, and strengthening public financial management. Progress is not yet sufficient to enable us to provide such support. This point was most recently reinforced in a meeting with President Kibaki on 1 September.

  We are particularly concerned about recent reports of corruption allegedly involving senior members of the Kenyan Government and have urged President Kibaki, in previous meetings, to ensure that appropriate and firm action is taken to investigate these reports, make the results public and take appropriate action against all those found to have acted corruptly. Some progress is being made, i.e. in the establishment of anti-corruption institutions, but it still remains to be seen whether this will lead to decisive action in the short-term.

  We will, therefore, continue to use sector support and project aid where we believe that it can have a sustainable impact on poverty reduction and progress towards the Millennium Development Goals in Kenya.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186693]

  Hilary Benn
  None.

  Political and Economic Liberalisation
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what research his Department has commissioned regarding connections between political and economic liberalisation and improvements in human security in developing countries. [186775]

  Hilary Benn
  DFID funded research in this area as part of a three year programme on 'Globalisation and Poverty Elimination' between 2000 and 2003. The website address is www.gapresearch.org

  DFID currently funds the Crisis States Development Research Centre based at the London School of Economics. Website www.crisisstates.com.

  Somalia
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what support he is giving to humanitarian operations in Somalia. [186443]

  Hilary Benn
  So far in 2004 DFID has agreed to provide £2,941,534 for the following ongoing humanitarian operations in Somalia (DFID contribution in brackets):African Medical and Research Foundation (AMREF) "Gedo Regional Health Care programme" (£287,521);
  International Committee of the Red Cross "2004 Appeal" to provide humanitarian assistance—food, health, shelter, water, sanitation and hygiene—to those affected by instability and conflict (£400,000);
  International Medical Corps "Primary Health Care in Bay, Bakool and Hiraan regions" (£480,000);
  Medecins sans Frontieres "Basic Health and Nutrition, Lower Juba" (£1,225,390)
  Medecins Sans Frontieres "Primary Health Care, Middle Shabelle" (£424,013);
  United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) "Nutritional Supplementation to children and pregnant women" (£300,000);
  United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) "Expanded #rogramme on Immunisation, including Polio Eradication Initiative" (£300,000);
  United Nations Office For The Coordination Of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA): "Coordination Support Services" (£250,000);
  United Nations Office For The Coordination Of Humanitarian Affairs (OCHA): "Humanitarian Response Fund" (£500,000).

  The Somali population, due to instability and severe poverty, remains highly vulnerable to climatic and conflict generated crisis. DFID's continuing humanitarian assistance to Somalia will be based on assessed needs and will address immediate and critical problems in order to reduce suffering and save lives.

  Sugar Protocol
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether under Common Agricultural Policy reform of the sugar protocol there are mechanisms in place to prevent short-term dumping on developing countries. [186323]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The European Commission presented a communication to the Agriculture Council on 19 July that set out their preferred option for reform. The communication proposes to substantially reduce sugar exports and export refunds, abolish intervention, reduce ELI production and the internal sugar price and grant a de-coupled payment to sugar beet farmers. The reform process will start in July 2005. This should make the regime more market oriented and reduce the quantity of EU sugar exported to third markets. If the option were to be agreed, the Commission estimate that the combined, aggregate effect of the proposals on support price and quota reduction would be a significant reduction in the level of EU production under quota, from 17.3 million to 14.5 million tonnes per year. In turn, as a consequence of the substantial reduction in the overall level of EU production, EU subsidised sugar exports dumping are projected to fall by around 2 million tonnes. The Commission communication will be the subject of discussion between the EU Member States over the coming months.
  947W
  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether under Common Agricultural Policy reform of the sugar protocol there are transitional arrangements for African, Caribbean and Pacific countries. [186324]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The European Commission (EC) presented a Communication to the Agriculture Council on 19 July that set out their preferred option for reform. To address the impact on the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP)s, the European Commission will work with affected countries on the basis of an action plan to be produced by the end of 2004 to define appropriate trade and development measures. Tailor made programmes should help ACPs adapt and improve the competitiveness of their sugar industry where viable or help to support their diversification out of sugar. DFID welcomes this commitment in the Communication and are keen to help facilitate the dialogue between the EC and the ACP on this action plan. DFID is commissioning a study from the Overseas Development Institute that should help those countries affected determine their priorities for a transitional package.

  Tony Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development whether the Department is funding research into alternative uses for sugar, with particular reference to developing countries, in the light of Common Agricultural Policy reform of the sugar protocol. [186325]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID has always stressed the need#to take account of the impact that reform of the EU sugar regime will have on our developing country preferential suppliers. DFID is conscious that substantial reform will give rise to transitional problems for the African, Caribbean and Pacific countries (ACP)s that currently benefit from preferential access to the EU market at existing price levels and for the Least Developed Countries (LDC)s seeking to develop an export trade to Europe under the EBA initiative.

  In order to help inform the debate and ensure the impact on developing countries is taken sufficiently into consideration, DFID commissioned a study last year with LMC International and Oxford Policy Management, 'Addressing the Impact of Preference Erosion in Sugar on Developing Countries'. The study is divided into two sections. The first part assesses the economic and social impact on the ACP Sugar Protocol countries of the various reform scenarios suggested by the European Commission. The latter part of the study assesses alternative options for addressing the impact of preference erosion in sugar. The purpose of this analysis was to identify various options for debate by the ACP and the EU.

  DFID has recently commissioned two further pieces of work on this issue. The first report has been commissioned with LMC International, 'EU Sugar Reform: the Implications for the Development of LDCs and should be finalised early next month. The second report has been commissioned from the Overseas Development Institute, 'Forthcoming changes in EU sugar/banana markets: a menu of options for an effective EU transitional assistance package' and should also he finalised next month. This report should help
  948W
  those countries affected by reform determine their priorities for a transitional package. This report will include some analysis of alternative uses for sugar.

  Vietnam
  Angus Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development (1) if he will outline his Department's strategy with regard to the Montagnard people of Vietnam since 1997; and if he will make a statement; [187268]

  (2) how much (a) monetary aid and (b) aid in kind his Department has (i) pledged and (ii) delivered to projects directly impacting on the Montagnard people of Vietnam since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [187269]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  The Department for International Development's (DFID) engagement in Vietnam since 1997 has focused on supporting the Vietnamese Government in implementing its own strategies for poverty reduction. In their five-year plans, the Government of Vietnam has highlighted the severe poverty issues facing the Central Highlands where the majority of the Montagnard people live.

  From 1997 to 2003 DFID's strategy focused on working with other donors. During this period DFID has developed two projects with the Asian Development Bank (ADB) which aim to improve the quality of services provided by the Vietnamese Government to poor people in four provinces of the Central Highlands region. The projects focus on greater participation by poor people in planning and monitoring services, which should ensure that the services provided are more appropriate and of better quality. In addition, DFID has funded UNICEF to improve water supplies to rural areas in three Central Highlands provinces.

  In DFID's Vietnam Country Assistance Plan, 2004–06, a key strategic objective is to strengthen the Government's efforts to achieve development which is socially inclusive In addition to the co-financed ADB projects mentioned above, DFID is currently addressing the development needs of the Montagnard people through co-financing a number of national programmes, which include Central Highlands provinces, districts and communes along with those in other poor areas of Vietnam. In education, our two national programmes with the World Bank, Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children and Primary Teachers Development Project# are strengthening the capacity of local government to improve the quality of primary education for all children. In transport, DFID is working with the World Bank to improve access to rural roads for poor people and building Government capacity to monitor and forecast associated recurrent budget costs. DFID also co-finance two United Nation# Development Programme projects aimed at strengthening the capacities of the National Assembly and a number of provincial People's Councils, including several in the Central Highlands region.

  The only programmes where DFID can explicitly disaggregate it's monetary aid, and aid in kind, for the Montagnard people are for our Rural Transport Programmes, and our Central Region Livelihoods Improvement Programme (CRLIP). Since 1997 our

  949W
  Rural Transport Programmes haw disbursed £512,427 in the two Central Highland provinces of Dak Lak and Gia Lai. The CRLIP has pledged £2,766,667 to the Central Highland Province of Kon Turn.

  Project title

  Allocation (£)

  Project duration

  Project location

  Primary Education for Disadvantaged Children

  26,500,000

  2003–09

  38 provinces including four central highland

  (PEDC)

  provinces—Dak Lak, Gia Lai, Kon Turn, Lam Dong

  Primary Teacher Development Project (PTDP)

  8,256,000

  2002–05

  10 provinces including one central highland province—

  Kon Turn

  Capacity Building for Central Region Poverty

  1,800,000

  2002–04

  Four provinces including one central highland

  Reduction (CBCRPR)

  province—Kon Turn

  Support to the Office of the National Assembly

  330,000

  2004–08

  15 provinces including two central highland

  and People's Councils (ONA project)

  provinces—Dak Lak, Kon Turn

  Support to the Committee for Economic and

  672,000

  2003–08

  11 provinces including one central highland province—

  Budgetary Affairs (CEBA)

  Lam Dong

  Vietnam: Rural Water Supply and Environmental

  2,880,000

  1999–2002

  14 provinces including three central highland

  Sanitation Programme—UNICEF Core Funding

  provinces—Kon Turn, Gia Lai, Dak Lak

  Project

  Water and Sanitation Goals
  Mrs. Helen Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development how much of the Departmental Expenditure Limits agreed up to 2007–08 will be spent in pursuit of the water and sanitation Millennium Development Goals targets(a) directly and (b) indirectly through (i) budget support and (ii) other programmes which require access to safe water and sanitation to be fully effective. [186127]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  DFID's support for the water sector is predominantly through our country programmes and support to multi-lateral institutions. This includes direct water sector activities, improvements attributed through assistance to other sectors such as health and education, as well as through our poverty reduction budget support, where expenditure reflects developing countries' own priorities and our assistance is coordinated with that of other donors. DFID works to assist countries to use their budgets to make the biggest impact on reducing poverty. DFID's Water Action Plan published in March 2004 and available on our website: www.dfid.gov.uk emphasises the importance of water and sanitation in all aspects of development.

  DFID does provide significant support to the water sector; DFID's bilateral expenditure alone was estimated at £87 million in 2001–02. DFID is currently undertaking work to update it's estimates and project our likely expenditure on water-related activities through to 2007–08, both bilaterally and multilaterally, including the results of DFID's initial resource allocation round in autumn 2004.

  Critically, during 2005, the international community will be reviewing progress against all the MDGs, including the water and sanitation targets, and there will be a special UN General Assembly discussion. Leading up to that, the UK and other parties will be reviewing what further action needs to be taken on water and sanitation at the UN Commission for Sustainable Development in April 2005.
  950W
  The following table details monetary aid from DFID's national programmes that cover the Central Highlands provinces where most of the Montagnard people live in Vietnam.

HOUSE OF COMMONS COMMISSION

  Summer Recess Visitors
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission how many people visited the House during the summer recess. [187678]

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  Up to and including 1 September, a total of 72,450 people had visited Parliament during the summer recess; 67,757 were on public (paying) tours and 4,693 were on Members' tours.

  The total number of people who have pre-booked and paid for tours on 2, 3 and 4 September and during the conference recess is 6,795. Another 2,161 people have pre-booked, but not yet paid for tours.

  Crèche Facilities
  Harry Cohen
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what assessment the Commission has made of the need for crèche facilities to be made available for people attending official meetings with hon. Members in the House.(187677)

  Sir Archy Kirkwood
  It is important that visitors are made to feel welcome on the Parliamentary Estate. However, the Commission has not made any assessment of the need for crèche facilities to be made available for people attending official meetings with hon. Members. I should point out that very little use is made of the baby care and changing facilities we already provide, and that the reception desks have no record of any request for crèche facilities for visitors.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for his Department's initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183807]
  951W
  Fiona Mactaggart
  The amount spent by the Home Office on advertising and publications over this period is set out as follows. Printing and publishing costs were not centralised within the Home Office until 1999–2000 and it is not possible to produce spending figures prior to this. The figures for publications include all Home Office publications including command papers and other policy documents, as well as campaign related literature.1996–97

  Advertising spend was £5.23 million in a total communication budget of£8.328 million. Communication spend represents 0.13 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £6,416 million Campaigns included car crime, recruitment of special constables, fire safety and electoral registration.

  1997–98

  Advertising spend was £1.4 million in a total communication budget of £3.372 million. Communication spend represented 0.05 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £6,747 million. Campaigns included recruitment of special constables, fire safety, absent voting and electoral registration.

  1998–99

  Advertising spend was £1.8 million in a total communication budget of £4.194 million. Communication spend represents 0.00005 per cent. of total Home office public expenditure of £7,608,178 million.

  Campaigns included smoke alarms, recruitment of special constables, crime partnerships and electoral registration.

  1999–2000

  Advertising spend was £5.65 million in a total communication budget of £10.08 million which included £2.626 million on publications. Communication spend represents 0.000012 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £7,996,184 million. Campaigns included chip pan safety, fire safety, recruitment of special constables, European parliament elections and electoral registration.

  2000–01

  Advertising spend was £28.36 million in a total communication budget of £35.637 million which included £3.128 million on publications. Communication spend represents 0.00039 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £9,068,695 million. Campaigns included fire safety, vehicle crime and the recruitment of police officers.

  Number of ASBOs, as notified to the Home Office, for all courts in the Country of Durham, by complainant and type of court, 1 April 2003 to 31 March 2004

  By application

  Applications by complainant

  Type of court

  Total applications

  Local authority

  Police

  On conviction

  Total issued

  Magistrates court

  North Durham PSA

  8

  4

  4

  2

  10

  South Durham PSA

  3

  —

  3

  —

  3

  Crown court

  Durham CC

  1

  1

  County court

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  Total

  11

  4

  7

  3

  14

  1Type of applicant not applicable.

  952W
  2001–02

  Advertising spend was £14.4 million in a total communication budget of £25 million which included £2.995 million on publications. Communication spend represents 0.00023 per cent. of total Home Office public expenditure of £10,820,813 million. Campaigns included fire safety, vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, recruitment of police officers and special constables, and postal voting.

  2002–03

  Advertising spend was £9.9 million in a total communication budget of £18.3 million which included £2.493 million on publications. Communication spend represented 0.00013 per cent. of total Home office public expenditure of £13,493,081 million. Campaigns included vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, the firearms amnesty and the recruitment of police officers.

  2003–04

  Advertising spend was £12.487 million in a total communication budget of £22,083 million which included £2.986 million on publications. Communication spend represents 0.00017 per cent. of total Home Office expenditure of £12,605,526 million. Campaigns included vehicle crime, internet child protection, drugs, recruitment of police officers and domestic violence.

  Note:
  Please note that the total public expenditure figures for 1996–97 and 1997–98 were compiled under a different accounting system to later years—and are therefore not directly comparable.

  Antisocial Behaviour Orders
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been served in Northampton in each year since their introduction. [186467]

  Ms Blears
  By 31 March 2004, as notified to the Home Office, one antisocial behaviour order has been issued within the Northampton borough council local government area. This was issued in June 2003.

  Mr. Cummings
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders were(a) applied for and (b) granted in the County of Durham in the last 12 months for which figures are available, broken down by magistrates court. [186439]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the following table.
  953W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many antisocial behaviour orders have been issued in(a) the constituency of Bury St. Edmunds and (b) Suffolk since their introduction. [187192]

  Ms Blears
  The available information is given in the following table.

  Number of ASB0s, as notified to the Home Office, for all courts in Suffolk, by area, 1 April 1999 to 31 March 2004

  Area

  Total issued

  Suffolk

  45

  From 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 by pfa1

  3

  From 1 June 2000 to 31 March 2004 by local

  authority area

  42

  of which

  Mid Suffolk DC

  —

  St. Edmundsbury BC

  2

  1 Between 1 April 1999 to 31 May 2000 data are available by police force area (pfa) only.

  Note:

  The constituency of Bury St. Edmunds comprises 16 wards of the District of Mid Suffolk and 14 wards of the Borough of St. Edmundsbury.

  Community Safety
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he is taking to consult older people on issues of community safety. [186449]

  Ms Blears
  Within the Crime and Disorder Act 1998, local authorities are required to work with the police to conduct a review of levels and patterns of crime and disorder. They are then required to consult widely with key agencies, community groups, charities (such as Help the Aged and Age Concern) and the community about these findings. Each of the 376 Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships across England and Wales conduct resident surveys on a variety of issues to find out what people's concerns are, and then act on them as necessary. The survey covers a whole spectrum of residents from young people to older people.

  In addition, the Fear of Crime Team within the Home Office have presented to, and facilitated, workshops at the Help the Aged National and Regional Senior Safety Conferences, developed and published a vulnerability strategy which identifies and addresses fear of crime issues among older people, and developed Fear of Crime reassurance cards, which challenge misperceptions about local crime issues. These cards are being disseminated to older people by H cl p the Aged handyvan fitters and neighbourhood wardens.

  Community Sentences
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the reporting procedures are for the performance of prison alternatives. [182285]

  Paul Goggins
  The National Probation Service (NPS) will shortly publish its annual report for 2003–04. In addition, each of the 42 operational areas of the NPS is required to produce its own annual report by the end of October.
  954W
  The National Probation Directorate produces a quarterly Performance Report, which sets out the extent to which local probation areas are performing against targets and how the key strategic obje#tives are being delivered. The reports are available on the NPS website (www.probation.homeoffice.gov.uk/output/page34.asp).

  The Home Office Research, Development and Statistics Directorate publishes Probation Statistics for England and Wales on an annual basis. This presents statistics and trends relating to the work of the service, including the number of offenders under different types of supervision, the number of reports produced and staff in post. The most recent edition, published in January 2004, covers the year 2002 and is available on the Home Office website (www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/ probationl.html). The web address also provides access to a number of Home Office Research Studies on themes relevant to the work of the NFS.

  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) what plans the Government have to publicise successful outcomes of community sentencing; [182287]

  (2) what plans he has to use the media to communicate information on community sentencing to the public; [182290]

  (3) what measures (a) are in place and (b) he will introduce to demonstrate to the public that community sentences are serious penalties for offenders. [182294]

  Paul Goggins
  There is in place a communication strategy to improve public knowledge, understanding of, and confidence in, community sentences.

  The Home Office and local Probation Areas are also working to increase the public's understanding and knowledge of the range of community sentences available to the courts. The aim is to demonstrate that community punishment can be tough and demanding, making sure that offenders put something back into the community. A national visibility scheme for community. The reparation marque 'Making Amends' identifies locations that have benefited from community work.

  We will also promote public awareness of the new community sentences created by the Criminal Justice Act 2003, including Custody Minus and the new generic community sentence, as they come on stream next year.

  Contingency Planning
  Kali Mountford
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on emergency planning arrangements in the UK. [184912]

  Mr. Blunkett
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) on 27 July 2004, Official Report, column 844W.

  Crime (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent assessment has been made of the level of fear of crime among the people of Great Yarmouth. [186715]
  955W
  Ms Blears
  A Citizens' Panel is currently being conducted across Norfolk which includes questions about crime, the fear of crime and antisocial behaviour. The results will be broken down to district council level and will be published in December this year on the Norfolk Citizen Panel website, the address is: www.norfolk.gov.uk/citizenspanel/content/panellist_results.asp.

  Departmental Expenditure/Staff
  David Davis
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the(a) capital and (b) running costs of mobile phones in his Department were in each year since 2001. [185291]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The accounting policy of the Home Office is to only capitalise assets whose cost is greater than £5,000. Mobile phones purchased as part of a contract are treated as a revenue expense.

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Central Home Office and IND (excluding

  agencies)

  9,358

  8,037

  7,711

  9,270

  13,020

  13,550

  16,540

  Fire Service College

  215

  253

  188

  180

  190

  —

  —

  Forensic Science Service

  1,185

  1,238

  1,638

  1,780

  2,190

  2,420

  2,660

  United Kingdom Passport Agency

  1,407

  1,276

  1,245

  1,320

  2,270

  2,770

  2,600

  Prison Service

  37,704

  39,363

  38,719

  40,560

  41,940

  41,780

  43,210

  Home Office Total

  49,869

  50,167

  49,501

  53,113

  59,610

  60,520

  65,010

  In accordance with the policy objectives of the spending review and strategic plan commitments to staff cuts, we are streamlining departmental Head-Quarters (HQ) and reducing staff numbers by 30 per cent. in order to focus resources on the front-line. We are committed to similar reductions in the HQ of Corrections and the Immigration and Nationality Directorate. Reducing our HQ staff numbers by 2,700 full-time equivalents will free up around £100 million in real terms to be spent on the front-line.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and sets of offices for which his Department is responsible. [186536]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  In the Departments seven main central London buildings there is (a) one smoking room in each building, (b) one building with a multi-faith room and one building with a Muslim prayer room, and

  General government grants1 £ million

  Annual percentage change in general government grants percentage

  Specific grants and capital provisions2 £ million

  Total £ million

  Annual percentage change in all government grants Percentage

  1997–98

  129.7

  6.7

  136.4

  1998–99

  131.5

  1.4

  2.1

  133.6

  -2.0

  1999–2000

  134.8

  2.5

  3.1

  137.9

  3.2

  2000–01

  143.8

  6.7

  4.3

  148.1

  7.4

  956W
  The running costs for each year since 2001 are as follows:

  £

  2001

  890,715.68

  2002

  1,260,983.99

  2003

  1,282,909.33

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many full-time equivalent staff there have been in(a) his Department and (b) agencies of the Department in each year since 1997. [182219]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The following table provides a reply to the question based on the civil service statistics staff levels since 1996.

  These are full-time equivalent figures, based on civil service statistics, 1997 onwards available from the available civil service statistics. All figures are as at April.

  (c) a designated room for nursing mothers and pregnant women in three of the buildings. This information is not held centrally for the remainder of the Home Office Estate.

  English Language Training (Leeds)
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what English language training is available to(a) adult refugees and (b) adult asylum seekers in Leeds. [186736]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  I have been asked to reply.

  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom, the Council's Chief Executive, will write to my hon. Friend with this information and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Essex Police
  Mr. Ivan Henderson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what change in funding Essex Police Authority has received in each year since 1997. [186315]

  Ms Blears
  The information is set out in the table.
  957W

  General government grants1 £ million

  Annual percentage change in general government grants percentage

  Specific grants and capital provisions2 £ million

  Total £ million

  Annual percentage change in all government grants Percentage

  2001–023

  151.9

  5.6

  7.9

  159.8

  7.9

  2001–023

  147.9

  —

  7.9

  155.8

  —

  2002–03

  151.3

  2.3

  16.0

  167.3

  7.4

  2003–04

  155.9

  3.0

  17.7

  173.6

  3.7

  2004–05

  160.9

  3.3

  16.7

  177.6

  2.4

  1General government grants comprise Home Office principal police grant, Office of the Deputy Prime Minister Revenue Support Grant and National Non Domestic Rates. Figures include £2.0 million in 1999–2000, £1.25 million in 2000–01 and £14,000 in 2001–02 for the transitional costs associated with changes in boundaries of the Metropolitan Police District from April 2000.

  2 Includes funding from the Crime Fighting Fund, Rural Policing Fund, South East Allowance Payments, Basic Command Unit funding, Community Support Officer funding, Special Priority Payments, DMA Expansion Programme, Capital grant (including Supplementary Credit Approvals), Airwave (£4.6 million in 2002–03, £2.3 million in 2003–04 and £0.4 million this year) and the Premises Improvement Fund. Specific grants in 2004–05 are an estimate.

  3 Figures for 2001–02 are not directly comparable with 2002–03 due to the change in funding arrangements for National Crime Squad/National Criminal Intelligence Service. Adjusted figures for 2001–02 are therefore included.

  Female Prisoners (Substance Misuse)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of female prisoners have a substance misuse problem, and if he will make a statement. [186862]

  Mr. Browne
  The Prison Service relies on the findings of epidemiological studies to determine drug treatment need in female establishments. A survey carried out in 20011 showed that up to 60 per cent. of female prisoners had a drug problem. The same survey also suggested that over 33 per cent. of women in prison had patterns of hazardous drinking.
  1Borrill, J., Maden, A., Martin, A., Weaver, T., Stimson, G., Farrell, M. and Barnes, T. Differential substance misuse treatment needs of women, ethnic minorities and young offenders in prison: prevalence of substance misuse and treatment needs. Online report 33/03, Home Office.

  Harassment
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what provisions are available for the psychiatric assessment of persons(a) under a stage one warning for harassment and (b) convicted of harassment under the Protection from Harassment Act 1997. [186529]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  I have been asked to reply.

  As set out in the national service framework for mental health, any service user who contacts their prim#ry health care team with a common mental health problem should have their mental health needs identified and assessed.

  Anyone sent to prison is screened on first reception to identify any health-related, including psychiatric, problems that need prompt attention or more thorough investigation.

  Home Detention Curfews
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many people have been released on the home detention curfew scheme. [186563]

  Paul Goggins
  Information reported to the Home Office shows that there were 95,810 prisoners released on the Home Detention Curfew Scheme between January 1999 and 30 June 2004

  Job Losses (Civil Servants)
  Mr. Evans
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many of the reductions in the numbers of civil servants in his Department announced in the comprehensive spending review will be of special advisors. [185462]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Special Advisers are appointed by Ministers, with the approval of the Prime Minister, in accordance with Article 3(2) of the Civil Service Order in Council 1995 (as amended).

  The 2004 spending review published planned reductions in Home Office posts of 2,700 by 2008. The Home Office will report progress through its departmental report and on its website.

  Litigation Costs
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the cost to public funds was of the Av. West Yorkshire Police case. [185140]

  Ms Blears
  I understand from the chief constable of West Yorkshire Police that costs incurred by the force totalled £90,000, including costs for 'A', the cost of hearings and taking the matter to the House of Lords. Expenditure incurred by Treasury solicitors in this case totalled £66,638, including disbursements such as counsels' fees.

  Paedophiles
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people convicted of paedophile offences have had restrictions imposed on their ownership of credit and debit cards as part of their punishment; [185432]

  (2) what provisions exist for limiting the use or issue of credit and debit cards to convicted paedophiles. [185433]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 20 July 2004]: The Sexual Offences Act 2003 introduced a new civil preventative order; the sexual offences prevention order (SOPO). A court may make a SOPO against someone with a conviction or caution for a relevant sexual offence (those listed in schedules 3 or 5 to the Act) where it is satisfied that such an order is necessary to protect the

  959W
  public or any particular member of the public from serious sexual harm from the defendant. A SOPO prohibits the offender from doing anything described in the order. This means protecting the public from serious physical or psychological harm caused by the defendant committing one or more of the offences listed in schedule 3.

  It is possible that a court could make a SOPO that would limit the use of credit or debit cards by the offender, if it was thought that limiting this use would protect the public from serious sexual harm. For example, a SOPO could prohibit an offender from making online purchases. Such a restriction would have to be compatible with a defendant's rights under Article 8 of the Convention.

  Statistics on the forms of prohibitions contained in SOPOs are not held by the Home Office.

  In addition, the Home Office has been working closely with the Association for Payment Clearing Services (APACS), who have a clear policy that acquiring banks routinely monitor the transaction activity of their internet merchants, and that the# will not knowingly do business with sites that sell content inciting, advocating or perpetuating violence against pers#ns, including scenes of sexual assault. APACS have also been developing a range of work with the Internet Watch Foundation to assist in tracking and identifying illegal sites.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many contracts have been let by his Department in each financial year since 2001–02 to(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte and Touche, (c) KPMG and (d) Ernst and Young for advising his Department on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts; and what fees were paid in each case. [182262]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  From the best information available, the number of contracts let with these suppliers, and the fees paid, are as follows:

  Fees £000

  Supplier/Project

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  PricewaterhouseCoopers

  2 Marsham Street1

  757

  183

  9

  Criminal Records Bureau2

  0

  0

  163

  Passports3

  0

  0

  63

  Deloitte and Touche

  Secure Training Centres

  0

  252

  153

  HM Prisons Bronzefield

  and Peterborough4

  0

  0

  18

  KPMG

  Criminal Records Bureau

  0

  25

  0

  Ernst and Young

  n/a

  —

  —

  —

  2Marsham Street—financial advice prior to contract close and arrangements to launch a variation bond

  2Criminal Records Bureau—PricewaterhouseCoopers provided internal audit services, and KPMG provided financial advice and support

  3Passports—Scoping Study for Development of Sampling Strategy (Fraudulent Passports). Note: This is the contract value.

  4HM Prisons—advice on accounting treatment of Bronzefield and Peterborough

  960W
  The use of external consultants helps the Department to successfully deliver projects across the office, particularly where the in-house resources are insufficient in number, or do not possess the specialised skills and expertise required.

  The Department also benefits from strategic business advice and the transfer of skills and knowledge to staff.

  Police (Northampton)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage change there has been in the number of police officers in Northampton in each year since 1997. [186417]

  Ms Blears
  Information on strength at Basic Command Unit (BCU) level is collected annually and reflects the position at the end of March. Information on BCU strength is only available from 2002. BCU strength for 31 March 2004 will be published shortly.

  The Northampton Area Basic Command Unit (BCU) includes Collingtree, Great Houghton, Hardingstone, Northampton and Wootton. Between March 2002 and March 2003 police strength for the Northampton BCU decreased by 0.3 per cent. (from 346 to 345). The deployment of officers to BCUs is a matter for the chief constable (Peter Maddison) and within the Northampton BCU deployment of officers is a matter for the divisional commander.

  Police Officers (Restricted Duties)
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many hours were worked per week, on average, by police officers working on restricted or recuperative duties in(a) England and (b) Essex in the last year for which figures are available. [186475]

  Ms Blears
  The Home Office does not publish data on restricted or recuperative duties for police officers in England and Wales.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police officers are(a) working on restricted recuperative duties, (b) unable to work night duty and (c) absent through sickness in (i) England and (ii) Essex. [186444]

  Ms Blears
  For the period 2002–03 a total of 1,364,067 officer days were lost to sickness absence—an average of 10.4 days per officer per year. For the same period, Essex constabulary lost 31,785 officer days to sickness absence—an average of 10.3 days per officer per year. This represents a fall in sickness absence from 1996–97 where the national rate was 12.8 days per officer per year—a reduction of over 18 per cent.

  These figures were published in the annual Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Constabulary report for 2002–03.

  The Home Office does not publish data on the number of police officers working on restricted or recuperative duties or who are unable to work on night duty.

  Policies (Environmental Impacts)
  Mr. Horam
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many new policy proposals
  961W
  or significant changes in policy were produced in (a) 2002–03 and (b) 2003–04; how many of these were screened for their environmental impacts; and how many were the subject of separate environmental appraisals. [185099]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Central records are not kept of the number of policies for which environmental screenings are undertaken. However, advice on the need to screen policies for environmental impacts is contained on the Department's policy makers checklist and the ministerial website on the Department's intranet site states that policy submissions should contain a section on environmental considerations.

  No formal environmental appraisals have been conducted on policy issues, although policy proposals which are likely to have a direct or indirect impact on business, charities and the voluntary sector are required to have a Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA). RIAs require examination of the potential impacts of relevant policy developments on all stakeholders including environmental impacts.

  Assessments of environmental impacts are undertaken on building developments as required by planning authorities.

  Prison
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the budget is for each prison library in 2004–05; and how many local authority-employed librarians work in prison establishments on a(a) full-time and (b) part-time basis. [187237]

  Mr. Browne
  The following table shows allocations to each prison establishment to purchase library services. The figures include maintenance of the book stock, exchange of stock within a year and off-site administration of the service.

  Information on the number of local authority-employed librarians working in prison establishments is not held centrally. A survey conducted in February 2004 found that Public Library Authority (PLA) library managers delivered 2,608 on-site hours per week while PLA library assistants delivered 2,230 per week. This equates to 134 full-time equivalent library staff across the prison estate.

  The Prison Service is currently working in partnership with the Public Library Authorities to develop a new and wider ranging specification for prison libraries that addresses the learning and skills agenda as well as providing information, advice and guidance. A new framework for resourcing the new service is also being developed.

  Library budgets 2004–05

  Establishment

  £

  Acklington

  39,088

  Albany

  31,842

  Ashwell

  17,906

  Askham Grange

  7,302

  Aylesbury

  15,875

  Bedford

  22,013

  Belmarsh

  62,491

  Birmingham

  72,523

  Blakenhurst

  36,716

  962W

  Blantyre House

  12,364

  Blundeston

  20,563

  Brinsford

  19,730

  Brinsford YJB

  16,885

  Bristol

  21,117

  Brixton

  58,634

  Brockhill

  15,176

  Buckley Hall

  18,618

  Bullingdon

  42,588

  Bullwood Hall

  5,430

  Bullwood Hall YJB

  361

  Camphill

  38,845

  Canterbury

  19,123

  Cardiff

  16,089

  Castington

  17,648

  Castington YJB

  12,532

  Channings Wood

  28,399

  Chelmsford

  19,815

  Coldingley

  11,850

  Cookham Wood

  8,427

  Dartmoor

  24,469

  Deerbolt

  15,887

  Dorchester

  17,768

  Dover

  12,758

  Downview

  25,126

  Drake Hall

  13,385

  Durham

  22,940

  East Sutton Park

  6,217

  Eastwood Park

  19,951

  Eastwood Park YJB

  529

  Edmunds Hill

  813

  Elmley

  49,666

  Erlestoke

  14,054

  Everthorpe

  32,959

  Exeter

  10,585

  Featherstone

  15,797

  Feltham

  30,869

  Feltham YJB

  8,548

  Ford

  33,591

  Foston Hall

  23,830

  Frankland

  24,602

  Full Sutton

  28,606

  Garth

  37,723

  Gartree

  15,435

  Glen Parva

  20,273

  Gloucester

  20,062

  Grendon/Spring Hill

  16,020

  Guys Marsh

  17,549

  Haslar

  19,597

  Haverigg

  28,022

  Hewell Grange

  11,743

  High Down

  27,457

  Highpoint

  29,345

  Hindley

  11,233

  Hindley

  10,292

  Hollesley Bay

  5,078

  Holloway

  56,463

  Holme House

  55,948

  Hull

  60,309

  Huntercombe

  16,506

  Kingston

  14,072

  Kirkham

  25,645

  Kirklevington

  9,102

  Lancaster Castle

  5,803

  Lancaster Farms

  32,355

  Lancaster Farms

  8,499

  Latchmere House

  2,240

  Leeds

  36,278

  Leicester

  17,409

  Lewes

  30,049

  Leyhill

  15,602

  Lincoln

  20,726

  Lindholme

  24,872

  963W

  Library budgets 2004—05

  Establishment

  £

  Littlehey

  22,854

  Liverpool

  30,591

  Long Lartin

  21,305

  Low Newton

  18,454

  Maidstone

  19,209

  Manchester

  158,515

  Moorland

  43,833

  Morton Hall

  36,364

  New Hall

  158,442

  New Hall YJB

  3,259

  North Sea Camp

  11,978

  Northallerton

  34,756

  Norwich

  40,987

  Nottingham

  34,053

  Onley

  51,758

  Parkhurst

  32,056

  Pentonville

  37,094

  Portland

  16,637

  Preston

  17,985

  Ranby

  47,480

  Reading

  21,975

  Risley

  15,140

  Rochester

  27,904

  Send

  14,283

  Shepton Mallet

  5,615

  Shrewsbury

  12,474

  Stafford

  14,367

  Standford Hill

  20,700

  Stocken

  22,741

  Stoke Heath

  10,306

  Stoke Heath

  9,274

  Styal

  11,305

  Sudbury

  25,933

  Swaleside

  35,296

  Swansea

  17,474

  Swinfen Hall

  33,953

  The Mount

  38,786

  The Verne

  14,944

  Thorn Cross

  8,387

  Thorn Cross YJB

  3,009

  Usk/Prescoed

  16,745

  Wakefield

  23,789

  Wandsworth

  124,646

  Warren Hill YJB

  22,254

  Wayland

  25,885

  Wealstun

  35,478

  Weare

  17,597

  Wellingborough

  28,321

  Werrington YJB

  9,498

  Wetherby YJB

  32,241

  Whatton

  21,085

  Whitemoor

  25,972

  Winchester

  29,418

  Woodhill

  36,932

  Wormwood Scrubs

  43,773

  Wymott

  34,154

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will publish the 10-year custodial population projections referred to in paragraphs D18 and D19 of the Home Office Online Report 38/04. [187235]

  Paul Goggins
  Long-term prison population projections are produced for a seven year period. The latest published projections cover the period up to 2009.964W
  These were first presented in the April 2003 prison population monthly brief, published in September 2003, which can be found on the Home Office website at http:// www.homeoffice.gov uk/rds/prisonsl.html

  David Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what review of the policy towards(a) prison workplace and (b) prisoner smok#ng is planned; and if he will make a statement. [185643]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 22 July 2004]: No departmental review of smoking in prison workp#aces (where this is permitted) and prisoner smoking is planned. Governors are still operating under Instruction to Governors 16 of 1996, which instructs them where to ban smoking in prisons and gives them discretionary powers 10 extend this ban to other parts of the prison. Smoking policies are included in the Health and Safety Standard and are audited by the Prison Service Standards A udit Unit.

  In 2003 the Department of Health and the Prison service published 'AQUITTED: Best practice guidance for developing smoking cessation services in prisons'. Extra funding of £500,000 has been made available for each of the three years up to 2006. The launch of 'AQUITTED' was supported by a programme of training seminars for staff of prisons and their local Primary Care Trusts. The effectiveness of the initiative is being evaluated and a report is expected in 2005.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the estimated cost was of the new healthcare centre at HMP Holloway in the Department's budget on 1 January; what the latest estimate is of expenditure on the new centre; and how many(a) inpatient beds and (b) day centre places (i) were planned on 1 January and (ii) are planned for the new centre. [186109]

  Paul Goggins
  On 1 January 2003, the estimated capital cost of the new healthcare centre at Holloway prison was £5.85 million with 23 in-patient beds and 30 day centre places planned. The latest estimates for costs, in patient beds, and day centre places remain the same.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many(a) prisoners, (b) women in prison, (c) juveniles and (d) young offenders are held (i) over 50 miles and (ii) over 100 miles from their committal court town. [187060]

  Paul Goggins
  An individual prisoner's court details are recorded to show first court appearance, committal, remand, conviction or sentencing. Information specifically on committal court details could only be obtained at disproportionate cost. As at 7 July 2004, the latest date for which information is available, details were available for 70,213 prisoners, or 9.3 per cent. of the total prison population of 74,771, on that day. This information is shown in the following table.
  965W

  Distance

  Total population

  Female population

  Juvenile population

  Young offender population

  Under 50 miles

  Total number of prisoners

  45,632

  2,151

  1,639

  5,184

  Percentage

  65

  52

  63

  65

  50–100 miles

  Total number of prisoners

  14,990

  1,039

  814

  1,828

  Percentage

  21

  25

  31

  23

  100+ miles

  Total number of prisoners

  9,591

  930

  167

  944

  Percentage

  14

  23

  6

  12

  Total

  70,213

  4,120

  2,620

  7,956

  Public Services Funding
  Mr. Gale
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will identify for(a) his Department and (b) the agencies and task forces for which it is responsible each funding strea# for public services in (i) the Isle of Thanet and (ii) Canterbury City local authority area. [181702]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  Home Office funding streams for the Kent area consist of the following:

  General Police Grant

  Capital Grant

  Crime Fighting Fund

  Rural Policing Fund

  DNA Expansion Programme

  Airwave

  Basic Command Unit Fund

  Community Support Officers

  Special Priority Payments

  South East Allowance

  Building Safer Communities to CDRP partnership

  Antisocial behaviour funding to CDRP partnership

  Home Office Connecting Communities Project

  Home Office Time Limited Development Fund

  We do not hold information by local authority area, within each county.

  Following the spending review, my right hon. Friends the Home Secretary and Deputy Prime Minister have announced a new Safer and Stronger Communities Fund (White Paper "Confident Communities in a Secure Britain", published on 19 July 2004) which will bring together a number of funding streams for community safety and improving public spaces.

  Alongside the intention to bring together a number of funding streams, the Home Office strategic plan intends to further promote local audits of priorities for community safety and the resources used to prevent and respond to crime and other issues. In particular, an assessment of resources and needs will be a feature of new local area agreements covering community safety, in areas in which these agreements will be developed. The Home Office is looking to build on the existing work of Crime and Disorder Reduction Partnerships and Drug Action Teams who audit crime and drugs issues in local areas.

  For reference, these are outlined on page 36 of the strategic plan.

  Sellafield
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the adequacy of the off-site emergency plans, including evacuation plans, in place in West Cumbria for circumstances involving an accident or other incident resulting in a significant release of radioactivity from Sellafield. [187286]

  Mr. Timms
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are well tried and tested emergency plans to deal with a release of radioactive material from Sellafield's nuclear facilities. These plans are maintained under the licence condition arrangements for all such sites and have been reviewed and tested at regular intervals over many years. The off-site emergency plan, prepared by Cumbria county council in consultation with the emergency services and British Nuclear Group, has been published in accordance with the Radiation (Emergency Preparedness and Public Information) Regulations 2001. The plan covers procedures, facilities and equipment, and includes evacuation arrangements. REPPIR is monitored and enforced by the Health and Safety Executive.

  There is an ongoing programme of regular off-site exercises for civil nuclear installations such as Sellafield. These test the local off-site facility for each site, and involve a wide range of local and national agencies. The last such exercise at Sellafield was held on 24 September 2003 and this tested all aspects of Cumbria county council's off-site emergency plan which clearly covers evacuation aspects. The lessons of off-site nuclear exercises are taken forward locally through a standing local Emergency Planning Consultative Committee. Any issues of national relevance are taken forward through the Nuclear Emergency Planning Liaison Group, which is administered and chaired by DTI, and are fed as appropriate into central Government's contingency planning.

  Travel Costs
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what the travel costs were of civil servants in(a) his Department and (b) its rel#ted agencies in each year since 1997. [183904]

  Fiona Mactaggart
  The information is set out in the following table:

  Travel costs

  £

  UK

  Overseas

  Total

  1997

  Department

  3,898,126.65

  1,224,570.48

  5,122,697.13

  Agencies

  7,620,389.45

  42,316.98

  7,662706.43

  Total

  11,518516.10

  1,266,887.46

  12,785403.56

  1998

  Department

  3,270,766.30

  886,831.19

  4,157,597.49

  Agencies

  8,290,722.40

  50,802.42

  8,341,524.82

  Total

  11,561,488.70

  937,633.61

  12,499,122.31

  1999

  Department

  3,187,174.89

  1,441,260.08

  4,628,434.97

  Agencies

  8,294,957.22

  81,651.74

  8,376,608.96

  Total

  11,482,132.11

  1,522,911.82

  13,005,043.93

  967W

  Travel costs

  £

  UK

  Overseas

  Total

  2000

  Department

  4,245,879.25

  1,396,593.81

  5,642,473.06

  Agencies

  9,133,124.06

  63,087.76

  9,196,211.82

  Total

  13,379,003.31

  1,459,681.57

  14,838,684.88

  2001

  Department

  6,348,417.71

  2,077,311.00

  8,425,728.71

  Agencies

  9,774,147.78

  18,987.40

  9,793,135.18

  Total

  16,122,565.49

  2,096,298.40

  18,218,863.89

  2002

  Department

  8,732,248.97

  2,355,805.87

  11,088,054.84

  Agencies

  10,467,841.11

  36,290.14

  10,504,131.25

  Total

  19,200,090.08

  2,392,096.01

  21,592,186.09

  2003

  Department

  12,406,053.11

  4,449,971.03

  16,856,024.14

  Agencies

  10,780,887.32

  9,053.09

  10,789,940.41

  Total

  23,186,940.43

  4,459,024.12

  27,645,964.55

  The marked increases in travel costs since 2001 can be largely attributed to changes in strategy within the Immigration and Nationality Directorate (IND) where increased staff numbers and the need to travel as a result of new policy initiatives and targets for improved IND performance. Other contributing factors have been related to providing advice to the organisers of the 2002 Football World Cup in Japan and Euro 2004 in Portugal and the creation of new units to support the police reform agenda.

  Criminal Records Bureau only commenced operations in 2000.

  Employees of the National Probation Service are not civil servants and their costs have therefore not been included in the above.

  Under-age Drinking
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Se#retary of State for the Home Department (1) if he will issue guidance to police forces that parents should, where possible, be informed when alcohol is removed from their children under the under-age drinking legislation; and if he will make a statement; [186474]

  (2) if he will investigate the impact of requiring the police to inform schools or colleges when alcohol is removed from pupils under the under-age drinking legislation; and if he will make a statement; [186479]

  (3) if he will issue guidance to the police that police schools liaison officers should be made aware of which pupils have had alcohol removed from them by the police under the under-age drinking legislation; and if he will make a statement. [186480]

  Ms Blears
  There is no specific requirement for police forces to inform parents, schools or an education institute when alcohol is removed from children or pupils under the under-age drinking legislation. A decision to inform parents or an education institute is an operational matter for individual police forces. However, a child who commits an offence and is reported for the offence can be seen in the presence of his or her parent or a responsible adult.
  968W
  Police forces would have their own arrangements for involving Social Services or an education institute if the child might be at risk. The role of the police school liaison officers in schools is a matter for the individual police force and the school.

  There is a statutory requirement to educate children and young people about the effect of alcohol. All schools are encouraged to have systems in place to identify and support those young people for whom drugs (including alcohol) may be a problem. Where concerns have been raised schools can provide support either through the curriculum, pastoral system or through referral to more specialised agencies, perhaps co-ordinated through the Connexions Service.

  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department (1) how many people were(a) cautioned and (b) found guilty of selling intoxicating liquor to a person aged under 18 in 2003; [184870]

  (2) how many people were (a) cautioned and (b) found guilty under section 169 (2) of the Licensing Act 1964 in 2003. [184871]

  Paul Goggins
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Figures for England and Wales 2002 show that 59 people were cautioned and 103 found guilty for "selling etc, intoxicating liquor to persons under 18 for consumption on the premises" (Licensing Act 1964, S169(1); Licensing (Occasional Permissions) Act 1983, schedule (section 3) para. 4(1)) and a further two cautioned for "wholesaler selling intoxicating liquor to a person under 18" (Licensing Act 1964, section 181A as added by Licensing Act 1988, section 17). Those cautioned and found guilty under section 169(2) of the Licensing Act 1964 in 2002 were nine and 18 respectively.

  Statistics on court proceedings for 2003 will be published in the autumn.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Katharine Gun
  Lynne Jones
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the costs have been to date to the Government of the prosecution of the Katharine Gun case. [156197]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can only provide details of the costs incurred to the Crown Prosecution Service for whom the Attorney-General and I have ministerial responsibility. The Crown Prosecution Service estimates that the prosecution costs in this case to date are in the region of £18,552. This figure comprises of counsel's fees. The CPS is unable routinely to assess and attribute its own overhead costs to individual cases.

  Butler Report
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will place in the Library copies of(a) the account given to the Butler Committee on the Review of Intelligence on Weapons of Mass Destruction of the legal advice provided to #he Butler Committee, to which reference is made at paragraph 379 of the Butler Report and (b) the letter from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the

  969W
  Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, dated 15 March 2003, to which reference is made at paragraph 384 of the Butler Report. [186192]

  The Solicitor-General
  The account given by the Attorney-General to the Butler Committee of his legal advice was given in oral evidence to the Committee. As is clear from footnote 17 to the Butler Report, the account of the Attorney-General's advice was given in confidence without intending to waive the legal professional privilege to which the Advice is subject. The substance of the letter from the Prime Minister's Private Secretary to the Legal Secretary to the Law Officers, dated 15 March 2003 is set out at paragraph 384 of the Butler Report.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Mr. Fisher
  To ask the Solicitor-General how many prosecutions for alleged child abuse were brought by the Crown Prosecution Service in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many resulted in a conviction. [183616]

  The Solicitor-General
  The following tables show aggregated information about child abuse cases that were finalised on the new Compass system during the year ending March 2004. No information is held for earlier periods, and could be obtained only through an analysis of individual case files at disproportionate cost.

  Table 1 shows the number of child abuse cases in magistrates courts, broken down into unsuccessful outcomes and convictions. Unsuccessful outcomes comprise: cases discontinued by the Crown Prosecution Service; cases written off because the defendant could not be traced by the police, had died or been found unfit to plead; cases discharged in the course of committal proceedings; cases dismissed because of no case to answer; and dismissals after full rial. Convictions are divided into guilty pleas and convictions after trial.

  Table 2 shows the number of finalised child abuse cases recorded at the crown court. Unsuccessful outcomes in the crown court comprise: cases dropped by the Crown Prosecution Service before a jury was sworn, in which the judge ordered a formal acquittal; cases written off because the defendant could not be traced by the police, had died or been Found unfit to plead; judge directed acquittals; and acquittals after trial. Convictions are divided into guilty pleas and convictions after full trial.

  It should be noted that these figures are not collected from a specific list of offences. The identification of prosecution cases as child abuse is made by a member of CPS staff when a case is received from police, or within a subsequent review. Police officers and Administrators may also bring a child abuse case to CPS attention within the initial file submission.

  Outcome of child abuse cases in magistrates courts 2003–04

  Number

  Percentage

  Discontinued

  366

  28.3

  Written off

  14

  1.1

  Discharged committals

  21

  1.6

  Dismissed no case to answer

  13

  1.0

  Dismissed after trial

  53

  4.1

  Unsuccessful outcomes

  467

  36.1

  970W

  Outcome of child abuse cases in magistrates courts 2003–04

  Number

  Percentage

  Guilty Pleas

  694

  53.7

  Convicted after trial

  132

  10.2

  Convictions

  826

  63.9

  Total

  1,293

  —

  Outcome of child abuse cases in the Crown court 2003—04

  Number

  Percentage

  Judge ordered acquittals

  145

  16.5

  Written off

  6

  0.7

  Judge directed acquittals

  25

  2.8

  Jury acquittals

  111

  12.6

  Unsuccessful outcomes

  287

  32.6

  Guilty pleas

  446

  50.7

  Convicted after trial

  147

  16.7

  Convictions

  593

  67.4

  Total

  880

  —

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Solicitor-General on how many occasions in each of the last three years the Crown Prosecution Service has not proceeded with a prosecution of an assault committed(a) on a police officer and (b) by an inmate on a prison officer on the grounds that prosecution would not be in the public interest. [183928]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) central records do not include the level of detail required to answer the present question. Information at this level of detail could be obtained only by examining individual case files in each CPS office, which would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

  David McGee
  Dr. Starkey
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the cost to public funds was of the prosecution of Mr. David McGee; at what level in the Crown Prosecution Service the decision on what charges to proceed with was taken; and what other potential charges were considered. [170407]

  The Solicitor-General
  The Crown Prosecution Service estimates that the prosecution costs in this case to date are in the region of £6,250. This figure comprises counsels' fees and witness expenses. The CPS is unable routinely to assess and attribute its own overhead costs to individual cases.

  The decision to prosecute was made by a level E special casework lawyer within the Crown Prosecution Service, following advice from leading counsel.

  The other potential charges considered were under section 4 of the Official Secrets Act 1989; section 3 of the Forgery and Counterfeiting Act 1981; section 16 of the Theft Act 1968; and the common law offence of misfeasance in a public office.

  Elmley Prison Officers (Case Costs)
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Solicitor-General what the(a) legal costs of the defendants' two trials and (b) total

  971W
  cost to the Crown Prosecution Service were in the case against Prison Officers Rowland, Kerry and Watkins at Elmley Prison. [166226]

  The Solicitor-General
  I can only provide details of the costs incurred by the Crown Prosecution Service, for which both the Attorney and I have ministerial responsibility.

  The Crown Prosecution Service costs are approximately £146,878.04. However, this figure may be reduced as the Crown Prosecution Service is currently seeking a reduction in the amount of counsel's fees claimed.

  The prosecution's costs are broken down in the following table:

  Prosecution's costs (£)

  (a) Counsel's fees:

  at the magistrates' court to include the old

  style committal

  12,978.35

  for the preliminary hearing in 2001

  27,766.19

  the final invoice (being challenged) to include

  re-instituting proceedings and the trial

  96,033.50

  Total

  136,778.04

  (b) Experts' fees:

  1,100.00

  (c) charges for enhancement of the recordings of intercepted telephone calls and for their compilation and indexation on a compact disc:

  9,000.00

  The CPS is unable routinely to assess and attribute its own overhead costs to individual cases.

  Iraq
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Solicitor-General if she will place in the Library copies of the intelligence assessment briefings on Iraq of September 2002 and February 2003, to which reference is made in paragraph 367 of the Butler Committee Report on intelligence on weapons of mass destruction, HC898. [185192]

  The Solicitor-General
  The intelligence briefings of September 2002 and February 2003 referred to in paragraph 367 of the Review of intelligence on weapons of mass destructions were oral briefings given to the Attorney-General by the Chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee.

  Serious Fraud Office (Bribery)
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Solicitor-General from which(a) companies and (b) organisations the Serious Fraud Office have requested (i) co-operation and (ii) information with regard to investigations relating to the enforcement of anti-bribery legislation since 2000. [184168]

  The Solicitor-General
  [holding answer 15 June 2004]: The information requested could be obtained only by examining individual case files in each dating back to 2000 and would incur disproportionate cost (Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, part 2, clause 9).

CABINET OFFICE

  Counter-terrorism Grants
  Patrick Mercer
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office how the Government calculates counter-terrorism grants to front-line responders, with particular reference to(a) police forces, (b) fire brigades and (c) ambulance services. [184599]

  Mr. Blunkett
  I have been asked to reply

  Of the emergency services, only the police carry out counter-terrorism work. Funding for police counter-terrorism and other national security functions is predominantly funded through mainstream funding mechanisms rather than direct grant. However since 2002–03 the Home Office has provided additional funding to the Police Service to enable it to respond to the increased threat posed by international terrorism since September 2001. In 2004–05 this will amount to £4 million. The allocation of this funding to individual forces is determined f allowing full consultation between individual police forces, the Association of Chief Police Officers and the Home Office.

  Funding for counter-terrorism has to be considered within the wider context of funding for national security in the round, which will rise from £980 million in 2001 to over £2.1 billion in 2007, including the doubling of the size of M15.

  In addition, an extra £20 million per year from 2005–06 will be allocated to the Civil Defence Grant. This will double to £40 million per year, the contribution the Government previously allocated to local authorities.

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Tannery Arts Ltd.
  Mr. Boris Johnson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the compulsory purchase order placed on Tannery Arts Ltd.'s premises. [187473]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We are exploring the feasibility of establishing an academy on the site of the former Laburnum primary school following a proposal from the London borough of Hackney and the UBS Investment Bank. There is strong need for new school places in Hackney.

  Provision of a suitable site is a matter for Hackney council and they have begun a compulsory purchase order process on land next to the Laburnum school given the restricted nature of that site. This is entirely a matter for them.

  We are conscious of the concerns raised about the future of Tannery Arts and discussions are taking place. It would be premature to say anything more at this stage. However, the academy would play a key role in transforming educational opportunities and standards for young people in the area.

  Adult Education (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what public funding has been spent on adult(a) literacy and (b) numeracy in Great Yarmouth in each of the last five years. [186716]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The estimated total spend on Skills For Life (the Government's strategy for literacy, language and numeracy needs of all post-16 learners from pre-entry level up to and including level 2) and on Key Skills (essential skills of communication, application of number and information technology), from April 2001 to July 2003, in the Norfolk Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area is set out in the following table:

  £000

  Apri1 2001 to July 20011

  August 2001 to July 2002

  August 2002 to July 2003

  Basic skills

  874

  2,145

  2,936

  Key skills

  358

  524

  1,022

  1The figures for April to July 2001 include costs incurred from August 2000 on learning aims continuing into April 2001.

  From the information available to the LSC it has not been feasible to obtain estimates at constituency level or separate figures by subject without incurring disproportionate cost. Likewise it has not been feasible to obtain comparable figures for periods before April 2001 when the Skills for Life strategy was launched and the LSC was formed, but information shows it was considerably less than at present.

  Advertising
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money was spent on advertising and promotional literature for his Department's initiatives, broken down by year since 1997. [183805]
  974W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information is as follows.

  1. Expenditure details from the Department's central advertising and public budget, for advertising and promotional work is listed as follows:

  Expenditure (£million)

  1997–98

  11.0

  1998–99

  13.4

  1999–2000

  9.9

  2000–01

  14.6

  2001–02

  11.7

  2002–03

  14.1

  2003–04

  15.5

  2004–05 expenditure (budgeted)

  15.3

  2. Financial information for any other advertising and promotional work from outside of the central marketing team could be provided only at a disproportionate cost.

  Alderman Blaxill Secondary School, Colchester
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received about the closure of classrooms at Alderman Blaxill Secondary School, Colchester, following the discovery of asbestos; what action he is taking to ensure that the school has sufficient operational classrooms for the new school year; and if he will make a statement. [187012]

  M. Miliband
  I am not aware of any representations having been received regarding the matter referred in the question other than your letter to the Secretary of State dated 21 July 2004. Essex LEA is working closely with the school to ensure that suitable accommodation is available to the Alderman Blaxill Secondary School for the new school year. The bulk of schools capital is now allocated by formula to authorities and schools so that they can address their local priorities, including accommodation issues. Prioritisation of need should be through an open, rig#rous and consultative asset management process, based on assessments of the needs of all schools. This Government have increased their support for capital investment in schools from under £700 million in 1996–97 to £3.8 billion this year and this will increase further to over £5 billion by 2005–06.

  Autism
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research he has commissioned regarding the school exclusion rates of(a) autistic students and (b) students with Asperger's Syndrome; and if he will make a statement on his policy on whether autistic students should remain in mainstream schools. [186943]

  Margaret Hodge
  The statistics published by the Department do not record the types of special educational need (SEN), such as autism and Asperger's syndrome, which excluded pupils with SEN have. The most recent provisional statistics, for 2002/03, do show that children with SEN, both those with and without statements of SEN, account for two-thirds of permanent exclusions and that children with SEN were nine times more likely to be permanently excluded than those without SEN. As part of the SEN strategy "Removing Barriers to Achievement", published in
  975W
  February, we are carrying out research into exclusions and children with SEN, including those with autistic spectrum disorders (ASDs), and we will act on its findings.

  Research by the National Autistic Society in 2000 suggested that children with ASDs, including Asperger's syndrome, were far more likely to be excluded than their peers. The Society is represented on our Autism Working Group which produced Good Practice Guidance on ASDs in 2002. This guidance aims to raise awareness of the disorders and to give good practice pointers to schools, local education authorities and others to help develop and audit their autism provision. It is available to assist schools make the reasonable adjustments to their policies and practice with respect to children with ASDs required by the Disability Discrimination Act 1995, as amended by the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001, which they need to consider when meeting their duty not to discriminate against disabled pupils, without justification, by excluding them because of behaviour caused by their disability.

  Children with autism display a range of strengths and difficulties of differing levels of severity and complexity. Those with SEN statements should be placed in a setting where their profile of needs can be met. The Good Practice Guidance recommends that LEAs, either singly or in regional groupings, should develop a range of provision in mainstream, special and specialist schools so that children with statements can be placed appropriately with the placement being monitored and changed as necessary.

  Child Care
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on extending child care provision; and what plans the Government have to extend child care provision. [186813]

  Margaret Hodge
  Between 1997 and 2004 the Government aimed to create around 900,000 new child care places to help 1,600,000 children. By March 2004 some 1,000,000 new child care places had been created helping some 1,800,000 ch#ldren. The Government have a target to create a further 250,000 new child care places for at least 450,000 children by March 2006 and to increase the stock of registered child care places across England by at least 10 per cent. by March 2008.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the Government's policy is on the promotion of the National Childcare Strategy; and what plans the Government has to extend the strategy. [186814]

  Margaret Hodge
  The National Childc#re Strategy is promoted, as part of the Government's Sure Start programme, through a variety of channels and campaigns, targeting parents and those working with parents and children. These include: articles in the daily, local and specialist press; leaflets available in locations such as health centres, Job Centres and Post Offices, and sent to Sure Start programmes, health visitors, midwives and employment advisers; publications such as the "Choosing Childcare" booklet; and National Sure Start 976W
  Month held each June. Children's Information Services (CISs) in each of the 150 local authorities provide detail and advice to parents on Childcare and other Sure Start programmes in their areas.

  The Government are continuing to expand and strengthen Childcare provision. Our PSA Target is 10 per cent. growth in the stock of registered places between 2004 and 2008. The Department for Education and Skills "Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners" (published on 8 July) makes clear that much of the future expansion will be provided on school premises, or in integrated children's centres, so child care becomes part of a web of personalised services, including good quality health and family support, that best suits families and their children. We will link the free early education entitlement for 3 and 4-year-olds more effectively with the hours of child care for which parents pay, to offer integrated education and care for a full day, while extended schools—both primary and secondary—will provide, or host, a wide range of services, including child care and a range of family learning and parental support, on-site.

  In addition, the Chancellor confirmed in his "Spending Review" 2004 statement that the Government will publish a plan in the pre-Budget report later this year outlining our vision of choice for parents and high quality provision for young children for the period up to 2015.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate the Government have made of the number of(a) child care places and (b) childminders that will be created by the Neighbourhood Nurseries initiative. [186815]

  Margaret Hodge
  The Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative will provide 45,000 integrated care and education places for children under the age of five living in the most disadvantaged areas of the country. Currently over 42,600 places are being delivered through 1,218 nurseries. We expect the 45,000 place target to be reached in the next few months.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what estimate the Government has made of how many registered child care places there were in (i) St. Helens and (ii) the UK, broken down by region, in each year since 1997; [186827]

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (2) how many local authority nurseries there were in each year since 1997,(a) broken down by region and (b) in St. Helens; [187364]

  (3) what estimate the Government has made of the number of nurseries which have closed in each year since 1997 (a) broken down by region and (b) in St. Helens. [187365]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information is not available in the form requested. The available information on the numbers of day nurseries or full day care facilities for St. Helens and the regions are shown in#the following tables.

  With the introduction of the National Day Care Standards and the transfer of responsibilities for registration and inspection to Ofsted, child care providers are now classified according to whether they are full day care, sessional day care, childminder, out of

  977W
  school day care or crèche day care places. Previously, child care providers were classified according to whether they were day nurseries, playgroup and pre-schools, childminders, out of school clubs or holiday schemes. Therefore, figures for 2003 are not directly comparable with figures for earlier years because they are collected on a different basis.

  Statistics on the number of child care facilities registered in England were published on 22 July 2004 in a report by Ofsted "Registered Childcare Providers and Places in England, 30 June 2004". The report is available on the Ofsted website, www.ofsted.gov.uk/publications.

  Number of day nurseries1,2 in St. Helens local authority area and by Government Office Region: 1999–2001

  Position at 31 March each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  St. Helens

  (3)50

  (3)20

  (3)60

  n/a

  North East

  190

  190

  220

  n/a

  North West and Merseyside

  n/a

  North West

  840

  910

  940

  n/a

  Merseyside

  240

  200

  250

  n/a

  Yorkshire and Number

  700

  690

  710

  n/a

  East Midlands

  560

  660

  550

  n/a

  West Midlands

  870

  900

  970

  n/a

  Eastern

  570

  610

  600

  n/a

  Greater London

  n/a

  Inner London

  610

  650

  680

  n/a

  Outer London

  550

  600

  620

  n/a

  South East

  1,100

  1,240

  1,400

  n/a

  South West

  770

  900

  910

  n/a

  England

  7,000

  7,500

  7,800

  n/a

  Of which:

  Local authority provided

  400

  400

  460

  n/a

  n/a=Not available.

  1Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10 or 100 as appropriate. Figures may not add to totals due to founding.

  2 Data Source: Children's Day Care Facilities.

  3 Figures as reported by the local authority.

  Number of full day care facilities in St. Helens local authority area and by Ofsted Region, position as at 31 December 2003

  Number

  St. Helens

  30

  East of England

  1,000

  East Midlands

  800

  London

  1,600

  North East and Yorkshire

  1,400

  North West England

  1,400

  978W

  Number of full day care facilities in St. Helens local authority area and by Ofsted Region, position as at 31 December 2003

  Number

  South East England

  1,900

  South West England

  1,200

  West Midlands

  1,300

  England

  10,600

  Note:

  Figures have been rounded to the nearest 100.

  Source:

  Ofsted

  Children's Information Services
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many children's information services(a) have been opened and (b) are planned to be opened in (i) St Helens and (ii) England, broken down by region. [186810]

  Margaret Hodge
  Since the introduction of the National Childcare Strategy in 1998 each local authority in England has been required to have a Children's Information Service (CIS). However, in some cases bordering local authorities have provided a joint service. There are currently 146 CISs in England. St Helens has one CIS. The table below breaks down by region the local authorities in England that operate a CIS.

  Children's Information Services in England

  East Midlands

  Derby City

  Derbyshire

  Leicester City

  Leicestershire

  Lincolnshire

  Northamptonshire

  Nottingham City

  Nottinghamshire

  Rutland

  East of England

  Bedfordshire

  Cambridgeshire and Peterborough (two LAs)

  Essex

  Hertfordshire

  Luton

  Norfolk

  Southend on Sea

  Suffolk

  Thurrock

  North East

  North East

  Darlington

  Durham

  Gateshead

  Hartlepool

  Middlesbrough

  Newcastle

  North Tyneside

  Northumberland

  Redcar and Cleveland

  979W

  South Tyneside

  Stockton-on-Tees

  Sunderland

  North London

  Barking and Dagenham

  Barnet

  Brent

  Camden

  City of London

  Enfield

  Hackney

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  Haringey

  Harrow

  Havering

  Islington

  Kensington and Chelsea

  Newham

  Redbridge

  Tower Hamlet

  Waltham Forest

  Westminster

  South London

  Bexley

  Bromley

  Croydon

  Ealing

  Greenwich

  Hillingdon

  Hounslow

  Kingston upon Thames

  Lambeth

  Lewisham

  Merton

  Richmond upon Thames

  Southwark

  Sutton

  Wandsworth

  North West

  Blackburn with Darwen

  Blackpool

  Bolton

  Bury

  Cheshire

  Cumbria

  Halton

  Knowsley

  Lancashire

  Liverpool

  Manchester

  Oldham

  Rochdale

  Salford

  Sefton

  St. Helens

  Stockport

  Tameside

  980W

  Trafford

  Warrington

  Wigan

  Wirral

  South East

  Brighton and Hove

  Buckinghamshire

  East Sussex

  Hampshire

  Isle of Wight

  Kent

  Medway

  Milton Keynes

  Oxfordshire

  Portsmouth

  Reading, West Berkshire and Bracknell Forest CIS (3 Las)

  Slough

  Southampton

  Surrey

  West Sussex

  Windsor and Maidenhead

  Wokingham

  South West

  Bath and NE Somerset

  Bournemouth

  Bristol

  Cornwall

  Devon and Torbay (two Las)

  Dorset

  Gloucestershire

  Isles of Scilly

  North Somerset

  Plymouth

  Poole

  Somerset

  South Gloucestershire

  Swindon

  Wiltshire

  West Midlands

  Birmingham

  Coventry

  Dudley

  Herefordshire

  Sandwell

  Shropshire

  Solihull

  Staffordshire

  Stoke on Trent

  Telford & Wrekin

  Walsall

  Warwickshire

  Wolverhampton

  Worcestershire

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  Barnsley

  Bradford

  Calderdale

  981W

  Doncaster

  East Riding of Yorkshire

  Kingston upon Hull

  Kirklees

  Leeds

  North East Lincolnshire

  North Lincolnshire

  North Yorkshire

  Rotherham

  Sheffield

  Wakefield

  York

  City Academies
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations he has received about the effectiveness of city academies in tacking social deprivation. [186468]

  Mr. Miliband
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills receives many representations on a variety of issues. The academies programme is specifically designed to address the intractable problems of poor standards of teaching and learning, under-achievement and low aspirations in the most socially and economically deprived parts of the country.

  It will take time for the new leadership, bui#dings and curriculum to turn things round. However, of the three academies with GCSE results in 2003 the number of 5A*—C grades rose to 21 per cent. and 35 per cent. respectively from 7 per cent. and 25 per cent. in 2002, and the other had results broadly comparable with its predecessor schools. Academies are also improving behaviour and attendance.

  Civil Service Recruitment
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the anticipated impact is of staff reductions in his Department on the delivery of services to(a) children under five, (b) school age children, (c) young people, (d) 14 to 19-year-olds, (e) adults and (f) families. [187096]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is undertakin# a radical transformation in its role and ways of working to deliver the ambitious agenda for reform set out in the Five Year Strategy for Children arid Learners. Putting people at the heart of public services, building on the existing significant progress and substantial achievement, these changes will enable us to reduce the department's staffing levels and provide strategic leadership to the system, working with our partners and delivering resources to the front line to ensure the further improvements we are determined to secure in the services that we provide for children, young people adults and families.

  School Compute
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils per computer there were in schools in(a) Norfolk and (b) Great Yarmouth in each year since 1996. [186705]
  982W
  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is not available centrally.

  Figures for England, which were derived from a sample of schools, are shown in the following table.

  Average number of pupils1 per computer (used solely or mainly for teaching and learning purposes) by type of school, England

  Maintained

  Year end March

  Primary

  Secondary

  Special

  1996

  19.0

  9.0

  4.0

  1997

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  17.6

  8.7

  4.5

  1999

  13.4

  8.4

  3.7

  2000

  12.6

  7.9

  3.7

  2001

  11.8

  7.1

  3.2

  2002

  10.1

  6.5

  3.4

  2003

  7.9

  5.4

  3.0

  2004

  7.5

  4.9

  3.1

  n/a = Not available.

  1Full-time equivalent numbers of pupils.

  The latest provisional data on ICT in schools was published in Statistical First Release 'Survey of Information and Communications Technology in Schools 2004', which is available on the Department's website www.dfes.gov.uk/rsgateway/.

  Departmental Administrative Costs
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what measures he is taking to reduce his Department's central administrative costs. [187488]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The 2004 Spending Review White Paper (Table 7.1) shows that the administrative costs of the Department (including Ofsted) will fall from £276 million in 2005–06 to £262 million in 2007–08. This reduction will be principally achieved by reducing staffing by 1,460 posts in the Department by April 2008, but will also reflect other improvements arising from the Efficiency Review.

  Departmental Expen#iture
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much the Department spent on press officers in each year since 1996–97, broken down by grade. [184322]

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

  Staff numbers

  Spend (£000)

  1996–97

  19: SCS × 1, SIO × 6.5, IO × 11.5

  702

  1997–98

  20.5: SCS × 1, G7 × 1, SIO × 7.5, IO × 10, AIO × 1

  729

  1998–99

  29.5: SCS × 2, G7 × 2, SIO × 11.5, IO × 10. AIO × 3

  969

  1999–2000

  28: SCS × 2, G7 × 3, SIO × 10, IO × 11, AIO × 2

  997

  2000–01

  28: SCS × 2, G7 × 3.5, SIO × 13.5, IO × 6, AIO × 3

  1,307

  2001–02

  28: SCS × 2, G7 × 4.5, SIO × 9.5, IO × 10, AIO × 2

  1,097

  2002–03

  23.4: SCS × 2, G7 × 3, SIO × 9.5, IO × 7, AIO × 2

  1,314

  2003–04

  18.5: SCS × 2, G7 × 4, SIO × 4.5, IO x 6, AIO × 2

  1,120

  Key:

  SCS—Senior Civil Service

  G7—Grade 7

  SIO—Senior Information Officer

  IO—Information Officer

  AIO—Assistant Information Officer

  983W
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much money the Department spent on(a) advertising and (b) public relations in each year since 1996–97. [184323]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Expenditure for both advertising and public relations is listed as follows:

  £million

  Advertising

  Public relations

  1996–97

  8.0

  0

  1997–98

  11.0

  0

  1998–99

  16.8

  0.6

  1999–2000

  12.4

  0.1

  2000–01

  29.7

  0.8

  2001–02

  20.5

  1.7

  2002–03

  11.3

  2.4

  2003–04

  19.5

  1.9

  As can be seen from the figures, spend on advertising fluctuates from year to year. Some campaigns will run over financial years and billing will fall in the later period. The increase in Public Relations (PR) relates to an increase in the use of external organisations to contact those elements of our key audiences that prove more difficult to reach through traditional advertising methods. Examples of this are in the promotion of adult basic skills, Aimhigher and Connexions. Since 2001–02, the Department has changed its approach by concentrating on having fewer, larger, more focused communications, such as that for adult basic skills (to help adults improve their reading, writing, language and maths) instead of numerous smaller campaigns.

  Departmental Press Officers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many press officers are employed in his Department. [187158]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Department for Education and Skills has 17 press officers.

  Departmental Staffing
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to reduce staffing levels within his Department. [187489]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer the hon. Member to the answers I gave on 14 May 2004,Official Report, columns 624W, to the right hon. Member for West Dorset (Mr. Letwin).

  Departmental Stress Policy
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will make a statement on the introduction of a stress policy in his Department. [187092]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department and the Trade Union Side are agreed on the importance of addressing workplace stress. My Department is working closely with the Trade Union Side to develop a stress policy based on the Health and Safety Executive Management Standards of good management practice.

  Departmental Theft
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many mobile phones owned by his Department have been reported lost or stolen since 2001. [186681]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our records show that, since January 2001, twenty-six mobile telephones owned by my Department have been reported stolen and eight reported lost.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will list the items that his Department has reported lost or stolen to the police from his Department's buildings and property since 2001. [186676]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table details the items that the Department for Education and Skills has reported lost or stolen to the police from the Department's buildings ans property since 2001.

  Financial year

  Item and quantity

  Approximate value per item (£)

  Total approximate value(£)

  2001–02

  Laptop PC (1)

  1,150

  1,150

  2002–03

  0

  0

  0

  2003–04

  CD Player/Radio (1)

  100

  100

  CDs (6)

  10

  10

  2004 to date

  0

  0

  0

  Total

  8 items

  n/a

  1,310

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the equivalent monetary cost of theft to(a) his Department and (b) the Executive Agencies affiliated to his Department has been in each year since his Department was established. [186682]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The following table provides details of the equivalent monetary cost of theft to the Department for Education and Skills in each year since the Department was established in June 2001. We do not record similar data for any Executive Agency.

  Financial year

  Cost of theft (£)

  2001–02

  9,087

  2002–03

  4,910

  2003–04

  1,101

  2004-to date

  5,858

  Total

  20,956

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187314]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The following table shows the number of rooms which have been set aside in each of the five Department for Education and Skills buildings for(a) smokers (b) wo#ship and (c) nursing/pregnant women.
  985W

  Site/Building

  Smokers room

  Worship room

  Nursing/Pregnant women's facilities

  Darlington

  1

  1 (non denominational)

  1 room

  1

  London:

  Caxton House

  1

  1 Muslim prayer room and 1 non denominational

  1 room and use of the first aid room

  Sanctuary Buildings

  1

  1 Muslim prayer room and 1 non denominational

  1 room

  Sheffield

  1

  1 (non denominational)

  1 room

  Runcorn

  3

  1 (non denominational)

  Nursing chairs provided within on-site Nursery

  Early Excellence Centres
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Early Excellence centres(a) have been opened and (b) are planned to be opened in (i) St. Helens and (ii) England, broken down by region. [186809]

  Margaret Hodge
  There is one Early Excellence Centre (EEC) in St. Helens based at Legh Vale school in Haydock ward.

  No further EECs will be developed. The Government are establishing children's centres across England many of which will be developed from existing EECs.

  There are 107 EECs in England six of which are special projects. The special projects are run by RNIB which works with four EECs (two in London and two in the South East) and NHS Newborn which works with two London based EEC's.

  A list of EECs in England, broken down by local authority region follows:

  Annex A

  Local authority

  Number of Early Excellence Centres

  Bath and NE Somerset

  1

  Bedfordshire

  2

  Birmingham

  2

  Blackpool

  1

  Bolton

  1

  Bradford

  1

  Bristol

  2

  Bury

  1

  Cambridgeshire

  2

  Camden

  1

  Cornwall

  2

  Coventry

  1

  Croydon

  1

  Cumbria network

  1

  Derby

  1

  Derbyshire

  1

  Devon

  2

  Dorset

  1

  Durham

  1

  Ealing

  1

  Gateshead

  1

  Gloucestershire

  1

  Greenwich

  1

  Hackney

  1

  Hammersmith and Fulham

  2

  Hampshire

  2

  Haringey

  1

  Harrow

  1

  Herefordshire

  1

  Hertfordshire

  1

  Hillingdon

  1

  Isle of Wight

  2

  Islington

  2

  Kent

  1

  986W

  Annex A

  Local authority

  Number of Early Excellence Centres

  Kingston upon Thames

  1

  Kirklees

  1

  Lambeth

  1

  Lancashire

  4

  Leeds

  1

  Lewisham

  1

  Liverpool

  1

  Luton

  2

  Manchester

  1

  Middlesbrough

  1

  Newcastle

  1

  Newham

  1

  Norfolk

  1

  North East Lincolnshire

  1

  North Tyneside

  1

  Northamptonshire

  1

  Northumberland

  1

  Nottinghamshire

  1

  Oxfordshire

  2

  Peterborough

  1

  Plymouth

  1

  Portsmouth

  1

  Reading

  1

  Richmond-upon-Thames

  1

  Rotherham

  2

  Somerset

  2

  Southampton

  1

  South Tyneside

  1

  St Helens

  1

  Stockport

  1

  Sunderland

  1

  Surrey

  1

  Sutton

  1

  Swindon

  1

  Tameside

  1

  Tower Hamlets

  1

  Wakefield

  1

  Waltham Forest

  1

  Warwickshire

  2

  Westminster

  1

  West Sussex

  1

  Wigan

  2

  Wiltshire

  2

  Wirral

  2

  Wokingham

  1

  Wolverhampton

  1

  Note:

  Six special projects are operated by NHS Newborn and RNIB. The RNIB project works with four EECs (two in North West and two in South East). The NHSP Newborn initiative works with two EECs in London.

  Early-years Initiatives (Funding)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been made available to(a) Sure start projects, (b) Early Excellence centres, (c) Neighbourhood Nurseries and (d) other early years

  987W
  initiatives in the London borough of Enfield in each year since their inception; what the projected funding is over the period of the Spending Review; and if he will make a statement. [187007]

  Margaret Hodge
  The London borough of Enfield has one Sure Start local programme, five neighbourhood nursery projects, and no Early Excellence Centres. In addition grant was paid for a range of early year's initiatives within the Childcare Grant until 2003, and under the Sure Start General Grant between 2004–06. The funding for each initiative since its inception is as follows:

  Edmonton Sure Start local programme (revenue)

  £

  1999–2000

  42,000

  2000–01

  924,000

  2001–02

  1,300,000

  Childcare Grant 1998–2003

  £

  Source data

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Childcare Grant

  72,000

  249,000

  312,950

  596,030

  613,560

  National Recruitment Campaign

  —

  —

  28,300

  28,690

  29,000

  Childmin#er Start-Up Grant

  —

  —

  25,900

  40,100

  31,500

  Outdoor Play Equipment

  —

  —

  —

  29,610

  —

  Unlocking Barriers for Training

  —

  —

  —

  114,102

  79,893

  Daycare Expansion

  —

  —

  —

  24,100

  15,070

  Toy Libraries/Musical Instruments

  —

  —

  —

  50,680

  32,460

  Capital for Playgroup Conversion

  —

  —

  —

  —

  19,950

  Foundation Stage

  —

  —

  —

  94,448

  94,448

  SENCO Training

  —

  —

  —

  13,774

  11,806

  SENCO Low Incidence

  —

  —

  —

  18,903

  Capital Funding

  —

  —

  —

  115,700

  Total

  72,000

  249,000

  367,150

  991.534

  1,062,29 0

  General Sure Start Gr#nt funding 2004–06

  £

  Source data

  2004–06

  Delivery Support Fund

  1,031,179

  Children's Information Service

  193,947

  Workforce Development (Recruitment and Training)

  699,462

  Nursery Schools Development

  —

  Extended Schools

  79,000

  New Childcare Places (Revenue) Disadvantaged Areas

  236,685

  New Childcare Places (Revenue) Other Areas

  86,462

  New Childcare Places (Capital for out of school Childcare)

  51,232

  New Childcare Places (Capital for Playgroup Conversion)

  99,000

  New Childcare Places (Capital for Playgroup Conversion) Other Areas

  36,387

  SEN and Inclusion (Children with Special Needs and Disabled Children)

  273,258

  Children's Centre's (Revenue)

  1,033,220

  Children's Centres (Capital)

  2,225,058

  Support Childminder Scheme

  105,367

  Total

  6,150,257

  The Chancellor announced in the Spending Review that the Sure Start Unit will be allocated £1,167 million, £1,483 million and £1,667 million for 2005–06, 2006–07 and 2007–08 respectively for England. At this stage it is not possible to say how much will be allocated to individual local authorities.

  Educational Attainment
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what percentage of(a) girls and
  988W

  Edmonton Sure Start local programme (revenue)

  £

  2002–03

  1,300,000

  2003–04

  1,3000,000

  2004–05

  1,300,000

  2005–06

  1,300,000

  Note:

  The programme was also allocated £1,250,000 capital funding.

  Neighbourhood Nursery Initiative (revenue)

  2003–04

  133,500

  2004–05

  531,600

  2005–06

  297,600

  2006–07

  90,300

  Note:

  2006–07: £90,300 (funding agreed for this year due to slippage of last project). The authority has also been allocated £327,298 capital.

  (b) boys in receipt of free school meals achieved (i) Level 2 or more at Key Stage 1 in (A) reading, (B) writing and (C) mathematics, (ii) Level 4 or above at Key Stage 2 for (1) English, (2) mathematics and (3) science, (iii) Level 5 and above at Key Stage 3 in (x) English, (y) mathematics and (z) science, (iv) five or more A*–C GCSE/GNVQ and (v) no passes at GCSE/ GNVQ in each year since 1997; and what the percentages were for those not in receipt of free school meals. [185807]

  Mr. Miliband
  [holding answer 22 July 2004]: I refer the hon. Member to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills) on 4 May 2004, Official Report, column 1424W.

  A copy of the Statistical First Release 04/2004 was placed in the Libraries in response to this question.

  Food Education
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills whether food skills training is provided in primary school teachers' initial teacher training. [187458]

  Mr. Miliband
  All trainee teachers must demonstrate the standards set out in "Qualifying to teach", which rep#esent the minimum that trainees must know, understand and be able to do to be awarded qualified teacher status. Although the standards as they apply to
  989W
  primary school trainees do not specify food skills training, they require that they should be familiar with the National Curriculum Framework for personal, social and health education, which at Key Stage 2 includes teaching about the benefits of healthy eating. Once employed within schools, teachers can look to professional development programmes to develop food technology skills.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) what action is being taken to help primary school teachers to teach cookery in addition to the Food in Schools programme; [187459]

  (2) what action his Department is taking to improve food education in schools; [187460]

  (3) how many primary schools have the (a) necessary equipment and (b) purpose built facilities to enable pupils to prepare and cook food; [187461]

  (4) how much schools have spent on average for each pupil in each of the last 10 years on food education in (a) primary and (b) secondary schools. [187462]

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  On 6 September, the Government published the Healthy Living Blueprint for Schools. A copy is being placed in the House of Commons Library. The Blueprint and a supporting website will help teachers access support, advice and information to create a healthy school environment. It includes food education within the National Curriculum, and wider opportunities through, for example, cookery and growing clubs.

  In addition to the Food in Schools programme, there are food technology teachers in Technology Specialist Schools and food technology Advanced Skills Teachers who support their feeder primary schools in food education as part of their outreach work.

  The Department does not collect detailed information about expenditure on equipment or per pupil for individual subjects; or on facilities for food education in primary schools. This year, the Government have increased its support for capital investment in schools to £4.5 billion. This includes direct capital funding to every primary school, which a school could allocate for food technology facilities.

  Fraud
  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what estimate his Department has made of the cost of fraud to(a) his Department and (b) the Executive Agencies affiliated to his Department in the last year for which figures are available. [186683]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The total amount of departmental funds under investigation in the financial year 2003–04 was £177,300. All cases of fraud or alleged fraud were investigated by the Department's Special Investigations Unit. Fully trained, professionally qualified fraud examiners staff this unit.

  The Department has no Executive Agencies.

  General Teaching Council/Teacher Training Agency
  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will break down the 2002–03 administration cost of the Teacher Training Agency by main budget heading. [187400]

  Mr. Miliband
  Part 14 of the TTA's Financial Statements 2002–03 outlines a total of 5 budget lines contributing to a total administration expenditure of £10.479 million of which: staff costs totalled £6.651 million and other administration costs totalled £3.828 million.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of the General Teaching Council was in 2002–03, broken down by main budget heading. [187399]

  Mr. Miliband
  The total expenditure incurred by the GTC in 2002–03 totalled £11.237 million of which staff costs were £3.559 million. Other costs totalled £7.678 million.

  A more detailed breakdown of the figures can be found on page 20 of the GTC's Annual Report and Accounts 2002–03.

  Mr. Willis
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff were employed in the(a) Teacher Training Agency and (b) General Teaching Council in 2002–03; and what the staff costs were in each case. [187401]

  Mr. Miliband
  The Teacher Training Agency employed an average of 193 staff during the financial year 2002–03. The total staff costs for the year were £6.651 million.

  The General Teaching Council for England employed an average of 109 staff during the financial year 2002–03. The total staff costs for the year were £3.559 million.

  The staff costs included temporary staff and secondees, and are disclosed in the organisations' accounts.

  Graduate Employment
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what research his Department has commissioned regarding the number of university graduates who enter graduate jobs within six months of graduating. [186942]

  Alan Johnson
  The Department's main data source for monitoring the destination of graduates is the First Destination Survey (FDS), which is collected annually by the Higher Education Statistics Agency (HESA). This records the employment position of graduates six months after graduation, including the type of work obtained by those graduates entering employment. These figures are published by HESA annually in 'First Destinations of Students leaving Higher Education Institutions', a copy of which can be found in the House Library.

  Following a comprehensive review, the FDS has been expanded for 2002–03 to cover students completing part-time courses and to collect additional information on the student's employment.

  Higher Education (Newcastle upon Tyne)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many and what percentage of 18-year-olds were accepted for entry to higher education through UCAS in the City of Newcastle-upon-Tyne in each year since 1995. [186860]

  Alan Johnson
  The available information is taken from the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and covers 18-year-old applicants accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HND courses. Figures are given in the table.

  18-year-old applicants domiciled in the Newcastle-upon-Tyne LEA, accepted through UCAS to full-time first degree and HND courses

  Year of entry

  Number

  Percentage

  1995

  607

  22.2

  1996

  603

  21.0

  1997

  527

  16.4

  1998

  593

  18.0

  1999

  553

  17.2

  2000

  609

  18.9

  2001

  754

  23.3

  2002

  826

  24.4

  2003

  872

  25.1

  Source:

  Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS) and population figures based on projections from the Government Actuary's Department and the Office for National Statistics.

  IT Training
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve(a) IT training and (b) access to the internet for older people. [186794]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The information is as follows:

  (a) DfES colleagues are currently working with partners, developing a strategy to take forward the commitments to ICT user skills made in the White Paper, 21st Century Skills, realising our potential, which include designating ICT as a Skill for Life.

  A project called "Cybrarian" is currently being developed which aims to help reduce the digital divide by facilitating access to the Internet and to learning opportunities for those who currently do not, or cannot, use the Internet. This may be because of a lack of skills or confidence, or because of physical or cognitive disabilities.

  (b) DfES has established a network of 6,000 UK online centres to help those who have not used computers or the Internet before, or who do not have access to a computer of their own. These centres provide free or low cost access to ICT and the Internet, with support from staff on hand to help individuals get started. One of the target groups is older people. Everyone in England should be able to find a UK online centre near to their home. Around 3,000 are based in libraries and the rest are located to provide easy access for all.

  Learner Satisfaction Survey
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (1) how much was spent by the Learning and Skills Council on producing the Learner Satisfaction Survey in 2003; [186602]

  (2) what funding methodology was used for setting budgets for local learning and skills councils in 2003–04; [186604]

  (3) how much money has been allocated to each local learning and skills council in (a) 2003–04, (b) 2004–05 and (c) 2005–06. [186605]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  These are matters for the Learning and Skills Council. Mark Haysom the Council's Chief Executive will write to the hon. Gentleman with the information requested and a copy of his reply will be placed in the Library.

  Learning Difficulties/Disabilities (Coventry, South)
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Coventry, South students in(a) primary and (b) secondary schools suffer from learning (i) difficulties and (ii) disabilities. [187299]

  Margaret Hodge
  Learning difficulties and learning disabiliti#s are covered within the definition set out in section 312 of the Education Act 1996 which states that children have special educational needs if they have a learning difficulty which calls for special educational provision to be made for them.

  Children have a learning difficulty if they:
  (a) have a significantly greater difficulty in learning than the majority of children of the same age
  (b) have a disability which prevents and hinders them from making use of educational facilities of a kind generally provided for children of the same age in schools within the area of the local authority.

  The table shows numbers of pupils with SEN in Coventry, South.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: number of pupils with special education needs (SEN)—January 2004 (provisional)

  Coventry, South parliamentary constituency2

  Maintained primary

  Maintained secondary

  Total pupils

  7,780

  7,410

  Pupils with statements of SEN

  80

  150

  Percentage

  1.0

  2.0

  Pupils with SEN but without statements3

  1,340

  1,270

  Percentage

  17.3

  17.1

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3Includes children at "School Action" and "School Action Plus" as described in the SEN Code of Practice.

  Minimum Pupil Numbers
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to require small schools to have a minimum number of pupils. [186476]
  993W
  Mr. Miliband
  We have no plans to require small schools to have a minimum number of pupils.

  Decisions on proposed changes to schools, including opening and closing, are taken by each area's local School Organisation Committee, or an independent schools adjudicator, and the Department's guidance makes clear that they must not assume a school must be of a certain size to be a good school. LEAs have a statutory duty to ensure sufficient and efficient school provision in their area and we will expect them to take parental preferences into account in their planning process. LEAs must also ensure that each area offers high quality education in a cost effective way.

  School name

  Reason for opening

  Herman Community Primary School

  Amalgamation of Herman First and Herman Middle School

  Peterhouse Community Primary School

  Amalgamation of Peterhouse First and Peterhouse Middle School

  Martham Foundation Primary School

  Amalgamation of Martham First School and Nursery and West Flegg Middle School

  Belton Voluntary Community Primary School

  Amalgamation of Waveney First School and Breydon Middle School

  Proposals for the new schools were approved by the local School Organisation Committee on 6 December 2002 and they are due to open this coming September.

  Plans for any future organisation of schools are a matter for the local authority.

  Education (Northampton. South)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) teachers and (b) education support staff there were in Northampton, South in each year since 1992. [186462]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the full-time equivalent number of regular teachers and support staff employed in maintained sector schools in Northampton, South constituency for each year from 1997 to 2003, the latest year available. Data are not available at constituency level prior to 1997.

  Teachers

  Support staff1

  2003

  851

  683

  2002

  860

  659

  2001

  858

  633

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1: Average size of classes taught by one teacher2 Northampton, South parliamentary constituency3

  Position in January each year: 1997 to 2004 (provisional)

  Number of pupils

  Primary Number of classes

  Average class size

  Number of pupils

  Secondary Number of classes

  Average class size

  1997

  7,400

  270

  27.1

  6,930

  330

  21.3

  1998

  7,340

  270

  27.4

  6,790

  300

  22.9

  1999

  7,360

  270

  27.4

  6,890

  290

  23.5

  2000

  7,310

  270

  27.1

  7,010

  290

  23.8

  2001

  7,170

  270

  26.3

  8,480

  380

  22.5

  2002

  7,170

  290

  25.2

  7,840

  330

  23.8

  2003

  7,440

  300

  25.0

  7,320

  320

  22.7

  20044,5

  9,500

  370

  25.8

  5,700

  260

  22.0

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Classes as taught during the one selected period in each school on the day of the census in January.

  3Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  4Difference in figures from 2003 to 2004 is due to some schools within Northampton, South parliamentary constituency changing status from middle deemed secondary schools to primary school status.

  5Provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Schools' Census.

  New Schools (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many new(a) primary and (b) secondary schools were opened in the Great Yarmouth constituency between 1979 and 1997; and what proposals have been made for building new schools within the Great Yarmouth constituency since 1997. [186706]

  Mr. Miliband
  Information is only available for new school openings since 1988. Between 1988 and 1997 no new schools were established in Great Yarmouth. Since 1997, approval has been given for four new Primary schools, namely:

  Teachers

  Support staff1

  2000

  765

  464

  1999

  756

  446

  1998

  749

  397

  1997

  763

  398

  1Includes teaching assistants, administrative staff, technicians, medical and other child care and education support staff.

  Source:

  Annual School Census.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will break down achievement at each key stage in 2003 in Northampton by ethnicity, subdivided into those(a) in receipt of and (b) not in receipt of free school meals. [186509]

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

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the average cla#s size in Northampton, South for(a) primary and (b) secondary schools was in each year since 1997. [186521]

  Mr. Miliband
  The requested information is given in the table.

  Offender Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time teachers and tutors are in post at each (i) prison and (ii) young offender institute. [187216]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  There are currently 405 full-time teachers and tutors in post in prisons and 271 in Young Offenders Institutions. For part-time teachers the figures are 225 in prisons and 103 in Young Offenders Institutes.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many prison education tutors have(a) resigned and (b) been made redundant in each of the last five years; and how many vacancies there are for these staff. [187217]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  This information is not held centrally by HM Prison Service. Learning and skills in prisons are delivered by 28 educational providers in 137 prisons.

  Matters relating to the employment status of tutors are the responsibility of the contractors.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has for the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit within his Department. [187218]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The OLSU continues to play a key role in managing improvements to offender learning and skills, working in partnership with a range of Departments and agencies across Government; including the Learning and Skills Council and the prison and probation services. From April 2004, the role of the unit extends to learning and skills for offenders in the community, as well as in custody.

  As we develop plans for improving future delivery of learning and skills for offenders, the unit expects to work increasingly closely with the Learning and Skills Council and other regional partners. As part of the Government's commitment to moving resources closer to the front line of delivery, we will consider how the unit's regional advisory staff could work most effectively within the regions for the future.

  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what role the regional Learning and Skills Councils will have in the(a) commissioning and (b) delivery of offender education in (i) prisons and(ii) the community; [187220]

  (2) whether the new contracts for prison education will provide funding for (a) staff development, (b) lesson planning, (c) marking of students' work and (d) pastoral education. [187215]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The DfES is working closely with the Learning and Skills Council, the Prison Service, the Probation Service, the Youth Justice Board and JobCentreplus on new arrangements to support improvements in the learning and skills of offenders in the community as well as those in custody.

  The Learning and Skills Council already works in partnership at local level with probation services in order to deliver learning and skills to offenders under supervision in the community. From next year, starting in the three development regions of the north east, north
  996W
  west and south west, the LSC will also assume lead responsibility for planning and funding, education and work related skills training for offenders in custody.

  The precise balance between local, regional and national commissioning in arrangements for the future service for offenders, and the detailed content of any new contracts, will be agreed as we develop a new delivery framework over the next year.

  This work is still at an early stage. We expect the LSC to ensure flexibility in contracting arrangements, and to adopt a funding formula which will promote consistency in the funding of offender learning across all regions. In the meantime, in order to ensure stability, we are extending the current prison education contracts in broadly their existing form.

  Pensioner Education
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to improve access to education for pensioners. [186451]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Our plans were set out in the White Paper "21st Century Skills; Realising Our Potential" published in July 2003. We are committed to safeguarding a wide range of opportunities for pensioners. This is why we have agreed a budget with the Learning and Skills Council of £207.4 million in 2004–05 for adult and community learning secured through local education authorities, compared with £206 million in 2003–04. 28 per cent. of learners on these courses are aged 6.5 or over.

  PFI/PPP Contracts (Financial Advice)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. 186690]

  Mr. Miliband
  There are no records of contracts with the organisations listed, or of any payments to them, for these purposes.

  Pre-school Education
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills. (1) what the Government's policy is on pre-school education access; and if he will make a statement; [186803]

  (2) whether the Government expects to meet its target of providing free part-time nursery education places to all three and four year old children by September; and if he will make a statement; [186808]

  (3) what plans the Government has to expand access to pre-school education; and if he will make a statement. [186802]

  Margaret Hodge
  In 1997 access to free nursery education was effectively a postcode lottery. We have since invested more than £11 billion as part of an unprecedented expansion of early years provision. From 1 April 2004, six months ahead of the original target, we have amended the regulatory framework to
  997W
  require all local authorities to ensure there is sufficient provision to deliver a free part time nursery education place for all three and four-year-olds whose parents want one. Provisional data from the January 2004 Early Years Census, published in May, confirmed that around 93 per cent. of three-year-olds and virtually all four year olds were already benefiting from some free provision. The Department's Five Year Strategy for Children and Learners, presented to Parliament in July (Cm 6272) outlined our plans to transform and build on the basic free entitlement by enabling parents to use it more flexibly as part of a wider integrated offer of education and child care.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how man) free(a) nursery and (b) pre-school places were available for (i) three and (ii) four-year-olds in Great Yarmouth in each of the last seven years. [186713]

  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 Norfolk local education authority area are shown in the table.

  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 Norfolk local education authority area, 1997–2003

  Position in January each year

  Three-year-olds

  Four-year-olds

  1997

  1,500

  8,200

  1998

  1,800

  8,400

  1999

  1,900

  8,500

  2000

  1,900

  8,900

  2001

  2,000

  8,400

  2002

  4,800

  8,400

  2003

  6,100

  8,400

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

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

  The latest figures on provision for three and four-year-olds in England were published in a Statistical First Release, "Provision for Children Under Five Years of Age in England—January 2004", 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.

  Primary Schools (Non-teaching Grant)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will ring-fence a specific grant in 2005–06 for planning, preparation and assessment time for primary school teachers. [186308]

  Mr. Miliband
  I refer the Member for Gloucester to the written statement I laid before the House on 13 July 2004,Official Report, column 55W'S, on school funding for 2005–06. On the same day there was also a press notice issued by the Department (DfES press notice 2004/0137), which included a statement welcoming the
  998W
  school funding settlement by those school workforce unions represented on the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group.

  The written statement to the House sets out how we have considered, with our partner signatories, the costs of implementation of the National Agreement. It announces what funds will be available to schools to implement the Agreement in 2005–06.

  Prison Education
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills when his Department will(a) release full details of the new contracts for prison education, (b) begin accepting tenders, (c) make decisions on which tenders will be successful and (d) announce a start date for the new contracts. [187238]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  We announced in January that we would not re-tender prison education contracts. With the creation of the new National Offender Management Service and the drive to get more resources to front-line services, we are looking to incorporate offender learning and skills more fully into mainstream further education provision.

  The Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit and the Learning and Skills Council are working with the Prison and Probation Services to develop a new integrated service, initially in three development regions in England. The outcome of this work will inform the national implementation of a new, fully integrated service to offenders from September 2006.

  In the meantime, in order to ensure stability as we develop the new service delivery arrangements, Prison Service officials are negotiating extensions to existing contracts from September 2004.

  Pupil Exclusions
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many pupils were excluded from schools in(a) Great Yarmouth and (b) Norfolk in each year since 1997. [186710]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The available information is given in the table.

  Exclusions data for 2000/01, 2001/02 and 2002/03 are known to have been under-reported by some schools. The Department carried out a checking exercise, but this was at LEA level only. As a result this information is not available at parliamentary constituency level for the three most recent years.

  Maintained primary and secondary schools number and percentage of permanently excluded pupils 1997–98 to 2002–032,3

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number

  Percentage4

  Number

  Percentage4

  Great Yarmouth parliamentary constituency

  1997–98

  10

  0.09

  20

  0.59

  1998–99

  10

  0.07

  30

  0.76

  1999–2000

  5—

  0.03

  10

  0.14

  2000–01

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2001–02

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  2002–033

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  999W

  Maintained primary and secondary schools1 number and percentage of permanently excluded pupils 1997–98 to 2002–032.3

  Primary

  Secondary

  Number

  Percentage4

  Number

  Percentage4

  Norfolk LEA

  1997–98

  40

  0.05

  100

  0.25

  1998–99

  30

  0.04

  130

  0.31

  1999–2000

  20

  0.03

  60

  0.14

  2000–01

  20

  0.03

  40

  0.10

  2001–02

  20

  0.04

  50

  0.12

  2002–033

  10

  0.02

  50

  0.10

  n/a=Not available.

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10.

  3Provisional.

  Maintained primary schools1: Number and percentage of permanently excluded pupils, 1997/98 to 2002/03 (provisional)1

  Enfield LEA

  Inner London

  England

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage3

  1997–98

  10

  0.04

  150

  0.05

  1,540

  0.03

  1998–99

  10

  0.02

  110

  0.05

  1,370

  0.03

  1999–2000

  4—

  0.01

  80

  0.03

  1.230

  0.03

  2000–01

  10

  0.02

  80

  0.04

  1,440

  0.03

  2001–02

  10

  0.02

  80

  0.03

  1,450

  0.03

  2002–035

  10

  0.02

  60

  0.03

  1,300

  0.03

  1Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. There may be discrepancies between the sum of constituent items and the totals as shown.

  3The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils, excluding dually registered pupils.

  4Less than 5.

  5Provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census.

  Maintained primary schools1: Number and percentage of permanently excluded pupils, 1997/98 to 2002/03 (provisional)1

  Enfield LEA

  Inner London

  England

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage3

  Number

  Percentage3

  1997–98

  70

  0.39

  570

  0.48

  10,190

  0.33

  1998–99

  70

  0.36

  500

  0.41

  8,640

  0.28

  1999–2000

  70

  0.34

  410

  0.33

  6,710

  0.21

  2000–01

  70

  0.32

  430

  0.34

  7,310

  0.23

  2001–02

  60

  0.31

  390

  0.30

  7,740

  0.24

  2002–034

  50

  0.22

  390

  0.33

  7,690

  0.23

  1 Includes middle schools as deemed.

  2Figures have been rounded to the nearest 10. There may be discrepancies between the sum of constituent items and the totals as shown.

  3The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils, excluding dually registered pupils.

  4Provisional.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census.

  We do not hold information centrally on the numbers of excluded pupils unable to access a place in school. However, from September 2002 all local education authorities (LEAs) have been committed to providing suitable full-time education for permanently excluded pupils from the sixteenth day of their exclusion. Since then all but a handful of LEAs have met this commitment. Currently only two LEAs are not meeting it and the Department is working with them to help them achieve it.

  Pupil Expenditure (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public money was spent per pupil in the Great Yarmouth constituency in each year since 1997. [186709]
  1000W
  4The number of permanent exclusions expressed as a percentage of the number (headcount) of pupils, excluding dually registered pupils.

  5Less than 5.

  Source:

  Annual Schools Census

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary pupils on average were (i) permanently excluded from school and (ii) unable to access a place in school in each of the last five years in (A) the London borough of Enfield, (B) Inner London and (C) England; and if he will make a statement. [187005]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  Requested information on the number and percentage of excluded pupils is given in the tables.

  Mr. Miliband
  The information requested is submitted to the Department according to local education authority areas rather than constituency level. The figures provided are for Norfolk LEA and are shown in the following table:

  Net current expenditure (after recharges) per pupil

  Total

  1997–98

  2,380

  1998–99

  2,470

  1999–2000

  2,570

  2000–01

  2,850

  2001–02

  3,180

  2002–03

  3,400

  1001W
  Notes:
  1. Net current expenditure (NCE) includes expenditure within schools and also that incurred centrally by the LEA. This is divided by the number of pupils educated in mainstream schools to calculate a unit cost.
  2. Section 52 is collected at local authority level, not constituency level, so the figures provided are for Norfolk LEA.
  3. 1999–2000 figures reflect the return of GM schools to local authority maintenance.
  4. The outturn 2002–03 tables captured the data in a fundamentally different way to the previous years. Categories were aligned with the Consistent Financial Reporting framework and the spending by LEAs was no longer split by school sector. This change in calculation is identified by the dotted line. The 2002–03 figure is calculated by taking all the LEA expenditure, excluding CERA and Youth and Community, and dividing it by the FTE pupil numbers in maintained pre-primary, primary, secondary and special schools.
  5. Data as reported by Norfolk LEA as at 22 July 2004.
  6. Figures are reported in Cash Terms and are rounded to the nearest £10.
  7. The financial data a#e taken from Norfolk LEAs' Section 52 Outturn Statement submitted to the DfES from 1999–2000 onwards and the ODPM's ROI statement previously. 2002–03 data remains provisional and is subject to change by the LEA.
  8. Pupil data are drawn from the Annual Schools Census adjusted to be on a financial year basis.

  Pupil Referral Units
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to permit academically-orientated students who have been expelled from mainstream education and who are in Pupil Referral Units to study in academic surroundings to complete their education. [186941]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  As part of their legal responsibilities, LEAs are able to make arrangements for all students within Pupil Referral Units (PRUs), including those who have been excluded, to attend other educational establishments (for example Further Education Colleges) in order to complete their education. This is in addition to the core curriculum that must be provided within PRUs. LEA's responsibilities are emphasised in the new guidance "Guidance for LEAs on PRUs and Alternative Provision", which will be issued in the autumn, but is already accessible by them in draft form.

  School Budgets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what action he is taking to give head teachers more control over school budgets. [186470]

  Mr. Miliband
  Governing bodies and head teachers are already free to deploy the resources allocated to them through local education authorities' school funding formulae in accordance with their own assessment of their schools' needs and priorities. From April 2006, individual schools will receive guaranteed three-year budgets and this will give them even more control of their own resources by enabling them t# take a much more strategic approach to their budgets.

  In addition to recurrent funding, each maintained school in England is also allocated direct capital funding which it can use for its investment priorities. This year, a typical secondary school will get about £85,000 of its own capital, and a typical primary school about £25,000.
  1002W
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to conduct research into how school budgets are spent. [186471]

  Mr. Miliband
  The DfES is actively involved in a programme of research into how schools use their budgets. This includes a detailed analysis of school expenditure patterns from the Consistent Financial Reporting data, which will provide schools with an indication of how their own expenditure compares to the overall national picture. This work complements the existing Schools Financial Benchmarking web site that allows schools to compare their income and expenditure with other similar schools.

  As well as analysis of expenditure information, qualitative analysis will be carried out in schools to identify the process by which schools allocate their resources to develop better advice.

  Finally there is a work stream in progress developing measures of school efficiency and productivity. These methods look specifically at the relationship between the way in which a school allocates its resources and the outcomes it achieves given the context in which it operates.

  School Refurbishment (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much funding has been given to(a) primary and (b) secondary schools in the Great Yarmouth constituency for the refurbishment of school buildings since 1997. [186711]

  Mr. Miliband
  We do not hold information in the form requested. The bulk of capital fundi#g is allocated to local education authorities (LEAs) and schools by formula so that they can decide their priorities for investment in line with locally decided asset management plans. It is therefore for them to decide the balance of investment between primary and secondary schools.

  The Department allocates capital funding at local authority and school level. The following table sets out the capital support provided by the Department to Norfolk LEA and its schools since 1996–97.

  Capital allocations to Norfolk and its schools

  £000

  1996–97

  4,786

  1997–98

  4,907

  1998–99

  9,199

  1999–2000

  10,589

  2000–01

  25,545

  2001–02

  21,219

  2002–03

  1123,526

  2003–04

  39,292

  2004–05

  2106,619

  1Includes £92 million of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) credits.

  2Includes £60 million of PFI credits.

  School Start Date
  Barbara Follett
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans he has to allow children to start primary education in the September of the calendar year in which the child has its sixth birthday. [187529]
  1003W
  Mr. Miliband
  We have no plans to change from the current statutory provisions which require that children start primary education in the term after their fifth birthday.

  Science and Innovation Consultation
  Mr. Pollard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the potential benefits to(a) science in schools and (b) biology fieldwork following the science and innovation consultation; and if he will make a statement. [186465]

  Alan Johnson
  The Government's Science and Innovation 10-year Investment Framework sets out our comprehensive strategy for tackling skills shortages in the science, engineering and technology. We outlined how we would improve science teaching and learning in schools by providing additional incentives to recruit more people to train to be science teachers, making better use of specialist science support staff and, subject to the advice of the School Teacher Review Body, enabling science Advanced Skills Teachers to be paid more. We also outlined the importance of a science curriculum that inspires young people, with opportunities for exciting science practical work in and outside the classroom.

  To improve teacher confidence in using fieldwork, we have funded the Field Studies Council in association with the Geographical Association, the Association of Science Education and the Open University to develop a training course for geography and science teachers. Complementary courses on fieldwork will also be offered through the new national network of Science Learning Centres. Our Growing Schools programme supports teachers to educate pupils about food cultivation, farming, and understanding the natural environment, as well as how to use the outdoors for teaching subjects across the curriculum.

  Secondary School Targets
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what representations the Department has received regarding its new secondary school targets. [186469]

  Mr. Miliband
  The DIES has received no formal representations on the new secondary school PSA targets since their announcement on 12 July.

  Special Educational Needs and Disabilities (Great Yarmouth)
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how much public funding has been spent in Great Yarmouth on measures within the Special Educational Needs and Disability Act 2001. [186720]

  Margaret Hodge
  The information requested is not held in this format.

  Norfolk county council will spend an estimated £45 million on special educational needs in 2004–05. This includes the amount delegated to schools and the authority's central spend on special needs. In addition, Norfolk has £1,352,236 available in 2004–05 through the Schools Access Initiative.

  Strategic Area Reviews
  Chris Grayling
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the cost of strategic area reviews was in 2003–04; and how much is budgeted for(a) 2004–05 and (b) 2005–06. [186603]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) was established in 2001 to plan and fund post-16 education and training. LSC led strategic area reviews were introduced in April 2003 and are an integral part of this planning role. No extra funding was allocated to carry out these reviews and it is therefore not possible to disaggregate their specific cost from the overall cost of the wide range of planning activities carried out by local LSCs.

  Student Grants/Loans
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills if he will place in the Library the survey referred to in his answer of 10 May 2004.Official Report, columns 53–54W, on student grants. [186849]

  Alan Johnson
  The specially commissioned survey referred to in the answer of 10 May 2004,Official Report, columns 53–54W, was collected from local education authorities in England #nd Wales and completion of it was on a voluntary basis. The response rate means that the survey results cannot be used safely at the level of individual LEAs, although we can use it nationally when also combined with income data from other sources. That is how we constructed the estimate of the proportion of students anticipated to receive the full grant of £2,700. However because of the data quality issues it is not possible to publish the raw survey data itself.

  Annabelle Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what monetary sums were transferred to the Scottish Office further to the sale of portfolios of student loans in(a) 1998 and (b) 1999. [182984]

  Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 8 July 2004]: The sums paid to the Scottish Office in respect of the two student loan debt sales were as follows:

  £

  1998

  110,186,867.85

  1999

  110,000,778.97

  Sure Start
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many Sure Start programmes(a) have begun and (b) are planned in (i) St. Helens and (ii) England, broken down by region. [186811]

  Margaret Hodge Five Sure Start local programmes have been established in St. Helens since 1999. No further Sure Start local programmes will be developed. As part of our policy to mainstream Sure Start principles, the Government are establishing children's centres across England, many of which will be developed from existing Sure Start local programmes.

  524 Sure Start local programmes have been established in England; these break down by region as follows.
  1005W

  Region

  Number

  East of England

  24

  East Midlands

  44

  London

  96

  North East

  62

  North West

  108

  South East

  33

  South West

  31

  West Midlands

  58

  Yorkshire and Humber

  68

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what plans the Government have to extend Sure Start beyond the 20 per cent. most deprived wards; and if he will make a statement. [187362]

  Margaret Hodge
  Sure Start benefits children, parents and communities across the country, delivering free early education for all three and four-year-olds, improving the quality and affordability of child care, and creating at least 250,000 new child care places by 2006. Sure Start children's centres are being established initially in the 20 per cent. most disadvantaged wards and areas where pockets of disadvantage exist in England. By March 2008 we will have up to 2,500 children's centres which will cover all the 20 per cent. wards and beyond. The Government's long-term aim is to develop a children's centre in every community.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what funding has been allocated to the Great Yarmouth constituency under the Sure Start scheme. [186712]

  Margaret Hodge
  A total of £8,101,348 Sure Start funding has so far been allocated to the constituency of Great Yarmouth, comprising £3 136,535 capital and £4,706,921 revenue towards the development of two Sure Start local programmes, two neighbourhood Nurseries and two Children's Centres. The combined programmes will provide Sure Start services for around 1,596 children and families in the six most disadvantaged wards in the constituency. These figures does not include local authorities funding for child care and nursery educati#n allocated to Norfolk county council.

  Teachers
  Alan Simpson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what assessment he has made of the impact in Nottingham of reductions in numbers of teachers and teaching assistants on the introduction of planning, preparation and assessment time for all teachers. [187084]

  Mr. Miliband
  Individual schools will decide how they introduce planning, preparation and assessment (PPA) time for all teachers from September 2005. That is because schools make changes in their staffing levels every year in response to a range of issues including changing pupil numbers, new school priorities and the resources available to them.

  The calculation of the Education Formula Spending Share has a floor and ceiling component which ensures that all authorities see a minimum increase per pupil which is in part funded by having a ceiling which imposes a maximum increase per pupil. In 2004–05
  1006W
  Nottingham City local education authority received the ceiling increase (6.8 per cent. per pupil and percentages provide for average cost of implementing PPA time).

  I refer also to the written statement I laid before the House on 13 July 2004, Official Report, column 55WS, on school funding for 2005–06. On the same day there was also a press notice issued by the Department (DIES press notice 2004/0137), which included a statement welcoming the school funding settlement by the Workforce Agreement Monitoring Group (made up of the majority of the school workforce unions and other partners).

  The written statement to the House sets out how we have considered, with our partner signatories, the costs of implementation of the National Agreement. It announces what funds will be available to schools to implement the Agreement in 2005–06.

  At local level, the funding allocation for each local education authority for 2005–06 will be announced in the provisional local government finance settlement in the autumn. However, every authority will receive an increase in the Schools Formula Spending Share of at least 5.5 per cent. per pupil. Primary and nursery schools will receive a minimum funding increase per pupil of 5 per cent. and secondary schools of 4 per cent. where pupil numbers do not change.

  We will continue to monitor trends in the schools workforce through the Annual Schools Census each January. There are now 427,800 full-time equivalent teachers—28,600 more than in 1997 and the highest number since 1981—and the number of support staff has increased to 241,700, having more than doubled since 1997. These figures illustrate the trend of the significant increases in teachers and support staff since 1997.

  The next School Workforce Volume will be available in the autumn.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the most recent estimate is of the average total salary of a(a) primary school teacher and (b) secondary school teacher in (i) Enfield, (ii) Inner London and (iii) England; and if he will make a statement. [187003]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table shows the average salary of full-time teachers employed in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in Enfield local education authority, Inner London and England in March 2002, the latest information available.

  £

  Nursery and primary

  Secondary

  Enfield LEA

  29,700

  32,070

  Inner London

  30,880

  33,660

  England

  27,600

  29,550

  Source:

  The Database of Teacher Records. Figures cover all grades and include all allowances.

  Mr. Hoban
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills wh#t level of proficiency participants in(a) the Post Graduate Certificate of Education, (b) Teach First and (c) the Graduate

  1007W
  Teacher Programme need to reach with regard to (i) ICT and (ii) special educational needs to be deemed to have met the course requirements. [186421]

  Mr. Miliband
  Before they can be recommended for qualified teacher status, all trainee teachers, whatever training route they follow, must demonstrate that they have achieved the professional standards for QTS set out in "Qualifying to teach". This applies to all the standards, including those related to ICT and special educational needs.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many(a) primary and (b) secondary teacher vacancies there were at the start of each of the last five academic years in (i) the London borough of Enfield, (ii) inner London and (iii) England; what the percentage salary rate was in each year; and if he will make a statement. [187006]

  Mr. Miliband
  The tables show teacher vacancy numbers and rates in maintained nursery/primary and secondary schools in the London borough of Enfield, inner London and England in January of each year since 1999. January 2003 is the latest year available.

  Nursery and Primary

  1999

  2001

  2002

  2002

  2003

  Vacancies1

  Enfield

  19

  13

  29

  27

  16

  Inner London

  367

  355

  510

  321

  153

  England

  1,374

  1,420

  2,110

  1,796

  1,114

  Rates2

  Enfield

  1.9

  1.2

  2.7

  2.5

  1.8

  Inner London

  3.8

  3.6

  5.4

  3.4

  1.6

  England

  0.8

  0.8

  1.2

  1.0

  0.6

  Secondary

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Vacancies1

  Enfield

  9

  15

  33

  33

  21

  Inner London

  140

  197

  367

  267

  194

  England

  939

  1,246

  2,586

  2.447

  2,050

  Rates2

  Enfield

  0.7

  1.3

  2.7

  3.0

  1.8

  Inner London

  1.9

  2.6

  4.8

  3.5

  2.6

  England

  0.5

  0.7

  1.4

  1.3

  1.1

  1Advertised vacancies for full-time permanent appointments for appointments of at least one term's duration). Includes vacancies being filled on a temporary basis of less than one term.

  2Vacancies as a percentage of full-time qualified teachers in post.

  Source:

  DfES annual survey of teachers in service (Form 618g)

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many full-time equivalent teachers have been employed in Suffolk in each of the last 10 years. [187194]

  Mr. Miliband
  The following table gives the full-time equivalent number of regular teachers in the maintained schools sector in Suffolk local education authority in each January since 1994. 2003 is the latest year available.
  1008W

  Number

  2003

  5,700

  2002

  5,660

  2001

  5,490

  2000

  5,450

  1999

  5,450

  1998

  5,380

  1997

  5,330

  1996

  5,330

  1995

  5,360

  1994

  5,270

  Source:

  DfES annual survey of teachers in service (Form 618G).

  Westgate College, Newcastle
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what bids he has received for Westgate College, Newcastle under the Building Schools for the Future programme; when he expects to make a decision; and what funding mechanism he expects to use. [186834]

  Mr. Miliband
  While I can confirm that West Gate Community College is included in Newcastle-upon-Tyne's proposal for the renewal of its secondary school estate to be funded in wave 1 of Building Schools for the Future, the authority is still working with my officials to develop its proposals in detail.

  We hope to confirm approval of Newcastle's proposals later this year, at which point the relevant funding mechanisms will also be confirmed.

  Working Age People (Qualifications)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills what the change in(a) basic skills and (b) proportion of working age people (i) with no qualifications, (ii) qualified to level 2 and (iii) qualified to level 4 has been in the constituency of Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central since 1997. [186838]

  Mr. Ivan Lewis
  (a) The 2003 Skills for Life survey provides the latest estimate of literacy and numeracy levels for England, the North East and#the Tyne and Wear Learning and Skills Council area in particular. At present it is not possible to estimate levels of need for the Newcastle-upon-Tyne area although such figures will be available via DfES's website this autumn. The Skills for Life survey maps skill levels to the National Standards for Adult Literacy and Numeracy and is not directly comparable with previous estimates of basic skills need. This means we are unable to look at changes in basic skills levels since 1997.

  The survey highlights that 22 per cent. of North East respondents were classified at Entry Level 3 or below for literacy (below a GCSE grade G). The figure for England as a whole is 16 per cent. If the North East's population is approximately 2.6 million, this would mean that over 500,000 people would have literacy skills at entry level 3 or below. For Tyne and Wear LSC area, 22 per cent. of respondents were at Entry Level 3 or below for literacy.

  For numeracy, 55 per cent. of North East respondents were classified at Entry Level 3 or below for numeracy. This compares with a figure of 47 per cent. for England as a whole. If the North East's population is 2.6 million,

  1009W
  this would mean that approximately 1.4 million people would have entry level 3 or below numeracy skills. 50 per cent. of respondents were at Entry Level 3 or below for Tyne and Wear LSC area.

  Available data show that between the launch of the Skills for Life strategy in April 2001 and July 2003, Learning and Skills Council funded learners in the North East achieved some 35,000 Skills for Life qualifications, 18,000 within the Tyne and Wear Learning and Skills Council area. These figures are in addition to achievements funded through the Offenders' Learning and Skills Unit and the Department for Work and Pensions.

  Qualification level (percentage)1

  Geography

  No qualifications

  Level 2

  Level 3

  Level 4 and above

  Level 2 and above

  Newcastle-upon-Tune Central PCA Change from 1999–2000

  -3

  -1

  +3

  +9

  +11

  2002–03

  11

  18

  26

  36

  79

  2001–02

  11

  17

  23

  35

  76

  2000–01

  13

  17

  26

  32

  75

  1999–2000

  13

  19

  23

  27

  69

  Tyne and Wear LLSC Change from 1999–2000

  -3

  -1

  +1

  +4

  +3

  2002–03

  17

  23

  20

  21

  63

  2001–02

  19

  22

  19

  19

  61

  2000–01

  21

  23

  18

  19

  60

  1999–2000

  20

  24

  19

  17

  60

  North East GOR Change from 1999–2000

  -3

  0

  +1

  +3

  +3

  2002–03

  18

  23

  19

  19

  61

  2001–02

  20

  22

  19

  19

  60

  2000–01

  21

  23

  18

  19

  59

  1999–2000

  21

  23

  19

  17

  58

  1Numbers may not add up due to rounding.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Skills how many staff at each grade in his Depart#ent have opted out of the Working Time Regulations; and what the average number of hours these staff work per week is. [187097]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  My Department is committed to reducing the number of employees who work in excess of the Working Time Directive maximum to an absolute minimum. 64 staff have signed a formal opt out from the Working Time Directive. The following table shows the number of staff at each grade:

  Grade

  Number

  Administrative Officer

  7

  Executive Officer

  22

  Higher Executive Officer

  15

  Higher Executive Officer (Development)

  2

  Senior Executive Officer

  10

  Grade 7

  7

  Senior Civil Service

  1

  Total

  64

  The average number of hours that these staff work per week is not kept centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1010W
  (b) The following table shows the proportion of working age1 people (i) with no qualifications, (ii) qualified to level 2 and (iii) qualified to level 4. Figures are given for the Newcastle-upon-Tyne Central Parliamentary Constituency Area (PCA), the Tyne and Wear local Learning and Skills Council (LSC) area, and the North East Government Office Region (GOR). Data comes from the Local Area Labour Force Surveys conducted annually from 1999–2000 to 2002–03.

  1Working age population refers to males age# 16 to 64 and females aged 16 to 59.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Book Selling
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the effect of the ending of the Net Book Agreement in 1995 on(a) authors, (b) publishers and (c) booksellers; and if she will make a statement. [185676]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  A recent report, "The Benefits from Competition: some Illustrative UK Cases" (available at:http://www.dti.gov.uk/economics/economics_paper9.pdf), prepared for DTI by Professor Steve Davies of University of East Anglia and his team, explored the impact of removing the Net Book Agreement as one of six case studies on the impact of enhanced competition.

  The Davies Report concluded that the ending of the Net Book Agreement was largely beneficial as prices, at least for the more popular books fell, more channels to market have increased competition and access and choice of books, and the feared adverse side effects for small booksellers and book production did either not occur or were smaller scale than expected.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the likely effect of the proposed removal of the
  1011W
  Recommended Retail Price from book sleeves on (a) authors, (b) publishers and (c) booksellers; and if she will make a statement. [185677]

  Nigel Griffiths
  After consultation with industry, we are not aware of any proposals to remove the current system of displaying pricing on books.

  Innovation
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action the EU is taking to improve its policy on encouraging innovation. [186503]

  Ms Hewitt
  The EU has been encouraging innovation within the framework of the Lisbon strategy. The EU Innovation Scoreboard (published each year www.cordis.lu/scoreboard/) shows progress against this. The European Commission has carried out a public consultation on its draft Innovation Action Plan (http://www.europa.eu.int) and a revised version is due to be published in November 2004. The EU's sixth Framework Programme already provides a mechanism for funding collaborative research and provides substantial financial support to support research activity aimed at improving the EU's innovation performance. The Commission has published a Communication (Corn (2004) 353) on 16 June 2004 (www.cordis.lu) setting out its ideas for the seventh Framework Programme, due to start at the end of 2006 and the UK will endeavour to ensure that this is structured in ways which further reinforce the EU's support for innovation.

  Age Discrimination
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps she is taking to eliminate age discrimination in the workplace. [186857]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are preparing legislation outlawing unjustified age discrimination in employment and vocational training in accordance with the Employment Directive (2000/78/EC). This legislation will come into force on 1 October 2006. In addition, the Government are promoting the business benefits of an age diverse workforce through the Age Positive campaign. The campaign uses publications, research, press, events, awards initiatives and its website to get the message across. They also encourage employers to adopt the voluntary "Code of Practice: Age Diversity at Work, A Practical Guide for Business".

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what the Government's policy is on preventing age discrimination; and if she will make a statement; [186938]

  (2) what the Government's policy is on (a) direct and (b) indirect discrimination by employers against the employment of workers over the age of 50. [186947]

  Malcolm Wicks
  I have been asked to reply.

  Through the Age Positive campaign the Government are combating age discrimination in the workplace. Age Positive is vigorously promoting the business benefits of
  1012W
  an age diverse workforce by encouraging employers in both the public and private sector to adopt the voluntary Code of Practice: Age Diversity at Work, A Practical Guide for Business.

  The Age Positive campaign is promoted to employers and individuals through advertising, the website and press features in national, local and specialist publications. It features existing good practice by employer champions, research, and strongly promotes to employers at exhibitions and workshops. Age Positive awards help to widely publicise the achievements of businesses and individuals who overcome ageism in employment.

  Legislation will come into force to outlaw unfair discrimination on the grounds of age in employment and vocational training in 2006. We are currently developing proposals for draft legislation. This will cover both direct and indirect discrimination and will apply to all those in employment or vocational training and not just those aged 50 and over.

  As the White Paper 'Fairness for All' has outlined, the Commission for Equality and Human Rights (CEHR) will provide institutional support for the provisions on age discrimination, working closely with partner organisations and key stakeholders to provide advice and assistance. The CEHR will be able to advise individuals of their rights under the legislation, and provide support for some people to bring their cases before the courts. In addition, the CEHR will have the powers to conduct an investigation into a named party where it has reasonable suspicion that the person is not complying with the statutory requirements of the age legislation. If unlawful discrimination or harassment is found, the CEHR will be able to require the discrimination to stop.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how she expects the 2006 age discrimination legislation to be implemented; and which bodies will have responsibility for implementation. [186944]

  Jacqui Smith
  We will consult on regulations to outlaw age discrimination in employment and vocational training, which will come into force on 1 October 2006. The CEHR will enforce this legislation and promote awareness and best practice in relation to equality of opportunity for people of different ages more generally, providing information, advice and in some strategic cases, legal representation. The CEHR will not be fully operational until the end of 2006 at the earliest.

  Biomass Energy Industry
  Nick Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many planning applications for the construction of biomass power stations are being considered; and how many have been granted permission. [185847]
  1013W
  Mr. Timms
  Proposals to construct and operate generating stations with a capacity greater than 50 megawatts (MW) in England and Wales require the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's consent under section 36 of the Electricity Act 1989. No application has been made to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry for consent to construct a biomass power station.

  Generating stations below 50 MW fall to be determined by the local planning authority under the normal planning regime.

  Deparmental Policies (Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East)
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on Middlesbrough, South and Cleveland, East constituency of her Department's policies and action since 8 June 2001. [184733]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department of Trade and Industry (DTI) promotes a wide variety of areas' policies and are working with businesses, employees and consumers to drive up UK productivity and competitiveness to deliver prosperity to all. To achieve this the Department is involved in a number of regional programmes, with some being delivered through the Small Business Service (SBS), One North East and Business Links.

  Although Department for Trade and Industry policies as a whole lead to increased prosperity and competitiveness throughout the country it is not possible to assess their impact at an individual constituency level. Some examples of specific initiatives benefiting Middlesbrough South and East Cleveland constituency are included in the information set out as follows:

  Business Support

  In his Budget statement the Chancellor announced a number of steps to help small businesses including an increase of capital allowances to 50 per cent. and raising VAT registration threshold to 58 per cent., all of which helps small businesses in your constituency. The Chancellor also announced that the Employer Training Pilot, run in Tyne and Wear for the last 15 months, would be made available to businesses throughout the north east. This will help businesses to improve workforce skills by providing training tailored to their needs.

  Since the spring of 2001, the Business Link has assisted a total of 1,397 businesses to increase productivity and wealth in the Redcar and Cleveland council area. These businesses have been helped in a wide variety of disciplines including workforce development, finance, marketing and regulation.

  In addition in the same area since the spring of 2002 316 businesses have been helped to start up. Business Link has helped would-be entrepreneurs to develop over 1,700 pre-start business ideas, stimulating an enhanced enterprise culture. From June 2001 to June 2004
  1014W
  190 Tees Valley Business Link customers have accessed a range of public funding (e.g. Innovation Action Fund and West Middlesbrough Neighbourhood Trust New Deal for Communities funding).

  From April 2002 to date in the Tees Valley area, 69 Department of Trade an# Industry grants exceeding £14 million in total value have been awarded. These include Selective Finance for Investment in England—and its predecessors Enterprise Grant and Regional Selective Assistance (RSA)—and SMART. The projects being supported are expected to generate investment in excess of £138 million, creating over 1,600 jobs and safeguarding 695. These grants are administered by One North East and the Small Business Service on behalf of the Department for Trade and Industry.

  European Funding and Tees Valley

  In the north east, the European Social Fund Objective 3 Programme commenced in July 2000 and continues to 31 December 2007. The Programme funds organisations which seek to help individuals (employed and unemployed) to improve their skill levels and obtain employment. Funds can be accessed through co-financing organisations (CFOs) or through the Programme Secretariat. The Tees Valley Learning and Skills Council and Job Centre Plus are Co-Financing (CFO's) funded projects with a total value of £19 million. There is an additional £34 million available to support Co-Financing (CFO) projects in Tees Valley from 2004–07. Between 2001–04 under direct bidding arrangements projects from the Middlesbrough area received a total of £18.6 million.

  The North East of England Objective 2 Programme (2000–06) provides a total of £434 million in support in the north east. Within this £267.97 million is made up of £69.62 million in Priority 1 and £198.35 million in Priority 2 and is available for a wide range of business support activity including generic business support, techn#logy and transfer access to finance. Tees Valley benefits from regional projects as well as those aimed directly at the sub-

  Cross Government coordination

  The Department for Trade and Industry has led the coordination of area specific initiatives with other Departments, such as the foot and mouth grants from the Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), Farm Business Advisory Service and recently the targeted use of Department of Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) support to increase the uptake of business support in the disadvantaged areas of east Cleveland.

  ECGD
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Export Credits Guarantee Department's administration costs were in each of the last five financial years(a) in total and (b) broken down into (i) staff costs, (ii) accommodation costs, (iii) consultancy costs and (iv) IT costs. [186840]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The following table lists ECGD's administration costs by year for the last five financial years.
  1015W

  £000

  Breakdown of administration costs

  Administration costs

  Staff costs

  Accommodation costs (rent)

  Consultancy costs

  IT costs

  Others

  1999–2000

  23,218

  13,548

  1,506

  515

  3,516

  4,133

  2000–01

  27,746

  14,136

  3,152

  758

  4,377

  5,323

  2001–02

  29,371

  15,523

  3,262

  628

  5,403

  4,555

  2002–03

  26,546

  14,022

  3,373

  1,031

  4,388

  3,732

  2003–04

  30,226

  14,806

  3,645

  833

  5,676

  5,266

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what savings in administration costs the Export Credits Guarantee Department is required to achieve#in 2005–06; and what the projected savings in such costs for the next five financial years are. [186841]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  DTI is to invest £10 million into ECGD over the two years from April 2005 to improve ECGD's efficiency and effectiveness (I refer you to the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's announcement about the future of ECGD on 1 July 2004,Official Report, column 22WS). The intention is that the cost savings achieved by ECGD during this period will be sufficient to ensure that the premium reduction of up to £5 million per annum can be sustained after April 2007.

  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether it is her practice to offer Export Credits Guarantee Department cover in Government to Government defence export and sales agreements; and what the total amount of cover outstanding on such agreements is. [186848]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  UK companies are eligible for support from ECGD under Government to Government contractual arrangements which could result in the UK company incurring a loss as a consequence of the overseas' Government's failure to pay.

  The total amount of cover outstanding in respect of Government to Government contracts underwritten after 1991 currently stand at around £1,060 million.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry to what extent a capitalised trading fund will give the Export Credits Guarantee Department autonomy from HM Treasury and her Department. [187094]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  #As a Trading Fund, ECGD will have greater operational freedom to manage its financial affairs.

  HM Treasury's future role will be more focused on strategic oversight, while the Shareholder Executive within the DTI will offer Ministers advice on aspects of the Department's corporate governance, financial targets and performance as a Trading Fund.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry under what terms the £10 million investment in the Export Credits Guarantee Department from her Department's shareholder executive can be spent; and if she will make a statement. [187095]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The £10 million to be invested by the DTI over two years from April 2005 will be spent to improve the operational efficiency and effectiveness of ECGD. The intention is that the cost savings achieved 1016W
  will be used to ensure that the premium reduction of up to £5 million per annum (as detailed in the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's Trading Fund announcement of 1 July 2004, Official Report, column 22WS) can be sustained after April 2007.

  ECGD's new Chief Executive is currently preparing a detailed plan for these cost reductions.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will estimate what the average reduction in the Export Credits Guarantee Department premium rates will be in(a) 2005–06 and (b) the subsequent five financial years; and if she will make a statement. [187098]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  As my right hon. Friend, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry announced on 1 July,Official Report, column 22WS, ECGD will seek to reduce its premium rates to customers by up to £5 million per annum from April 2005. This is around 6 per cent. of its current premium income.

  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the terms of reference of the Export Credits Guarantee Department business plan are. [187099]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry's announcement of 1 July 2004,Official Report, column 22WS, is the basis of the terms of ref#rence for ECGD's business plan. The plan will explain how ECGD will meet the key aims and objectives for the ECGD Trading Fund set out in that statement.

  Eco-Labelling
  Mr. Lazarowicz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what her Department's policy is on the European eco-label. [185328]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government have played a full part in building up this scheme at EU level and we fully support the aims of this high-quality voluntary label, which helps to promote products with genuinely lower environmental impacts.

  Defra administers the scheme in the UK and consults the DTI on matters such as the proposed technical criteria for the product groups covered by the scheme. Defra also consults other Departments and the Devolved Administrations, as well as business and other stakeholders. It has publicised the scheme in a number of ways, including currently an electronic newsletter for business about the use of environmental claims and labelling, and a free guide to consumers about reliable green labels.

  Employment Protection
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to expand employment protection to those aged 65 years and over. [186960]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The great majority of employment protection legislation already applies to workers aged 65 and over. We are reviewing upper age limits on statutory redundancy payments and general unfair dismissal claims in the light of responses to the public consultation on age disc#imination carried out last year.

  English Partnerships
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what total tonnage of hazardous waste was(a) treated and (b) disposed of by English Partnerships projects in each of the last five years; what tonnage in each year was (i) consigned to landfill and (ii) decontaminated through onsite remediation; and what the projected tonnages are for 2004–05 in each case. [187161]

  Keith Hill
  I have been asked to reply.

  English Partnerships does not itself record the tonnages of materials—hazardous or otherwise treated or disposed of from projects where it has a core interest. To collate such information from records maintained by partner regional development agencies (who usually lead on coalfields projects) and contractors across the country could only be achieved at a disproportionate cost.

  However, a sense of the scale of activity involved may be drawn from the following estimated numbers of projects contributing to EP's "area of land reclaimed" outputs in each of the last five years. The bulk of activity is through EP's well developed business and projects in the National Coalfields Programme and land reclamation works for sites in the Urban Regenaration Companies' and Millennium Communities' areas.

  No. of projects involving treatment of disposal of hazardous/contaminated material in any given year1

  Year

  National Coalfields Programme

  Other projects

  1999–00

  19

  1

  2000–01

  25

  0

  2001–02

  17

  0

  2002–03

  15

  1

  2003–04

  10

  5

  1For most sites remediation works carry over a number of years and will therefore appear more than once in the totals.

  These totals are expected to increase in 2004–05 and beyond as EP's involvement in large scale brownfield site assembly increases in line with its business focus as set out in the Sustainable Communities Plan.

  Enterprise Insight
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what targets have been set by her Department for the number of new start up small businesses which will be created with help from Enterprise Insight. [186341]
  1018W
  Nigel Griffiths
  Enterprise Insight has a target of raising enterprise awareness amongst the 14–25 age group, measured by survey before and after Enterprise Week.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) objectives and (b) organisational structure of Enterprise Insight. [186342]

  Nigel Griffiths
  Enterprise Insight is fostering an entrepreneurial spirit in the UK, by stimulating and encouraging enterprise attitudes, culture and values primarily in young people and those who influence them.

  Enterprise Insight was created in 2000 as a company limited by guarantee. The three founder members are: the British chambers of commerce, the Institute of Directors and the CBI. The Federation of Small Businesses is also a member.

  An advisory board provides guidance on Enterprise Insight's operations and campaign functions. Members of the advisory board include some of the UK's principal enterprise education and awareness delivery organisations.

  Environmental Business Growth Action Programme
  Mr. kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many projects have been funded under the Environmental Business Growth Action Pr#gramme by regional development agencies in(a) England and (b) the West Midlands. [184146]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Environmental Business Growth Action Plan is administered by the Environment Agency and is restricted to supporting SMEs in the eligible West Midlands Objective 2 area. Through European Structural Funds the Action Plan has supported four projects with a total value of some £5.4 million:Groundwork UK 'Bridge-It';
  Technology and Innovation Centre 'Enviroinnovate';
  EBG Action Plan Measure 1.4; and
  EBG Action Plan Measure 1.11.

  Equal Opportunities/Pay
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what mechanisms her Department has put in place to monitor(a) sex discrimination, (b) race discrimination, (c) disability discrimination and (d) unfair dismissal affecting her Department's staff; and if she will make a statement on her Department's performance in promoting equal opportunities within (i) her Department and (ii) the bodies for which it is responsible. [186697]

  Ms Hewitt
  As an equal opportunities employer, my Department regularly monitors all processes and policies to identify any potential sex, race or disability discrimination. Mechanisms include collection, publication and discussion of equality data; training for human resources staff; frequent consultation with staff equality groups; and involvement of the DTI Equality and Diversity team in HR policy and process development.
  1019W
  All departmental procedures that may lead to dismissal comply fully with the ACAS Code of Practice on Disciplinary and Grievance procedures. The procedures include the opportunity for an individual to appeal against their dismissal to a senior officer within the Department, to the civil service appeal board and at an employment tribunal. Dismissals, and the outcome of any related appeals, are monitored at a senior level.

  Good progress is being made in promoting equal opportunities within the Department while our priorities for future action are laid out in our Diversity Strategic Plan.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of S#ate for Trade and Industry what information the Government have collated on the percentage of(a) public and (b) private sector organisations which have committed to carry out equal pay reviews. [186876]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) commissioned Incomes Data Services to carry out research on equal pay reviews. Their findings were published in the EOC's report 'Monitoring Progress on equal pay reviews' in March 2004. The report concluded that 57 per cent. of public sector organisations had conducted, were in the process of conducting, or had plans to conduct an equal pay review by the end of 2004. This compares with 31 per cent. of private sector organisations.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government have collated on the percentage of public sector organisations which have(a) committed to and (b) declined to carry out equal pay reviews. [186877]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) commissioned Incomes Data Services to carry out research on equal pay reviews. Their findings were published in the EOC's report 'Monitoring Progress on equal pay reviews' in March 2004. The report concluded that 57 per cent. of public sector organisations had conducted, were in the process of conducting, or had plans to conduct an equal pay review by the end of 2004. It was found that 32 per cent. had no plans to conduct an equal pay review. As pay reviews are voluntary, there is no mechanism for recording organisations who have 'declined' to carry out an equal pay review.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government have collated on the percentage of(a) public sector and (b) private sector organisations with over 500 employees which have carried out equal pay reviews. [186878]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) commissioned Incomes Data Services to carry out research on equal pay reviews. Their findings were published in the EOC's report 'Monitoring Progress on equal pay reviews' in March 2004. The report concluded that:(a) 20 per cent. of public sector organisations with 500 employees and over had carried out an equal pay review; and
  (b) 13 per cent. of private sector organisations with 500 employees and over had carried out an equal pay review.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government have collated on the percentage of(a) public sector
  1020W
  and (b) private sector organisations with less than 500 employees which have carried out equal pay reviews. 1186879]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) commissioned Incomes Data Services to carry out research on equal pay reviews. Their findings were published in the EOC's report 'Monitoring Progress on equal pay reviews' in March 2004. The following table summarises their findings in relation to the percentage of public sector and private sector organisations with less than 500 employees, which have carried out equal pay reviews.

  Number of employees

  Percentage completed equal pay reviews

  Private sector

  25–99

  15

  100–499

  17

  25–499

  16

  Public sector

  100–499

  13

  25–499

  15

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what information the Government have collated on the percentage of(a) public sector organisations and (b) private sector organisations which have carried out equal pay reviews. [186880]

  Ms Hewitt
  #/b> The Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) commissioned Incomes Data Services to carry out research on equal pay reviews. Their findings were published in the EOC's report 'Monitoring Progress on equal pay reviews' in March 2004. The report concluded that 18 per cent. or public sector organisations and 14 per cent. of private sector organisations had carried out an equal pay review.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on tackling occupational segregation in relation to the gender pay gap; and if she will make a statement. [186902]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Occupational segregation has been identified as one of the key causes of the gender pay gap. We know that women are concentrated in just two industrial sectors within low-paid occupations. Men in comparison are spread much more evenly across the labour market in typically higher-paid occupations. They also typically hold more senior positions within the labour market than women.

  The Government aims to break down the barriers of occupational segregation as part of a raft of measures to tackle the pay gap. It aims to increase young women's awareness of the importance of education and career choices; address the problems women face getting access to appropriate training or re-skilling and inform employers about their potential in various male-dominated sectors such as information technology, engineering and science.

  We have set up Sector Skills Councils and Learning and Skills Councils to address industry specific training needs and to broaden post-16 learning opportunities. These are addressing occupational segregation issues through various research and initiatives. E-stills Sector Skills Council for example launched initiatives in the South East such as 'Go 4 IT' workshops, Computer

  1021W
  Clubs for Girls and IT Beat, to challenge girls' perceptions of Information Technology (IT).These target schools and young teen publications after a 2001 MORI poll found girls formed negative images of IT between 11 to 13-years-old.

  Other examples of government initiatives include: A new Science Engineering and Technology (SET) resource centre to be set up aimed at working with SET employers; raising the profile of women in SET; funding pilot schemes such as mentoring and networking; and providing help for SET women returners.

  The government are also taking an active interest in the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC), general formal investigation (GFI) into occupational segregation and the correlation with skills and pay gaps in the UK. The report is due in the autumn and will inform government policy in this area.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans the Government has to change legislation on equal pay; and if she will make a statement. [186912]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government is continuing to take action to improve the way equal pay legislation works in practice. From 1 October 2004, subject to Parliamentary approval, we shall be introducing changes to the way in which employment tribunals deal with the complex equal value cases. The aim is to streamline tribunal procedures and help to prevent very long running cases. The key features of the new procedures include the early exchange of information, the use of tribunals with specialist knowledge and new case management powers.

  We also intend to amend the Equal Pay Act to remove the "no reasonable grounds" defence in section 2A(1)(b) of the Equal Pay Act 1970 and limit the circumstances in which a tribunal could refuse to consider an equal value claim. Subject to Parliamentary approval, the legislation is due to come into effect on 1 October 2004, at the same time as new tribunal procedures for equal value cases. These form part of a wider package of measures to speed up and simplify equal pay cases, such as amendments that were made to the Equ#l Pay Act in 2003 to introduce the Equal Pay Questionnaire, and make changes to time limits and payment of arrears.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on the promotion of equal pay. [186913]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government continues to lead the way in undertaking equal pay reviews. We believe that the best way to achieve lasting change is through working alongside the business community, employers, trade unions and the Equal Opportunities Commission (EOC) to drive forward action on equal pay and to promote voluntary pay reviews. We have toughened our equal pay review target to 45 per cent. of large organisations having carried out equal pay reviews by 2008.

  The EOC published a revised Code of Practice on Equal Pay, which recommends equal pay reviews as the best way of ensuring that a pay system delivers equal pay. By helping employers to check the pay gap in their organisation and by encouraging good equal pay
  1022W
  practice, the Code reinforces the Government's commitment to promoting equal pay and closing the gender pay gap.

  In addition to pay discrimination, occupational segregation has been identified as another cause of the gender pay gap and the Government is putting in place a range of educational and employment measures to address this. The EOC is conducting an investigation into occupational segregation and we await the results of this with interest.

  The Government has provided funding to the EOC to prepare a model for voluntary pay reviews and have also provided funding to trade unions to train representatives in equal pay issues in the workplace. Over 400 representatives have now been trained and as a#result a number of unions and employers are now carrying out joint training on how to do an equal pay review.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the Government's policy is on implementing the recommendations in the Equal Opportunities Commission's 2002 Equal Pay Task Force Report; and if she will make a statement. [186914]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government welcomed the Equal Opportunities Commission's (EOC) Equal Pay Task Force report in 2001 as a springboard for action to tackle the gender pay gap. It remains our belief that the best way to achieve lasting change is through working alongside the business community, employers, trade unions and the EOC to drive forward action on equal pay and to promote voluntary pay reviews. This is being reinforced by a Government target of 45 per cent. of large organisations to undertake pay reviews by April 2008.

  The Government have continued to lead the way in undertaking pay reviews. All Government departments and agencies, have now completed pay reviews and submitted action plans. Recent figures from the EOC show that 45 per cent. of large employers had completed an equal pay review, were in the process of completing one or were planning to do so in 2004. Among those that had carried out a pay review or were planning to do one, 41 per cent. said that government policy and publicity had influenced them.

  We provided funding to the EOC to prepare a model for voluntary pay reviews, including a separate system for small businesses, and these were produced in 2002 and 2003.

  The Government are also encouraging voluntary pay reviews by funding the TUC's Equal Pay Partnership Project. The project aims include: setting up a panel of recognised experts in the field of equal pay who have the confidence of both employers and unions; encouraging companies and organisations to undertake voluntary equal pay reviews; offering technical support to unions and employers; and building on the TUC Equal Pay project which has trained over 400 union equal pay representatives from government funding of £295,000.

  We are working with the EOC to promote pay reviews in specific sectors. The Government also welcomes the EOC's in#estigation into modern apprenticeships and

  1023W
  the concentration of men and women in different professions. An interim report was published in May 2004.

  As regards legal change, in April 2003 the Equal Pay Act was enhanced with changes to time limits and payment of pay arrears, and amendments so that the statutory questionnaire procedure for discrimination claims can apply to equal pay claims. The EOC produced a revised statutory Code of Practice on equal pay which was laid in Parliament and came into force in December 2003. From October 2004, subject to Parliamentary approval, we shall be introducing changes to the way in which Employment Tribunals deal with complex cases involving the question of whether jobs are of equal value. We also intend to amend the Equal Pay Act to remove the 'no reasonable grounds' defence in section 2A(1)(b) of the Equal Pay At 1970 to limit the circumstances in which a tribunal could refuse to consider an equal value claim.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pay discrimination lawsuits have been filed each year since 1997, broken down by region. [186916]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The following table shows the number of pay discrimination applications that have been registered with the Employment Tribunals Service since 1997. A regional breakdown of pay discrimination cases could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Main jurisdiction

  1997–98

  1,845

  1998–99

  5,018

  1999–2000

  2,391

  2000–01

  6,586

  2001–02

  5,314

  2002–03

  3,077

  2003–04

  3,217

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many pay discrimination lawsuits on the grounds of gender discrimination have been filed in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [186917]

  Ms Hewitt
  The following table shows the number of equal pay applications that have been registered with the Employment Tribunals Service since 1997. A regional breakdown of equal pay cases could be produced only at disproportionate cost.

  Main jurisdiction

  1997–98

  1,845

  1998–99

  5,018

  1999–2000

  2,391

  2000–01

  6,586

  2001–02

  5,314

  2002–03

  3,077

  2003–04

  3,217

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Government have made of the average length of time taken to process pay discrimination lawsuits in the last period for which figures are available. [186918]
  1024W
  Ms Hewitt
  The Employment Tribunals Service (ETS) does not report on the average length of time taken to process applications made to the Service. However, ETS has a target of 85 per cent. for cases to come to a first hearing within 26 weeks of an application being received. In 2003–04 75 per cent. of pay discrimination cases which went before a Tribunal (i.e. were not settled or withdrawn) achieved this target.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate the Government has made of the cost to businesses of pay discrimination lawsuits in each year since 1997. [186919]

  Jacqui Smith
  The DTI has not made an estimate of the cost to business of equal pay claims to employment tribunal, which comprise about 3 per cent. of all Tribunal cases.

  The Department and the Employme#t Tribunal Service carried out a sample survey of employment tribunal claims—the Survey of Employment Tribunal Applications 2003. But there were not enough equal pay claims in the sample to allow a reliable estimate of the costs to business of equal pay claims in the period, or to extrapolate to other years.

  The survey of employment tribunal applications contains a sample of all discrimination cases in 2002–03—race, sex, disability and equal pay claims—which would be large enough to allow an estimate of the average cost to business of such discrimination claims. This average mean cost has been calculated as £5.813. However, this estimate would not be representative of the cost to business of equal pay claims, since equal pay claims tend to be of longer duration than the average discrimination claim. Nor, on the other hand, would it include the lower costs of the many cases that are settled, for example there were 578 ACAS conciliated settlements of equal pay cases in 2003–04.

  European Space Agency
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much in pounds sterling she calculates has been under-returned to the UK over the last four years under the funding agreement with the European Space Agency. [186752]

  Ms Hewitt
  The European Space Agency (ESA) began a new set of return statistics on 1 January 2000. The cumulative UK under-return for the four years 1 January 2000 to 31 December 2003 was €41.2 million (£29 million). At 31 December 1999 when the earlier set of ESA return statistics were terminated, UK over-return stood at €94.0 million (£66 million). The Br#tish National Space Centre is working closely with ESA officials to ensure that the return requirements for the UK as set out in the ESA Convention are fully met.

  Flexible Working
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the percentage of employees who work some form of flexible working arrangement in each of the last three years; and if she will make a statement. [186666]
  1025W
  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Labour Force Survey, conducted by the Office for National Statistics, asks respondents about their agreed work arrangement. The number of employees who reported that they work some form of flexible working (defined as part-time, flexitime, annualised hours, term time working, job sharing, compressed working week, zero hours contract) was 41.0 per cent. in 2001, 41.5 per cent. in 2002 and 42.0 per cent. in 2003. If the definition of flexible working is narrowed to exclude part-time working, the respective figures are 21.6 per cent. in 2001, 22.0 per cent. in 2002 and 22.4 per cent. in 2003. Figures for 2004 will be available in early 2005.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the demand for flexible working patterns; and if she will make a statement. [186667]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The DTI has collected evidence on the demand for flexible working patterns from a number of sources. The first DTI Flexible Working Employee Survey was carried out between September 2003 and February 2004. The survey indicated that 13 per cent. of all employees had requested a flexible working pattern since April 2003. The percentage of employees with children aged under six years who requested a flexible working pattern (and for whom their employer is legally obliged to consider the request) was higher, at 24 per cent. Of all employees who requested flexible working arrangements, 38 per cent. requested to change to a part-time working arrangement; 25 per cent. requested flexi-time; 13 per cent. requested reduced hours for a limited time; 10 per cent. requested to work from home on a regular b#sis and 8 per cent. requested a compressed working week.

  The second Work-Life Balance Study—employees' survey, carried out during January and February 2003, asked employees whether they worked particular flexible working patterns. If they did not (or had not in the past year), they were then asked whether they would like to. Table 1 shows the percentages of these employees who said they would like to take up particular flexible working practices.

  Table 1: Demand for specific flexible working practices

  Flexible working practice

  Percentage who would like to take up the flexible working practice

  Work part time

  22

  Work only during school term time1

  33

  Job-share

  17

  Work flexitime

  49

  Work a compressed working week

  34

  Work annualised hours

  25

  Work reduced hours for a limited period

  36

  Work from home on a regular basis

  29

  1 In addition, representative of employees with dependent children aged under 19 (base: 747 employees).

  Note:

  All percentages are representative of employees who have not used the particular flexible working practice in past year with current employer (base: > 1,463 employees).

  Source:

  Palmer, T. (2004) Results of the first Flexible Working Employee Survey. Employment Relations Occasional Papers, DTI.

  1026W
  Both the results of the first Flexible Working Employee Survey and the Work Life Balance stud# reports, which provide greater analysis, are available at http://www.dti.gov.uk/er/inform.htm under 'EMAR Publications'. Both surveys are to be repeated, with the second Flexible Working Employee Survey expected to be available in 2005; the third Work-Life Balance study is due to be conducted in early 2006.

  Fraud
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has commissioned on fraud in large businesses; and what measures she has taken to prevent such fraud in the UK. [186663]

  Jacqui Smith
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not commissioned any research into fraud in large businesses. But the Department has engaged in a considerable range of activity post Enron as the Secretary of State announced to the House on 29 January 2003 in a speech on strengthening corporate governance.

  A number of those measures are now taken forward in the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Enterprise) Bill which is currently before Parliament. The Bill amends the current regime for investigating companies. It contains provisions giving investigators a new power to get relevant information from anyone and strengthening their document-gathering powers, while retaining the existing protection for legally privileged material and banking confidentiality. There is also a provision giving investigators the power to require entry to, and remain on, a company's business premises without obtaining a warrant. This will make it easier to require documents and other information and to see the business in operation.

  The Bill will also increase the independence of the regulation of the audit profession and give the independent regulator, the Financial Reporting Council, the powers and resources it needs to do its job more effectively. Further the Bill will enable company auditors to carry out their duties more effectively by entitling the auditor to require information and explanations from a wider group of people than at present, in particular from employees.

  The Financial Reporting Review Panel will be given a power to require companies to provide it with the information it needs to carry out its investigations. This body currently reviews the annual accounts and reports of public and large private UK companies. The Bill will allow the Government to extend this to reviewing the interim reports of listed companies. The FRRP will also take a more proactive approach to enforcement.

  I would also like to draw the hon. Member's attention to the proposal by the Home Office to establish the Serious Organised Crime Agency. This body will be part of a comprehensive strategy to target organised criminals. It will exploit hi-tech 21st century technology to uncover the new wave of crime bosses whose lucrative illegal enterprises range from drug trafficking and people smuggling through to fraud and money laundering.
  1027W
  The Government has recently completed a consultation on legislation to reform the law of fraud. The Government proposals for change are based mainly on the Law Commission Report on Fraud published in 2002. The main proposal is for the general offence of fraud which can be committed in three different ways: by false representation, by wrongfully failing to disclose information, or by abuse of office. In each case the behaviour must be dishonest, and must aim at securing a gain for the defendant or a loss for another.

  Additionally the Government sought the views of business and other interested parties on the best means of creating and maintaining effective partnerships to reduce opportunities for crime against business and to enhance the contribution that business could make to crime reduction in England and Wales.

  Gershon Review
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the estimated savings are fr#m the efficient devolution of business support products from the Central Department to the regional development agencies as part of Sir Peter Gershon's efficiency review into public services. [185110]

  Jacqui Smith
  As stated in Peter Gershon's report on his independent review of public sector efficiency "Releasing Resources to the Front Line", the Regional Development Agencies have agreed to deliver 2.5 per cent. efficiencies per year in the Spending Review period, at least half of which will be cash-releasing back into the Single Programme budget, which brings together allocations from all the Departments that fund them. DTI as the lead sponsor Department, will work

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Germany

  1

  0

  4

  2

  1

  4

  3

  Sweden

  1

  0

  0

  1

  3

  0

  0

  France

  0

  0

  5

  0

  0

  3

  2

  USA

  9

  9

  8

  8

  11

  11

  14

  Canada

  0

  0

  2

  0

  1

  2

  0

  Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  India

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Australia

  0

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  Belgium

  0

  1

  1

  0

  0

  0

  1

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the region of Yorkshire and the Humber received from(a) Japan and (b) China in each year since 1997. [187223]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment proje#ts from Japan and China to invest in the Yorkshire and Humberside region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Japan

  0

  5

  1

  1

  3

  2

  2

  China

  3

  1

  1

  0

  2

  0

  0

  1028W
  with the Regional Development Agencies to identify further efficiencies where possible. The Regional Development Agencies will be expected to identify efficiencies in delivering on the additional responsibilities that have been devolved to them. These additional responsibilities include the delivery of regional and local Business Link services and the grant for Research and Development. The Regional Development Agencies will report to my Department on how these savings are to be achieved.

  Inward Investment
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the East Midlands has received from(a) Germany, (b) Sweden, (c) France, (d) USA, (e) Canada, (f) Singapore, (g) India, (h) Australia and (i) Belgium in each year since 1997. [187222]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from Germany, Sweden, France, USA, Canada, Singapore, India, Australia and Belgium to invest in the East Midlands region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our Annual Reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  publication of our Annual Reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House m each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.
  1029W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the West Midlands has received from(a) France, (b) Germany, (c) Sweden, (d) Belgium, (e) USA, (f) Canada, (g) Japan, (h) Singapore, (i) India and (j) Australia in each year since 1997. [187224]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from France, Germany, Sweden, Belgium, USA, Canada, Japan, Singapore, India and Australia to invest in the West Midlands region. Figures

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  France

  7

  5

  8

  14

  8

  4

  7

  Germany

  11

  12

  13

  17

  6

  4

  9

  Sweden

  2

  0

  2

  4

  1

  0

  0

  Belgium

  1

  1

  0

  3

  3

  0

  0

  USA

  33

  33

  48

  31

  42

  18

  17

  Canada

  5

  5

  6

  6

  7

  8

  5

  Japan

  9

  6

  11

  4

  7

  2

  11

  Singapore

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  India

  0

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  4

  Australia

  0

  1

  1

  2

  3

  4

  1

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the South West of England received from(a) Japan and (b) USA in each year since 1997. [187225]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from Japan and USA to invest in the South West region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our annual reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year. These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Japan

  USA

  1997–98

  0

  9

  1998–99

  0

  8

  1999–2000

  10

  13

  2000–01

  5

  20

  2001–02

  6

  14

  2002–03

  7

  8

  2003–04

  4

  19

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Belgium

  0

  3

  0

  0

  0

  0

  1

  USA

  33

  40

  64

  107

  69

  67

  62

  Germany

  5

  3

  7

  13

  12

  3

  4

  China

  0

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  1

  S. Korea

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  3

  5

  Japan

  5

  6

  4

  10

  3

  4

  2

  Australia

  0

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  5

  1030W
  for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our annual reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the South East of England received from(a) Belgium, (b) USA, (c) Germany, (d) China, (e) South Korea, (f) Japan and (g) Australia in each year since 1997. [187226]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from Belgium, USA, Germany, China, South Korea, Japan and Australia to invest in the South East region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our annual reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.
  1031W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the North East of England received from(a) China, (b) Japan, (c) South Korea, (d) Taiwan, (e) Australia, (f) the USA and (g) Belgium in each year since 1997. [187227]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from China, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Australia, USA and Belgium to invest in the North East region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  China

  0

  0

  0

  9

  9

  13

  11

  Japan

  7

  5

  6

  4

  6

  5

  7

  S. Korea

  0

  0

  0

  1

  2

  0

  1

  Taiwan

  4

  2

  2

  0

  2

  1

  1

  Australia

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  1

  1

  USA

  21

  13

  18

  9

  13

  13

  10

  Belgium

  0

  1

  0

  0

  3

  0

  0

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the North West of England received from(a) Japan, (b) USA and (c) Belgium in each year since 1997. [187279]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from Japan, USA and Belgium to invest in the North West region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our annual reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Japan

  USA

  Belgium

  1997–98

  5

  39

  2

  1998–99

  4

  37

  3

  1999–2000

  5

  42

  2

  2000–01

  2

  16

  3

  2001–02

  1

  14

  0

  2002–03

  6

  27

  2

  2003–04

  5

  21

  1

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment London received from Belgium in each year since 1997. [187280]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from Belgium to invest in the London region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our Annual Reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.
  1032W
  been updated since the publication of our annual reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  Belgium

  1997–98

  0

  1998–99

  1

  1999–2000

  3

  2000–01

  1

  2001–02

  1

  2002–03

  0

  2003–04

  0

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much inward investment the East of England received from(a) USA, (b) Belgium and (c) China in each year since 1997. [187281]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  Since 1997 UK Trade and Investment recorded the following number of inward investment projects from USA, Belgium and China to invest in the eastern region. Figures for 1997–98 to 2002–03 have been updated since the publication of our Annual Reports that have been laid in the Libraries of the House in each financial year. These figures are based on information provided by companies at the time of the announcement of the decision to invest in the UK. The figures take no account of subsequent developments.

  There is no requirement to notify UKTI and so the figures include only those projects where UKTI's Inward Investment Group and its regional partners were involved or which have come to their notice.

  USA

  Belgium

  China

  1997–98

  23

  0

  0

  1998–99

  25

  1

  0

  1999–2000

  17

  0

  0

  1033W

  USA

  Belgium

  China

  2000–01

  21

  1

  0

  2001–02

  28

  0

  0

  2002–03

  11

  1

  0

  2003–04

  25

  3

  1

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how the Government measures inward investment. [187282]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government measure Inward Investment in two ways.

  Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) statistics are collected and published by Office of National Statistics (ONS). FDI is a financial measure collected primarily to measure balance of payments and internationally comparable statistics are published by the statistical offices of other countries and by international bodies.

  Information on the number of projects and jobs created by region of investment and country of origin are recorded by UKTI based on information provided by companies at the time of the decision to invest in the UK. There is no requirement to notify UKTI, so only those projects where UKTI and its regional partners were involved, or which have come to their notice will be recorded.

  Information on inward investment is also available from a range of commercial sources.

  Iraq
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate her Department has made of the total value to date of the contracts awarded to British businesses in Iraq since the start of the occupation. [186335]

  Ms Hewitt
  British companies are not obliged to give details of contracts won and there is no central organisation that publishes such information. However, It is estimated that to date, British companies are involved in contracts for reconstruction and other work in Iraq to the value of US $2.6 billion.

  Low Pay Commission
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many people are employed by the Low Pay Commission. [187109]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Low Pay Commission has nine Commissioners, including the Chairman.

  The Commission is supported by a Secretariat which currently has 10 members of staff plus one vacancy.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the annual salaries are of each of the commissioners on the Low Pay Commission. [187114]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Commissioners on the Low Pay Commission do not receive an annual salary. Remuneration is paid on the basis of a daily attendance fee, which is set at £481.06 for the chair and £213.80 for other members of the commission. In addition appropriate expenses are reimbursed.
  1034W
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total annual resource budget for the Low Pay Commission has been since its inception. [187115]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The Low Pay Commission (LPC) was established as a result of the National Minimum Wage Act 1998. 1998/99 was the first financial year that the LPC were fully operational. The table below sets out the financial information for the LPC since that date:

  Financial Year

  Expenditure (£000)

  1998–99

  627,000

  1999–2000

  578,737

  2000–01

  605,751

  2001–02

  531,710

  2002–03

  771,032

  2003–04

  658,631

  The above figures are total costs and include salaries, Commissioners fees, research and Travel and Subsistence.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the total wage budget is for the Low Pay Commission. [187144]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  The total wage bill for the Low Pay Commission secretariat in 2003/04 was £401,725.

  Mandatory Retirement Ages
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans she has to abolish mandatory retirement ages. [186792]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government are committed to prohibiting age discrimination at work and encouraging more flexibility around retirement. In some circumstances, different treatment on grounds of age can be justifiable, and last year's Age Matters consultation set out some of the issues. We are in the process of considering the best way of tackling retirement ages in the light of the responses to the consultation. Legislation will come into force on 1 October 2006.

  Manufacturing Advisory Service
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which firms have been helped by the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the(a) Northern Region, (b) Tees Valley area and (c) Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland constituency; and which of those firms were given advice on added value. [184701]

  Jacqui Smith
  The regional centre of the Manufacturing Advisory Service in the North East (MAS-NE) dealt with 1,323 inquiries from manufacturing companies in the period June 2002 to June 2004. Of these, 1,257 inquiries came from companies based in the North East region, 304 were from companies based in the Tees Valley, and seven were from companies in the Middlesbrough, South and East Cleveland constituency. 146 companies who contacted MAS-NE in this period have gone on to receive in-depth help. The direct impact of this help on company productivity is measured by the "added value". The total added value generated as a result of M AS-NE interventions stood at just over £705,000 at March 2004.
  1035W
  The names of all companies that have received in-depth assistance from MAS are given in the MAS 2004 Annual Report, which can be found at: www.dti.gov.uk

  National Institute for Medical Research
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions have taken place with(a) University College London and (b) King's College London concerning the future site of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR); what consideration was given by the Medical Research Council's Task Force on the NIMR to locating it at other institutions (i) in London and (ii) outside London; and if she will make a statement. [185136]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Task Force set up by the Medical Research Council (MRC) to consider the future of the National Institute for Medical Research (NIMR) has, following national and international consultation, published its vision for the institute: a multidisciplinary biomedical research facility focused on basic and translational research. The Task Force strongly believes that partnership and co-location with a leading university and hospital would strengthen NIMR to deliver its renewed vision and will enhance:the multidisciplinary nature of NIMR's work, providing access to other biologists, physical scientists, engineers and mathematicians; and
  opportunities to collaborate more closely with clinicians and strengthen the focus on translational research.

  The Task Force wishes to keep the critical mass of NIMR's existing excellent science as a foundation for the institute's future scientific portfolio and invited four institutions—Imperial College, King's College London, Queen Mary and University College London to submit partnership proposals. It also asked NIMR management to submit a proposal. All attended a meeting of the Task Force on 21 June for discussion.

  The Task Force has recommended that the renewed institute should be co-located with either King's College London or University College London and was expected to produce a full report to the MRC Council meeting on 29 July 2004.

  National Minimum Wage
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many workers in Great Yarmouth have benefited from the national minimum wage. [186700]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  It is not possible to provide estimates specifically for the constituency of Great Yarmouth. However, based on the Office for National Statistics' Low Pay data released in 2003, the DTI estimates that around 90,000 people in the eastern region stood to benefit from the introduction of the national minimum wage in April 1999. Between 80,000 and 90,000 people were expected to have benefited from the October 2003 uprating of the national minimum wage.

  NCP (Communications)
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will list(a) letters, (b) e-mails, (c) telephone calls and (d) meetings between her Department's officials, including the National Contact
  1036W
  Point (NCP), and representatives of companies whose dossiers were forwarded to the NCP for investigation or monitoring in the last 12 months. [186181]

  Mr. Timms
  The information requested forms part of the dialogue process between the companies and the NCP. This process is confidential under Exemption 13—Third Party Commercial Confidences, and Exemption 14—Information Given in Confidence of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. The NCP will make a public statement at the end of the dialogue.

  A statement has already been issued on the allegations against DeBeers (www.dti.gov.uk/ewt/debeers.doc). A statement regarding the allegations against Avient will follow shortly.

  Newspaper Market
  Mr. Peter Duncan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will refer the wholesale newspaper market to the Office of Fair Trading for investigation. [186258]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  Any such investigation into the wholesale newspaper market would be a matter for the Office of Fair Trading (OFT).

  Nuclear Power
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what estimate she has made of the proportions of expenditure by the planned nuclear decommissioning authority that will be Tent on(a) discharging nuclear liabilities, (b) funding nuclear spent fuel reprocessing and (c) power generation. [184397]

  Mr. Timms
  The 2004 Spending Review announced on 12 July provided funding, subject to the successful adoption of the then Energy Bill (now the Energy Act), for the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) of approximately £2 billion per year including income from trading.

  The NDA will set out its spending priorities for 2005–06 in its first annual plan. The draft plan will be subject to public consultation during this autumn. The Secretary of State will approve the plan early next year.

  In autumn 2005, the NDA will publish its strategy for the first five years of its operation. This too will provide further information on spending priorities.

  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the(a) total costs to date and (b) projected future costs to public funds are of decommissioning nuclear power stations; and if she will make a statement. [184578]

  Mr. Timms
  The Government's July 2002 White Paper, "Managing the Nuclear Legacy: A strategy for action", estimated the undiscounted cost of the Magnox decommissioning liabilities at £12 billion and the total cost of treating civil public sector nuclear liabilities at £48 billion. From April 2005, the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority (NDA) will take responsibility for the Magnox power stations, all of which are scheduled to close by 2010.
  1037W
  The cost of decommissioning British Energy's nuclear power stations, which are all operational, is covered in its annual report and accounts. Under British Energy's proposed restructuring plan, the company will continue to contribute to a Nuclear Liabilities Fund (NLF) that will meet British Energy's decommissioning liabilities. To ensure safety and environmental protection, the Government will underwrite the NLF to the extent that the company's contributions are insufficient. The treatment of liabilities by British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL), including Magnox, is also discussed in BNFL's accounts.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment has been made by her office of civil nuclear security is respect of providing guidance to(a) nuclear operators, (b) regulators, (c) other non-departmental public bodies and (d) relevant Government Departments on the release of sensitive nuclear information. [187306]

  Mr. Timms
  Such guidance has been issued by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS) and is available on the DTI website.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what additional protection measures have been taken at(a) Sellafield, (b) other nuclear sites operated by BNFL and (c) nuclear installations operated by the UK Atomic Energy Authority since 11 September 2001. [187307]

  Mr. Timms
  The UK's civil nuclear sites apply stringent security measures regulated by the Office for Civil Nuclear Security (OCNS), the security regulator. The security regulator works closely with the Health and Safety Executive, the safety regulator, which provides advice on the safety implications of events, including external hazards such as plane crashes, at nuclear installations. Security at nuclear sites is kept under regular review in the light of the prevailing threat and has been significantly enhanced since the terrorist attacks in the USA on 11 September 2001. Under Exemption 1—information whose disclosure would harm national security—of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, it is not Government policy to disclose details of these measures which could potentially be of use to terrorists.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the report published by the Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology on 22 July or assessing the risk of terrorist attacks on nuclear facilities. [187304]

  Mr. Timms
  The Parliamentary Office of Science and Technology report is an excellent overview of the publicly-available information in this field. My Department and the civil nuclear industry were among the many who contributed in providing the public domain information required for the report.

  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the additional requirements for personnel vetting that will arise from the contractorisation of(a) nuclear waste management and (b) nuclear installation decommissioning under the guidance of the Nuclear Decommissioning Authority. [187284]
  1038W
  Mr. Timms
  Security vetting for the civil nuclear industry is conducted by the Office for Civil Security (OCNS). We believe that the initial impact of the formation of the Nuclear Decommissioning Agency (NDA) on vetting requirements will be within existing resources. However, as the NDA moves toward open bidding for contracts, OCNS will monitor the situation closely in order to ensure that the high standards of vetting within the civil nuclear industry are maintained.

  PFI/PPP
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many contracts her Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186688]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  There have been no contracts for advisory work on PPP or PFI contracts let by the Department with any of the companies mentioned since 2001–02.

  Pharmaceutical Services
  Mr. Stunell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry by what date she has been advised she will receive the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmaceutical services; and if she will make a statement. [186321]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Industry received the Office of Fair Trading report on pharmaceutical services on 17 January 2003.

  I made a statement to the House of Commons setting out the Government's response to the OFT report on 17 July 2003.

  My colleague, the Minister of State at the Department of Health responsible for Pharmacies, announced on 18 August the implementation of the Government's response to the OFT report.

  Post Offices (Disabled Access)
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how many post offices in Northampton, South have disabled access. [186584]

  Mr. Timms
  This is an operational matter for Post Office Ltd. and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Postal Service
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what change there has been in the number of delays in the postal service in(a) urban and (b) rural areas since 1997; and if she will make a statement. [187113]

  Mr. Timms
  The issue of the postal service is an operational matter for Royal Mail Group plc and I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Regional Development Agencies
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which regional development agencies have(a) an office and (b) representatives outside the UK. [183537]

  Jacqui Smith
  The answer to the question updates answers previously given to the hon. Member for Essex north on 26 January 2004,Official Report, columns 73–76W and 5 February 2004, Official Report, columns 999–1000W.

  I have been advised of the following answers by England's Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  Advantage West Midlands

  Advantage West Midlands has offices in France, Germany, Sweden and Belgium.

  In north America, Advantage West Midlands shares representation with their partner agency, EMDA, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full-time staff based in Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in north America. The British Midlands is also represented on a full-time basis in Japan with two staff. In south east Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part-time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six part-time agents.

  The cost incurred by AWM in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  63,259

  Belgium

  107,625

  Canada

  29,863

  France

  71,082

  Germany

  102,784

  India

  49,817

  Japan

  101,780

  Singapore

  44,386

  Sweden

  85,198

  USA

  468,574

  Total

  1,124,367

  East of England Development Agency

  The East of England Developments Agency (BED A) has an inward investment office in San Jose (Silicon Valley) a joint project between EEDA and Invest East of England. There are no representatives as the office is co-ordinated by the vice-president for business development at Invest East of England.

  EEDA also subscribes to the East of England partnership office in Brussels and the Essex and East of England International Trade office in Jiangsu Province China (but does not have offices or representatives).
  1040W
  The cost incurred by EEDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Belgium

  56,500

  China

  63,000

  USA

  250,000

  Total

  369,500

  East Midlands Development Agency

  The East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) is represented in Europe by part-time agents in Germany (Munich-two staff) and Scandinavia (Malmo-one person);

  EMDA also employs a telemarketing agency in France.

  In north America, EMDA shares representation with their partner agency, Advantage West Midlands, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full-time staff based in Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in north America. The British Midlands is also represented on a full-time basis in Japan with two staff. In south east Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part-time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six agents.

  EMDA is also a partner in the East Midlands European Office (EMEO), based in Brussels. The partnership also includes the region's strategic local authorities, the Regional Assembly and the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association. In addition, EMDA line manages EMEO on behalf of the regional partnership.

  The cost incurred by EMDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  60,000

  Belgium

  50,000

  France

  20,000

  Germany

  70,000

  India

  50,000

  Japan

  90,000

  North America

  402,000

  Scandinavia

  60,000

  Singapore

  75,000

  Total

  877,000

  London Development Agency

  The London Development Agency is a partner in the London European Office, a staffed Greater London Authority partnership office in Brussels. The cost incurred in maintaining this office in 2003–04 was £50,000.

  North West Development Agency

  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) has an office with two members of staff (one full-time and one part-time) in Japan (in conjunction with Yorkshire Forward).
  1041W
  As part of a north of England collaboration (a joint venture with One NorthEast and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices in Australia (Sydney) and north America: Chicago (five people), Boston (two people), Atlanta (one person) and Los Angeles: (one person full-time and one person part-time).

  The NWDA with the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) jointly fund an office and one member of staff in Brussels.

  The cost incurred by NWDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  55,000

  Belgium

  103,000

  Japan

  135,000

  USA

  392,000

  Total

  685,000

  One NorthEast

  One NorthEast has offices in China (Shanghai), Japan (Tokyo) and Korea (Seoul). Until the end of 2003–04 it also operated an office in Taiwan.

  As part of a north of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and north America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles).

  The cost incurred by ONE in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  50,000

  China

  66,525

  Japan

  185,086

  Korea

  73,208

  North America

  396,000

  Taiwan

  51,855

  Total

  822,673

  South East England Development Agency

  The South East of England Development Agency (SEED A) shares an officer post with the Regional Assembly operating from South East England House in Brussels, co-located and working with other partners from around the Region. SEEDA is also represented in Washington DC by Odell Simms and Associates and has a representative in each of the following cities: Berlin, San Diego, Boston, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, Osaka and Sydney, the latter post being part-time.

  The cost incurred by SEEDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  56,006

  Belgium

  131,658

  China

  26,331

  Germany

  101,683

  Japan

  127,655

  Korea

  33,699

  USA

  558,735

  Total

  1,035,766

  1042W
  South West of England Regional Development Agency

  The South West of England Regional Development Agency The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has an office in Japan. There are two representatives in north America—one in Boston and one in Sonoma, California.

  It also has just opened an office in Guangdong province in southern China and taken on a new representative in Melbourne, Australia. No costs were incurred for these in 2003–04.

  The cost incurred by SWRDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Japan

  394,364

  USA

  468,514

  Total

  862,878

  Yorkshire Forward

  Yorkshire Forward has an office and representatives in China and in Japan (the latter joint with the North West Development Agency).

  As part of a north of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and OneNorth East) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and north America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles). Yorkshire Forward also provide a contribution of £60,000 towards the running costs of the Yorkshire and Humber European Office, managed by the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly.

  The cost incurred by Yorkshire Forward in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £

  Australia

  58,000

  Belgium

  60,000

  China

  28,000

  Japan

  201,000

  USA

  412,000

  Total

  759,000

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what offices outside the United Kingdom are maintained by regional development agencies; and what the cost of maintaining each one was in the last financial year for which figures are available. [184984]

  Jacqui Smith
  The answer to the question updates answers previously given to the hon Member for Essex North on 26 January 2004,Official Report, columns 73–76W and 5 February 2004, Official Report, columns 999–1000W.

  I have been advised of the following answers by England's Regional Development Agencies (RDAs).

  Advantage West Midlands

  Advantage West Midlands has offices in France, Germany, Sweden and Belgium.

  In North America, Advantage West Midlands shares representation with their partner agency, EMDA, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full time staff based in

  1043W
  Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in North America. The British Midlands is also represented on a fulltime basis in Japan with two staff. In South East Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six part-time agents.

  The cost incurred by AWM in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £ million

  Australia

  63,259

  Belgium

  107,625

  Canada

  29,863

  France

  71,082

  Germany

  102,784

  India

  49,817

  Japan

  101,780

  Singapore

  44,386

  Sweden

  85,198

  USA

  468,574

  Total

  1,124,367

  East of England Development Agency

  The East of England Developments Agency (BED A) has an inward investment office in San Jose (Silicon Valley) a joint project between EEDA and Invest East of England. There are no representatives as the office is co-ordinated by the vice-president for business development at Invest East of England.

  EEDA also subscribes to the East of England partnership office in Brussels and the Essex and East of England International Trade office in Jiangsu Province China (but does not have offices or representatives).

  The cost incurred by EEDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Belgium

  56,500

  China

  63,000

  USA

  250,000

  Total

  369,500

  East Midlands Development Agency

  The East Midlands Development Agency (EMDA) is represented in Europe by part time agents in Germany (Munich—two staff) and Scandinavia (Malmo—one person); EMDA also employs a telemarketing agency in France.

  In North America, EMDA shares representation with their partner agency, Advantage West Midlands, under the British Midlands' brand. Together they have a total of five offices and seven full time staff based in Washington, Boston, Chicago, San Jose and Toronto; they also employ the services of a telemarketing agency in North America. The British Midlands is also represented on a fulltime basis in Japan with two staff. In South East Asia, India and Australia, the British Midlands has part time representation with offices in Singapore, Mumbai and Sydney and a total of six agents.
  1044W
  EMDA is also a partner in the East Midlands European Office (EMEO), based in Brussels. The partnership also includes the region's strategic local authorities, the Regional Assembly and the East Midlands Regional Local Government Association.

  In addition, EMDA line manages EMEO on behalf of the regional partnership.

  The cost incurred by EMDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Australia

  60,000

  Belgium

  50,000

  France

  20,000

  Germany

  70,000

  India

  50,000

  Japan

  90,000

  North America

  402,000

  Scandinavia

  60,000

  Singapore

  75,000

  Total

  877,000

  London Development Agency

  The London Development Agency is a partner in the London European Office, a staffed Greater London Authority partnership office in Brussels. The cost incurred in maintaining this office in 2003–04 was £50,000.

  North West Development Agency

  The North West Development Agency (NWDA) has an office with two members of staff (one full time and one part time) in Japan (in conjunction with Yorkshire Forward).

  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with One North East and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices in Australia (Sydney) and North America: Chicago (five people), Boston (two people), Atlanta (one person) and Los Angeles: (one person full time and one person part time).

  The NWDA with the North West Regional Assembly (NWRA) jointly fund an office and one member of staff in Brussels.

  The cost incurred by NWDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Australia

  55,000

  Belgium

  103,000

  Japan

  135,000

  USA

  392,000

  Total

  685,000

  One NorthEast

  One NorthEast has offices in China (Shanghai), Japan (Tokyo) and Korea (Seoul). Until the end of 2003–04 it also operated an office in Taiwan.

  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and Yorkshire Forward) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and North America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles).
  1045W
  The cost incurred by ONE in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Australia

  50,000

  China

  66,525

  Japan

  185,086

  Korea

  73,208

  North America

  396,000

  Taiwan

  51,855

  Total

  822,673

  South East England Development Agency

  The South East of England Development Agency (SEEDA) shares an officer post with the Regional Assembly operating from South East England House in Brussels, co-located and working with other partners from around the Region. SEEDA is also represented in Washington DC by Odell Simms and Associates and has a representative in each of the following cities: Berlin, San Diego, Boston, Shanghai, Seoul, Tokyo, Osaka and Sydney, the latter post being part-time.

  The cost incurred by SEEDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £million

  Australia

  56,006

  Belgium

  131,658

  China

  26,331

  Germany

  101,683

  Japan

  127,655

  Korea

  33,699

  USA

  558,735

  Total

  1,035,766

  South West of England Regional development Agency

  The South West of England Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) has an office in Japan. There are two representatives in North. America—one in Boston and one in Sonoma, California.

  It also has just opened an office in Guangdong province in Southern China and taken on a new representative in Melbourne, Australia. No costs were incurred for these in 2003–04.

  The cost incurred by SWRDA in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Japan

  394,364

  USA

  468,514

  Total

  862,878

  Yorkshire Forward

  Yorkshire Forward has an office and representatives in China and in Japan (the latter joint with the North West Development Agency).

  As part of a North of England collaboration (a joint venture with North West Development Agency and One North East) there are offices and representatives in Australia (Sydney) and North America (Chicago, Boston, Atlanta and Los Angeles). Yorkshire Forward also provide a contribution of £60,000 towards the
  1046W
  running costs of the Yorkshire and Humber European Office, managed by the Yorkshire and Humber Assembly.

  The cost incurred by Yorkshire Forward in maintaining these offices in 2003–04 was:

  £000

  Australia

  58,000

  Belgium

  60,000

  China

  28,000

  Japan

  201,000

  USA

  412,000

  Total

  759,000

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry whether regional development agencies are required to meet performance indicators for central Government. [185772]

  Jacqui Smith
  I refer the Member to my answer given on 22 July,Official Report, columns 514–515W.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what funding from her Department in 2004–05 is devoted by regional development agencies specifically towards promoting the development of minority ethnic businesses. [186350]

  Jacqui Smith
  Through the framework provided by their Regional Economic Strategies (RES). RDAs work with a range of local partners, to contribute to the development of ethnic minority businesses. Examples of this are in the document "RDA Activities supporting Ethnic Minority Businesses" which provides a list of RDA supported activities that stimulate ethnic business growth. I have placed this document in the House of Commons Library. Unfortunately, information about costs cannot be easily disaggregated and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  The East Midlands Development Agency (emda) have a lead role to co-ordinate policy on ethnic minority businesses on behalf of all the RDAs. They have jointly established with De Montfort University the Centre for Research into Ethnic Minority Entrepreneurship (www.crème-dmu.org.uk). As part of their work emda are also organising the eighth Ethnic Business Conference in Leicester in September 2004.

  Regional Supply Offices
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the(a) purpose and (b) role of the regional supply offices; and what their budget was in the most recent year for which figures are available. [184985]

  Jacqui Smith
  Regional Supply Offices (RSOs) were designed to provide a means by which small businesses could gain access to the supply chain business of large firms. The market failure was that large firms were often unaware of smaller, potential suppliers in their regions, and for their part small businesses were unable to talk to chief buyers etc because they lacked the status to do so. The role of the RSO Advisers was to go out and learn of the large suppliers' supply chain requirements, and then offer to locate (small business) suppliers for them. In parallel, the RSO Advisers would help the small
  1047W
  suppliers to develop their services to meet the customer requirements. Practical examples of these activities included seminars and workshop to highlight the benefits companies could gain from understanding supply chain development programmes, briefing on special topics such as manufacturing issues, subsidised stand space for companies at major trade shows and exhibitions as well as the organisation of business to business events. In April 2001, responsibility for the RSOs was transferred to the Regional Development Agencies (RDAs) in the English regions.

  The RDAs integrated their RSOs but services of a similar nature continue to be provided in all regions as part of the RDAs' and Partners' range of business support. However, as supply chain support has been mainstreamed in this way, information about costs cannot be easily disaggregated and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Rural Postal Services
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what research her Department has carried out into the possible effects on small businesses in rural areas of further plans for restrictions to the postal services; and if she will make a statement. [186532]

  Mr. Timms
  The provision of postal services to small businesses in rural areas is an operational matter for the Royal Mail. I have therefore asked the Chief Executive to reply direct to the hon. Member.

  Sellafield Site Remediation Strategy
  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress has been made by BNFL towards completing a full structural analysis of the B30 facility at Sellafield. [186118]

  Mr. Timms
  Following discussion with HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate, BNFL has carried out a structural analysis of the B30 facility. HSE expects to receive the main findings of the report in September, after which further plans will be developed.

  Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress BNFL has made in removing sludges from B30 Sellafield in order to comply with the Nuclear Installations Inspectorate's specification 325 issued in 2000; and what assessment has been made of whether the deadline of removing and treating 90 per cent. of the sludges will be met by August 2010. [186119]

  Mr. Timms
  BNFL are developing plans to meet the specification requirement of 90 per cent. of sludge removal by August 2010. Sludge removal requires modification to the plant at B30 and the building of a new structure to house and treat the sludge. Some preliminary refurbishment work has started. This and other projects form the basis for carrying out sludge removal and are being incorporated into both the short and long term plans for the site. HSE's Nuclear Installations Inspectorate will continue to monitor these plans so that the August 2010 date will be met.

  Turner and Newall
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment she has made of the implications of Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Turner and Newall for compensation for victims of asbestos-related injuries in the UK; and if she will make a statement. [R] [186491]

  Jacqui Smith
  The treatment of claims of US asbestos related creditors in the Federal Mogul Chapter 11 proceedings is a matter for the parties in interest in those proceedings to determine, under the supervision of the bankruptcy court. In the UK asbestos related claims against the Turner and Newall companies which are in administration are matters for the administrators of those companies. Where required the administrators can seek the direction of the court as to the conduct of the administration.

  UN Sales Convention
  Ross Cranston
  To ask the Se#retary of State for Trade and Industry when she expects to be in the position to introduce legislation implementing the UN Sales Convention; and if she will make a statement. [186750]

  Ms Hewitt
  Any legislation needed to implement the 1980 UN Convention on Contracts for the International Sale of Goods will be introduced when Parliamentary time permits. We are it a comparatively early stage on the road towards possible legislation but we are proposing to issue a consultation document, in the course of the next few months, to examine the available options.

  West Midlands Minority Ethnic Business Forum
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if she will make a statement on the current levels of funding from her Department to the West Midlands Minority Ethnic Business Forum. [186348]

  Jacqui Smith
  The West Midlands Minority Ethnic Business Forum is not directly funded by the DTI but received support from Advantage West Midlands. This year AWM expects to spend £300,000 on the West Midlands Minority Ethnic Business Forum of which approximately £180,000 has been spent to-date.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what discussions she has had with her European counterparts regarding proposals to abolish the individual opt-out from the 48-hour limit set by the Working Time Directive; and if she will make a statement. [186337]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I am not aware of any European proposals to abolish the individual opt out. Both my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and I have had a number of key meetings with the Commission and member states to ensure that the UK's position is well represented with regards to the opt out.
  1049W
  We are committed to retaining the opt out and securing a solution to both the opt out and SiMAP/ Jaeger which will work for all member states.

  We are currently awaiting publication of the Commission's proposals on the review of the Working Time Directive.

  Access Orders
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on enforcement of access orders. [187662]

  Mr. Lammy
  The Government published a consultation paper on 21 July 2004. It proposes a variety of new powers for courts, to help more effective enforcement of contact orders.

  House of Lords Reform
  Jim Knight
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what measures the Government are considering to reform the second Chamber. [187663]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are determined to proceed with further reform of the House of Lords. Proposals will be developed in the context of the Labour Party manifesto.

  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs whether the Lord Chancellor plans to bring forward proposals to change the powers of the House of Lords to delay legislation. [187669]

  Mr. Leslie
  Any proposals for substantial reform of the House of Lords will have to consider the role, powers and procedures of the second chamber and its relationship with the House of Commons. The Labour Party will return to House of Lords reform in its manifesto.

  Administration of Justice
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress is being made with his plans for the Lord Chancellor and a supreme court in the administration of justice. [187664]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Constitutional Reform Bill will reform the office of the Lord Chancellor, establish a new Supreme Court and set up a new Judicial Appointments Commission. The Bill was introduced into the House of Lords on 24 February and has received detailed scrutiny from a Lords Select Committee. The Bill is now receiving the attention of the other place.

  Essex Magistrates Court
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the allocation of resources to the private finance initiative for Essex magistrates courts. [187665]
  1050W
  Mr. Leslie
  Revised Investment Plans following the summer Spending Review will be concluded in November, but under present plans the new courthouse scheme for Colchester and Essex remains on course for construction over the next few years.

  Postal Ballots
  David Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment has been made of the all-postal vote electoral pilots in the east midlands up to and on 10 June. [187666]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Electoral Commission's report on the June all-postal voting pilots was published on 27 August, which included a specific review of the experience in the East Midlands. The Government are currently considering these reports.

  Court Efficiency
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with improving the efficiency of the courts. [187667]

  Mr. Leslie
  Her Majesty's Court Service (HMCS) will be established in April 2005 and will bring together the current Court Service and the 42 Magistrates Courts Committees in a single organisation. This will enable us to make the delivery of justice across the criminal, civil and family jurisdictions more efficient on a national scale and geared more closely to the needs of the local community and court users.

  Asbestos (Compensation)
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will propose changes to the law on compensation for asbestos injury victims bringing claims against uninsured defendants to enable them to receive interim payments; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186484]

  Mr. Leslie
  Rule 25.7(2) of the Civil Procedure Rules currently prevents a court from making an interim payment order against an uninsured defendant. At the request of the Civil Procedure Rule Committee, the Government are seeking views on the operation of this Rule from interested parties, with a view to the issue receiving further consideration by the Rule Committee.

  Bereavement Damages
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to review the level of bereavement damages; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186494]

  Mr. Leslie
  The level of bereavement damages was increased from £7,500 to £10,000 with effect from 1 April 2002, to account for inflation since the previous revision in 1991. The Government are currently considering how best to provide for further increases in future.

  CAFCASS
  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many
  1051W
  Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service officers are in post; and how many posts are vacant. [186992]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  As at 30 June 2004, there were 1,304 officers (practitioners) in post (not including the self-employed). The current number of vacancies for officers (practitioners) stands at 39.

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many reports were drafted by(a) the Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service and (b) predecessor bodies in each of the last five years. [186993]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  Statistics are not available for the period before CAFCASS was established in 2001 as the work was carried out by a range of organisations and authorities, some of which, for example the Probation Service, no longer exist in their previous form. Figures from CAFCASS show numbers of requests for private law reports resulting in written reports:

  Requests for private law reports

  2001–02 (October 2001 to March 2002)

  17,352

  2002–03

  35,074

  2003–04

  33,803

  2004–05 (April to May only)

  5,175

  Total number of requests April 2001 to date

  91,404

  Mrs. May
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the average length of time taken to draft a Children and Family Court Advisory and Support Service report has been. [186999]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.

  There is no 'average length of time' taken by CAFCASS officers to draft reports. However, the number of weeks required to draft a private law report ranges from 10–18 weeks. The length of time may vary from region to region, and also on the scale of officers' workloads and the complexity of individual cases. CAFCASS officers will often seek to agree these times with the courts, on a case-by-case basis.

  In Public Law, the Protocol for Judicial Case Management in Public Law Children Act Cases standard is that cases are to be completed by the courts within 40 weeks, though some of these cases can take a year or more. The drafting of reports in these Public Law cases will be undertaken during part of this period.

  Child Contact
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to take steps to give grandparents a legal presumption of contact with grandchildren that can be enforced by the courts, save where a child's safety would be at risk. [187009]

  Margaret Hodge
  I have been asked to reply.
  1052W
  The Government have no plans to give grandparents a legal presumption of contact. The Children Act 1989 makes clear that the welfare of the child is the paramount consideration in any proceedings relating to the upbringing of a child.. The Government believe that this principle should be sustained, without qualification, in order that there continues to be the clearest possible focus on the needs of children.

  The Government recognise and value the important role which grandparents can play in children's lives. Many grandparents are already involved with the care of their grandchildren and most children see their grandparents as important figures in their lives. However, the primary responsibility for bringing up children in most families lies with their parents and there may be cases where parents prefer to limit contact with grandparents.

  Under the Children Act 1989, grandparents may, provided that the permission of the court is obtained, apply to the court for an order granting contact with a grandchild. The requirement for the court's permission is not designed to be an obstacle to grandparents but to act as an initial filter to sift out prejudiced applications that are unlikely to succeed. Experience suggests that grandparents would not usually experience difficulty in obtaining permission where their application is motivated by a genuine concern for the child.

  The Government are aware there is considerable concern about how court ordered contact arrangements can be supported more effectively. Our consultation document, "Parental separation: Children's Needs and Parents' Responsibilities", published in July, outlines how the Government propose better to support families who are going through separation. It details a range of measures, including better information for parents, parenting plans to help parents make good arrangements, in-court conciliation and mediation for those parents who do go to court, active judicial management and stronger powers for judges to enforce court orders.

  Civil Legal Aid
  Mr. Grieve
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what assessment he has made of the impact of high property values in the South East on the eligibility of people of low income who are home owners for civil legal aid. [187010]

  Mr. Leslie
  The legal Service Commission is currently consulting on proposed changes to financial eligibility for civil legal aid, including replacing the current £100,000 equity disregard with exemptions targeted on those with the lowest incomes, particularly pensioners and the disabled. During the consultation period (which closes on 15 October 2004), the Commission's research centre is undertaking a means survey of legal aid applicants which will provide further data on housing equity. The results of this research and the wider public consultation will be analysed before we announce the way forward.

  Claim Management Companies
  Mr. Greenway
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he
  1053W
  has to implement the Better Regulations Task Force's recommendation to strengthen consumer protection against claim management companies. [187668]

  Mr. Lammy
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer to my hon. Friend, the Member for Hendon (Mr. Dismore).

  Court Dress
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on progress with the proposed reforms of court dress. [186587]

  Mr. Leslie
  The consultation paper "Court Working Dress in England and Wales" set out a range of possible options for changing court working dress. It attracted 3,406 responses. My right hon. friend the Secretary of State for Constitutional Affairs and Lord Chancellor is considering in the light of these responses whether changes would he beneficial and expects to make an announcement in due course.

  Government Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what action his Department is taking to deal with delays experienced by applicants under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. [186608]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government take any delays experienced by applicants under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information seriously.

  The Government regret that delays do unavoidably occur in a minority of complex cases. However, the Ombudsman's review of the first nine months of the Memorandum of Understanding (September 2003 to May 2004) shows that in most cases the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding were met.

  In all cases, Departments endeavour to ensure that the time limit of 20 working days for Departments to respond to requests for information is met.

  Compliance with the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information is monitored annually and published in the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information Monitoring Report.

  Government Premises
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will make a statement on the arrangements for access to government premises for(a) physically disabled persons and (b) allergy sufferers, with particular reference to latex allergy. [186959]

  Mr. Leslie
  As of the 31 July 2004 319 of the 377 properties that currently make up the Court Service estate are fully accessible to physically disabled persons.

  There has been no recorded incident in respect of latex allergies within the Department for Constitutional Affairs. In the event that a member of staff or a visitor to one of our buildings were to suffer from an allergy to latex, we would seek the advice of the Department of Health as to an appropriate course of action to ensure that they suffer no discomfort.

  Law Commission
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs if he will list the outstanding reports for the Law Commission recommending legislation and in relation to which no Bill has been put before Parliament; and if he will make a statement. [186489]

  Mr. Leslie
  The outstanding reports are set out in the following tables. Following recommendations made in the recent quinquennial review of the Law Commission my Department, with the support of the Law Commission, is exploring ways in which Departments could implement more accepted Law Commission recommendations. A Ministerial Committee is to consider the Law Commission's draft programme every two years. In addition, Departments are being encouraged to consider, where appropriate, the use of regulatory reform orders and other ways of implementing recommendations. My Department already seeks from other Government Departments six monthly reports on their progress in deciding on published Law Commission recommendations, and when they propose to implement them. However, it is for individual Departments to decide which recommendations to accept and when to implement them.

  Law Commission Reports awaiting Government response

  Year

  Number

  Title

  1995

  229

  Intoxication and Criminal Liability

  1996

  238

  Landlord and Tenant: Responsibility for State and Condition of Property

  1998

  249

  Liability for Psychiatric Illness

  1999

  257

  Damages for Personal Injury: Non-Pecuniary Loss

  1999

  262

  Damages for Personal Injury: Medical, Nursing and other Expenses

  1999

  263

  Claims for Wrongful Death

  2003

  283

  Partnership Law

  2003

  284

  Renting Homes

  2003

  286

  Towards a Compulsory Purchase Code: (1) Compensation

  2004

  287

  Pre-Judgment Interest on Debts and Damages

  2004

  289

  In the Public Interest: Publication of Local Authority Reports

  Law Commission Reports awaiting legislation

  Year

  Number

  Title

  1991

  194

  Distress for Rent

  1993

  218

  Offences Against the Person and General Principles

  1994

  222

  Binding Over

  1994

  226

  Judicial Review and Statutory Appeals

  1996

  237

  Involuntary Manslaughter

  1997

  246

  Shareholder Remedies

  1997

  247

  Aggravated, Exemplary and Restitutionary Damages

  1998

  248

  Corruption Offences

  1998

  251

  The Rules Against Perpetuities and Excessive Accumulations

  1998

  255

  Consents to Prosecution

  1999

  261

  Company Directors Duties and Conflicts of Interest

  2001

  270

  Limitation of Actions

  2001

  272

  Third Parties' Rights Against Insurers

  2002

  276

  Fraud

  2002

  277

  The Effective Prosecution of Multiple Offending

  2003

  282

  Children: Their Non-Accidental Death or Serious Injury (Criminal Trials)

  Law Commission Reports currently under consideration by Parliament

  Year

  Number

  Title

  1995

  231

  Mental Incapacity

  Legal Rights
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to propose changes to the legal principle of volenti non fit injuria in cases involving sport or outdoor pursuits; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186485]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government have no plans to change the law in this area.

  Magistrate Training
  Andy Burnham
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what training is available to magistrates on access rights for grandparents in cases of family breakdown. [187661]

  Mr. Leslie
  Statutory responsibility for the training of magistrates currently rests with the 42 independent magistrates courts committees (MCCs). In court lay magistrates sit with their justices' clerk or a legal adviser. The justices' clerk has a statutory duty to provide advice to the magistrates on questions of law, practice and procedure. This will include advice on applying any case law and relevant Court of Appeal judgments when making decisions. Cases concerning contact (access) arrangements are therefore considered by magistrates on individual merit and with appropriate advice on law and procedure. In each case the child's welfare shall be the court's paramount consideration.

  The Children Act 1989 introduced the legal framework for contact (access) arrangements for children in cases of family breakdown. A grandparent is entitled to apply to the court under s.10 of the Act for permission to make an application for contact.

  Only magistrates who sit on the Family Panel can hear cases that involve contact arrangements. The recently updated Magistrates' National Training Initiative (MNTI 2) sets out (and confirms the current practice) that magistrates should only be invited to sit on the Family Panel after successfully demonstrating the competencies required to sit in the adult court. Magistrates have been using a competence framework since 1998 for appraisal and training. Under MNTI 2 there are new competence frameworks for both the adult and family courts. These competence frameworks set out the knowledge, understanding, and skills magistrates need to demonstrate to perform their role.

  Applications for contact arrangements can also be heard in family proceedings in the county court.

  National Debt Helpline/Consumer Direct
  Mr. Djanogly
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what the Government grant to(a) the National Debt Helpline and (b) Consumer Direct is for the next financial year. [185927]

  Mr. Sutcliffe
  I have been asked to reply.

  The DTI grant for the National Debtline for financial year 2005–06 has yet to be decided and will be considered as part of the Department's forthcoming business planning exercise.
  1056W
  The DTI's settlement under the Spending Review 2004 included a ring-fenced provision of £16 million in respect of Consumer Direct for financial year 2005–06.

  Personal Injury Cases
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to review the indemnity principle in relation to costs in personal injury cases; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186492]

  Mr. Leslie
  We considered further the indemnity principle as part of our recent review of the conditional fee agreement (CFA) regime Our conclusions on this, the reform of conditional fee agreements and other important costs matters are set out in "Making simple CFAs a reality" which was published on 29 June 2004, copies of which were placed in the Libraries of both Houses..

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to review the quantum of general damages for pain, suffering and loss of amenity in personal injury claims in line with the Law Commission's recommendations; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186493]

  Mr. Leslie
  In response to a question from the hon. Member in November 1999, the Government indicated that this issue was a matter for the discretion of the court, and that the Government had no plans to legislate. That remains the position.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to review the discount rate for damages in personal injury cases; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186495]

  Mr. Leslie
  The discount rate was set at 2.5 per cent. in July 2001. Since then it has been kept under review.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many contracts the Department has had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186610]

  Mr. Leslie
  My Department has had no contracts for advice with Barclays, Royal Bank of Scotland, UBS Warburg or Bank of Scotland on private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts since 2001–02.

  Postal Voting
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many people were registered for a permanent postal vote in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency in each year since 1997. [187209]

  Mr. Leslie
  Individual Electoral Registration Officers keep records of the number of postal voters in their registration area, but they are not required to keep separate records of long term postal voters and those for
  1057W
  one election only. It is possible to apply for a postal vote at any time, and figures are not maintained on a yearly basis. However, the following information is available for the 1997 and 2001 general elections.

  Bury St. Edmunds

  Total number of postal voters

  1997

  1,966

  2001

  3,104

  In addition, the Electoral Registration Officer for St. Edmundsbury borough council has advised that there are currently 6,544 registered postal voters in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency.

  Sentencing Guidelines
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what provisions are in place to increase awareness amongst the judiciary of the behaviour patterns of people who have communication-related disabilities, including autism and Aspergers' Syndrome, in relation to sentencing for communication-related offences, with particular reference to(a) section 5 of the Public Order Act 1986 and (b) the offence of being drunk and disorderly. [186920]

  Mr. Leslie
  The particular offences in question can only be heard within the magistrates court and usually before lay justices, although District Judges (magistrates court) and Deputy District Judges (magistrates court) also have jurisdiction to deal with them. The Government are committed to the equal and fair treatment of all those who find themselves having to answer criminal charges in court. In particular, part of the judicial oath states that magistrates will "do right to all manner of people".

  The JSB Equal Treatment advisory Committee (ETAC) has provided a Bench Book to all professional judiciary and magistrates courts, and this can also be viewed at www.jsboard.co.uk. The Bench Book includes general advice on dealing with mental disability including autism. The JSB will shortly distribute a booklet entitled "Fairness In Courts and Tribunals" to all magistrates. This booklet is a summary of the newly revised (JSB) ETAC Bench Book. If communication difficulties arise during the charging procedure, and autism or Aspergers' Syndrome is suspected or known, the police will notify the courts in advance of the case being heard. The use of interpreters and/or adult support at Court would then be encouraged.

  All magistrates have been issued with an Adult Court Bench Book, published by the Judicial Studies Board. This Bench Book includes a structured decision-making guide for use when making sentencing decisions on both these particular offences and also includes a copy of the newly revised magistrates court sentencing guidelines. The guidelines indicate that the health (physical or mental) of offenders should be considered in mitigation.

  The "Magistrate" magazine, which is produced by the Magistrates Association, published an article in the January 2004 edition entitled "Coping with sufferers of autism". This publication is widely read among the magistracy.

  Speeding
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs how many motorists fined for speeding as a result of evidence provided by cameras(a) had not paid the fine after six months and (b) had the fine written off as uncollectable in each of the last five years. [187002]

  Mr. Leslie
  Information on the number of motorists fined as a result of safety camera evidence is collected by the Home Office. The most recent data available are contained in the attached table. Details of the number of motorists that do not pay their fine after six months and/ or had the fine written off is not collected centrally. On 5 January I introduced a new policy, from which date fines can no longer be written off. Improving fine enforcement, including for speeding offences, is a priority and good progress continues to be made in improving performance in England and Wales. For the first full quarter of 2004–05 (April to June) the national payment rate was 81 per cent.

  Fixed penalties and prosecutions for speeding offences detected by cameras1 in England and Wales, 1998 to 2002

  Fixed penalty2

  Prosecutions

  Total

  1998

  338,800

  65,100

  403,800

  1999

  423,000

  75,800

  498,600

  2000

  3599,200

  109,200

  699,400

  2001

  877,500

  137,100

  1,014,600

  2002

  1,135,400

  275,900

  1,411,300

  1Automatic cameras until 1998, all camera types from 1999.

  2Paid i.e. no further action.

  3Following publication of 2000 data, Northamptonshire police force revised their 2000 figures for the number of fixed penalty notices issued for speeding offences from 70,300 to 34,800 (a decrease of 35,500). In consequence, national data have been revised.

  Source:

  Home Office Statistical Bulletin 05/04—Motoring Offences and Breath Test Statistics, England and Wales 2002.

  Supreme Court
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans his Department has to bring forward plans to circumscribe the powers of the House of Lords. [186550]

  Mr. Leslie
  The powers of the House of Lords can only be determined when its proper role and functions are decided in relation to that of the House of Commons. The Government will revert to the question in its party manifesto.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what progress his Department is making in locating a site for the proposed new Supreme Court. [186551]

  Mr. Leslie
  Following a detailed evaluation exercise, two options remain under active consideration. They are Middlesex Guildhall and the New Wing of Somerset. We are continuing to investigate the relative qualitative and financial merits of those two buildings in consultation with the Lords of Appeal before announcing a final decision in the autumn.

  Voter Participation
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what plans he has to encourage(a) young and (b) first-time voters to vote at the next General Election. [186873]

  Mr. Leslie
  The Government are keen to ensure that all young people are encouraged to play as full a part as possible in all our democratic processes.

  A range of initiatives, such as citizenship education in schools and the UK Youth Parliament, assist this aim. At the last General Election we sought to bring this learning to life for young people by working with partners to provide mock elections in schools and colleges. We are considering how to take forward such initiatives in future elections.

  In addition, the Independent Electoral Commission established under the Political Parties, Elections and Referendum Act 2000, whose remit includes educating and informing people on electoral matters, makes special efforts to target young people especially those who are on the point of attaining the right to vote.

  However, the main responsibility for encouraging young and first-time voters to participate at the next General Election must lie with the political parties.

  Written Constitution
  Kevin Brennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Department for Constitutional Affairs what recent representations he has received in support of a written constitution for the UK. [187670]

  Mr. Leslie
  One of the only recent representations that I have received was from one of my hon. Friend's constituents. My right hon. Friend, the Lord Chancellor explained in his reply that the Government have been engaged since 1997 in a major programme of constitutional reform aimed at addressing the key issues and enhancing the credibility and effectiveness of the UK's constitutional arrangements. We have no plans to formulate an overarching codified constitution.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  British Indian Ocean Territories
  Tom Brake
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent(a) discussions have taken place with and (b) representations have been received from the US military on the resettlement of the Chagos Islands and Diego Garcia. [183929]

  Mr. Rammell
  The US authorities have from time-to-time made clear their concerns about the possible restoration of a settled civilian population in the British Indian Ocean Territory. However, the only formal representation from US authorities on this subject was in June 2000.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether detainees are currently held on Diego Garcia; and if he will make a statement. [183528]
  1060W
  Mr. Rammell
  The US authorities have repeatedly assured us that no suspected terrorists or Iraqi prisoners are, or ever have been, held on Diego Garcia or on vessels within its waters. The British Representative on the island has confirmed this to be the case.

  Mr. Salmond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the International Criminal Court will have jurisdiction over(a) British Indian Ocean Territories and (b) Diego Garcia while the later are under lease to the US military; and if he will make a statement. [182543]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Order in Council to extend the United Kingdom's International Criminal Court Act 2001 to the Overseas Territories, which is a necessary preliminary to the United Kingdom's ratifying the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court in respect of those territories, will not apply to the British Indian Ocean Territory since that territory has no settled population.

  Butler Inquiry
  Norman Lamb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs pursuant to his answer of 12 January 2004,Official Report, column 84W, on Iraq, if he will place in the Library a copy of (a) Mr. Nadhmi Auchi's letter to him of 15 May 2003 introducing the Anglo Arab Organisation and (b) his subsequent acknowledgement. [151126]

  Mr. Mullin
  I apologise for the delay in replying to the hon. Member. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Uncle-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Rammell) stated in his answer to the hon. Member on 5 January 2004,Official Report, column 84W, Mr. Auchi wrote to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) to introduce the Anglo Arab Organisation, on 15 May 2003, and she replied on 29 May 2003.

  In his pursuant answer on 3 March 2004, Official Report, column 980W, Mr. Rammell stated that Mr. Auchi also wrote to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on 15 May 2003 about the Anglo Arab Organisation, and that my noble Friend the Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean, replied on his behalf on 7 July 2003.

  Copies of the letters, parts of which have been obscured under Exemption 12 of Part 2 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, have been placed in the Library of the House.

  Commonwealth Countries
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs of which countries the Queen is the head of state. [186895]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Queen is the Sovereign and Head of State of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland, Her Majesty's Realms and Her Majesty's Overseas Territories.

  HM Realms are:

  Antigua and Barbuda

  Australia

  The Bahamas

  1061W

  Barbados

  Belize

  Canada

  Grenada

  Jamaica

  New Zealand

  Papua New Guinea

  St Kitts and Nevis

  St. Lucia

  St. Vincent and the Grenadines Solomon Islands

  Tuvalu

  HM Overseas Territories are:

  Anguilla

  Bermuda

  British Antarctic Territory

  British Indian Ocean Territory

  British Virgin Islands

  Cayman Islands

  Gibraltar

  Montserrat

  Pitcairn, Henderson, Dulcie and Oeno Islands

  St Helena (and her Dependencies of Ascension Island and Tristan da Cunha)

  Falkland Islands (and her dependencit s of South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands)

  Turks and Caicos Island

  Departmental Expenditure
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for #oreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Foreign Office spent on press officers(a) in 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available, broken down by grade. [184501]

  Mr. Straw
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office spent the following amounts on different grades of staff in its press office. These amounts are based on an average salary for the grade, employer national insurance and superannuation for each grade, and therefore do not reflect actual payments to press office staff.

  £

  SMS

  183,734

  Band D

  341,873

  Band C

  333,122

  Band B

  130,705

  Band A

  80,372

  The salary costs for overseas press officers and all costs requested for 1996–97 are not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the Department spent on(a) mobile phones, (b) hospitality and (c) taxis in (i) 1996–97 and (ii) the latest accounting period. [184504]
  1062W
  Mr. Straw
  The information is as follows:

  Mobile phones

  1996–97: £169,356.77

  2003–04: £680,527.56.

  This does not include the costs of mobile phones for staff overseas. Responsibility for such contracts is devolved to our overseas missions and the relevant figures could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Entertainment 1996–97

  DS Entertainment Fund, used for official hospitality by Ministers and Officers in London: £383,507.89

  Accountable Entertainment Allowance spent on official hospitality abroad by officers with representational duties against a personal authorised ceiling: £3,865,746.74

  Frais expenditure by Heads of Mission on official hospitality abroad: £5,532,641.13

  Total for 1996–97: £9,781,895.76

  2003–04

  Direct Entertainment Expenditure in London and at Post, that includes the DS Entertainment Fund and expenditure from a system of local entertainment budgets abroad that replaced the former Accountable Entertainment Allowance for individual officers: £4,178,832.75

  Frais expenditure by Heads of Mission on official entertainment abroad: £4,103,380.55

  Total for 2003–04: £8,282,213.30

  Between these two financial years, entertainment budgets have been largely devolved to individual FCO Directorates and some payments previously made directly to individual officers now have to be drawn against tighter objectives from pooled entertainment funds. The annual totals are not therefore altogether directly comparable.

  Expenditure on hospitality for official guests invited to London from overseas for either year could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Official taxi contract spend for the two periods concerned are:

  FY 1996–97: £113,058.09

  FY 2003–04: £412,168.68

  The 1996–07 figures may not provide a full picture of expenditure as they will not include the large ad-hoc use of black cab taxis in London by FCO staff. Staff would claim these costs via individual travel claims. This information is not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  The figures relate to both the FCO's offices in London and Hanslope Park. Hanslope Park, since 1996–07, has developed into an important operational site to the Department and leads on major Projects such as Firecrest, the FCO Telecommunications Network and PRISM; hence the number of visitors has increased. The site is not supported by public transport links and use of taxi's to/from Central Milt#n Keynes (London main line) station has been the only method of reaching the site for train users. We have recognised the increased use of taxis at Hanslope Park and introduced an 'in-house' minibus service at peak times of the morning/ afternoon to cut costs. In addition, we are actively managing the taxi contracts to ensure value for money. We have also encouraged taxi-sharing where possible.
  1063W
  Mr. Ancram
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the cost was of printing Foreign Office headed notepaper in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184505]

  Mr. Straw
  For normal departmental use the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does not use preprinted headed notepaper. FCO staff use electronic templates to print out the FCO letterhead. There are, however, some departments/posts which require the use of pre-printed headed paper.

  Data from the financial year 1996–97 are not available, although headed paper produced by FCO Services Crystal Print cost £7.70 for 500 sheets in 1996–97. This does not include embossed letterheads which would have been sourced through an external supplier; financial data for this is not available.

  The cost of obtaining 500 sheets of pre-printed letterheads from FCO Services Crystal Print is £49.00, £6.50 for each extra 500 thereafter. In 1996–97 the letterheads were charged at cost (ink and paper) as the artwork was supplied by a separate department, and pricing for the internal market had not been introduced fully. Now that the artwork is produced in house a charge for the set up fee of the artwork is included in the initial cost, hence the reduction in price for multiples of 500. This current price also includes full economic cost. For the latest period June 2003—June 2004, FCO Services Crystal Print took orders for about 133,000 sheets of letterheads, including continuation sheets, for both home and overseas departments. The total cost was approximately £5,200. This type of letterhead is produced in house, from layout to print. For the period June 2003 to July 2004 FCO Services Crystal Print ordered embossed letterheads to the value of £6,586 from external suppliers.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185919]

  Mr. Rammell
  The Foreign and Commonwealth Office operates a fleet of 1,361 official vehicles; this is split between the home vehicle fleet (46 vehicles) and the overseas fleet (1,315 vehicles).

  The number of personal injury claims in each of the last five years that have involved official departmental vehicle# are as follows:

  1999–2000: 1 claim (9 September 1999)

  2000–01: 0

  2001–02: 1 claim (18 March 2002)

  2002–03: 0

  2003–04: 2 claims (29 September 2003 and 4 March 2004)

  Road Safety forms a vital element of the training and development for our UK Fleet Managers. All UK Fleet Managers hold the Certificate of Professional Competence in National Road Haulage Operations. This professional qualification trains Fleet Management
  1064W
  teams in the many road safety factors that their driving/ maintenance teams must adhere to in the law. All vehicles are fully and properly maintained and driving hours/rest period regulations are monitored as required by the regulations. Other driving/maintenance safety training has been provided to increase the knowledge and proficiency of UK based driving/support teams. To provide details of our overseas fleets and their road safety policies in the form requested could be provided only at disproportionate cats. Different Regions have a range of special conditions that will need to be complied with by local fleets.

  I also refer my hon. Friend to the answer given by my hon. Friend the Minister for the Cabinet Office and Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster (Mr. Alexander) on 22 July 2004, Official Report, column 490W).

  EU Export Subsidies
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent discussions he has had with European partners about the impact on the developing world of EU export subsidies. [186307]

  Mr. MacShane
  During the last few months the issue of export subsidies and their impact on developing countries has been raised on a regular basis with our European partners by ministerial colleagues including my right hon. Friends; the Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, the Secretary of State for International Development and my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs.

  The Foreign Secretary, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry, the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I attended meetings of the EU General Affairs and External Relations Council in the weeks leading up to the WTO Doha Framework Agreement, reached on 1 August 2004, where we strongly supported the European Commission's approach. I am pleased to say that the Framework Agreement provides explicitly for the elimination of all forms of export subsidy, which will greatly benefit developing countries.

  Iraq
  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on what date an official in his Department first informed an official in No. 10 Downing street of the withdrawal of the intelligence on Iraqi production of chemical and biological agent referred to in paragraph 405 of the Butler Report. [186807]

  Mr. Straw
  I refer the right hon. Gentleman to the debate in the House of 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 195.

  Royal Family (Overseas Visits)
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty the Queen plans to visit Fiji within the next five years. [186881]

  Mr. Mullin
  There are currently no plans for HM the Queen to visit Fiji.
  1065W
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which countries(a) HRH Prince Charles, (b) HRH Prince Andrew and (c) HRH Prince Edward plan to visit over the next five years. [186884]

  Mr. Mullin
  The forward programmes of visits for HRH The Prince of Wales, HR# The Earl of Wessex and HRH The Duke of York are not finalised this far in advance. In line with all royal visits, advance announcements are not usually made for security reasons.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many official visits overseas HRH Prince Charles has paid over the past five years. [186885]

  Mr. Mullin
  HRH The Prince of Wales has made 43 official visits and one royal visit to a realm in the last five years.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many visits the Royal Family has paid abroad over the past five years. [186891]

  Mr. Mullin
  The Royal Family has made 175 visits overseas at the request of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether Her Majesty the Queen has visited New Zealand within the past five years. [186892]

  Mr. Mullin
  Her Majesty the Queen visited New Zealand in February 2002.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when the last royal visit to Singapore took place. [186894]

  Mr. Mullin
  HRH The Duke and HRH The Duchess of Gloucester visited Singapore in 2002 to promote bilateral relations and commercial interests. HRH The Duke of York visited in 2001 to support commercial and public diplomacy interests.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether the Royal Family plans to visit Australia within the next five years. [186896]

  Mr. Mullin
  The forward programme of visits to Australia has not been finalised. In line with all royal visits, advance announcements are not made for security reasons.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs when(a) Her Majesty the Queen and (b) the royal family last visited Australia. [186897]

  Mr. Mullin
  HM The Queen accompanied by The Duke of Edinburgh last visited Australia in February 2002. Other members of the royal family visited Australia on the following dates:

  HRH The Duke of Edinburgh—April 1998

  HRH The Prince of Wales—January, 1994

  HRH The Earl of Wessex—November 2002

  1066W

  HRH The Princess Royal—June and September 2000 and October 2003

  HRH The Duke of Gloucester—May 1993

  HRH The Duchess of Gloucester—January 2004.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a member of the Royal Family has visited the Falkland Islands over the past five years. [186898]

  Mr. Mullin
  HRH The Duke of York visited in 2002 to mark the 20th anniversary of the liberation of the Falkland Islands. HRH Princess Alexandra visited the Falkland Islands in 2000 in her capacity as Patron on the UK Falkland Islands Trust.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many times in 2004 Her Majesty the Queen has visited countries of which she is Head of State. [186899]

  Mr. Mullin
  HM The Queen has not visited any countries in 2004 of which she is the Head of State.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many countries Her Majesty the Queen has visited in an official capacity in 2004. [186900]

  Mr. Mullin
  HM The Queen made a State Visit to France from 5-7 April to commemorate the 100th Anniversary of the Entente Cordiale of 1904. HM The Queen, with other Members o# The Royal Family also attended the 60th Anniversary of the D-Day Normandy landings on 6 June.

  It was announced by Buckingham Palace on 19 July that, at the invitation of President Horst Kohler, The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh will pay a State Visit to Germany from 2 to 4 November.

  Beyond that the forward programme of State or Official visits by The Queen has not been finalised.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a member of the Royal Family plans to make a state visit to Canada within the next five years. [186903]

  Mr. Mullin
  Security reasons preclude announcements of visits to Canada by Members of The Royal Family this far ahead.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs whether a member of the Royal Family has paid a state visit to Canada since 1999. [186904]

  Mr. Mullin
  Visits by Members o# The Royal Family to Realms are classified as Royal Visits, not State or official visits. Our records show that visits to Canada by members of The Royal Family since 1999 have included the following:

  2002 The Queen and The Duke of Edinburgh

  2001 The Duke of Edinburgh

  2004 The Duke of Edinburgh

  2001 The Prince of Wales

  1999 The Duke of York

  2000 The Duke of York

  2003 The Duke of York

  2000 The Earl of Wessex

  1067W

  2001 The Earl of Wessex

  2002 The Earl of Wessex

  2003 The Earl of Wessex

  1999 The Princess Royal

  2003 The Princess Royal

  2004 The Princess Royal

  1999 The Duke of Kent

  2001 The Duke of Kent

  2001 The Duke of Kent

  2002 Prince Michael of Kent

  Venezuela
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what discussions he had with(a) the Venezuelan Government, (b) international aid organisations and (c) others in the months which followed the 1999 Caracas floods; what support the British Government offered to (i) the Venezuelan Government and (ii) international aid organisations who were working there; and if he will make a statement. [186413]

  Mr. Gareth Thomas
  I have been asked to reply.

  Following close liaison with the British embassy in Caracas and key operational partners in the field, DFID initially provided 500,000 to Venezuela following the floods in December 1999. This was used to support the World Health Organisation (WHO), the United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the Red Cross. The funds went towards providing emergency assistance for those affected and initiating long-term rehabilitation for up to 10,000 families.

  The right hon. Member for Carrick, Cumnock and Doon Valley, Mr George Foulkes, the then DFID Parliamentary Under Secretary of State, later held detailed discussions with the Venezuelan ambassador about DFID's role in providing assistance to the people of Venezuela. DFID also deployed experts to liaise with Venezuelan authorities and humanitarian organisations to identify priority needs. We then provided a further £300,000 in January 2000 to WHO (to expand their programme), the United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs (to fund two disaster management specialists) and the Red Cross (to ensure continuity of relief assistance towards the full-scale recovery process).

  Visiting Heads of State
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which heads of state have made visits to the UK over the past five years. [186882]

  Mr. Mullin
  I have placed a copy of a list from our records of Heads of State who have visited the UK in an#official capacity since 1999 in the Library of the House. In addition the Queen has received some other Heads of State during the course of private visits to this country.

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs which heads of state plan to make visits to the UK over the next five years. [186883]
  1068W
  Mr. Mullin
  President Chirac of France is expected to visit the United Kingdom in the autumn and the President of the Republic of Korea, Mr. Roh Moo-hyun, accompanied by Mrs. Roh Moo-hyun, will pay a state visit to the United Kingdom in December.

  President Klaus of the Czech Republic arrived in London on 6 September for a two-day visit, and President Iliescu of Romania will arrive on 7 September for a three-day visit Both are visiting as guests of Her Majesty's Government.

  In most cases, guest of Government visits by Heads of State are planned only six to eight weeks in advance, sometimes less. For thi# reason I cannot predict which other Heads of State will visit during the next five years.

  There are normally two inward state visits per year, one in the spring and one in the autumn. The forward programme of state visits for 2005, and subsequent years has not been finalised.

HEALTH

  Family Courts
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what remit has been agreed for the review of the use of expert evidence in the family courts; who will be invited to submit evidence to the review; whether it is his intention to publish all submissions to the review; and when he will publish the findings of the review. [185416]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Chief Medical Officer (CMO) will take forward a programme of work to examine and make recommendations on how best to ensure the availability and quality of medical expert resources to the family courts. The terms of reference are:

  a) To consider the role of expert medical witnesses in relation to family law cases:

  i. To examine the experts' participation through the process, and the competencies needed.

  ii. To examine evidence of best practice for expert witnesses.

  b) To identify a template and portfolio of medical skills by which a practitioner may be regarded as 'competent' to offer evidence.

  c) To advise on a sustainable supply of competent, quality-assured expert medical witnesses.

  d) To report and make recommendations to Government ministers in early 2005.

  The work will involve a wide range of interests, including judicial, legal, clinical specialities, scientific, statistical and consumer groups, as well as health regulatory bodies.

  Consideration will be given to the appropriateness of publishing individual submissions.

  Advocacy (Older People)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will introduce an independent advocacy service for vulnerable older people. [186458]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no plans to introduce an independent advocacy service for older people. The government encourages local authorities to use and support local advocacy schemes, or set up their own to meet specific identified need.

  Annual Health Check (Pensioners)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce an annual health check for pensioners. [186961]

  Dr. Ladyman
  General medical practitioners must provide an annual health check to any patient aged 75 and over who requests it and who has not had a consultation within the last 12 months.

  We have no plans to introduce an annual health check for all pensioners.

  Bed Occupancy Rates
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the bed occupancy rates were for(a) each NHS hospital trust in England and (b) England in each year since 1991. [186513]

  Mr. Hutton
  Information on beds is collected on a provider basis from national health service organisations and the latest data available is for the year 2002–03. Beds data for 2003–04 is due to be published later this year.

  The table shows the average occupancy rate for England between 1996–97 and 2002–03. Prior to 1996–97, bed occupancy data was not collected on the bed availability return.

  Bed occupancy data from 1996–97 to 1999–2000 are available in the Library and from the Department's website from 2000–01 to 2002–03 at www.performance. doh.gov.uk/hospitalactivity/index.htm.

  Average occupancy rate, calculated using the average daily number of available and occupied beds in wards open overnight, England, 1996–97 to 2092–03

  Percentage occupancy

  All specialties

  General and acute

  1996–97

  81 3

  80.8

  1997–98

  80 9

  80.5

  1998–99

  82 5

  82.5

  1999–2000

  82 7

  83.1

  2000–01

  84 0

  84.7

  2001–02

  85 1

  86.0

  2002–03

  85 4

  86.5

  Source:

  Department of Health from KH03.

  Cancer (NICE Guidelines)
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what impact he expects the revised National Institute for Clinical Excellence Referral Guidelines for Suspected Cancer will have on postgraduate general practitioner training. [185851]

  Mr. Hutton
  Government does not specify the content of the general practitioner training curriculum. This is the job of the joint committee on postgraduate training for general practice (JCPTGP), which is the competent authority for general practice training in the United Kingdom. The JCPTGP is an independent body and it is required by section 9(3) of the Vocational Training Regulations 1997 to determine and publish the curriculum to be followed by a GP registrar (a trainee GP).
  1070W
  The Regulations do specify seven competencies which must be tested, and which the curriculum must therefore teach:
  factual medical knowledge sufficient to enable the doctor to perform the duties of a GP;
  the ability to apply factual medical knowledge to the management of problems presented by patients in general practice;
  effective communication, both orally and in writing; the ability to consult satisfactorily with general practice patients;
  the ability to review and critically analyse the practitioner's own working practices and to manage any necessary changes appropriately;
  clinical skills;
  the ability to synthesise all of the above competencies and apply them appropriately in a general practice setting.

  It is, therefore, the responsibility of the JCPTGP to assess the impact of the revised National Institute for Clinical Excellence referral guidelines for suspected cancer and adapt postgraduate general practitioner training accordingly.

  Care Homes
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many beds are available for the elderly in care homes in Northampton; and how many were available on average in(a) 2001 and (b) 1997. [186515]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The table shows the number of places available for people aged 65 and over in residential and nursing homes in Northamptonshire, at 31 March for the years 1997 and 2001.

  Number of care home places for people aged 65 and over in Northamptonshire, 1997 and 2001

  As at 31 March

  Rounded numbers

  Residential

  Nursing2,3

  1997

  2,870

  —

  2001

  2,920

  1,640

  Notes:

  1Figures for residential care are for Northamptonshire local authority and for nursing care they are for Northamptonshire health authority

  2Nursing home figures include places in general nursing homes, mental nursing homes and private hospitals and clinics.

  3Information is not available by age#band at health authority level for 1997.

  Data for Northampton are not centrally available.

  I understand from the chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that figures for later years were collected by the National Care Standards Commission, and now CSCI, but comparable details are not available.

  Chiropody
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average length of time patients have to wait between regular chiropody appointments is, broken down by primary care trust. [186454]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Chronic Fatigue Syndrome/ME
  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people are diagnosed with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis(a) in Burnley, (b) within the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust and (c) within the East Lancashire NHS Trust; and if he will make a statement. [186740]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Department has no plans to institute special data collection exercises for specific diseases, conditions, syndromes or injuries.

  Central monitoring and reporting is limited to that information needed to demonstrate progress against the targets set out in "National Standards, Local Action: Health and Social care Standards and Planning Framework 2005/06-2007/08", published by the Department on 21 July 2004; and for contractual purposes. Additional monitoring is kept to a minimum in favour of local performance management systems, exception reporting and independent inspections.

  The report of the independent chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy working group, published in January 2002, estimated a population prevalence of around 0.2 to 0.4 per cent. in adults and around 0.07 per cent. in children. It made no analysis of regional variations.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health where chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis-diagnosed patients(a) in Burnley, (b) within the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust and (c) within the East Lancashire NHS Trust receive treatment; what the furthest distance an individual in these areas has to travel to access specialist services; and if he will make a statement. [186741]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We do not hold information centrally on the treatments and rehabilitation services available locally to patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalopathy.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received from(a) chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis (CFS/ME) sufferers in Burnley, (b) CFS/ME sufferers within the Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust and (c) CFS/ME su#ferers within the East Lancashire NHS Trust, (d) Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust and (e) the East Lancashire NHS Trust regarding (i) the levels of service provision and (ii) access to services for CFS/ME; and if he will make a statement. [186742]

  Dr. Lady man
  We are not aware of formal representations from people in the towns and trusts mentioned. There is regular correspondence to the Secretary of State, Ministers and the Chief Medical Officer around service provision for patients with chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalopathy.

  Mr. Pike
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what provision(a) East Lancashire NHS Trust and (b) Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust have for chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis services; what specific funding they receive to deliver these services; and if he will make a statement; [186744]
  1072W
  (2) what referrs mechanisms are in place for (a) East Lancashire NHS Trust and (b) Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale Primary Care Trust to access chronic fatigue syndrome/myalgic encephalomyelitis centres and support teams in the region; and if he will make a statement. [186745]

  Dr. Ladyman
  From April 2005, funding has been granted to create specialist multidisciplinary team for the geographical area of Lancashire and South Cumbria, which includes East Lancashire and Burnley, Pendle and Rossendale primary care trusts. Children and young people with chronic fatigue syndrome/ myalgic encephalopathy will be managed by local community paediatric services, supported by the two clinical network co-ordinating centres in Manchester and Liverpool. Lancashire and Cumbria have been allocated £115,000 to develop the service.

  Continuing Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many people received fully funded NHS continuing care in each year since 1997, broken down by strategic health authority; and if he will make a statement. [185996]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of people receiving National Health Service continuing care in 2002–03 and 2003–04, broken down by strategic health authority (SHA), is shown in the table. The move to SHA took place in 2002. Therefore, it is not possible to provide data broken down by SHA preceding this date.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what proportion of the 7.2 per cent. increase in health spending announced by the Chancellor on 12 July his Department expects to deploy to meet the cost of NHS continuing care. [186767]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The spending review statement by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, confirmed the Government's commitment to high and sustained levels of growth in investment for the national health service. The public service agreement published as part of the spending review and the departmental publication, "Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Guidance 2005–06 to 2007–08", set the priorities for investment during the next planning period. In support of these objectives, we plan to allocate the majority of NHS funding directly to primary care trusts and so maximise local flexibility in meeting these priorities.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assumptions his Department made about the change in the numbers of people needing intensive home care and home care during the Spending Review period announced by the Chancellor on 12 July; and how much of the planned increase in social care spending he expects will be deployed to allow for an expansion in domiciliary services as a result. [186795]

  Dr. Ladyman
  One of the Department's public service agreement targets states that, by March 2008, the number of people supported intensively to live independently at home, as a proportion of all those supported intensively at home or in residential care,
  1073W
  should increase to 34 per cent.; increasing the proportion of older people being supported to live in their own home by one per cent. annually in 2007 and 2008.

  The Spending Review settlement announced by my right hon. Friend, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, on 12 July, was based on forecast increases in pay and prices, and increases in demand from demographic changes. It is for local authorities to decide how best to deploy the services available.

  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health, pursuant to his answer of 15 June 2004,Official Report, column 901W, on NHS Continuing Care (Recompense), when the review of those wrongly denied NHS continuing care was commissioned; when it was submitted to Ministers; when it is expected to report back; and what the remit of the review was. [187067]

  Dr. Ladyman
  As I stated in my answer of 15 June, strategic health authorities (SHAs) are completing their reviews of cases where individuals may have been wrongly denied national health service continuing care and I will make a statement on the number of retrospective reviews completed and the number of individuals eligible for recompense as soon as that information is available. The independent review of the provision and understanding of NHS-funded continuing care within nine SHAs is a separate matter. The report has been completed and the Department is currently considering its conclusions.

  Departmental Publications (Storage)
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many departmental publications are in storage; and where they are located. [183870]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The Department has approximately 40.4 million items stored at its main distributor, Prolog in Nottingham; 2.5 million items stored with EC Logistics in Hayes, Middlesex; 290,000 items at MM Group in Ashby de la Zouch, and 7,000 items at Brian Manktelow Ltd. in London.

  Diabetes
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospital accident and emergency departments(a) stock both animal and human insulin and (b) inquire whether the diabetes patient has a preference for one or the other. [187051]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines are in place at primary care level to offer diabetes patients a choice between animal and human insulin(a) at first diagnosis of diabetes and (b) on occurrence of the patient suffering from side effects of animal or human insulin [187055]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The National Institute for Clinical Excellence issued advice in 2002 on the management of blood glucose in type 2 diabetes and the management of type 1 diabetes in children, young people and adults, issued in 2004. 1 his advice states that patient preference should form part of the choice of insulin type and regimen.
  1074W
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost is to the general practitioner of a patient being prescribed(a) animal and (b) human insulin. [187056]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The cost of prescribing insulin is not direct to general practitioners, as all prescribing is funded from the unified budgets of primary care trusts.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many meetings he has had with his EU counterparts to discuss co-operation on research on diabetes. [186626]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  None. However, the Department, with the Medical Research Council and the Wellcome Trust is funding a pan-European study on diabetes. The ADDITION study is a population-based screening study for undiagnosed Type 2 diabetes and is taking place in Denmark, the Netherlands, Cambridge and surrounding counties and Leicester.

  Diagnostic and Treatment Centres
  Andy King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the(a) anticipated construction cost, (b) date for start of construction and (c) date for completion is of each diagnostic and treatment centre already completed or in development in March. [182455]

  Mr. Hutton
  Capital investment of circa. £140 million has been made in the 27 treatment centres that are open and run and managed by the national health service. In addition, the NHS is contracting with the independent sector for the provision of surgical procedures rather than new physical capacity. In total, we expect there to be around 80 treatment centres open by the end of 2005.

  Domiciliary Care
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many domiciliary care providers have met the registration standards. [187066]

  Dr. Ladyman
  I understand from the chair of the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI) that, as of 31 August 2004, there were 3,018 domiciliary care agencies registered with the CSCI.

  Environmental Management
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average score for the controls assurance standard on environmental management has been in each year since 1997. [186013]

  Mr. Hutton
  The average scores for controls assurance standard on environmental management were:

  2000–01

  33.6

  2001–02

  35.5

  2002–03

  39.2

  2003–04

  49.0

  Scores were not collected prior to 2000–01. From 1 August 2004, key controls assurance standards were incorporated into Standards for Better Healthcare and the risk management process will be managed locally using the existing assurance framework.

  Free Eye Tests
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many old age pensioners in the Great Yarmouth constituency have benefited from the introduction of free eye tests. [186707]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Figures for the number of sight tests by constituency or by the number of old age pensioners are not collected centrally.

  The total number of national health service sight tests paid for patients aged 60 and over in Great Yarmouth Primary Care Trust (PCT) for the year 2003£04 was 13,720. However, some patients aged 60 and over will be eligible for sight tests for other reasons as well; for example, on income grounds. The classification for such patients will depend on the patient and the practitioner.

  Sight tests cannot be equated to the numbers of patients. Although most people do not come back for a sight test within the year, some patients suffering from medical conditions are advised to have re-examinations sooner.

  Free Health Tests (Pensioners)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what estimate he has made of the cost of providing an annual(a) chiropody assessment and (b) diabetes check to pensioners. [186456]

  Dr. Ladyman
  It is for local service providers to estimate the cost of any changes to local services which they might be considering.

  GP Access Target
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of patients were seen by a general practitioner within the 48-hour general practitioner access target in(a) Suffolk and (b) the Bury St. Edmunds constituency in the last year. [187197]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is not collected centrally. However, the percentage of patients able to be offered an appointment with a general practitioner within the 48-hour general practitioner access target for Suffolk and the Bury St. Edmunds constituency is shown as follows.

  1. Central Suffolk Primary Care Trust (PCT)—100 per cent, (as at July 2004).

  2. Suffolk West PCT (which serves Bury St. Edmunds)—100 per cent., (as at July 2004).

  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average wait for an appointment to see(a) the general practitioner with whom an individual is registered and (b) another general practitioner in the practice with which an individual is registered, was in the last period for whi#h figures are available. [R] [181673]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not hold data on actual waiting times for appointments with general practitioners. It collects data on the availability of appointments to monitor progress towards the primary care access target. These show that, in July 2004, some 98 per cent. of the population could be seen by a GP within two working days.

  Head Injury Rehabilitation
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in implementing the recommendations of the Health Select Committee's Third Report of Session 2000–01, on Head Injury Rehabilitation; and if he will make a statement. [186978]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have taken various actions to improve services for patients with head injury. We commissioned the National Institute for Clinical Excellence to prepare guidelines for the triage, assessment, investigation and early management of head injuries in infants, children and adults in June 2003. The guidelines contain recommendations about when it is appropriate to admit patients to hospital following a head injury, what level of care they should receive and correct protocols for transferring patients to specialist head/brain injury units.

  The British Society for Rehabilitation Medicine also published guidelines, Rehabilitation following acquired brain injury; national clinical guidelines, last December. These outline the general principles of service provision and specific advice on the clinical management of patients with acquired brain injury. The guidelines were produced to inform the national service framework (NSF) for long term conditions.

  The NSF for long term conditions will focus on improving services for people with neurological conditions. It will recommend improvements in standards, care and support that will benefit everyone with a neurological condition.

  We are committed to publishing the framework as soon as possible.

  Headed Notepaper
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost of printing Department of Health headed notepaper was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the latest year for which figures are available. [184550]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: The costs of printing departmental headed notepaper in 1996–97 can be provided only at disproportionate cost. Costs for the period 2003 to June 2004 were £2,099.

  Health Promotion (Older People)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to invest in health promotion among older people; and what initiatives for older people have taken place in this area over the last two years. [186797]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The national service framework for older people focused on the promotion of health and active life in old age The Health Development Agency has produced an "advocacy tool" to enable local health and social care services appreciate the importance and make the case for improving health and well-being in midlife and older age.

  The needs of older people have been part of the development and services offered through healthy living centres, local exercise pilot sites and the development of learning through the healthy communities collaborative programme. This work has been supported further

  1077W
  through actions that incorporate a preventative approach into the development of stroke and mental health services and integrated falls services. Recognising the broad nature of factors that contribute to older people's sense of independence and well-being, we have also worked across Government to encourage active ageing based on council-wide strategies involving transport, leisure, education and other services.

  Our consultation, 'Choosing Health' A consultation on action to improve people's health", ended on 28 June 2004. Over 2,200 responses have been received and are now being analysed. These cover a wide range of topics. We shall build on the consultation responses as we prepare our White Paper on improving people's health, which we plan to publish in the autumn.

  Hearing Aids
  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost per patient is of(a) an externally-worn hearing aid and (b) a hearing aid fitted to be internally worn. [186314]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are a number of hearing aid types available under the national health service national framework for the supply of hearing aid products. For behind-the-ear hearing aids, prices are in the range of £67 to £195 for digital aids and £31 to £125 for analogue aids. In-the-ear hearing aid prices are in the range of £54 to £66 for analogue aids. These prices are for supply of a single hearing aid only and do not include the costs associated with the provision of the hearing aid service.

  Mrs. Calton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health by what date internally-worn hearing aids will be fitted to all NHS patients for whom they are suitable and who request them. [186361]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All audiology departments in England will routinely be fitting digital hearing aids by March 2005 to patients who require them.

  There are no plans for the national health service to supply in-the-ear hearing aids routinely to patients.

  Hospital Hygiene/Infection Control
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what independent inspections are undertaken of hospital hygiene management programmes; and if he will make a statement. [184417]

  Mr. Hutton
  Responsibility for reviewing the performance of national health service trusts rests with the Healthcare Commission. A new inspection process for monitoring against the new healthcare standards will commence from next year.

  In addition, infection control protocols will be inspected as part of the clinical negligence scheme for trusts.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assistance has been given since 19 March 1997 to the(a) development and (b) use in hospitals of new (i) paints and (ii) cleaning products able to kill known microbes; and if he will make a statement. [184418]
  1078W
  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The choice of paints and cleaning products for use in hospitals is decided locally by individual national health service trusts. We have set up a rapid review process to assess products that make claims about their efficacy to prevent or control healthcare associated infections. However, products to destroy these micro-organisms are already available and it is the consistent use of good infection control practice that needs to be improved.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many NHS hospital trust(a) Chairmen, (b) Chief Executives and (c) other board members have received training in administering hygiene and infection control regimes. [185335]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  This information is not held centrally.

  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what(a) representations he has received and (b) evidence he has collected regarding the effect of advance publication of hospital cleaning target specifications on the cleanliness of hospitals. [185620]

  Mr. Hutton
  Since 2000, the patient environment action team (PEAT) programme and the national standards of cleanliness for the National Health Service have been introduced.

  As a result of the PEAT inspections; the introduction of the national standards of cleanliness; the investment of £68 million and the efforts of the NHS, standards have risen from a position where, in autumn 2000, only a little over 20 per cent. of hospitals were assessed as having good standards of cleanliness to one where nearly 80 per cent. were assessed as good and the remainder assessed by PEAT as acceptable. We consider that these changes have been important factors in raising standards across the NHS over the past four years, but recognise further improvements are needed.

  No representations have been received specifically on this issue.

  Mental Health
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health pursuant to the Answer of 21 June 2004,Official Report, column 1275W, on mental health, what percentage of NHS trusts provide single-sex accommodation for unplanned admissions. [186753]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The information is not collected centrally.

  National health service trusts should make every effort to ensure that all patients are cared for in single-sex accommodation. There may be occasions when the use of mixed sex accommodation is unavoidable. Hospitals will not turn patients away because a bed in a single-sex area is not available, and nor would we expect them to.

  Emergency admissions may sometimes be placed in an area that houses both male and female patients. This is not ideal; but it is sometimes necessary, given that the NHS deals with almost four million emergency admissions each year.
  1079W
  Guidance on maintaining patient privacy and dignity issued to the service in 1997 advises that patients admitted under emergency procedures should be transferred into appropriate single-sex accommodation at the earliest possible opportunity; but at least within 48 hours. Where the use of mixed-sex accommodation is unavoidable, hospitals should have in place clear operational policies that minimise the impact of this situation until the patient can be moved to accommodation that is more appropriate.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken to assist carers of patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease in Romsey. [186757]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All carers, including those caring for people with dementia, are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. The new Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004 introduces new provisions that will ensure that carers are made aware of this right.

  The carers grant, worth £125 million this year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks and services to cares to enable them to continue in their caring role. Carers are also entitled to cash payments for carers' services to enable them to purchase the type of support they require and promote a better quality of life.

  The Department has also revised and updated, "Who cares? Information and support for the carers of confused people."

  At a local level, the Eastleigh and Test Valley South Primary Care Trust, working with the Hampshire Partnership Trusts and the local social services, has developed a wide range of initiatives in both the acute and community setting which offer advice and support to patients with dementia, and their carers. This includes a carer's centre, jointly commissioned specialist services for carers provided by Southampton MIND, and regular carer's education and support sessions which are run by the local memory assessment and research centre.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what assessment he has made of the availability of drugs for treating advanced Alzheimer's disease in Romsey; [186758]

  (2) how much was spent by the NHS on drug treatments for advanced Alzheimer's disease patients in Romsey in the latest year for which figures are available; [186759]

  (3) how many advanced Alzheimer's disease patients are being treated in the Romsey constituency. [186760]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  Information on the number of advanced Alzheimer's disease patients being treated by individual primary care trusts (PCTs) is not collected centrally.

  Data on the number of prescription items dispensed in the community and the net ingredient cost are collected by the Prescription Pricing Authority. The total number of prescription items dispensed for dementia drugs and the net ingredient costs of these drugs, in the area covered by Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT in 2003–04 is shown in the table. It is not
  1080W
  possible to provide a breakdown for expenditure on drug treatments for advanced Alzheimer's patients for Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT.

  Total number of prescription items and net ingredient cost for "Drugs for Dementia' (BNF 4.11, Treatment of Alzheimer's Disease) dispensed in the community for Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT in 2003–04

  Number of prescription items (thousand)

  Net ingredient cost (£000)

  Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT

  2.9

  298.0

  England total

  392.7

  34,217.0

  Notes:

  PCA data covers all prescription items that are dispensed in the community in England. PCA data does not include items dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are classified in the British National Formulary section 4.11 (Drugs for Dementia) and include the drugs Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine and Memantine.

  Information on the number of patients receiving prescriptions for these drugs is not available, but numbers of prescription items of all prescriptions dispensed in the community in Eastleigh and Test Valley South PCT (this is not necessarily the same as where the drugs were prescribed) and the net ingredient cost is provided.

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

  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charge income.

  Source:

  Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) data from the Prescription Pricing Authority.

  The Department has not made an assessment of the availability of drugs for treating advanced Alzheimer's disease in Romsey. It is for PCTs, in conjunction with strategic health authorities, to ensure that services meet local needs.

  Sandra Gidley
  #o ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to increase the resources available to Alzheimer's patients. [186457]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Funding for the development of treatment and care for people with Alzheimer's disease is not identified separately, but is part of general allocations to local health and social care organisations. It is for local primary care trusts, in partnership with other local national health service and social care organisations, to assess the needs of the local population and meet them from general funding allocations.

  The Government is committed to improving standards of health and social care and people with Alzheimer's disease will benefit from the new investment that is being made available to support this commitment. For the NHS, there is an annual average funding increase of 7.5 per cent. above inflation over the five years 2003–04 to 2007–08. This is now the largest ever sustained increase in NHS funding. There have also been substantial increases in the level of funding provided for social services in recent years. Social services resources will increase by an annual average of 6 per cent. in real terms from 2003–04 to 2005–06. These significant funding increases will help provide new and better health and social care services for people with Alzheimer's disease.
  1081W
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many Alzheimer's disease patients are being treated in Norwich; what the total spending on drugs available on the NHS for Alzheimer's disease was in Norwich in the last year for which figures are available; what assessment he has made of the availability of drugs for moderately-severe to severe Alzheimer's disease in Norwich; how much was spent by the NHS on drug treatments for advanced Alzheimer's disease patients in Norwich in the last year for which figures are available; and what measures have been taken to assist carers of patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease in Norwich. [187013]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information on the number of advanced Alzheimer's disease patients being treated by individual primary care trusts (PCTs) is not collected centrally.

  Data on the number of prescription items dispensed in the community and the net ingredient costs is collected by the Prescription Pricing Authority (PPA). The total number of prescription items dispensed for dementia drugs and the net ingredient costs of these drugs, in the area covered by Norwich PCT in 2003–04 is shown in the table. It is not possible to provide a breakdown for expenditure on drug treatments for advanced Alzheimer's patients in Norfolk.

  Total number of prescription items and net ingredient cost for "Drugs for Dementia" (BNF 4.11, Treatment of Alzheimer's disease) dispensed in the community for selected PCT in 2003–04

  Number of prescription items

  Net ingredient cost

  Norwich PCT

  1,408

  111,272

  England total

  392,652

  34,217,012

  Notes:

  PCA data covers all prescription items chat are dispensed in the community in England. PCA data does not include items dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  Drugs for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are classified in the British National Formulary section 4.11 (Drugs for Dementia) and include the drugs Donepezil, Rivastigmine, Galantamine and Memantine.

  Information on the number of patients receiving prescriptions for these drugs is not available, but numbers of prescription items of all prescriptions dispensed in the community in Norwich PCT (this is not necessarily the same as where the drugs were prescribed) and the net ingredient cost is provided.

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

  The net ingredient cost is the basic cost of a drug. This cost does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charge income.

  Source:

  Prescription cost analysis (PCA) data from the PPA.

  The Department has not made an assessment of the availability of drugs for treating advanced Alzheimer's disease in Norwich. It is for PCTs, in conjunction with strategic health authorities (SHAs), to ensure that services meet local needs.

  Norfolk Suffolk and Cambridge SHA has advised that all patients who are prescribed medication for the treatment of Alzheimer's disease are assessed by a consultant for four months. If the medication is beneficial then the patient's general practitioner takes
  1082W
  over responsibility for prescribing, with the option to discontinue the medication if it is not producing benefits for the patient, or his/her carer, at any time.

  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures have been taken to assist carers of patients with advanced Alzheimer's disease in(a) the UK and (b) Dartford. [187028]

  Dr. Ladyman
  All carers, including those caring for people with dementia, are entitled to an assessment to determine their needs as carers and eligibility for support. The new Carers (Equal Opportunities) Act 2004 introduces new provisions that will ensure that carers are made aware of this right.

  The carers grant, worth £125 million this year, provides money for local councils to provide short breaks and services to carers to enable them to continue in their caring role. Carers are also entitled to cash payments for carers' services to enable them to purchase the type of support they require and promote a better quality of life.

  The Department has also revised and updated Who cares? Information and support for the carers of confused people.

  Matters relating to Scotland and Wales are matters for the devolved administration. Whilst the institutions in Northern Ireland are dissolved, responsibility rests with Ministers in the Northern Ireland Office.

  There are two new local initiatives in Dartford. Firstly, the provision of 10 residential care beds specifically for the assessment and treatment of dementia. Secondly, there is an intensive domiciliary care scheme that offers patients and their carers an opportunity to choose the kind of support they receive.

  Midwives
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many midwives are registered in the West Midlands. [187300]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not held centrally, but is available directly from the Nursing and Midwifery Council, which is an independent statutory regulatory body.

  Ministerial Conference (Care Issues)
  Phil Sawford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the purposes were of the ministerial conference on 26 to 27 May on care issues; and if he will list those invited to attend. [186153]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Central Government Departments are required to produce pay and workforce strategies in respect of the public services workforces that they cover. The social care workforce is covered predominantly by three Departments; the Department of Health, the Department for Education and Skills (DfES) and the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  The social care workforce conference was organised by the Department of Health to bring together stakeholders in the development of the social care workforce to share knowledge and to reflect on and

  1083W
  inform the revision of the Department's national social care workforce strategy in relation to recruitment, development and rewards.

  Over the past year, most parts of the national infrastructure that are accountable for the social care workforce have experienced significant change. In the Department of Health, a major reorganisation has created a new workforce directorate that has joined health and social care workforce development functions into new teams. Children's social care policy has moved to a new children and families directorate in the DIES and new people are engaged in taking forward the proposals in the Green Paper, Every child matters. Key

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Organisation

  1.

  Mr

  James

  Churchill

  ARC

  2.

  Professor

  Gillian

  Slater

  Bournemouth University

  3.

  Mr

  Ian

  Johnston

  British Association of Social Workers (BASW

  4.

  Ms

  Julia

  Hurst

  Bupa Care Services

  5.

  Mr

  Peter

  Ludford

  Bupa Care Services

  6.

  Mr

  Oliver

  Thomas

  Bupa Care Services

  7.

  Professor

  Peter

  Beresford

  Centre for Citizen Participation

  8.

  Mrs

  Sheelagh

  Richards

  College of Occupational Therapists

  9.

  Mr

  David

  Behan

  Commission for Social Care Inspection

  10.

  Ms

  Denise

  Platt

  CSCI

  11.

  Mr

  Paul

  Harper

  Department for Education and Skills

  12.

  Mr

  Dominic

  Hudson

  Department for Education and Skills

  13.

  Mr

  Tom

  Jeffery

  Department for Education and Skills

  14.

  Ms

  Judy

  Leavesley

  Department of

  15.

  Dr

  Jeanette

  Pugh

  Department for Education and Skills

  16.

  Mr

  Steve

  Catling

  Department of Health

  17.

  Mr

  Andrew

  Foster

  Department of Health

  18.

  Dr

  Carol

  Lupton

  Department of health

  19.

  Ms

  Anne

  Mercer

  Department of health

  20.

  Mr

  Craig

  Muir

  Department of Health

  21.

  Mr

  Andrew

  Nash

  Department of Health

  22.

  Ms

  Melanie

  Newman

  Department of Health

  23.

  Professor

  Anthony

  Sheehan

  Department of Health

  24.

  Mr

  Martin

  Staniforth

  Department of health

  25.

  Mrs

  Janis

  Stout

  Department of Health

  26.

  Mr

  Lionel

  Took

  Department of Health

  27.

  Ms

  Pat

  Nicholls

  Department of Health

  28.

  Mrs

  Sue

  Brennan

  Department of Health

  29.

  Mr

  Rob

  Webster

  Department of Health

  30.

  Ms

  Joan

  Munro

  Employers Organisation for Local Government

  31.

  Councillor

  John

  Stocks

  Employers Organisation for Local Government

  32.

  Mr

  Mike

  Walker

  Employers Organisation for Local Government

  33.

  Miss

  Ann

  Mackay

  English Community Care Association

  34.

  Ms

  Lynne

  Berry

  General Social Care Council

  35.

  Mr

  Rodney

  Brooke

  General Social Care Council

  36.

  Mr

  John

  Sargent

  Greater Manchester WDC

  37.

  Mr

  Andrew

  Crook

  HM Treasury

  38.

  Miss

  Lucy

  French

  H M Treasury

  39.

  Mr

  Nigel

  Druce

  Improvement and Development Agency

  40.

  Professor

  Michael

  Preston-Shoot

  JUC-SWEC University of London

  41.

  Mr

  Peter

  Huxley

  Kings College London

  42.

  Professor

  Jill

  Manthorpe

  Kings College London

  43.

  Mr

  Neil

  Dhruev

  Leicestershire Partnership Trust

  44.

  Mr

  Vie

  Citarella

  LGA

  45.

  Mr

  Tony

  Hunter

  Liverpool City Council

  46.

  Ms

  Vivienne

  Walters

  Local Government Association

  47.

  Ms

  Catherine

  Mangal

  Local Government Association

  48.

  Ms

  Jenny

  Goodall

  London Borough of Brent

  49.

  Ms

  Christine

  Hawes

  London Borough of Richmond upon Thames

  50.

  Mr

  Des

  Kelly

  National Care Forum

  51.

  Mrs

  Sheila

  Scott

  National Care Homes Association

  52.

  Mrs

  Nadra

  Ahmed

  National Care Homes Association

  53.

  Ms

  Erica

  De'Ath

  NCVCCO

  54.

  Mr

  Brendan

  Johnston

  National Ireland Social Care Council

  55.

  Ms

  Husna

  Mortuza

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  56.

  Mr

  Geoffrey

  Tierney

  Office of the Deputy Prime Minister

  57.

  Mr

  Michael

  Leadbetter

  Practice Learning Taskforce

  1084W
  regulatory institutions, the National Care Standards Commission and the Social Services Inspectorate, have merged into the Commission for Social Care Inspection (CSCI). The proposed introduction of a sector skills council is also having an impact on the social care employers infrastructure.

  The conference had the dual purpose of providing an early opportunity for the many new people to meet and share perspectives, and then to consider with the Government Ministers with central responsibilities how future strategy should be shaped and partnership managed.

  Invitations were sent to the following people:
  1085W

  Title

  First name

  Surname

  Organisation

  58.

  Mr

  Frank

  Ursell

  Registered Nursing Home Association

  59.

  Mr

  Alistair

  Gaw

  Scottish Executive

  60.

  Ms

  Ann

  Christina

  Shropshire and Staffordshire Strategic Health Authority

  61.

  Mr

  John

  Rogers

  Skills for Health

  62.

  Mr

  Richard

  Clough

  Association

  63.

  Ms

  Sheila

  Barrett

  Social Care Institute of Excellence

  64.

  Mr

  Don

  Brand

  Social Care Institute of Excellence

  65.

  Ms

  Jane

  Campbell

  Social Care Institute of Excellence

  66.

  Mr

  Bill

  Kilgallon

  Social Care Institute of Excellence

  67.

  Ms

  Sue

  Lightup

  St Helens Metropolitan Borough Council

  68.

  Mr

  Richard

  Banks

  Topss England

  69.

  Mr

  Arthur

  Keefe

  Topss England

  70.

  Mrs

  Andrea

  Rowe

  Topss England

  71.

  Mr

  Francis

  Ward

  Topss England

  72.

  Mr

  Bill

  McClimont

  UK Home Care Association

  73.

  Mrs

  Lesley

  Rimmer

  UK Home Care Association

  74.

  Mr

  Owen

  Davies

  Unison

  75.

  Ms

  Jo

  Goodship

  University of Portsmouth

  76.

  Professor

  Judith

  Lathlean

  University of Southampton

  77.

  Ms

  Maggie

  Blyth

  Youth Justice Board

  78.

  Mr

  David

  Jones

  DfES

  79.

  Mr

  David

  Leay

  NATOPSS

  80.

  Ms

  Fiona

  Woodward

  Unison

  MRSA
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he gives to ambulance authorities on(a) combating MRSA and (b) infection control generally; and what additional resources he plans to make available for this purpose. [184409]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Management action and resources for infection control are matters for individual national health service trusts. Each trust will have an infection control policy which should comply with current best practice and have access to local advice. Healthcare organisations including ambulance trusts should have systems in place to minimise the risk to patients from healthcare associated infections. Health Service Circular 2000/002 required all NHS trusts, including ambulance trusts to take action to strengthen prevention and control of infection, to secure appropriate health care services for patients with infection and improve surveillance of infection. This was reinforced by "Winning Ways—Working together to reduce Hospital Acquired Infection in England".

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) whether the isolation procedures set down by the Department to combat MRSA and which were operative as at 19 March 1997 are still operative; when the procedures were last brought to the attention of hospitals; and if he will make a statement; [184411]

  (2) in what circumstances hospitals are required to provide strict isolation for MRSA sufferers; and if he will make a statement. [184413]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  Decisions on isolation are made locally. The guidance issued in 1995 is still in place and we require national health sell ice organisations to regularly assess their needs for isolation facilities. Health Service Circular 2000/002 on the management and control of hospital infection, required trusts to undertake a risk assessment to determine appropriate provision of isolation facilities within each trust.
  1086W
  "Winning Ways—Working together to reduce healthcare associated infection in England", published in December 2003 requires chief executives to ensure that there is appropriate provision of isolation facilities within their healthcare facilities.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether hospitals are required to destroy bed linen of MRSA sufferers after use; and#if he will make a statement. [184412]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The destruction of bed linen is not necessary as methicillin resistant Staphylococcus aureus is removed by normal laundering.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the results were of the national surveillance by 40 hospitals in respect of MRSA announced by the Minister on 19 March 1997; and if he will make a statement. [184414]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The results were used to develop the nosocomial infection national surveillance service, which was a voluntary and confidential reporting system. This surveillance system aimed to help hospitals benchmark their own performance and investigate their own infection rates. It had two module hospital acquired blood stream infections, which has been replaced by the mandatory surveillance system, and surgical site infections. Orthopaedic surgical site infection (SSI) surveillance is now part of the mandatory system and the rest of SSI module was developed into the surgical site infections surveillance system.

  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what measures he proposes to introduce to tackle MRSA in nursing homes; and if he will make a statement. [184421]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Implementation of our action plan, "Winning Ways—Working together to reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England", will reduce infections in both hospital and community settings. This report will raise standards by reinforcing the need to follow existing good practice, such as the
  1087W
  public health medicine environmental group guidelines on the control of infection in residential and nursing homes, published in 1996 and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence guidance, "Infection control; prevention of healthcare associated infection in primary and community care", published in 2003. In addition, we have asked the public health medicine and environmental group to update the existing guidance on infection control in nursing homes.

  Nappies
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Department has received a written request from the Nappy Alliance seeking a meeting to discuss policy and practice in the use of nappies within NHS facilities. [178246]

  Expenditure on total non NHS staff: 1997–98 to 2002–03 (£)

  Trust name

  1997–98

  1998–99

  1999–2000

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  279,396

  560,994

  668,454

  949,289

  2,173,143

  3,254,519

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  147,376

  106,148

  208,977

  458,423

  903,261

  1,346,960

  Northampton Community Healthcare NHS Trust

  803,837

  1,221,668

  1,057,035

  1,266,031

  n/a

  n/a

  Rockingham Forest NHS Trust

  265,930

  902,672

  806,521

  1,384,405

  n/a

  n/a

  Northampton Healthcare NHS Trust

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  4,121,279

  4,649,625

  Daventry and South Northamptonshire Primary Care Trust (PCT)

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  63,534

  67,404

  100,000

  Northampton PCT

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  202,315

  Sources:

  1. Annual financial returns of NHS trusts, 1997–98 to 2002–03.

  2. Annual financial returns of PCTs, 2000–01 to 2002–03

  Hospital, Public Health Medicine and Community Health Services (HCHS): Medical and dental staff, and Non-Medical within Northampton General Hospital National Health Service Trust

  Number (headcount)

  As it 30 September each year

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  Medical and Dental Staff (Doctors)

  226

  241

  248

  264

  283

  Non-Medical Staff (Nurses)

  n/a

  2,628

  2,601

  2,581

  2,799

  Of which

  Professionally qualified clinical staff

  n/a

  1,411

  1,414

  1,427

  1,548

  Qualified nurses

  n/a

  1,141

  1,149

  1,156

  1,233

  Qualified Scientific and Technical staff

  n/a

  270

  265

  271

  315

  Support to clinical staff

  n/a

  893

  876

  766

  879

  Support to doctors and nurses

  n/a

  738

  724

  616

  719

  Support to Scientific and Technical staff

  n/a

  155

  152

  150

  160

  NHS infrastructure support

  n/a

  324

  311

  388

  372

  Central functions

  n/a

  120

  130

  125

  120

  Hotel property and estate staff

  n/a

  145

  127

  204

  193

  Managers and senior managers

  n/a

  59

  54

  59

  59

  Number (headcount)

  As at 30 September each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Medical and Dental Staff (Doctors)

  283

  279

  293

  298

  312

  Non-Medical Staff (Nurses)

  2,805

  2,869

  3,023

  3,101

  3,366

  Of which

  Professionally qualified clinical staff

  1,505

  1,529

  1,553

  1,540

  1,611

  Qualified nurses

  1,192

  1,192

  1,202

  1,180

  1,237

  Qualified Scientific and Technical staff

  313

  337

  351

  360

  374

  Support to clinical staff

  861

  901

  979

  1,068

  1,280

  Support to doctors and nurses

  699

  728

  779

  867

  1,051

  Support to Scientific and Technical staff

  162

  173

  200

  201

  229

  1088W
  Dr. Ladyman
  [pursuant to his reply, 21 June 2004, Official Report, column 1279 W]: I regret that my previous reply was incorrect. It should read as follows:

  The Department of Health received a written request from the Nappy Alliance for a meeting in a letter dated 6 May 2004.

  NHS Agency Staff
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much money was spent by the NHS on agency staff in Northampton south in each year since 1997. [186519]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information for the national health service organisation serving the Northampton south area is shown in the following table.
  1089W

  Number (headcount)

  As at 30 September each year

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  NHS infrastructure support

  439

  439

  491

  493

  475

  Central functions

  99

  107

  100

  110

  140

  Hotel property and estate staff

  273

  265

  315

  286

  261

  Managers and senior managers

  67

  67

  76

  97

  74

  n/a–not applicable

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and dental workforce census

  Department of Health Non-Medical Work force Census

  NHS Commercial Activity
  Norman Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will(a) take steps to prevent the distribution within NHS hospitals of Bounty packs to mothers of newly-born children and (b) undertake an assessment of the environmental sustainability of the products contained in Bounty packs. [186180]

  Dr. Ladyman
  There are no plans to take steps to prevent the distribution of Bounty packs within National Health Service hospitals and no plans to undertake an assessment of the environmental sustainability of the products contained in the packs.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) if he will make a statement on the progress of the NHS dentistry support team's work with primary care trusts in Gloucestershire; [186311]

  (2) if he will make a statement on the progress of the action plan to establish new dental practices in Gloucestershire. [186312]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The national health service dentistry support team is working with West Gloucestershire Primary Care Trust (PCT). The PCT's dental action plan has been endorsed by the support team and will be published following the PCT's board meeting on 16 September.

  Additional recurrent funding of £400,000 has been allocated by the support team to the PCT to support the developments contained in its action plan.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dental practices are offering NHS dental services in the London borough of Enfield; and what efforts are being made to increase their availability. [187004]

  Mr. Hutton
  Data for numbers of dentists accepting new patients are not collected by London borough.

  The available information on practises accepting new patients is on the nhs.uk website at www.nhs.uk. The table shows the number of dentists in Enfield Primary Care Trust (PCT) accepting new patients.
  1090W

  Number of dental practices in Enfield PCT accepting new national health service patients by type of patient as at 27 July 2004

  Service

  Accepting new patients

  Total number of practices

  51

  Providing occasional NHS treatment to non registered patients

  4

  —

  Registering charge exempt adults for NHS treatment

  21

  —

  Registering charge paying adults for NHS treatment

  22

  —

  Registering children aged 0–18 years for NHS treatment

  30

  —

  Note:

  Enfield PCT (as part of North Central London) has the highest general dental practitioner per 1,000 population ratio in the United Kingdom (= 0.5).

  Enfield PCT recognises that practices are not always located in the areas of greatest need. As part of developing its commissioning strategy for dentistry, the PCT will look to increase the number of personal dental services in Enfield in 2004–05 and has already put aside space for a dental practice at the local investment finance trust Forest Road Primary Care Centre, Edmonton, in February 2006.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists in the Colchester constituency provide NHS treatment; how many provided NHS treatment in 1997; and if he will make a statement. [186979]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Information is not collected by parliamentary constituency. However, there were 82 dentists providing National Health Service treatment in the Colchester Primary Care Trust area, which includes the Colchester constituency, in September 2003, the latest data available. In September 1997, there were 72 dentists. These numbers cover dentists working in the general dental service or personal dental service.

  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of NHS dentists in the Bury St. Edmunds constituency are registering new NHS patients. [187202]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected by Parliamentary constituency. However, there are 34 national health service dental practices in the Suffolk West Primary Care Trust area, which covers the Bury St. Edmunds constituency. Of these, 12, or 35.3 per cent., of the total, are registering children, eight, or 23.5 per cent., are registering charge exempt adults and six, or 17.6 per cent., are registering charge paying adults. In addition, one practice is providing occasional NHS treatment for non registered patients.

  Source:

  NHS.UK website.
  1091W
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many dentists have applied to become NHS dentists in each year since 2000 in Suffolk. [187206]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of entrants into national health service dentistry in each year since 2000 in Suffolk primary care trusts (PCTs) are shown in the table.

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Central Suffolk PCT area1

  5

  3

  3

  3

  Suffolk Coastal PCT area2

  3

  1

  1

  2

  Suffolk West PCT area3

  8

  14

  16

  10

  1Figures for Central Suffolk are based on general dental service (GDS) contracts only. There are no personal dental service (PDS) dentists in this PCT area.

  2Figures for Suffolk Coastal are based on GDS contracts only. There are no PDS dentists in this PCT area.

  3Figures are based on GDS and PDS contracts.

  NHS Denturists
  Dr. Pugh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans the Department has to review the role of denturists within the NHS; and if he will make a statement. [187228]

  Department of Health Vacancies Surrey, 1999–2004

  1999

  2000

  2001

  Northamptonshire HA (1999–2001) and Leicestershire,

  Three month vancancy rates and numbers

  Northamptonshire and Rutland SHA (2002–04)

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  GP

  —

  —

  —

  44

  —

  89

  Consultant and other doctors (excluding doctors in training)

  3.30

  9

  1—

  1—

  1.20

  3

  All nursing. midwifery and health visiting staff(excluding HA staff)

  2.3

  76

  1.6

  57

  2.1

  73

  All scientific, therapeutic and technical staff (excluding HA staff)

  1.0

  9

  2.8

  26

  3.4

  34

  All other staff (excluding HA staff)

  1.8

  43

  0.4

  9

  0.4

  9

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Northarnptonshire HA (1999–2001) and Leicestershire,

  Three month vacancy rates and numbers

  Northamptonshire and Rutland SHA (2002–04)

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  Percentage

  Number

  GP

  —

  2123

  —

  348

  —

  —

  Consultant and other doctors (excluding doctors in training)

  1.80

  5

  5.40

  47

  7.70

  31

  All nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff (excluding HA staff)

  3.4

  116

  2.8

  281

  1.7

  192

  All scientific, therapeutic and technical staff (excluding HA staff)

  3.5

  36

  3.4

  112

  2.4

  87

  All other staff (excluding HA staff)

  0.2

  4

  0.6

  47

  1.2

  97

  GP information:

  12000 data not available.

  2In 2002, one HA in Leicestershire, Northamptonshire and Rutland did not respond to the survey.

  3 Vacancy numbers for Northamptonshire PCTs.

  Note:

  No figures for PCTs are available before 2003 as previous years vacancy numbers were collected from health authorities. Vacancy numbers for each year refer to the number of vacancies occurring in the 12 month period between 1 April and 31 March.

  Northampton General Hospital
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many(a) doctors, (b) nurses and

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS): medical and dental staff; and non-medical within Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Number (headcount)

  As at 30 September each year

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1958

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Medical and dental staff (doctors)

  226

  241

  248

  264

  283

  283

  279

  293

  298

  312

  Non-medical staff (nurses)

  n/a

  2,628

  2,601

  2,581

  2,799

  2,805

  2,869

  3,023

  3,101

  3,366

  of which:

  Professionally qualified clinical staff

  n/a

  1,411

  1,414

  1,427

  1,548

  1,505

  1,529

  1,553

  1,540

  1,611

  Qualified nurses

  n/a

  1,141

  1,149

  1,156

  1,233

  1,192

  1,192

  1,202

  1,180

  1,237

  Qualified scientific and technical staff

  n/a

  270

  265

  271

  315

  313

  337

  351

  360

  374

  1092W
  Ms Rosie Winterton
  The practice of denturism is currently illegal in the United Kingdom, but the Department is working with the General Dental Council (GDC) to provide for the registration of appropriately trained clinical dental technicians (CDTs). On 30 July we issued for consultation a draft of an Order which, with other amendments to the Dentists Act 1984 to modernise the regulation of dentistry, would give the GDC the necessary powers. Comments on the draft are requested by 30 October and it will subsequently be laid before Parliament for debate under the affirmative procedure. Subject to approval, we expect the Order to come into force during 2005.

  NHS Staff Vacancies
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many staff vacancies there were on average in the NHS in Northampton in each year since 1997. [186520]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  (c) support staff were employed by Northampton General Hospital, in each of the last 10 years. [186590]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.
  1093W

  Hospital, public health medicine and community health services (HCHS): medical and dental staff, and non-medical within Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  Number (headcount)

  As at 30 September each year

  1994

  1995

  1996

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Support to clinical staff

  n/a

  893

  876

  766

  879

  861

  901

  979

  1,068

  1,280

  Support to doctors and nurses

  n/a

  738

  724

  616

  719

  699

  728

  779

  867

  1,051

  Support to scientific and technical staff

  n/a

  155

  152

  150

  160

  162

  173

  200

  201

  229

  NHS infrastructure support

  n/a

  324

  311

  388

  372

  439

  439

  491

  493

  475

  Central functions

  n/a

  120

  130

  125

  120

  99

  107

  100

  110

  140

  Hotel property and estate staff

  n/a

  145

  127

  204

  193

  273

  265

  315

  286

  261

  Managers and senior managers

  n/a

  59

  54

  59

  59

  67

  67

  76

  97

  74

  Note:

  n/a denotes not applicable.

  Sources:

  Department of Health medical and denial workforce census.

  Department of Health non-medical workforce census.

  Nurses
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many overseas nurses are employed in the University Hospital of Leicester. [186625]

  Dr. Ladyman
  This information is not collected centrally.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many modern matrons have been appointed in the NHS since the NHS Plan was introduced; and if he will make a statement. [186665]

  Mr. Hutton
  The latest figures, taken from local development plan returns from trusts, indicate that, as at December 2003, there were 3,200 modern matrons employed in the national health service.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether community matrons will take precedence over senior district nurses in the general recruitment process. [187166]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is for local national health service trusts to determine their local work force priorities and to recruit staff according to local need and national priorities. The Government has Increased the number of nurses working in the NHS by 77,500 since 1997, which includes an increase of 25 per cent. in community service nurses.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on current staffing levels of his aim to recruit 3,000 community matrons. [187167]

  Mr. Hutton
  It is expected that nurses with the skills and knowledge to take on the role of community matron will be recruited from a range of community, hospital and intermediate care settings, in particular district nursing. The introduction of community matrons will mean staffing working differently and more effectively and may not always require additional nursing staff.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact of community matrons on staffing levels of social care professionals. [187339]

  Mr. Hutton
  In order to deliver benefits for patients, community matrons will need to be able to assess patients medical, psychological and social care needs. This 1094W
  combination of skills is largely found in experienced nurses, rather than social care professionals. It is expected that social care professionals will form part of the multi-professional team that community matrons will work within.

  Out-patient Access Targets
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the performance of health authorities in Great Yarmouth in meeting out-patient access targets since 1997. [186714]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Norfolk, Suffolk and Cambridgeshire Strategic Health Authority's (which covers the health economies of Great Yarmouth) performance on meeting out-patient access targets are shown in the table. The figures for 1997 are not available.

  Number of people waiting for out-patient treatment; over 13 and over 17 weeks

  March:

  Over 13 weeks

  Over 17 weeks

  1998

  17,859

  n/a

  1999

  21,517

  n/a

  2000

  19,183

  n/a

  2001

  15,429

  n/a

  2002

  10,797

  n/a

  2003

  5,366

  1,685

  2004

  2,556

  0

  Notes:

  1. Data prior to September 2001 have been converted to match current strategic health authority boundaries.

  2. Target: achieve a maximum wait of four months (17 weeks) for an out-patient appointment and reduce the number of over 13-week out-patient waiters by March 2004, as progress towards achieving a maximum wait of three months for an out-patient appointment by March 2005.

  Source:

  Care and health information portfolio factsheet.

  Patient Environment and Assessment Team
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many hospitals were(a) put on special measures and (b) offered additional support following inspection by a Patient Environment and Assessment Team (PEAT) in each year since inspections began; and what the overall (i) PEAT score and (ii) star rating were in each case. [185333]
  1095W
  Mr. Hutton
  Since 2000, assessments of hospital cleanliness have been undertaken by patient environment action teams (PEATs). Following these assessments hospitals are allocated a rating on a 'traffic-light' scale—Red equals poor, Amber equals acceptable and Green equals good. Since August 2001, PEATs have confirmed that there are no hospitals where overall standards are less than acceptable.

  However, following the PEAT assessments in 2002, some hospitals were identified where, although overall acceptable levels had been achieved, it was felt that there were grounds for additional support to be provided to ensure that standards were maintained and any shortfalls identified remedied. This was also the case in 2003.

  In 2002, 51 hospitals were identified where such support was been deemed appropriate and in 2003 this number was 111. The PEAT rating for all of these hospitals was 'Amber'.

  The star rating process is applied to the aggregate performance of a trust, whereas the PEAT rating is applied to each hospital within a trust and it is therefore possible that a trust with an overall good star rating may have an individual site where cleanliness standards are a cause for concern.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts have been let by his Department in each financial year since 2001–02 to(a) PricewaterhouseCoopers, (b) Deloitte and Touche, (c) KPMG and (d) Ernst and Young for advising his Department on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts; and what fees were paid in each case. [182266]

  Mr. Hutton
  The table shows details of the number of contracts and fees paid to PricewaterhouseCoopers, Deloitte and Touche, KPMG and Ernst and Young since 2001–02 by the Department for advising on the private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts.

  PwC

  Deloitte and Touche

  KMPG

  Ernst and Young

  2001–02

  Number of contracts

  1

  0

  2

  1—

  25,000

  Fees (£)

  23,818

  —

  25,000

  1—

  2002–03

  Number of contracts

  0

  3

  0

  1—

  50,529

  20,623

  Fees (£)

  —

  221,803

  0

  1—

  2003–04

  Number of contracts

  0

  2

  1

  1—

  189,772

  Fees (£)

  —

  71,557

  58,321

  1—

  2004–05

  Number of contracts

  0

  0

  1

  1—

  Fees (£)

  —

  —

  17,500

  1—

  1No contracts awarded.

  2Sub-contracted to Davis Langdon Everest.

  1096W
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many contracts and what fees(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland received for advising his Department on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02. [186674]

  Mr. Hutton
  No contracts have been awarded to any of the companies listed in the question.

  Press Officers
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many press officers are employed in his Department. [187159]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are 21 press officers presently employed in the Department.

  Radioactivity (Public Health)
  Mr. Meacher
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will commission a study of cancer incidence in North Essex. [183975]

  Dr. Ladyman
  We have no current plans to commission a study of cancer incidence in North Essex. Indeed, in line with the "NHS Plan" and the "Shifting the Balance of Power" initiative to devolve funding decisions to the front line, it is now for primary care trusts, in partnership with strategic health authorities and other local stakeholders, to determine how best to use their funds to meet national and local priorities for improving health tackling health inequalities and modernising services, based on the specialised knowledge they have of the local community.

  Recruitment Consultants
  Tim Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much his Department spent in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available on (i) head-hunters and recruitment consultants, (ii) management consultants, (iii) advertising consultants and (iv) public relations consultants. [184534]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: The detailed information requested is not held centrally. Expenditure by the Department on external consultancy services in each year from 1996–97 to 2003–04 is shown in the table.

  Financial Year

  Expenditure (£ million)

  1996–97

  14.699

  1997–98

  12.694

  1998–99

  7.332

  1999–2000

  8.132

  2000–01

  6.531

  2002–02

  6.800

  2002–03

  7.266

  2003–04

  110.031

  1 This is the latest figure included in the accounts, but the accounts have yet to be authorised.

  Rheumatoid Arthritis
  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Medical Research Council has identified
  1097W
  rheumatoid arthritis as a priority area; and how much of its resources are going into (a) research programmes and (b) projects related to this disease. [186279]

  Ms Hewitt
  I have been asked to reply.

  Arthritis and rheumatism is one of 12 disease specific research divisions of the Medical Research Council (MRC).

  The MRC spent £6.8 million in the FY 2002–03, on research into arthritis and rheumatism and much of this will be relevant to rheumatoid arthritis.

  Mr. Amess
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whether the Government supports the inclusion of rheumatoid arthritis as a priority of research area in the next EU framework programme. [186284]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The Government has recently consulted on the European Union seventh research and development framework programme. Details are available on the Office of Science and Technology (OST) website at http://www.ost.gov.uk/ ostinternational/fp7/index.html. Initial feedback will be published on the OST website shortly.

  The Government plans to produce a position paper on the seventh framework programme in early Autumn 2004. That paper will also be published on the OST website.

  Scoliosis
  Mr. Edwards
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on the incidence of scoliosis among teenagers; and what steps are being taken to develop appropriate treatment of the condition. [185280]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Scoliosis is a descriptive term rather than a specific diagnosis, which can be wide-ranging from simple to very complex conditions. Information is not collected centrally by the Department on the incidence of all types of scoliosis. However, it has been estimated that idiopathic adolescent scoliosis, which is one of the accepted classifications in which scoliosis can be the only finding, has an incidence of two per thousand children.

  A range of services for the treatment of scoliosis is available across the country, including spinal corrective surgery for children. A review of services for children with spinal deformity, including scoliosis, is being undertaken by a project group with wide stakeholder representation. The group, led by the North Central London Strategic Health Authority, produced its first report in May 2004 and is looking to take recommendations forward.

  Suffolk West Primary Care Trust
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the current deficit is of Suffolk West Primary Care Trust; and what it has been in each of the last three years. [187198]

  Dr. Ladyman
  Suffolk West Primary Care Trust (PCT) overspend against the revenue resource limit (deficit) is shown as follows. It is not possible to provide a separate figure for 2001–02 as the PCT was then part of Suffolk health authority.
  1098W

  £

  Financial position at year end 2002–03

  1,581

  Financial position for year end 2003–04

  4,423

  Source:

  Audited summarisation schedules of the Suffolk West PCT.

  Suffolk West PCT is forecasting to break even at year end 2005.

  The audited information in respect of the 2004–05 financial position of all PCTs will be published in their individual annual accounts and will be available centrally in autumn 2005.

  Vancomycin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what preventative measures his Department has taken against the threat of vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus to the NHS; [184324]

  (2) what re#earch his Government have conducted into the treatment against vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus; [184325]

  (3) what contingency plans he has in place to control the spread of vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus in NHS hospitals. [184327]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 July 2004]: Minimising the development and spread of new strains such as vancomycin resistant staphylococcus aureus (VRSA) requires prudent prescribing of antibiotics as well as strict adherence to infection control measures. These measures are part of our action plan, "Winning Ways—Working Together to Reduce Healthcare Associated Infection in England".

  We are aware of three incidents of VRSA infection worldwide to date and all were susceptible to some alternative antibiotics. Hospital microbiology laboratories carry out sensitivity tests on their isolates and the health protection agency monitors isolates of staphylococcus aureus for vancomycin resistance to detect any new cases of VRSA and to ensure that these very rare microorganisms are not becoming more commonplace.

  Vulnerable Adults
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to extend the protection of vulnerable adults list to(a) the NHS and (b) day care services; and if he will make a statement. [187071]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The protection of vulnerable adults (PoVA) list will be extended to the national health service as soon as the necessary changes can be made to the Care Standards Act 2000.

  Day care services do not fall within the scope of the PoVA scheme. This is because they are not regulated under the Care Standards Act 2000.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health whom he has consulted on the extension of the protection of vulnerable adults list to the NHS. [187079]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The consultation process on extending the protection of vulnerable adults scheme to the national health service has not yet begun. We intend to go out to consultation in the near future, but we also
  1099W
  need to ensure that the proposals are consistent with the proposals for barring unsuitable people from working with children and vulnerable adults emerging from the Richard Inquiry.

  Waiting Lists
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many patients in the Northampton, South

  Patients waiting, for elective admission: Provider based

  Total number

  of patients

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  waiting for

  6–8

  9–11

  12–14

  15–17

  Over 18

  Month end/Orgamosation

  admission

  months

  months

  months

  months

  months

  March 1996

  Kettering General Hospital National Health Service Trust

  5,991

  889

  424

  15

  1

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  4,707

  380

  180

  78

  4

  0

  March 1997

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  6,432

  1,106

  640

  0

  0

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,796

  783

  424

  191

  28

  0

  March 1998

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  7,492

  1,141

  715

  201

  100

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  7,225

  1,056

  702

  421

  149

  0

  March 1999

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,910

  863

  543

  245

  8

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  7,088

  1,051

  827

  399

  119

  0

  March 2000

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,818

  750

  362

  235

  77

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  6,713

  909

  718

  467

  238

  0

  March 2001

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,944

  727

  360

  151

  28

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  6,484

  809

  537

  288

  114

  0

  March 2002

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,522

  771

  402

  176

  0

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  6,759

  1,016

  600

  403

  0

  0

  March 2003

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,515

  939

  222

  0

  0

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  7,323

  1,135

  694

  0

  0

  0

  March 2004

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  4,435

  536

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,982

  702

  0

  0

  0

  0

  Total number of patients

  Patients waiting for admission by months waiting

  Organisation

  waiting for admission

  6–8months

  9–11 months

  Over 12 months

  Daventry and South Northamptonshire PCT

  19

  0

  0

  0

  Kettering General Hospital NHS Trust

  4,420

  467

  0

  0

  Northampton General Hospital NHS Trust

  5,625

  804

  0

  0

  Mr Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the average number of patients on(a) in-patient and (b) day case waiting lists was in Great Yarmouth in each year since 1997; and what the percentage change was in each year. [186699]
  1100W
  constituency, or the nearest relevant unit of population were waiting for NHS operations for longer than (a) 18 months, (b) 15 months, (c) 12 months, (d) nine months and (e) six months in each of the last 10 years. [186578]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The information requested is shown in the table.

  Dr. Ladyman
  The average number of patients for Great Yarmouth Primary Care Trust (PCT) for inpatient and day case waiting lists, the latest data available, is shown in the table.
  1101W

  Count of elective in-year admissions (waiting list and booked cases) and percentage changes for ordinary and day cases,1996–97 to 2002–03, PCT code (PC7 of residence) = 5GT (Great Yarmouth) National Health Service Hospitals, England

  Year

  In-year admissions ordinary

  Change (ordinary) percentage

  In-year admissions (day case)

  Change (day case) percentage

  In year admissions (ordinary plus day case)

  Change (ordinary plus day case) percentage

  1996–97

  4,737

  5,434

  10,171

  1997–98

  4,339

  -8.4

  5,594

  2.9

  9,933

  -2.3

  1998–99

  3,912

  -9.8

  6.368

  13.8

  10.280

  3.5

  1999–2000

  3,505

  -10.4

  6,287

  -1.3

  9,792

  -4.7

  2000–01

  3.389

  -3.3

  6,174

  -1.8

  9,563

  -2.3

  2001–02

  3,049

  -10.0

  4,452

  -27.9

  7,501

  -21.6

  2002–03

  3,328

  9.2

  4,883

  9.7

  8,211

  9.5

  Notes:

  1. 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 datayear. Periods of care ongoing at the end of the datayear (unfinished admission episodes) are included. Please note that admissions do not represent the number of in-patients, as a person may have more than one admission within the year.

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

  Source:

  Hospital episode statistics (HES), Department of Health.

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many cancelled operations there were in each of the last seven years in the West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust. [187200]

  Dr. Ladyman
  The number of cancelled operations at the West Suffolk Hospital is shown in the table. However, it should be noted that the figures quoted at trust level only go back three years. Prior to that, the data was collected at health authority (HA) level only and they would not be comparable.

  West Suffolk Hospitals National Health Service Trust—Number of cancelled operations for non clinical reasons

  Quarter

  Number of last minute cancellations for non clinical reasons in the quarter

  2003–04

  4

  183

  2003–04

  3

  124

  2003–04

  2

  78

  2003–04

  1

  40

  2002–03

  4

  43

  2002–03

  3

  11

  2002–03

  2

  74

  2002–03

  1

  66

  2001–02

  4

  145

  2001–02

  3

  122

  2001–02

  2

  14

  2001–02

  1

  81

  Note:

  Data prior to 2001–02 collect at HA level only.

  Source:

  Department of Health dataset QMCO.

  Winter Deaths
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has to introduce targets to reduce the number of winter deaths. [186798]

  Ms Rosie Winterton
  There are no plans to introduce additional targets specifically to reduce the number of winter deaths. The Government are committed to decreasing the number of national targets imposed on the national health service and allowing more locally agreed targets. The document. "National Standards,1102W
  Local action: Health and Social Care Standards and Planning Framework 2005–06 to 2007–08", published on 21 July 2004, has already set out the national targets for the next five years.

  However, there is an existing target to tackle influenza, one of the biggest seasonal killers. A target for influenza vaccination in those aged 65 and over has been set since 2000–01. In 2003–04, the target was that nationally over 70 per cent. of that age group would be vaccinated, and thanks to last year's successful 'flu immunisation campaign, this was exceeded, with 71 per cent. of those aged 65 or over being vaccinated. The 70 per cent. take-up target remains this year.

  In addition to the 'flu target, the Government have several other initiatives to reduce avoidable winter deaths. These include the "Keep Warm, Keep Well" campaign, which offers people advice on staying warm and keeping well in winter and winter fuel payments for older people, which help to keep warm those most susceptible to the cold weather.

  Working Time Directive
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many(a) house officers, (b) senior house officers, (c) specialist registrars, (d) general practitioners, (e) consultants, (f) associate specialists, (g) staff grades and (It) clinical assistants have signed a formal opt-out from the Worki#g Time Directive; [186362]

  (2) how many (a) primary care trusts, (b) acute hospital trusts and (c) social care trusts have medical staff who have signed a formal opt-out from the Working Time Directive. [186365]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Working Time Directive is a legal requirement on which implementation is being taken forward locally.

  Under Regulation 5 of the Working Time Regulations 1998, individuals are allowed to voluntarily agree in writing with their employer to exceed the maximum average weekly working time of 48 hours. As this is an agreement made locally, information on take-up is not held centrally.
  1103W
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what evidence he has collated following the results from the Working Time Directive Pilots Programme on whether the NHS will be compliant with the European Working Time Directive on 1 August; [186363]

  (2) what recent representations he has received on the ability of (a) anaesthetic, (b) maternity, (c) paediatric, (d) general surgical and (e) general medical services to comply with the European Working Time Directive. [186364]

  Mr. Hutton
  Strategic health authorities are responsible for performance managing trust implementation of Working Time Directive (WTD) compliance for doctors in training from 1 August 2004. The Working Time Regulations have applied to all other national health service staff since 1998 and trusts are expected to comply with them in the same way as any other national legislation. The Department does not routinely collect information on compliance either by trust or by specialty.

  The vast majority of trusts are now fully compliant. A handful of trusts are having problems in securing compliance in a limited number of specialties.

  We are working in partnership with the British Medical Association, the Royal Colleges and the Modernisation Agency to support those trusts finding compliance particularly difficult. The Modernisation Agency WTD team offers expert advice and the sharing of good practice solutions throughout the NHS.

  WORK AND PENSIONS
  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available.

  Savings Incentives
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he has made of the number of people eligible for means-tested benefits on incentives to save. [186546]

  Malcolm Wicks
  In its response last year to the Work and Pensions Select Committee's Third Report on The Future of UK Pensions, the Government recognised that it is important to improve our understanding of savings decisions and how savings incentives work.

  Eligibility for income related benefits is one of many factors likely to influence incentives to save. However these are complex questions and we want to engage with academic and other experts on how best to assess the influences on savings behaviour. The Government has established the independent Pensions Commission to monitor and keep under review the voluntary system of private pensions and long term savings.

  Benefit Recipients
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people who receive(a) income support and (b) pension credit also pay income tax; and what proportion this is of recipients of each benefit. [187346]

  Christmas Bonus
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the pensioners' annual Christmas bonus to the equivalent of one week's state pension. [186567]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The cost of increasing the annual Christmas bonus to the #quivalent of one week's state pension in 2005–06 is estimated at £1.0 billion.

  Notes:
  1. Figures are in 2004–05 price terms rounded to the nearest £100 million.
  2. The bonus is assumed to be paid at the full category A weekly rate of basic state pension, currently £79.60.
  3. The Christmas bonus is currently paid to people in receipt of a number of qualifying benefits, some of whom are of working age. These people are assumed to receive the Christmas bonus at the new rate.

  Council Tax Benefit
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Bridgwater constituency(a) are entitled to council tax benefit and (b) do not claim the council tax benefit to which they are entitled [186500]

  Mr. Pond
  The information is not available in the format requested. Statistics for Great Britain are presented in the DWP series "Income Related Benefits Estimates of Take-Up". The latest estimates relate to financial year 2001–02 and are in the Library.

  DLA
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the levels of disability living allowance payable to pensioners. [186459]

  Maria Eagle
  The rates at which disability living allowance is paid are increased in April each year by the rate of inflation as measured by the movement in the Retail Price Index. Thy Government have no plans to change this arrangement.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many applications for disability living allowance were initially(a) granted and (b) refused in the last year within the constituency of Northampton South. [186583]

  Maria Eagle
  The number of applications for Disability Living Allowance that were initially granted in the last year in the Parliamentary Constituency of Northampton South is 4001 The number of refusals is not available, as these are held as a national figure only.

  Notes:
  1. Figures less than 500 are subject to a high degree of sampling variation.
  2. Figures taken from a 5 per cent., sample at 29 February 2004
  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.
  4. From November 2002. the methodology for producing these figures was changed to show statistics to be published much sooner. This has resulted in a small increase in the reported caseload. This is because some cases which have actually terminated but have not yet been updated on the computer system are now included.

  Source:

  IAD Information Centre.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will make it his policy to require companies to be registered for employers' liability compulsory insurance. [187185]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department will assess the costs and benefits of registering employers on an ELCI database by autumn 2004. This is part of our work to consider how best to tackle the small number of employers who do not have Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) cover, and how best to help claimants trace employers' ELCI insurance policies.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what assessment he, has made of(a) the extent of evasion of employers' liability compulsory insurance within the construction and roofing industries and (b) the impact of such evasion on (i) the health and safety of workers and (ii) the profitability of insured employers. [187186]

  Jane Kennedy
  There are no figures available to show compliance with the Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) Act 1969 solely within the construction and roofing industries.

  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) carried out a survey of compliance with ELCI in the autumn of 2003. That survey included small, medium and large firms across all sectors in England, Scotland and Wales and concluded that ELCI compliance was high—nearly 99.5 per cent. of those employers surveyed were ELCI compliant.

  The provision of ELCI does not, of itself, impact on the health and safety of workers. ELCI merely ensures that there is some money available to compensate a person who successfully claims against their employer in the event of an injury or ill health arising out of their employment.

  The survey found that the most commonly sited response to the increased cost of ELCI has been to "try and improve health and safety performance" (50 per cent. of respondents). In the context of our work to promote a risk-based approach to the setting of ELCI premiums, better Health and Safety performance will enable insurers to better reflect good Health and Safety practices in the terms they can offer.

  £ million

  Actual

  Forecast outturn

  Rollout Programme

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  2005–06

  Total

  Capital Costs

  111

  251

  195

  346

  903

  Staffing/Running Costs

  149

  200

  381

  596

  1326

  Cumulative Total

  260

  711

  1287

  2229

  —

  The Jobcentre Plus Implementation project is due to be completed in March 2006. The project has now rolled out over 500 offices and remains within budget.
  I hope this is helpful.
  1106W
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions when he intends to implement the recommendations of his Department's second report on employers' liability compulsory insurance. [187187]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department for Work and Pensions, working with stakeholders, has made good progress towards delivering all the recommendations in the Second Stage Report.

  Recommendations still to be fully implemented are the Framework for Vocational Rehabilitation, the Health and Safety Executive Management Performance Index for small businesses, and the Claims Pilots to make claims processes more cost effective, quicker and transparent. All of these will be launched by the autumn 2004.

  Jobcentre Plus
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the cost has been of creating Jobcentre Plus offices in each year since 2001–02; and what the estimated costs are for each year to 2007–08. [187347]

  Jane Kennedy
  The administration of Jobcentre Plus is a matter for the Chief Executive.

  Letter from David Anderson to Mr. David Willetts, dated 7 September 2004:

  The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question concerning the costs of creating Jobcentre Plus offices in each year since 2001/02 and what the estimated costs are for each year to 2007/08. This is something which falls within the responsibilities delegated to me as Chief Executive of Jobcentre Plus.

  The creation of Jobcentre Plus offices was organised in two separate phases. The rollout did not start until 2002/03. The 56 offices introduced in 2001/02 were known as Pathfinders and were not accounted for as part of the main roll out project. The capital cost of these Pathfinders in 2001/02 was £36.7m.

  From 2002/03 the Jobcentre Plus Implementation Project was set up to roll out the remaining offices nationwide. This is a 4-year programme from 2002/03 to 2005/06. The breakdown of the total costs is as follows:

  Total

  £million

  Percentage

  Total Staffing

  674

  30

  Total Running Costs

  652

  29

  Total Capital

  903

  41

  Total Rollout Programme

  2229

  100

  The total project spend to date, including accruals, is £817m. The annual costs of rolling out the offices are shown below.

  New Deal
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people have entered self-employment as a result of participating in each New Deal scheme in each year since 1997–98. [186779]
  1107W
  Jane Kennedy
  The information is not available.

  Information on numbers of people entering the New Deal self employment option through New Deal for Young People and New Deal 25 plus, and those receiving the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit whilst being self employed is in the table. Information on Self Employment starts from the other New Deals is not available.

  New Deal

  New Deal1 for Young People

  New Deal2 25 plus

  New Deal3 50 plus

  1998–99

  780

  —

  —

  1999–2000

  1,540

  —

  —

  2000—01

  1,350

  —

  4,040

  2001–02

  980

  3,470

  4,120

  2002–03

  1,080

  3,870

  4,040

  2003–04

  1,140

  2,290

  —

  Total

  6,870

  9,630

  12,190

  Notes:

  1. Information is only available from 1998 onwards.

  2. Information is only available from 2001 onwards.

  3. Information is only available from 2000 onwards

  4. Information is for April to March each year.

  5. All data is to March 2004 except New Deal 50 plus which is to March 2003.

  6. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10 and totals may not sum due to rounding

  Source:

  New Deal Evaluation Database, DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

  New Deal and Employment Zones
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people are employed(a) in his Department and (b) in Jobcentre Plus in administering each of the (i) New Deal programmes and (ii) Employment Zones. [186427]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information requested is not available.

  The Department for Work and Pensions, including Jobcentre Plus, keeps staffing records by grade and location, but not by job role.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners are(a) eligible for and (b) claiming the pension credit in Northampton South. [186464]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people likely to be eligible for Pension Credit is not available at constituency level. However, we estimate that approximately 250,000 households in the East Midlands region, corresponding to approximately 350,000 individuals (rounded to the nearest 50,000), are likely to be eligible for Pension Credit in 2004–05. At the end of July, 3,885 pensioner households in Northampton South, comprising 4,655 individuals (rounded to the nearest five), were in receipt of Pension Credit. The corresponding figures for the East Midlands region at the same date were 185,305 households and 227,800 individuals in receipt of Pension Credit.
  1108W
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in Bridgwater(a) are entitled to pension credit, (b) are in receipt of pension credit and (c) were receiving the minimum income guarantee prior to the introduction of pension credit. [186507]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Information on the number of people likely to be eligible for pension credit is not available at constituency level. However, we estimate that approximately 300,000 households in the South West region, corresponding to approximately 400,000 individuals (rounded to the nearest 50,000), are likely to be eligible for pension credit in 2004–05. At the end of July, 214,425 pensioner households in the South West region, comprising approximately 261,835 individuals, were in receipt of pension credit. Information on the number of pension credit and minimum income guarantee (MIG) recipients in Bridgewater is given in the table.

  Pension credit and MIG recipients in Bridgewater

  Recipients of MIG 3 October 2003

  Recipients of pension credit, 31 July 2004

  Households

  3,025

  4,550

  Individuals

  3,655

  5,655

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to he nearest five.

  2. Individual recipients include a small number of partners under age 60.

  3. Pension credit was introduced on 6 October 2003.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions pursuant to the answer of 3 February 2004,Official Report, columns 833–34W, on pension credit, if he will provide the same breakdown of calls to the pension credit application line for subsequent months. [186852]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The available information is shown in the table.

  Calls to pension credit application line, January-July 2004

  Calls received by application line

  Calls receiving engaged tone or recorded message

  Calls answered within 30 seconds

  Average call duration (minutes: seconds)

  January

  495,560

  120

  429,670

  08:12

  February

  433,790

  190

  372,930

  08:34

  March

  430,070

  230

  378,440

  08:38

  April

  346,890

  13,560

  250,970

  09:18

  May

  234,580

  20

  212,570

  08:48

  June

  315,200

  20

  266,040

  07:20

  July

  239,990

  30

  212,390

  07:22

  Notes:

  1. Numbers of calls are rounded to the nearest 10.

  2. The number of calls receiving the engaged tone or a recorded message was unusually high in April due to reduced numbers of staff as a result of industrial action. The number of lines feeding into the application line from the network was reduced to avoid people having to wait for a long time for an answer (instead they received a recorded message).

  3. The number of calls received is a measure of the total number of calls from customers made to the application line#number 0800 99 1234. The number or calls answered within 30 seconds is a measure of all calls answered in application line sites and excludes any calls abandoned by the customer.

  1109W
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest projections are for expenditure on all benefits to pensioners, broken down by benefit, up to 2053–54(a) as a percentage of GDP and (b) in £billion at 2004–05 prices. [187358]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information has been placed in the Library.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the average pensioner income was in(a) cash terms and (b) real terms in (i) 2001–02, (ii) 2002–03 and (iii) 2003–04, broken down by (A) state benefits and (B) private savings. [187356]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the tables. Information for 2003–04 is currently unavailable.

  Average pensioner income in cash terms

  Income source

  2001–02

  2002–03

  State benefits

  136

  142

  Private saving

  105

  106

  Earnings

  24

  25

  Average pensioner income

  268

  277

  Average pensioner income in real terms

  Income source

  2001–02

  2002–03

  State benefits

  139

  142

  Private saving

  107

  106

  Earnings

  25

  25

  Average pensioner income

  273

  277

  Source:

  Family Resources Surveys 2001–02 and 2002–03, average incomes rounded to the nearest pound.

  Income from state benefits includes: state pensions; income-related benefits; and disability benefits. Income from private saving includes: occupational pensions; personal pensions; and investments.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the state pensions of expatriates living in countries not covered by reciprocal social security agreements with the UK. [186564]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We up-rate state pensions for British citizens living overseas where there is a legal requirement or a reciprocal social security agreement to do so.

  However, the up-dating of State Pensions outside this arrangement is the subject of an appeal to the House of Lords from a decision of the Court of Appeal which found in favour of the Government. We will respond accordingly at the hearing which is set for 28 February and 1 March next year.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has #o change the rules allowing for the state pension to be reduced after 52 weeks in hospital. [186565]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans at present to change these rules.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to change the level of a surviving partner's entitlement to the state earnings-related pension scheme. [186572]
  1110W
  Malcolm Wicks
  We have no plans to alter the current arrangements.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the 25p a week age addition to £25. [186573]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The net cost of raising the age addition to £25 per week in 2005—06 is estimated at £2.1 billion.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are in 2004–05 price terms, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Costs net of income-related benefits (savings credit, guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) and income tax are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2005–06.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost over a period of five years of increasing the basic state pension to a level of one-third average male earnings. [186575]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The Information is in the table.

  £billion

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  2005–06

  50.5

  32.3

  2006–07

  52.9

  36.2

  2007–08

  55.6

  38.0

  2008–09

  58.5

  39.9

  2009–10

  61.5

  41.9

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for GB and overseas in 2004–05 price terms, using the Gross Domestic Product deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. Gross basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002 based population projections. Basic state pension costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for consequential changes to National Insurance Fund benefits and non-income-related vote benefits.

  3. Costs net of income-related benefits (savings credit, guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) and income tax are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2005–06 and 2006–07. For illustrative purposes it is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the 2006–07 year is constant for subsequent years.

  4. Average male earnings are taken from table 3.2 of the Department for Work and Pensions annual abstract of statistics. The April 2003 figure was £525 per week, and this was used to set a category A basic state pension of £175 for the following year. This was then projected forward using Budget 2004 economic assumptions for earnings growth.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of extending the full basic state pension to all people of pensionable age regardless of national insurance contributions. [186576]
  1111W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the table:

  £billion

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  2005–06

  7.3

  5.0

  2006–07

  8.9

  6.0

  2007–08

  9.9

  6.7

  2008–09

  10.9

  7.4

  2009–10

  11.9

  8.1

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain only, in 2004–05 price terms, using the Gross Domestic Products deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. It is assumed that the rules are changed from 2005–06 and that basic state pension is increased in line with prices. It is assumed that all individuals above state pension age (65 for men; 60 for women receive the full category A rate of basic state pension (currently £79.60 per week) regardless of contribution record or marital status.

  3. Gross basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002-based population projections. Basic state pension costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for consequential changes to National Insurance Fund benefits and non-income-related vote benefits.

  4. Costs net of income related benefits (savings credit, guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) and income tax are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2005–06 and 2006–07. For illustrative purposes it is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the year 2006–07 is constant for subsequent years.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of raising the basic state pension to the level of the guarantee credit. [186579]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is in the following table:

  £billion

  Gross cost

  Net cost

  2005–06

  13.5

  7.3

  2006–07

  15.1

  7.7

  2007–08

  16.4

  8.3

  2008–09

  17.8

  9.0

  2009–10

  19.2

  9.8

  Notes:

  1. Figures are for Great Britain and overseas in 2004–05 price terms, using the Gross Domestic Product deflator index, rounded to the nearest £100 million.

  2. It is assumed that the category A rate of basic state pension is increased to the level of the individual guarantee credit in 2005–06 and that both are increased in line with earnings. The category B rate of basic state pension is increased by the same proportion.

  3. Gross basic state pension costs are estimated by the Government Actuary's Department and are consistent with Budget 2004 assumptions and use 2002-based population projections. Basic state pension costs refer to the additional costs after allowing for consequential changes to national insurance fund benefits and non-income-related vote benefits.

  4. Costs net of income-related benefits (savings credit, guarantee credit, housing benefit and council tax benefit) and income tax are calculated using the Department's policy simulation model for 2005–06 and 2006–07. For illustrative purposes it is assumed that the proportion of savings calculated for the year 2006–07 is constant for subsequent years.

  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what targets he has set for the uptake of benefits by pensioners for the next four years. [186796]
  1112W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The Department has two Public Service Agreement (PSA) targets for take up of pension credit by pensioners:By 2006, be paying pension credit to at least 3 million pensioner households;
  and By 2008, be paying pension credit to at least 3.2 million pensioner households while maintaining a focus on the most disadvantaged by ensuring that at least 2.2 million of the households are in receipt of the guarantee element.

  In addition, the 2006 pension credit target is supported by a Service Delivery Agreement (SDA), which says that by 2006, we will be paying the guarantee element of pension credit to at least 2.1 million pensioner households.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimates are of the cost of contracted-out rebates in each of the past 10 years #nd each of the next 10 years consistent with the latest estimates by the Office of National Statistics of Pension contributions. [187348]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. The National Insurance contribution (NIC) rebates for Contracted-out Salary Related Schemes are delivered through lower rate NICs rather than as a payment to the pension scheme. Because of this, they would not be included in the data source used to compile the ONS estimates of pension contributions. Such information as is available is set out in the table.

  £billions

  Past 10 years

  Next 10 years

  Tax year

  Estimated cost of rebates

  Tax year

  Estimated cost of rebates

  1994–95

  1—

  2004–05

  11.9

  1995–96

  6.7

  2005–06

  12.3

  1996–97

  6.9

  2006–07

  12.7

  1997–98

  7.6

  2007–08

  12.2

  1998–99

  7.8

  2008–09

  12.5

  1999–2000

  8.3

  2009–10

  12.8

  2000–01

  9.1

  2010–11

  13.1

  2001–02

  9.5

  2011–12

  13.5

  2002–03

  11.1

  2012–13

  13.5

  2003–04

  11.5

  2013–14

  13.8

  1Data not available.

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on the assumptions used to determine the current national insurance rebates and those for the long-term Public Expenditure Survey undertaken in February 2004.

  2. They are for Great Britain only and are calculated on an accruals' basis.

  3. The model used by GAD to produce these estimates goes back only to the 1995–96 tax year. They have been unable, therefore, to provide estimates for 1994–95.

  Source:

  Government Actuary's Department (GAD)

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will provide a breakdown of expenditure on contracted-out rebates for(a) private sector employees and (b) public sector employees in each of the past 10 years; and what the projections are for each of the next 1 years. [187353]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his latest estimate is of the(a) mean and (b) median cost of the contracted out rebate for

  1113W
  (i) a public sector employee and (ii) a private sector employee in each of the last 10 years; and what the projection is for each of the next 10 years. [187354]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays Bank, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186657]

  Jane Kennedy
  DWP was formed in June 2001. We have had no involvement with any of these companies concerning private finance initiative and public private partnerships contracts.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what resources the Government have made available to the Social Fund since 1997; whether the Government intends to increase the budget of the Social Fund; and if he will make a statement. [186866]

  Mr. Pond
  Additional resources have been made available to both the regulated and discretionary Social Fund since 1997.

  In the regulated fund, which is not cash limited, Sure Start Maternity Grants have been introduced and are now worth £500; five times as much as the old maternity payment. Winter fuel payments, now worth £200, have been introduced to help older people meet fuel costs, and are available to around eight million households. From the winter of 2003–04 those households that include a person aged 80 or over receiving a winter fuel payment receive an additional £100.

  The net budget for the discretionary Social Fund, which includes Community Care Grants, Budgeting Loans and Crisis Loans, has also increased since 1997, and will be increased by a further £90 million over the three years from April 2003.

  The information is in the table.

  Social Fund expenditure since 1997

  £million

  Discretionary Fund

  Community Care Grants

  Budgeting Loans

  Crisis Loans

  1997–98

  97

  311

  54

  1998–99

  98

  344

  59

  1999–2000

  98

  396

  62

  2000–01

  100

  435

  65

  2001–02

  103

  469

  75

  2002–03

  108

  462

  85

  2003–04

  117

  484

  85

  1114W

  Regulated Fund

  £ million

  Maternity Payments/ Sure Start Maternity Grants

  Funeral Payments

  Cold Weather Payments

  Winter Fuel Payments

  1997–98

  20

  38

  0.5

  191

  1998–99

  18

  39

  0.2

  194

  1999–2000

  17

  38

  1.0

  759

  2000–01

  44

  36

  30

  1,749

  2001–02

  61

  38

  15

  1,692

  2002–03

  111

  42

  14

  1,700

  2003–04

  120

  47

  4

  1,931

  Notes:

  1. Figures are rounded to the nearest £1 million, except for cold weather payments of £1.0 million or less which are rounded to the nearest £0.1 million.

  2. Winter fuel payments expenditure for 2000–01 includes £94 million for retrospective entitlement due to extending winter fuel payments to all those aged 60 or over (with some exceptions) and £108 million for those entitled for the first time in 2000–01.

  3. Winter fuel payments expenditure for 2003–04 includes expenditure on the 80+ payment. Winter fuel payment expenditure for 2003–04 is estimated.

  Source:

  Secretary of State's annual reports on the Social Fund, except expenditure for winter fuel payments, which is taken from Social Fund accounts

  Social Fund Loans
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many Social Fund budget loans, and to what value, have been made in each year since 1997; and how many and what value of these were to cover delays in payments of social security benefits and tax credits. [186781]

  Mr. Pond
  Social Fund Loans, including Budgeting Loans, should not be awarded to compensate for delay in payment of benefits; where there is delay in payment, interim benefit payments can be considered.

  Budgeting Loan awards and gross expenditure since 1997

  Initial awards

  Total gross expenditure (£ million)

  1997–98

  916,000

  311

  1998–99

  935,000

  344

  1999–2000

  1,017,000

  396

  2000–01

  1,145,000

  435

  2001–02

  1,240,000

  469

  2002–03

  1,251,000

  462

  2003–04

  1,250,000

  484

  Notes:

  1. Initial awards do not include awards made after review.

  2. Gross expenditure does include awards made on review.

  3. Numbers of initial awards are rounded to the nearest thousand and total gross expenditure to the nearest million.

  Source:

  Secretary of State for Work and Pensions Annual reports on the Social Fund.

  Winter Fuel Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of the cost of increasing the value of the winter fuel allowance to £300 per household. [186460]
  1115W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The estimated additional cost of increasing the winter fuel payment from £200 to £300 is £860 million.

  Industrial Injuries (Appeals)
  Tony Lloyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what the Government's target time is from application to hearing for appeals concerning industrial injuries disablement benefit diseases; and what the average waiting time has been for those whose appeals are currently being heard. [175717]

  Mr. Pond
  [pursuant to the reply, 27 May 2004, Official Rep#rt, c. 1802W]:

  This is a matter for Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service. She will reply to the hon. Member with the information requested.

  Letter from Chris Pond to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 31 August 2004:

  Dr. Christina Townsend, Chief Executive of the Appeals Service, wrote to you on 27 May in reply to your question about waiting times for Industrial Injuries Disablement appeals.

  Unfortunately, the figure quoted in the reply was for appeal clearance rather than appeal waiting time. I am sorry that this mistake, which was the result of a programming error when producing the data, has arisen. I attach a copy of the amended reply, which will also be published in Hansard.

  Letter from Christina Townsend to Mr. Tony Lloyd, dated 31 August 2004:

  Pursuant to my written answer on 27 May, Official Report, column 1802W. The Secretary of State has asked me to reply to your question regarding the target time for hearing appeals concerning Industrial Disablement Benefit (IIDB) diseases and the average waiting time for those whose appeals are currently being heard.

  Our target for the 2003–2004 financial year was to hear appeals within an average of 13 weeks from receipt in our Service. Information on waiting times is not available in the format requested but I can advise you that the average waiting time for Industrial Injuries Disablement Benefit appeals was 9.261 weeks for the 2003–2004 financial year.

  I hope that this is helpful.

  Notes:

  1 All figures are subject to change as more up to date data becomes available.

  Figures for the latest months may rise significantly as information feeds through to the Appeals Service.

  Figures are rounded to two decimal places

  Source:

  100 per cent. download of the Generic Appeals Processing System

  Disability Discrimination Act
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (1) if he will set out the timescale for compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 for(a) voluntary and community groups and (b) small businesses; and if he will make a statement; [187572]

  (2) what financial assistance is available to help (a) voluntary and community groups and (b) small businesses to comply with the Disability Discrimination Act 1995; and if he will make a statement. [187573]

  Maria Eagle
  Many voluntary and community groups and small businesses, where they are employers or provide services to the public, are already under a duty to meet certain requirements of the Disability 1116W
  Discrimination Act (DDA) 1995. For example, they are already required not to discriminate unjustifiably against, and to make reasonable adjustments for, disabled people in recruitment, employment or in the way that they deliver services to disabled people.

  On 1 October 2004, the employment provisions of the DDA are being extended to employers with fewer than 15 employees. At the same time, service providers will be under additional duties to tackle physical features of their premises which otherwise make it impossible or unreasonably difficult for a disabled person to access the service, or to provide the service by another reasonable means.

  The Government, and the Disability Rights Commission, have undertaken wide-ranging publicity campaigns over the last two years to raise awareness of the new duties in order to give employers and service providers the opportunity to understand, and plan for, their implementation.

  There is no specific funding available to help (a) voluntary and community groups and (b) small businesses, or indeed any business or organisation with duties under the DDA, to meet the requirements of the Act. This is because employers and service providers are only required to do what is reasonable, and factors such as the cost and practicability of making reasonable adjustments, and the financial and other resources available to the business or organisation, will be taken into account in determining what is reasonable.

  In certain instances, an employer who employs a disabled person may be able to obtain assistance to make adjustments for the disabled employee from the Access to Work programme. Employers can obtain further information about the programme by contacting their nearest Access to Work Business Centre.

  Pension Credit
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans he has to alter the rule whereby people who stay abroad for longer than four weeks have their pension credit payments stopped; and if he will make a statement. [187546]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Pension Credit is for people who live in Great Britain. If someone expects to be absent abroad for less than 52 weeks it can continue to be paid normally for no more than four weeks; or for up to eight weeks for someone accompanying a young person who lives with them and who is receiving medical treatment abroad. It can continue to be paid for people who have gone abroad for medical treatment under the NHS for themselves for as long as they receive treatment.

  Officials are currently researching a range of options for potentially extending the period for which Pension Credit can continue to be paid for customers who go abroad for less than 52 weeks.

  Employers' Liability Insurance
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what steps his Department is taking to reduce the burden on employers' liability compulsory
  1117W
  insurance on small businesses with good health and safety track records; and what legislative changes are proposed. [186352]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Employers' Liability Compulsory Insurance (ELCI) Review identified a number of steps that would help to reduce the burden of ELCI on small businesses with good health and safety track records.

  Firstly, the Department for Work and Pensions is currently reviewing ELCI in respect of those limited companies in the UK where the owner is the only employee. If a decision is made to remove the requirement for ELCI from such companies, then any legislative change can be expected in the UK early in 2005.

  The Department is keen to see a more risk based approach to the underwriting of risks. The 'Making the Market Work' initiative run by the Association of British Insurers, and the developing Health and Safety Executive Management Performance Index for small businesses, will both help to ensure that insurers are able to reflect good health and safety practices in the terms they can offer.

  Social Fund
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what plans the Government have to reform the Social Fund; and if he will make a statement. [186865]

  Mr. Pond
  The Social Fund plays an important role in the Government's agenda for tackling poverty and social exclusion. It provides support to millions of people on low incomes, including some of the most vulnerable people in our society. We have announced a number of improvements to the Social Fund.

  £90 million is being added to the Discretionary Social Fund budget over the three years to 2005–06, as announced in the Pre-Budget report 2002.

  The Child Poverty Review, published on 12 July 2004, announced the Government's intention to abolish the Budgeting Loan 'double debt' rule and to reduce the current standard repayment rate of 15 per cent. of a customers benefit to 12 per cent. These changes will make Budgeting Loans more consistent and easier to understand and the Social Fund more effective in assisting those families most likely to experience over-indebtedness.

  The Government are also looking at ways in which more affordable loans can be made available to people on low incomes, and are seeking to work in partnership with the private and voluntary sectors to find ways of delivering these, while ensuring that the loans enhance the ability of people to manage their finances responsibly.

  We will continue to look at ways in which the Social Fund can be made more effective.

  Work Injuries
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce a training system for 1118W
  providers of rehabilitation services to victims of accidents at work; and if he will make a statement. [R] [186482]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Department's work to produce a Framework for Vocational Rehabilitation has highlighted that organisations representing different rehabilitation providers already provide training schemes. For example, there are existing training curricula for doctors in the specialties of occupational medicine and rehabilitation medicine published by the Specialist Training Authority. There are analogous schemes for nurses and other health care professionals.

  The framework will commit the Department to work with stakeholders, including training organisations, to ensure consistency in the training provided on recognised vocational rehabilitation standards. The Department will also work with stakeholders to identify, and take steps to fill, any standards or training gaps.

  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions if he will introduce an accreditation scheme for providers of rehabilitative services to victims of accidents at work; and if he will make a statement. [R][186483]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Departments work to develop a Framework for Vocational Rehabilitation has highlighted that many stakeholders would like steps to be taken to consider the need for accreditation schemes for providers of vocational rehabilitation. The Framework will set up the necessary mechanisms to enable the Department and other stakeholders to fully consider the need for accreditation schemes, and if required, to develop these.

  Means-tested Benefits
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what his policy is on the assessment of(a) grants, (b) bursaries, whether from Government or other sources and (c) student loans in the household incomes assessments for means-tested benefits; and whether this policy is under review. [186843]

  Mr. Pond
  Income support, income-based jobseeker's allowance, housing benefit and council tax benefit are income-related benefits. It is a general principle in the calculation of these benefits that any income available to the customer including grants, bursaries and student loans will be taken into account. A standard disregard is allowed for books, travel and equipment.

  For benefit purposes, a student loan is treated in the same way as a grant or bursary. However, a further disregard of £10 per week is applied.

  The new Higher Education Grant and Educational Maintenance Allowance paid to those students with low parental or family income will be wholly disregarded in the calculation of benefit as they are paid for the purpose of defraying costs of books, equipment, travel and child care.

  DWP are currently working with the Department for Education and Skills and the Devolved Administrations in reviewing our policies on the treatment of grants,

  1119W
  loans and bursaries within the benefit system in time for new grants and bursaries due to be introduced at the beginning of the 2006/07 academic year.

  CSA
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask t#e Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in the Bridgwater constituency who have cases with the Child Support Agency are using(a) the old maintenance payment system and (b) the new maintenance payment system; and if he will make a statement as to when he estimates all people in Bridgwater will be assessed using the new system. [186502]

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

  Letter from Doug Smith to Mr. Ian Liddell-Grainger, dated 7 September 2004:

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

  You asked the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, how many people in the Bridgwater constituency who have cases with the Child Support Agency are using (a) the old maintenance payment system and (b) the new maintenance payment system; #nd if he will make a statement as to when he estimates all people in Bridgwater will be assessed using the new system.

  We do not have the information in the format you have requested. However, I can tell you that in total around 1,890,000 people are involved in cases using the old maintenance payment system and around 480,000 people are involved in cases using the new maintenance payment system. Ministers will make a decision on the bulk transfer of cases from the old scheme when they are satisfied that the new arrangements are working well for new clients. It is not possible to provide a timescale for this.

  Benefit Claimants
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people claimed(a) incapacity benefit and (b) jobseeker's allowance in (i) the Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency and (ii) the county of Suffolk in each year since 1997. [187188]

  Maria Eagle
  The most recent information is in the tables.

  People claiming incapacity benefit in the Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency and Suffolk

  As at February

  Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency

  Suffolk

  1997

  2,000

  18,200

  1998

  2,100

  19,200

  1999

  2,300

  18,800

  2000

  2,000

  19,200

  2001

  2,600

  19,600

  2002

  2,800

  19,500

  2003

  2,700

  19,700

  2004

  2,700

  20,100

  Notes:

  1. Incapacity benefit figures include those getting severe disablement allowance and national insurance credits only.

  2. Numbers are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Totals may not sum due to rounding.

  1120W

  4. Numbers are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling variation.

  5. Local authorities are assigned by matching postcodes against the relevant postcode directory.

  6. Suffolk is made up of the following LAs: Babergh, Forest Heath, Ipswich, Mid Suffolk, St. Edmundsbury, Suffolk Coastal, and Waveney.

  Source:

  DWP-IAD Information Centre 5 per cent. sample.

  People claiming job seekers allowance in the Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency and Suffolk.

  As at July

  Bury St. Edmunds parliamentary constituency

  Suffolk

  1997

  1,350

  13,769

  1998

  1,119

  11,342

  1999

  991

  10,390

  2000

  818

  8,472

  2001

  742

  7,437

  2002

  771

  7,538

  2003

  754

  7,877

  2004

  683

  7,153

  Source:

  Count of unemployment-related benefits, Jobcentre Plus computer systems (including clerically held cases).

  Fraud
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what progress he has made in achieving his anti-fraud targets. [186522]

  Mr. Pond
  We have set firm targets to reduce fraud and error and have already had considerable success. Our latest figures show that since 1997 we have reduced fraud an# error in income support and jobseekers allowance by 29 per cent. This is against our target of reducing fraud and error in these benefits by 33 per cent. by March next year and by 50 per cent. by March 2006.

  For the first time, we have established a continuous measurement of the level of fraud and error in housing benefit with a target to reduce fraud and error in housing benefit by 25 per cent. by 2006.

  The latest assessment of the levels of fraud and error in housing benefit were published in "Fraud and Error in Housing Benefit, April 2002 to September 2003" on 12 August 2004. Copies of the report are in the Library.

  Savings Incentives
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what incentives the Government are offering to young people to begin saving for pensions. [186686]

  Malcolm Wicks
  We recognise that pension saving is far more affordable when done over a long period and the key is for young people to start taking action early in life as they become financially independent and enter the workplace for the first time.

  Through our Informed Choice1 programme we are encouraging all people, including young people, to plan ahead. We are doing this by making them aware of their options and ensuring they have the right information at the right time, together with the basic financial awareness and skills, to help them make appropriate choices. The range of initiatives include measures to:

  1121W
  maximise workplace pensions savings, provide personalised information about an individual's forecasted state and occupational/private pension positions, working with employers to provide information and advice in the workplace, and introducing a new web-based retirement planner.

  Furthermore, the national Financial Capability Strategy, led by the Financial Services Authority and set out in two recent FSA documents2, is working to address the financial capability needs, including those related to saving for retirement, for all groups, including young people.

  We already provide incentives to encourage long-term savings by giving more generous tax treatment on pensions than on other forms of investment. Pensions are one of the most efficient ways of saving for all age groups. To encourage and reassure individuals who save in occupational pensions that their pension is secure, the Pension Protection Fund, will, for the first time in the UK, serve to protect members of defined benefit schemes if their sponsoring employer becomes insolvent and the scheme is under-funded.

  We are also introducing other measures to encourage the savings habit. For example, in June, we announced our proposals for the stakeholder suite of simple, low-co#t, risk-controlled savings and investment products to meet the needs of all, including the young, for their short, medium and long-term needs. Measures such as the Savings Gateway, the Universal Banking Services, the Community Finance and Learning Initiative and the introduction of the Child Trust Fund, also serve to encourage young people to engage with the financial sector.

  1Command paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice: Informed Choices for working and saving.
  2Towards a National Strategy for Financial Capability, November 2003 and Building Financial Capability in the UK, May 2004.

  Family and Child Study
  Andrew Selous
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions for what reason all reference to marriage has been omitted from the Family and Child Study data; and if he will reinstate the previous format. [187251]

  Mr. Pond
  The Families and Children Study (FACS) collects data from a sample of British families with dependent children on an annual basis. The questionnaire covers topics such as demographics, health, child outcomes, work, family income, material well-being and child support, among others.

  FACS also continues to collect data on the marital status of the study's members. However, for reasons of limited space, the most recent FACS annual report did not include a separate analysis of marital status. Instead, the focus was on lone parent/couple status, a key determinant of benefit entitlement. It is anticipated that future reports based on FACS data will provide analyses by marital status.

  Pensions
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what advice the Government provide for young people on saving for pensions. [187303]

  Malcolm Wicks
  Through our Informed Choice1 programme, we are delivering a range of initiatives which help to break down the barriers people, including young people, often experience in planning ahead for their financial future in retirement. We are making people aware of their options and ensuring they have the right information at the right time, together with the basic financial awareness and skills, to help them make appropriate choices. The range of initiatives include measures to: maximise workplace pensions savings, provide personalised information about an individuals forecasted state and occupational/private pension positions, working with employers to provide information and advice in the workplace, and introducing a new web-based retirement planner.

  The Government cannot promote or provide advice about financial products for pensions saving but we want all people, including young people, to be confident about making their own informed choices about working and saving for retirement. They can only do so if they have acquired basic financial awareness and skills to help them interpret the information and advice available to them.

  The national Financial Capability Strategy, led by the Financial Services Authority and set out in two recent FSA documents2 is working to address the financial education, information and advice needs, including those related to saving for retirement, for all groups, including young people.

  In addition, Government information about pensions is already available to everyone, including young people, from the Pensions Service and the Financial Services Authority, via their websites and/or telephone helplines, leaflets and publications.

  1Command paper, Simplicity, Security and Choice: Informed Choices for Working and Saving.
  2Towards a National Strategy for Financial Capability, November 2003 and Building Financial Capability in the UK, May 2004.

  New Deal
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many people in Great Yarmouth have benefited from the New Deal for(a) Young People, (b) Long-term Unemployed and (c) Lone Parents. [186719]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  New Deal information for the Great Yarmouth constituency

  Programme

  Number of individuals starting the programme

  Number of individuals into jobs

  New Deal for Young People

  2,040

  1,270

  New Deal 25 plus

  1,610

  580

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  830

  400

  Notes:

  1. All information is to March 2004.

  1123W

  2. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for work and Pensions how many people have participated in each New Deal programme; and how many people have participated(a) twice and (b) three times or more. [187357]

  Jane Kennedy
  The information is in the table.

  Participants on the New Deal

  Programme

  Individuals who have started the programme

  Individuals who have started the programme twice

  Individuals who have started the Programme three times

  Individuals who have started the programme three times or more

  New Deal for Young People

  858,780

  159,840

  40,700

  48,430

  New Deal 25 plus

  512,360

  95,390

  31,700

  40,410

  New Deal for Lone Parents

  485,320

  83,590

  18,390

  22,990

  New Deal for Disabled People

  76,620

  2,630

  120

  130

  New Deal 50 plus

  98,040

  —

  —

  —

  New Deal for Parents

  7,820

  —

  —

  —

  Notes:

  1. New Deal for Disabled People (NDDP) figures relate to registrations with an NDDP Job Broker.

  2. All data is to March 2004 except New Deal 50 plus which is to March 2003.

  3. Information on New Deal 50 plus relates to starts to the Employment Credit. Only one start to the New Deal 50 plus Employment Credit can be made.

  4. Information on the number of individuals starting New Deal for Partners more than once is not available.

  5. All figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Source:

  DWP Information and Analysis Directorate

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many pensioners in the Great Yarmouth constituency were(a) entitled to and (b) took up the winter fuel payment in the last year for which figures are available. [186704]

  Malcolm Wicks
  For winter 2003–04 the number of pensioners in the Great Yarmouth constituency who received a winter fuel payment was 22,220. It is not possible to say how many pensioners were entitled to a winter fuel payment.

  Note:

  Numbers are rounded to the nearest 5.

  Source: IAD Information Centre, 100 per cent. samples.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions what estimate he has made of average pensioner household disposable income in each year since 1997; what factors are taken into account in calculating the average figure; and if he will make a statement. [186928]
  1124W
  Malcolm Wicks
  The information in the table gives, in 2002–03 prices, the average weekly net before and after housing cost income for pensioner units between 1996–97 and 2002–03. In this period, net income before housing costs has increased by 19 per cent. in real terms, whereas net income after housing costs has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms.

  Average pensioner unit net income (£)

  Income before housing costs

  Income after housing costs

  1996–97

  199

  170

  1997–98

  202

  174

  1998–99

  208

  182

  1999–2000

  216

  189

  2000–01

  225

  202

  2001–02

  233

  210

  2002–03

  237

  214

  Notes:

  1. Pensioners' income includes income from state pensions and benefits, private pensions and investment income.

  2. The net before housing cost measure of disposable income is equal to gross income minus income tax payments; National insurance contributions; domestic rates/council tax; contributions to occupational pension schemes; maintenance and child support payments; and parental contributions to students living away from home.

  3. The net after housing cost measure additionally deducts rent; water rates; community water charges; and council water charges; mortgage interest payments, structural insurance premiums; and ground rent and service charges.

  Source:

  Pensioners' Income Series 2002–03, in 2002–03 prices.

  The estimates are based on the Family Resources Survey.

  Pensioners
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions how many and what percentage of the adult population the Government estimates have claimed the basic state pension in each year since 1990. [186828]

  Malcolm Wicks
  The information is not available in the format requested. However, such information as is available is in the following table.

  Recipients of basic state pension living in GB

  As a percentage of GB population aged 18 and over

  September 1990

  9,380,900

  22

  September 1991

  9,407,000

  22

  September 1992

  9,450,800

  22

  September 1993

  9,458,200

  22

  September 1994

  9,458,900

  22

  September 1995

  9,541,200

  22

  September 1996

  9,679,400

  22

  September 1997

  9,801,700

  23

  March 1998

  9,841,100

  23

  September 1999

  10,030,400

  23

  September 2000

  10,086,600

  23

  September 2001

  10,163,600

  23

  September 2002

  10,224,200

  23

  September 2003

  10,317,700

  23

  Notes:

  1. Recipient figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  2. Recipient figures are derived from a 5 per cent. sample of cased taken from the Pension Strategy Computer System as at 31 September each year, except for 1998 when the figure is derived from a 5 per cent. sample of cases as at 31 March.

  1125W

  3. Recipient figures exclude persons in receipt of only: non-contributory State Pensions; Graduated Retirement Benefit; and additional State Pension.

  4. Population figures are taken mid-year from mid-1990 onwards. Population data sources are: Office for National Statistics (ONS); and General Register Office Scotland (GROS).

  5. As no population figures are yet available for 2003, mid-2002 figures have been used.

TRANSPORT

  Public Transport (CCTV)
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will provide resources to enable full coverage of operational CCTV on all public transpo#t vehicles; and what research his Department has commissioned on the effects upon the number of charges and convictions for criminal activity on public transport if full operational CCTV coverage were to be installed in all public transport vehicles. [186976]

  Mr. McNulty
  It is up to individual transport operators to fund CCTV systems on their vehicles and a growing number recognise the importance of doing so. For example, although the Strategic Rail Authority has not stipulated CCTV as a requirement for trains, CCTV has been included on all new trains and most refurbished trains.

  Government funding is available to Local Authorities to support infrastructure improvements to tackle crime through their Local Transport Plan integrated transport block allocations. Schemes funded in this way include the installation of CCTV cameras in bus shelters.

  There has been no Government research into the effects on the number of charges and convictions for criminal activity on public transport if full operational CCTV were to be installed. However, there has been a Government funded national evaluation of CCTV generally which includes an analysis of the perceptions of offenders and any changes in recorded crime in CCTV areas, buffer areas surrounding the CCTV areas (intended to detect displaced crime) and control areas. The report will be published at the end of this year.

  A1
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what his current estimate is of the cost of making the A1 between Newcastle and Berwick fully-dualled. [186429]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The A1 Multi-Modal Study Report in May 2002 estimated the cost of dualling the A1 from Newcastle to the Scottish border to be £343 million at 2001 prices. However the report concluded that although the completion of dualling was necessary between Newcastle and Alnwick, wholesale dualling could not be justified in the foreseeable future.

  The Highways Agency have not carried out a detailed costing. But on a pro rata basis from the 2001 estimate, I would expect the cost at current prices to exceed £375 million.

  A40/M40
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many copies of the Highways Agency's consultation leaflet on the M40/A40 Management Strategy have been distributed in Stokenchurch. [187380]

  Mr. Jamieson
  Fifty copies of the consultation for the M40/A40 Draft Route Management Strategy were sent to Stokenchurch Library.

  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what steps the Highways Agency has taken to consult the residents of Stokenchurch on the draft A40/ M40 Route Management Strategy. [187543]

  Mr. Jamieson
  A press notice was issued to inform national and local media. The document was placed on deposit at local council offices. Leaflets were available at Oxford Motorway services, High Wycombe library and subsequently Stokenchurch library.

  Aviation Health Unit
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on the work of the Aviation Health Unit. [187190]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Aviation Health Unit was established in December 2003 primarily to provide advice to the UK Government and others on aviation health issues. It also investigates potential new aviation health concerns; reviews research and other information on aviation health; and liaises with the aviation industry and relevant organisations throughout the world. The Department is funding the unit until legislation can be enacted to allow the CAA to meet the costs of the unit from the charges it levies on airlines.

  Cargo Aircraft (Terrorism)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what assessment he has made of the vulnerability of cargo aircraft using United Kingdom airports to terrorists stowing on board with the aim of taking over the cockpit in flight. [187305]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department for Transport continually assesses the vulnerability, from all types of terrorist attack, of all aircraft using UK airports.

  Crossrail
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he expects the start of construction of(a) Crossrail and (b) Crossrail 2. [187132]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Secretary of State announced to Parliament on 20 July 2004 that he intended that appropriate powers for the construction of Crossrail should be sought by means of a hybrid Bill to be introduced in Parliament at the earliest opportunity. Previous experience, with the Channel Tunnel Rail Link Bill, suggests that the bill might take around two years to complete its passage. The Government have no plans currently to seek legal powers for Crossrail 2.

  Departmental Costs
  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of refurbishments to the fabric of buildings owned by his Department has been since May 1997. [186396]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 22 July 2004,Official Report, column 653W to the hon. Member for South West Bedfordshire (Mr. Selous).

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the total running cost of his Department's canteen facilities was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) 2003–04. [186398]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to my answer of 21 July 2004,Official Report, column 263W, to the hon. Member for South-West Bedfordshire (Andrew Selous).

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much his Department spent on replacing light bulbs in the last year for which figures are available. [186401]

  Mr. McNulty
  This information is not collected centrally and the costs are often undifferentiated from other mechanical and electrical service costs or are not accounted for separately in the individual finance systems. To separately identify such costs would involve disproportionate costs.

  Mr. Damian Green
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what the cost of printing departme#tal headed notepaper was in(a) 1996–97 and (b) the last year for which figures are available. [186397]

  Mr. McNulty
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer on 21 July 2004,Official Report, column 264W, to the hon. Member for Leominster (Mr. Wiggin).

  Freight Transport
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will make a statement on progress in implementing the 10 Year Transport Plan as it relates to freight transport. [186672]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The 10 Year Plan for transport marked the beginning of a more strategic approach to delivering transport improvements. It delivered a long term Government commitment to sustained increases in transport spending.

  Much of this investment will benefit freight alongside other transport users. The plan is delivering new capacity on the road network, with 80 schemes at various stages in the Targeted Programme of Improvements totalling around £8.8 billion. 13 of these schemes are currently under construction, including widening of the M25 between Junctions 12 to 15 around Heathrow. We have also invested in the Rail Network, renewing 800 miles of track last year. And we have increased total Government capital support for local authorities from £650 million in 2001 to £1.9 billion in 2004–05.

  In relation to specific references to Freight in the 10 Year Plan, there has been a significant increase in freight on rail over recent years. The possibility of dedicated HGV only lanes on our strategic routes has
  1128W
  been under consideration, but suitable sites have yet to be identified, though a number of schemes have been introduced. which afford goods vehicles priority, along with buses and cyclists, over general traffic in congested urban areas. Finally, we have made significant progress in implementing road haulage efficiency measures as outlined in the 10 Year Plan, particularly through the Road Haulage Modernisation Fund. In particular we have been funding projects to offer training in safer and more fuel efficient driving, and to promote operational practices that save on the use of fuel.

  "The future of Transport", published in July this year builds on the 10 Year Plan and looks forward to the factors that might shape travel demand and our transport network over the next 30 years. It sets out how the Government will respond to those pressures while safeguarding our economic and social wellbeing and the environment. Our policies for freight transport are set out in that document.

  M6
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether it is his intention that the proposed M6 toll expressway should be(a) constructed and (b) operated by a private sector contractor. [186986]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The M6 expressway is no more than a broad concept at this stage. If we decide to ask the Highways Agency to undertake further development work in light of the responses from the consultation exercise, one issue we will need to consider further is whether the proposal could be undertaken by a private sector concessionaire to fund, construct and operate the expressway for a set period.

  Night Flights
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport when he will publish a consultation document on night flights. [186320]

  Mr. McNulty
  I published a consultation paper on night flying restrictions at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted airports on 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 56–58WS.

  Nuclear Materials (Transport)
  Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether he has conducted a review of the suitability, in respect of security and safety, of the different ships used, or planned to be us#d, to transport plutonium MOX fuel to overseas customers from Sellafield. [187285]

  Mr. McNulty
  Ships used to transport MOX fuel are reviewed routinely under separate regulations governing the security and safety of the transport of nuclear materials. The Nuclear Industries Security Regulations 2003 provide for the review of all security aspects of each shipment of MOX fuel including the suitability of the vessel. The Merchant Shipping (Carriage of Packaged Irradiated Nuclear Fuel etc.) (INF Code) Regulations 2000, SI 3216 provide for both certification that vessels have been constructed to international standards, and periodic review to ensure that they continue to comply with the requirements.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186659]

  Mr. McNulty
  The De#artment was formed in May 2002. The Department has not awarded contracts to any of these banks for advice on private finance initiative and public-private partnership contracts.

  Rail Services
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, pursuant to paragraph 5.3.5 of The Future of Rail, Cm.6233, what estimate he has made of the total amount of money elected regional assemblies would be able to spend on improving rail services in(a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber. [186154]

  Mr. McNulty
  Elected regional assemblies will be given flexibility to decide how much money to spend on rail passenger improvements within the resources available to them. The level of government funding available to assemblies will be determined in due course.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what representations he has received from the Leonard Cheshire Foundation regarding equal access for disabled people to the rail network. [186971]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Department regularly meets with major disability organisations including the Leonard Cheshire Foundation and frequently consults and corresponds with them, both directly and through correspondence with Members. We have recently responded to a number of inquiries generated by the Foundation's "All Aboard" campaign.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what research his Department has commissioned regarding the Government's rail end date of 2055 and the viability of alternatives proposed by the Leonard Cheshire Foundation. [186972]

  Mr. McNulty
  The Government first consulted on an 'end date', by which time all rail vehicles must comply with the Rail Vehicle Accessibility Regulations, last November, as part of a consultation on our proposals for amending the rail provisions of the Disability Discrimination Act. Various dates were considered, looking both at the needs of disabled people and at the financial implications for the rail industry, and we indicated that we favoured 2025.

  The consultation included a draft regulatory impact assessment which was based on an independent economic appraisal of the various options. We are committed to further consultation before a final date is set in regulations. This will take full account of the responses to the November consultation, including that received from the Leonard Cheshire Foundation, and the recommendation of the Joint Scrutiny Committee on the draft Disability Discrimination Bill.

  Roads
  Mr. Robathan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport if he will list planned road resurfacing projects broken down by the number of houses affected by above 68dB of noise that will benefit from noise reduction; and how many of these projects will be financed from the £5 million ringfenced sum. [186728]

  Mr. Jamieson
  In general, priorities for resurfacing sections of the strategic road network are assessed according to maintenance need rather than noise criteria. Detailed information on the numbers of houses exposed to more than 68dB that are expected to benefit from this resurfacing programme is not available.

  An assessment of the number of houses exposed to more than 68dB is only made for sites meeting the criteria for noise announced on 22 March 1999 in connection with the £5 million ringfenced sum. This ringfenced sum was specifically aimed at funding noise mitigation measures at sites where the noise problems were serious and pressing and where resurfacing with quieter materials could not be justified on normal maintenance grounds.

  In the majority of cases, the ringfenced sum has funded the provision of noise barriers at locations identified on the list published on 11 November 1999. There is #nly one resurfacing scheme in the 2004–05 programme with funding from, the ringfenced sum. This will deal with the problem identified on M6 junctions 34–35, Camforth and should provide a significant noise reduction for approximately 300 houses currently exposed to more than 68dB of noise.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how much has been spent in each year since 1997 installing speed humps on roads. [186761]

  Mr. Darling
  The installation of speed humps is a matter for individual Highway Authorities. As such this information is not held centrally.

  Local authorities are solely responsible for the implementation of all traffic calming schemes, including the installation of road humps.

  Funding is allocated via the Single Capital Pot based on the Road Safety Strategy contained within their Local Transport Plans.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 130W, on road safety, how many people died as a result of crashes that occurred on hard shoulders of English trunk motorways in (a) 2002 and (b) 2003. [187058]

  Mr. McNulty
  The number of people who have died as a result of crashes that occurred on English trunk road motorways where at least one vehicle was on, entering or leaving the hard shoulder in(a) 2002 was 22 and in (b) 2003 was 11.

  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport how many road schemes have been started in Northampton in each year since 1992. [186517]
  1131W
  Mr. McNulty
  The number of road improvements, costing over £1 million, and excluding maintenance schemes, started in Northampton for each year since 1992 is as follows:

  Number

  1992

  1

  1993

  0

  1994

  0

  1995

  0

  1996

  1

  1997

  1

  1998

  1

  1999

  2

  2000

  0

  2001

  0

  2002

  1

  2003

  2

  Richard Younger-Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport whether the Government are on track to achieve its target of delivering(a) 100 new bypasses on trunk and local roads and (b) 130 major local road schemes by 2010; and what the (i) construction costs,

  A. Major Project Bypasses already completed

  Scheme

  Latest estimated outturn cost (£million)

  Start of works

  Date of completion

  A5 Nesscliffe Bypass

  20

  March 2002

  March 2003

  A6 Great Glen Bypass

  21

  April 2001

  February 2003

  A6 Rushden and Higham Ferrers Bypass

  16

  April 2002

  August 2003

  A6 Rothwell-Desborough Bypass

  19

  April 2002

  August 2003

  A6 Clapham Bypass

  44

  May 2001

  December 2002

  A6 Alvaston

  22

  September 2002

  December 2003

  A27 Pplegate Bypass

  29

  October 2000

  June 2002

  A41 Aston Clinton Bypass

  44

  August 2001

  October 2003

  A43 Towcester-M40 Dualling (including A43 Silverstone Bypass)

  97

  February 2001

  September 2002

  A63 Selby Bypass

  65

  October 2001

  June 2004

  A66 Stainburn and Great Clifton Bypass

  12

  July 2001

  December 2002

  A500 Basford, Hough, Shavington Bypass

  54

  June 2001

  May 2003

  A650 Bingley Relief Road

  91

  July 2001

  December 2003

  M6 Toll (accelerated Roads Review scheme)

  1Toll Road

  March 2001

  December 2003

  1The M6 Toll Road is privately funded. There is some publicly funded expenditure, which is currently estimated to outturn at £41 million.

  B. Major Project Bypasses in the current TPI, either on site or expected to be on site by the end of 2004–05, and to be completed by' 2010–11

  Scheme

  Latest Estimated Outturn cost (£ million)

  Actual/Estimated Start of Works

  Estimated date of completion

  Status at 1 April 2004 (2004–05 Business Plan Key/Critical Event)

  A10 Wadesmill Colliers End

  39

  April 2002

  2004–05

  Road Open

  A21 Lamberhurst Bypass

  19

  June 2003

  2004–05

  Road Open

  A5 Weeford-Fazeley Improvement

  38

  April 2004

  2005–06

  Start of Works (achieved)

  A421 Great Barford Bypass

  43

  2004–05

  2006–07

  Start of Works

  A47 Thorney Bypass

  28

  2004–05

  2006–07

  Start of Works

  C Major Project Bypasses in the TPI, not yet on site, but to be completed by 2010–11

  Scheme

  Latest estimated outturn cost(£ million)

  Status at 1 April 2004 (2004–05 Business Plan Key/ Critical Event)

  A21 Kippings Cross to Lamberhurst Bypass

  68

  Awaiting Ill entry (achieved)

  A3 Hindhead Improvement

  236

  Public inquiry

  A303 Stonehenge

  223

  No Event—Public inquiry already started

  A38 Dobwalls Bypass

  36

  Publish draft Orders and Environmental Statement

  A419 Blunsdon

  40

  Publish draft Orders and Environmental Statement

  A483 Pant-Llanymynech Bypass

  41

  ECI tenders invited

  1132W
  (ii) scheduled date for start of construction, (iii) expected completion date and (iv) status at 1 April is for each currently identified scheme. [186168]

  Mr. Jamieson
  The Government are on track to deliver 32 new bypasses on the strategic road network by the end of 2010–11. The following table gives the relevant detail on these bypasses which have either been completed, or are contained within the current Targeted Programme of Improvements (TPI).

  Firm decisions have yet to be made on start of works for the remainder of the current programme so no forecast dates of opening are possible but the latest estimated outturn costs and status report for these schemes has been provided.

  On local roads it is too soon to say whether the quoted number of local road schemes will be delivered. This depends largely on how quickly local authorities bring their schemes to completion. 79 road schemes have been fully or provisionally approved by the Government since 2000; these schemes are now at various stages of delivery. A local authority's progress in delivering a local road scheme is a matter for the local authority concerned. The Government are considering a number of other road scheme proposals from local authorities.
  1133W

  C Major Project Bypasses in the TPI, not yet on site, but to be completed by 2010–11

  Scheme

  Latest estimated outturn cost(£ million)

  Status at 1 April 2004 (2004–05 Business Plan Key/ Critical Event)

  A505 Dunstable Northern Bypass (A5 to M1 Link)

  48

  ECI contract awarded

  A57/A628 Mottram in Longdendale, Hollingworth and Tintwistle Bypass

  103

  ECI contract awarded

  A590 High and Low Newton Bypass

  22

  ECI tenders invited

  A595 Parton-Lillyhall Improvement

  25

  Publish Inquiry

  A64 Rillington Bypass

  12

  ECI tenders invited

  A66 Temple Sowerby and Improvement at Winderwath

  23

  ECI contract awarded

  A69 Haydon Bridge Bypass

  24

  ECI contract awarded

  Strategic Rail Authority
  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport (1) what will happen to the work force of the Strategic Rail Authority when it is abolished, [186737]

  (2) how much the Department expects to spend in severance payments when the Strategic Rail Authority is abolished. [186778]

  Mr. Darling
  Work is in progress, following publication of the rail White Paper in July, to determine which of the SRA's functions will continue and which body will exercise them. Until decisions have been taken, it is too soon to know how many SRA staff will transfer elsewhere and how many might become eligible for severance payments.

  Mr. Yeo
  To ask the Secretary of State for Transport what will happen to the(a) stock and (b) assets held by the Strategic Rail Authority when it is abolished. [186739]

  Mr. Darling
  Appropriate arrangements will be made in the proposed legislation for the transfer of the property, rights and liabilities of the Strategic Rail Authority.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Peace Process
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on progress towards restoration of devolution to Northern Ireland. [187675]

  Mr. Spellar
  We are engaged in intensive political activity with the aim of restoring stable and inclusive partnership government in Northern Ireland.

  It is important to draw upon the high degree of commitment among the Northern Ireland parties to bring about resumed devolution at an early stage. Recent meetings with all parties have made me confident of support from all sides and good prospects for restoring stable devolved government to Northern Ireland.

  12 and 13 July Disturbances
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many(a) police officers, (b) rioters, (c) army personnel and (d) ordinary civilians were injured in disturbances in Northern Ireland on 12 and 13 July. [186024]
  1134W
  Mr. Pearson
  The number of persons injured as a result of the security situation and serious public disorder on 12 and 13 July 2004 is listed in the following table:

  Number

  Police

  29

  Police Reserve

  6

  Army

  9

  Civilian

  10

  Total

  54

  Note:

  Statistics are provisional and will be subject to minor amendment

  Andersonstown Newspaper Group
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to the answer of 5 July 2004,Official Report, column 530W, on the Andersonstown Newspaper Group, whether the monies were allocated for projects (a) outside the UK and (b) in the Republic of Ireland. [186466]

  Mr. Spellar
  None of the monies referred to in the previous answer have been allocated to the Andersonstown Newspaper Group for projects(a) outside the UK or (b) in the Republic of Ireland.

  Anti-TNF Drugs
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to ensure all patients requiring anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis will receive this medication within three months. [186017]

  Angela Smith
  The degree to which the health and social care system can respond to presenting needs is limited by the level of resources available. Although there are no plans to ensure that all patients requiring anti-TNF drugs for rheumatoid arthritis will receive this medication within three months, my Department remains committed to extending the availability of these specialist drugs where they will clearly result in a significant improvement in patient care.

  Substantial extra funding has been allocated to the Health and Social Services Boards to allow 100 additional patients to receive anti-TNF drugs during this financial year. The Department of Health, Social Services will continue to seek additional resources to further improve access to these and other specialist medicines.

  Apple Growing
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what plans he has to introduce special programmes to support and encourage apple growing in Northern Ireland. [186288]

  Mr. Pearson
  I have no plans to introduce special programmes to support and encourage apple growing in Northern Ireland. Producer organisations in the sector can avail of financial assistance through the structural support arrangements under the EC Fruit and Vegetable Regime. Further, the Environmentally Sensitive Areas and Countryside Management Schemes include options whereby scheme participants may receive payment towards the restoration or re-creation of traditional orchards.

  Aid is available to the apple processing sector through the EU Agricultural Processing and Marketing Grant Scheme and the EU Marketing of Quality Agricultural Products Grant Scheme. Invest NI also provides assistance to companies in the sector.

  The Department of Agriculture and Rural Development continues to provide assistance to the apple sector through its advisory and technical services

  Coastal Protection (Northern Ireland)
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his oral statement of 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 343–70, what Royal Naval presence he plans around the coast of Northern Ireland to secure the Province against illegal importation of arms and explosives by sea. [186528]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  There are no plans for a dedicated Royal Naval presence in Northern Irish waters once the Northern Ireland Flotilla is paid off.

  Delayed Hospital Discharge
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement on the level of delayed hospital discharges in the Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust area; and if he will make a statement. [186221]

  Angela Smith
  The most recent figures show that, at the end of April 2004, there were 111 patients in the Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust area whose discharge was delayed, amounting to 29 per cent. of the Nort#ern Ireland total of 387. The total number of delayed days amounted to 6,124 with a patient average of 55 delayed days. Thirty-three Homefirst residents had remained in hospital for more than three weeks and another 47 were still in hospital at the end of eight weeks.

  It is unacceptable that some people have to remain in hospital long after they are medically fit for discharge. A target has been set for all Health and Social Services Boards to ensure that, by 31 March 2005, 85 per cent. of all people who are medically fit for discharge should wait no more than eight weeks for community services to be provided and that the number of delayed discharge days is reduced by 10 per cent. compared to 2003–04 levels. Considerable additional resources have been allocated to ensure that these targets are met.
  1136W
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action is being taken to reduce delayed hospital discharges within the Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust area. [186222]

  Angela Smith
  The Northern Health and Social Services Board has developed a strategy for older people to reflect the needs of its growing and ageing population. Over the past 18 months the board has been working to implement a comprehensive range of services to address the high levels of delayed discharges in its area, and is planning to invest over £4 million in the Elderly Programme of Care during 2004–05.

  A number of measures have been put in place aimed at reducing hospital admissions and speeding up the discharge process. Additional nursing home places have been funded, Home from Hospital and community rehabilitation services have been expanded across the whole Homefirst Trust area, and Rapid Response Nursing services have been established to provide acute care in the Homefirst community.

  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the effect of delayed hospital discharges in the Homefirst Health and Social Services Trust on hospital waiting lists at(a) Antrim and (b) Whiteabbey hospitals. [186223]

  Angela Smith
  Delayed discharges have some impact on waiting lists at Antrim, Whiteabbey and other hospitals, although the scale of this is difficult to quantify. Delayed discharges increase the pressure on medical beds and m hen medical beds are full, new medical patients may be admitted to surgical wards and this can sometimes impact on the level of s#rgical activity.

  Work is currently under way to re-design and reform the emergency care service in Northern Ireland. Health and Social Services Boards and Trusts are required to develop plans to streamline processes relating to emergency patient flows at all hospitals so that, by 31 March 2005, the number of delayed discharge days is reduced by 10 per cent. compared to 2003–04 levels. This work, coupled with planned increases in capacity, such as the 24-bed ward at Antrim hospital due to open in 2005, will reduce the need for medical patients to be cared for in surgical wards.

  Departmental Annual Report
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many copies of his Department's annual report were printed in each year since 1997; how many were sold in each year; and what the(a) publication costs and (b) sales revenue were. [183889]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The Stationery Office has provided the following information:

  Number of NIO annual reports issued

  19971

  —

  19981

  —

  19991

  —

  2000

  519

  2001

  558

  2002

  494

  2003

  443

  20042

  321

  1137W

  1The Northern Ireland Office has only produced a published version of its annual report since 2000. Prior to that the NIO was one of a number of contributors to the Northern Ireland Departmental Report, an annually published report produced by the Department of Finance and Personnel (NI), which set out the work and expenditure of all the different Departments in Northern Ireland.

  2The 2004 report became available for purchase only on 7 May 2004 so final details of costs and sales arc not to hand. Figures shown are the latest available.

  Departmental Vehicles
  Mr. Kidney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many road vehicles are operated by the Department and its agencies; how many personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the Department have occurred within each of the last five years; and what the Department's policy is for managing work-related road safety. [185916]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  The NIO and its agencies and the 11 Departments and agencies of the NI Administration operate a total of 2,492 vehicles. The number of personal injury accidents involving road vehicles operated by the NIO and the NI Departments within each of the last five years is outlined as follows:

  Number of personal injury accidents

  1999–2000

  9

  2000–01

  9

  2001–02

  9

  2002–03

  7

  2003–04

  9

  Policies for managing work-related road safety are encompassed within health and safety policies as required by Health and Safety legislation. These include centrally issued guidance, and local guidance where appropriate, on issues such as the use of mobile phones while driving, the need for drivers of certain Government vehicles to be medically examined, road worthiness of vehicles, driver competence and the availability of driver training.

  Employment Opportunities
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many adults were available for work in Northern Ireland in(a) June 2004 and (b) June 1999. [186243]

  Mr. Gardiner
  Latest figures from the Spring (March–May) 2004 Labour Force Survey estimated that there were 754,000 persons aged 16 and over who were either working or available for work in Northern Ireland. This compares to a figure of 748,000 for Spring (March–May) 1999.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in Northern Ireland in (i) June 2004 and (ii) June 1999. [186244]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The most up-to-date employee jobs data relates to March 2004. Estimates of the number of full-time and part-time employee jobs in Northern Ireland for June 1999 and March 2004 are as follows.
  1138W

  Employee Jobs1 in Northern Ireland

  June 1999

  March 20042

  Full-Time Employee Jobs

  422,150

  441,070

  Part-Time Employee Jobs

  201,850

  235,450

  Total Employee Jobs

  624,000

  676,530

  1Figures are rounded to the nearest 10

  2Provisional

  Figures are not seasonally adjusted

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask th# Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed in the small and medium enterprise sector in Northern Ireland in(a) 2004 and (b) 1999. [186266]

  Mr. Spellar
  Estimates from the Quarterly Employment Survey (QES) of the number of employee jobs in small and medium-sized enterprises (i.e. enterprises with less than 250 employees) in the private sector in Northern Ireland for March 1999 and March 2004 are as follows.

  Employee jobs1 in private sector small and medium sized enterprises

  Number of employee jobs

  March 1999

  288,900

  March 2004

  318,200

  1Provisional

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 100.

  Figures are not seasonally adjusted

  Fisheries Conservancy Board Vessel
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what steps have been taken to ensure traceability of the Fisheries Conservancy Board vessel since the disappearance of the previous boat from Lough Neagh. [184834]

  Angela Smith
  There are no measures available which are foolproof and which would ensure traceability of a stolen boat. However, there are other factors which may enable the Board to trace the vessel. The Board has registered the vessel with the Maritime and Coastguard Agency. Accordingly, if it was stolen and recovered it could be traced back to the Board. The Board is also looking at whether there are cost effective measures, which might make traceability easier. Furthermore, appropriate equipment on board the vessel carry serial numbers.

  The Board has taken measures to try to protect the boat from theft. The vessel is moored in a prominent berth in Ballycastle Marina. The Marina is staffed from 8.00 am to midnight during the summer and from 8.00 am to 5.00 pm in winter. There are also three CCTVs covering the Marina for security purposes.

  Football
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when the money will be released by the Department for Culture, Arts and Leisure to pay for the improved floodlights at Windsor Park. [186409]

  Angela Smith
  To date the Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure (DCAL) has made no commitment to release money to pay for the improved floodlights at Windsor Park. However, money may be made available
  1139W
  under the facilities component of the Soccer Strategy. This would be dependent on my being satisfied that the necessary changes in the governance of soccer have been implemented and that remaining issues, including the completion by the Irish Football Association (IFA) of a detailed audit of priority football facilities, are addressed in accordance with accountability requirements for public funds.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what progress has been made on implementing the football strategy in Northern Ireland. [186410]

  Angela Smith
  Since the Irish Football Association's (IFA) decision on 6 April 2004 to accept the recommendations of the football strategy. I have set up a Sports Council led Implementation Group to oversee the implementation of the strategy in Northern Ireland. This Group has held a number of meetings and advertisements were recently placed in the press by the IFA for the appointment of two external members to the Association's new Executive Committee. Arrangements are also presently being made for the appointment of a new IFA Chief Executive. In addition to these, I have established a Department of Culture, Arts and Leisure led Monitoring Group to ensure that overall progress rem#ins consistent with the central aims of the football strategy. This Group held its first meeting on 23 July 2004.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland whether the floodlights at Windsor Park will be upgraded in time for Northern Ireland's first home World Cup matches. [186411]

  Angela Smith
  Responsibility for upgrading the floodlights at Windsor Park in time for Northern Ireland's first home World Cup matches rests with the governing body of Soccer in Northern Ireland, the Irish Football Association (IFA), and the owners of the stadium, Linfield FC. I understand that the IFA and Linfield FC are presently putting arrangements in place for the necessary upgrading work to be carried out within the given time constraints.

  Hazardous Waste
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many sites in Northern Ireland are licensed to accept hazardous waste; how many such sites there were in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [186598]

  Angela Smith
  At present in Northern Ireland, the legislation that defines hazardous waste are the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (which came into operation on 31 March 2003) and the Landfill Regulations (Northern Ireland) 2003 (which came into force on 6 January 2004). Hazardous waste was not defined in Northern Ireland waste legislation before this.

  There are currently no landfill sites nor 'permitted' disposal facilities authorised to accept hazardous waste. However, there are various treatment facilities and transfer stations authorised to accept special waste as defined by the Special Waste Regulations (Northern Ireland) 1998.

  Hospital-acquired Infections
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many cases of hospital-acquired infection were recorded(a) at each hospital and (b) within each health and social services board area in Northern Ireland in each of the last four years. [186601]

  Angela Smith
  There were 228 reports of patient episodes of Methicillin Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus (MRSA) bloodstream infections in Northern Ireland in 2001–02 and 218 in 2002–03. The figures for 2003–04 will be available shortly. Records of such reports are maintained on an acute hospital trust basis and are set out in the following tables along with a breakdown by health and social services board. Earlier data and data for other infections are not available.

  Table 1: Number of MRSA patient episodes by acute hospital trust

  Acute hospital trust

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Altnagelvin Group

  22

  13

  Belfast City Hospital

  55

  46

  Causeway

  8

  9

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group

  13

  16

  Down Lisburn

  10

  8

  Green Park Healthcare

  2

  4

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital

  16

  19

  Newry and Mourne

  6

  4

  Royal Group of Hospitals

  40

  26

  Sperrin Lakeland

  5

  9

  Ulster Community and Hospitals

  17

  29

  United Hospitals Group

  34

  35

  Table 2: Number of MRSA patient episodes by health board

  Health and social service, board

  2001–02

  2002–03

  Northern

  42

  44

  Southern

  19

  20

  Eastern

  140

  132

  Western

  27

  22

  Individual Learning Accounts
  Mr. McGrady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what action has been taken by the Department of Employment and Learning to recover the estimated loss identified by the Auditor General's Report NIA 41/03, HC 673, as having accumulated through irregular expenditure on the Individual Learning Accounts Scheme. [183063]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The NIAO report on Individual Learning Accounts (ILAs) indicated potential irregular payments to providers in Northern Ireland (NI). The Department for Employment and Learning has obtained legal advice on the scale and nature of the potential recoveries as part of a wider validation exercise; has liaised with the Department for Education and Skills and the police, in England, on the progress of their investigations; has undertaken extensive checks with Companies Registry NI and Companies House Great Britain (GB) to establish the present status of ILA providers; and obtained credit rating reports on the providers highlighted by the validation work. The Department is undertaking audits of providers to determine the actual potential for recovery and a
  1141W
  number of providers which operate also in GB is being pursued on DEL's behalf by the relevant police authorities.

  Infantry Battalions (Northern Ireland)
  Mr. Garnier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many men and women as at

  Infantry battalion

  Establishment

  1st Battalion The Grenadier Guards

  620

  1st Battalion The Coldstream Guards

  620

  1st Battalion The Scots Guards

  670

  1st Battalion The Irish Guards

  620

  1st Battalion The Welsh Guards

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Highland Fusiliers (Princess Margaret's Own Glasgow and Ayrshire Regiment)

  620

  1st Battalion The Kings Own Scottish Borderers

  620

  1st Battalion The Black Watch (The Highland Regiment)

  651

  1st Battalion The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons)

  670

  1st Battalion The Argyle and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)

  687

  1st Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshires)

  670

  2nd Battalion The Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment (Queen's and Royal Hampshires)

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  670

  2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  667

  2nd Battalion The Royal Anglian Regiment

  620

  1st Battalion The Kings Own Royal Border Regiment

  620

  1st Battalion The Kings Regiment

  670

  1st Battalion The Prince of Wales's Own Regiment of Yorkshire

  667

  1st Battalion The Green Howards (Alexandra, Princess of Wales's Own Yorkshire Regiment)

  620

  1st Battalion The Queens Lancashire Regiment

  620

  1st Battalion The Duke of Wellington's Regiment (West Riding)

  670

  1st Battalion The Royal Irish Regiment (27th (Inniskilling), 83rd, 87th and The Ulster Defence Regiment)

  620

  1st Battalion The Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  620

  1st Battalion The Cheshire Regiment

  667

  1st Battalion The Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Regiment of Wales (24th/41st Foot)

  670

  1st Battalion The Royal Gloucestershire, Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  620

  1st Battalion The Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment (29th/45th and 70th Foot)

  620

  1st Battalion The Staffordshire Regiment (The Prince of Wales's)

  670

  1st Battalion The Light Infantry

  670

  2nd Battalion The Light Infantry

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  620

  2nd Battalion The Royal Green Jackets

  620

  1st Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  712

  2nd Battalion The Royal Gurkha Rifles

  712

  1st Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  687

  2nd Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  687

  3rd Battalion The Parachute Regiment

  687

  Total

  25,874

  Information relating to the number of personnel classed as 'fit' in individual infantry battalions is not held centrally, and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. However, as at 3 July 2004, the number of personnel classed as 'fit' in the infantry as a whole was 23,335. Personnel are defined as 'fit' when they are considered to be fit for service on operations anywhere in the world. It should be noted that although an individual soldier may be medically downgraded, they may still be liable for deployment, depending on the reason for the downgrading, the nature and location of the deployment, and medical advice.

  Invest Northern Ireland
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average time taken to process an
  1142W
  21 July were serving with each infantry battalion of the British Army who were battle fit or able to serve on operational tours in Northern Ireland or overseas; and what the establishment strength is of each of those battalions. [187255]

  Mr. Ingram
  I have been asked to reply.

  The unit establishment of each infantry battalion is given as follows:

  application for assistance by (a) Invest Northern Ireland and (b) Invest Northern Ireland's legacy organisations was in the most recent relevant period. [186854]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Invest NI target processing time for larger business development projects is 60 days. with a target of 30 days for less complex development cases. These times relate to 'controllable' time, ie periods when an application is being dealt with by Invest NI, and do not include periods when further information is required to be provided by the client. While target timeframes are currently being met in the majority of cases, there can be exceptions where, for example, the case is particularly complex or the negotiations prolonged.
  1143W
  The average processing target time operated by the legacy organisations IDE and LEDU, was 83 days. Invest NI has set target times which are shorter than those operated by these legacy bodies. It would require a disproportionate administrative effort to attempt to provide precise information on the legacy agencies' performance. However, it is clear that in the majority of cases the target timeframes were met and where this was not the case it again tended to reflect the complexity of the case concerned.

  Mortality Statistics
  Andrew Mackinlay
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 20 July 2004, reference 184778, how many of the patients in the table for(a) 2001–02 and (b) 2002–03 subsequently died in hospitals; and if he will make a statement. [187155]

  Angela Smith
  There is no information available on whether any particular patient recorded in the mandatory surveillance of MRSA patient episodes subsequently died in hospital as a result of that episode. The tables published annually by the Communicable Disease Surveillance Centre Northern Ireland regarding such patient episodes of MRSA are derived from data mandatorily supplied by acute hospital trusts. The data is aggregated and does not carry personal identifiers.

  Movanagher Fish Farm
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what(a) temperature and (b) quality checks have been carried out in the last 12 months by staff of the Movanagher Fish Farm to detect poor water quality. [181819]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is as follows:

  (a) Staff at Movanagher Fish Farm record the temperature of the inflowing water supply on a daily basis for management purposes.

  (b) Staff at Movanagher fish farm do not monitor water quality in the river and canal supplying water to the farm. This is the responsibility of the EHS Water Management Unit. Water quality is monitored at four points on the Lower Bann. The nearest monitoring point to Movanagher Fish Farm is at Kilrea Bridge, 3 to 4 km upstream of the farm. Samples are taken monthly. In addition, farm staff undertake checks of dissolved oxygen of the inflowing water supply if flows and temperature suggest that fish may be stressed.

  EHS is committed to chemical and biological monitoring of all significant waterways in Northern Ireland in line with national and international classification schemes and agreements. DCAL continues to engage with EHS and others to bring forward initiatives to address widespread water quality problems in Northern Ireland's waterways.

  National Stadium
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland why the specification for a national stadium requires a site of 60 acres. [186018]
  1144W
  Angela Smith
  In setting the minimum acreage specification for a possible multi-sports stadium in Northern Ireland at 60 acres, the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) is seeking to satisfy both the design requirements of the three sports concerned (soccer, rugby and Gaelic games) and defray costs to the public purse as much as possible through the acquisition of additional land space for mixed-use business development in and around the stadium itself. However, as this is not yet a formal procurement process, the SIB has been willing to consider notifications of interest from landowners of sites below 60 acres provided they satisfied the key criteria of acceptability to the three sports, deliverability and potential economic benefits.

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the reason was for a deadline of 30 June for submissions on a new national stadium. [186019]

  Angela Smith
  The deadline of 30 June for submissions on a possible multi-sports stadium in Northern Ireland was set because I have asked the Strategic Investment Board (SIB) to complete its evaluation of potential sites for a multi-sports stadium and report back to me with an appropriate location by the autumn. However, as this is not yet a formal procurement process, the SIB has been willing to consider notifications of interest from landowners submitted after 30 June provided they satisfied the key criteria of acceptability to the three sports concerned (soccer, rugby and Gaelic games), deliverability and potential economic benefits.

  Nursing Staff
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what percentage of the nursing staff at each Northern Ireland hospital are not of UK origin. [186184]

  Angela Smith
  Nurses not of UK origin are employed within the HPSS but cannot be identified separately either from HRMS or by the Trusts themselves. Information is only held by Trusts on the number of EC and non-EC nurses employed. Figures for the percentage of non-EC nursing staff working within each Health and Social Services Trust are as follows.

  Percentage of non-EC nurses working within each Health and Social Services Trust as at 30 June 2004

  HSS1 Trust

  Percentage of non-EC nurses working within each HSS Trust

  Altnagelvin Group HSS Trust

  3.0

  Armagh and Dungannon HSS Trust

  0.0

  Belfast City Hospital HSS Trust

  4.0

  Causeway HSS Trust

  1.4

  Craigavon Area Hospital Group HSS Trust

  4.5

  Craigavon and Banbridge Community HSS Trust

  0.5

  Down Lisburn HSS Trust

  5.0

  Foyle Community HSS Trust

  0.3

  Green Park Healthcare HSS Trust

  8.0

  Homefirst Community HSS Trust

  9.3

  Mater Infirmorum Hospital HSS Trust

  7.5

  Newry and Mourne HSS Trust

  0.4

  North and West Belfast HSS Trust

  0.2

  Royal Group of Hospitals HSS Trust

  10.3

  South and East Belfast HSS Trust

  0.0

  Sperrin Lakeland HSS Trust

  1.5

  Ulster Community and Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  3.6

  United Hospitals Group HSS Trust

  3.8

  Total

  3.8

  1Health and Social Services

  1145W
  Rev. Martin Smyth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the potential impact recruiting nursing staff from overseas to work in Northern Ireland's hospitals will have on health services in less developed countries. [186185]

  Angela Smith
  The Department is currently drafting guidance on International Nursing Recruitment that will advise HPSS employers not to actively recruit from developing countries that are experiencing nursing shortages of their own.

  The majority of overseas nurses currently employed within the HPSS are from the Philippines, where nursing surpluses exist and the national Government actively supports recruitment by health service employers.

  Parades
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what participating bands were listed in the notification to the Parades Commission submitted by Ballymacarrett District Loyal Orange Lodge No 6 as organisers of the 1 July parade; and what bands participated in the parade. [182845]

  Mr. Pearson
  Information in relation to Notified bands is as follows. Police are currently investigating if additional bands attended without prior notification.

  Notified

  1. Ulster Volunteer Flute Band

  2. Albertbridge Accordion Band

  3. Parkinson Accordion Band

  4. Crimson Star Flute Band

  5. Pride of the Hill, Carnmoney

  6. Lord Carson Memorial Accordion

  7. Hillview Flute Band

  8. Gertrude Star Flute Band

  9. Pride of the Shore

  10. Pride of the Ravan

  11. Rising Sons of Donaghadee

  12. East Belfast True Blue Flute Band

  13. Ballymacarrett Defenders Flute Band

  14. Ballysillan Volunteers Flute Band

  15. Shankill Road Protestant Boy Flute Band

  16. Rising Sons of East Belfast Flute Band

  17. Shankill Star

  18. Pride of the Shankill Flute Band

  19. Ballybeen Young Loyalist Flute Band

  20. Pride of Laganvalley Flute Band

  21. Fairhill Flute Band

  22. Monkstown YCV Flute Band

  23. East Belfast Protestant Boys

  24. Shankill Road Defenders Flute Band

  25. Millar Memorial Flute Band

  26. Fusiliers Flute Band

  27. Crown Defenders Flute Band

  28. Mount Vernon Flute Band

  29. Ballynafeigh Apprentice Boys

  30. North Down Defenders Flute Band

  31. Castlereagh Young Defenders Flute Band

  32. Blues and Royals East Belfast

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186691]

  Mr. Pearson
  None of the 11 Northern Ireland Departments nor the Northern Ireland Office have entered into contracts with any of the institutions identified.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many positions on public bodies in Northern Ireland are occupied by persons aged under 25 years. [184938]

  Mr. Paul Murphy
  At the 16 July 2004, 16 persons aged under 25 held ministerial appointments to the Boards of public and other governing bodies in Northern Ireland.

  Other information on appointments to bodies sponsored by Northern Ireland's 11 Government Departments can be found in the Public Appointments Annual Report for 2002–03. Information on appointments made by the Northern Ireland Office during the same period can be found in Appendix F of the NIO Departmental Report for 2004. Copies of both reports are available from the Library of the House and can be found on the internet at: www.ofmdfmni. gov.uk/publicappointments and www.nio.gov.uk/pdf/ deptreport2004.pdf

  Rail Network
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been spent on(a) maintaining and (b) upgrading the rail network between Belfast and the border with the Irish Republic in each of the past five years. [185114]

  Mr. Spellar
  Public money spent on maintaining and upgrading the rail network between Belfast and the border with the Irish Republic in each of the past five years is as follows:

  Infrastructure maintenance—Cross-border line

  £000

  1999–2000

  668

  2000–01

  691

  2001–02

  696

  2002–03

  720

  2003–04

  725

  Total

  3,500

  This includes work carried out on the track, level crossings, bridges/embankments and buildings/stations.

  £000

  1999–2000

  5,150

  2000–01

  1,175

  2001–02

  2,800

  1147W

  Upgrading cross-border line

  £000

  2002–03

  2,552

  2003–04

  5,700

  Total

  17,377

  This includes work carried out on resignalling at Lurgan, the City junction to Central relay, fencing, conversion to full barrier and the installation of CCTV at Moira and Trummery accommodatio# crossings and the upgrading of Belfast Central station.

  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money from Northern Ireland Departments has been spent on(a) maintaining and (b) improving the Enterprise rail service between Belfast and Dublin in each of the past five years. [185115]

  Mr. Spellar
  Public money spent on maintaining and improving the Enterprise rail service between Belfast and Dublin in each of the last five years is as follows:

  £000

  1999–2000

  523

  2000–01

  786

  2001–02

  932

  2002–03

  1,006

  2003–04

  1,200

  Total

  4,447

  Within this, around £1.9 million was spent on routine maintenance of the rolling stock and around £2.5 million on the refurbishment of Enterprise carriages. Translink classify the latter as planned maintenance.

  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland pursuant to his answer of 15 July 2004,Official Report, column 1329W, on the Railway Review Group, if he will list the officials from (a) the Department for Regional Development, (b) the Department of Finance and Personnel and (c) Translink who are members of the Railway Review Group. [186305]

  Mr. Spellar
  Listed as follows are the officials from the Department for Regional Development, Department of Finance and Personnel, Translink and the Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company who are members of Railways Review Group.

  Members of Railways Review Group

  Official

  (a)

  Doreen Brown (Department for Regional Development)— Joint Chairperson David Sterling (Department for Regional Development)Brian White (Department for Regional Development) Michael Pollock (Department for Regional Development) Garry McKenna (Department for Regional Development)

  (b)

  Michael Brennan (Department of Finance and Personnel)

  (c)

  Keith Moffatt (Translink)—Joint Chairperson Jim Aiken (Northern Ireland Transport Holding Company) Stephen Armstrong (Translink)Clive Bradberry (Translink) Mal McGreevy (Translink)

  1148W
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what assessment he has made of the Department of Transport's New Approach to Transport Appraisal; and whether future investment decisions relating to Northern Ireland's railways network will be considered in the light of this report. [186855]

  Mr. Spellar
  The New Approach to Transport Appraisal is applied to all transport projects as set out in the "Guidance on Methodology for Multi Modal Studies" and this is fully consistent with the Treasury "Green Book-Appraisal and Evaluation in Central Government" which is used to inform investment decisions in Northern Ireland.

  Royal Group of Hospitals, Belfast
  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people are employed in the Royal Group of Hospitals. Belfast in(a) clinical and medical, (b) secretarial and administrative, (c) ancillary and cleaning. (d) security and (e) catering positions; and what percentage in each category are non-Roman Catholics. [186989]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is as follows. Clinical staff are those who provide a direct service to patients. Therefore, clinical staff within this trust include the following terms and conditions groups: nursing, midwifery and health visiting, professional and technical, medical and dental. It was impossible to break down the figures for ancillary and cleaning, security and catering as requested so information has been provided as detailed. Cleaning and security staff are employed by the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS and are included in the figures for operatives.

  (a) Table 1: Number of clinical staff positions in the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS1Trust as at 23 July 2004 and percentage in each category that are non-Roman Catholics

  Group

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Percentage of staff non- Roman Catholic

  Nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff

  2,761

  2,291.95

  46.12

  Professional and technical Staff

  864

  770.31

  55.56

  Medical staff

  675

  635.73

  83.72

  1Health and Social Services

  2Whole time equivalent

  (b) Table 1: Number of administration and clerical positions in the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS1Trust as at 23 July 2004 and percentage that are non-Roman Catholics

  Group

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Percentage of staff non- Roman Catholic

  Administration and clerical staff

  1,090

  970.5

  27.80

  1Health and Social Services

  2Whole time equivalent

  1149W

  (c), (d) and (e) Table 1: Number of ancillary and general positions in the Royal Group of Hospitals HSS1Trust as at 23 July 2004 and percentage that are non-Roman Catholics

  Grades

  Headcount

  WTE2

  Percentage of staff non- Roman Catholic

  Operative

  715

  485.07

  4.2

  Catering assistant

  155

  109.00

  7.1

  Cook

  27

  24.59

  18.52

  Other grades

  26

  24.78

  26.90

  1Health and Social Services

  2Whole time equivalent

  Mr. Dodds
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what measures are in place to ensure equality of opportunity for employment at he Royal Group of Hospitals, Belfast. [186990]

  Angela Smith
  The Royal Group of Hospitals carry out a three yearly review of their employment composition and practices in accordance with Article 55 of the Fair Employment and Treatment (Northern Ireland) Order 1998. The last review, carried out in 2002, was submitted to the Equality Commission, which is the body with responsibility to ensure compliance with the legislation. All job vacancies are advertised widely and the advert includes a statement welcoming applicants from groups which are currently under represented in the work force. The Royal Group of Hospitals also promotes equality of opportunity for all groups covered under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998.

  Schools (New Build)
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many schools in Northern Ireland he estimates will be replaced as a result of the new build programme which is under way. [186235]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department of Education's current capital building programme will result in 130 schools being replaced.

  Second Homes
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what estimate he has made of the number of dwellings that were used as second homes in the towns of(a) Portballintrae, (b) Portstewart, (c) Portrush and (d) Castlerock last year. [186328]

  Mr. Spellar
  Although the use of dwellings as second homes has a significant impact on the housing market and on the housing stock available for permanent occupation by residents in certain areas, it is not possible to establish accurately the extent of second home use in specific areas without detailed field work. No estimates have therefore been produced for these towns.

  Secondary Education
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the result was of the public consultation on(a) the future of grammar schools in Northern Ireland and (b) on the 11-plus examination in Northern Ireland. [187121]
  1150W
  Mr. Gardiner
  There has been no consultation on the future of grammar schools, which will remain as an integral part of the schools system under new arrangements for post-primary education. Responses to the earlier consultation following the Burns report showed a clear majority favoured the abolition of the present 11-plus transfer test.

  Sexual Abuse Victims
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what research he has collated on the number of individuals in Northern Ireland who have suffered sexual abuse. [183019]

  Angela Smith
  The information requested is not available, as cases of sexual abuse are largely unreported, and information on the number of people who have reported experiencing sexual abuse is not collected centrally.

  Information is, however, available on the number of children who have been placed on the Child Protection Register because they are at risk of sexual abuse. At 31 March 2003, there were 238 such children.

  In addition, during the financial year 2003–04, there were 1,780 notifiable sexual offences against adults and children recorded by the Police Service of Northern Ireland. During 2002–03, when in total 1,469 notifiable sexual offences were recorded, the victim was under 18 years of age in 851 cases (out of 1,418 cases where the age of the victim was known or applicable).

  Sion Mills
  Mr. Beggs
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what future development is anticipated in the Sion Mills area up to 2030 that the wastewater treatment works due for completion in March 2006 will be designed to cater for. [186302]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Chief Executive of Water Services (Mrs. Katharine Bryan) has been asked to write to the hon. Member in response to this question.

  Letter from Mrs. Katharine Bryan to Mr. Roy Beggs, dated September 2004:

  You recently asked the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland a Parliamentary Question about anticipated future development in Sion Mills catered for in the design of the planned wastewater treatment works for the area. I have been asked to reply as Chief Executive of Water Service as the issue falls within my operational responsibility.

  Water Service estimates that the existing wastewater treatment works at Sion Mills serves a population equivalent of some 3,100 taking account of both domestic and non-domestic properties. Water Service is proposing to undertake a major upgrade of the Works as it does not have capacity for dealing with significant additional flows.

  The new Works will be designed to cater for a population equivalent of 3,700 by the year 2030. This has been assessed using established methodologies taking into account population growth and anticipated housing and commercial development. This projection does not take into account the recent proposal to develop the Herdman's Mills site in Sion Mills. This could have an impact on the required capacity of the new Works but the implications cannot be assessed at this stage. However, as the design of the Works is still at an early stage, it should be possible to allow for the impact of the proposals for the Herdman's Mills site at a later stage in the design.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how many people were employed in the textiles industry in Northern Ireland in(a) June 2004 and (b) June 1999. [186245]

  Mr. Spellar
  The most up-to-date employee jobs data relates to March 2004. Estimates of the number of employee jobs in the textiles industry in Northern Ireland for June 1999, and March 2004 are as follows.

  Employee jobs1 in the textiles industry in Northern Ireland

  Number of employee jobs

  June 1999

  19,300

  March 20041

  7,360

  1Provisional

  Note:

  Figures are rounded to the nearest 10.

  Figures are not seasonally adjusted

  Titanic Quarter
  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what value he places on Northern Ireland's connection with the Titanic as a means of attracting visitors to Northern Ireland. [182609]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Northern Ireland Tourist Board's 'Tourism in Northern Ireland—A Strategic Framework for Action 2004—2007' has identified Belfast, and in particular its historical connections with Titanic (Maritime) Belfast, as one of five signature projects for Northern Ireland tourism.

  Belfast City Council and the Northern Ireland Tourist Board are currently in the process of commissioning research into realising the potential value of the 'Titanic' theme for Belfast and Northern Ireland. It is anticipated that this research will begin in September 2004 with the first draft results available by January 2005.

  The Titanic brand could have substantial tourist potential, especially on the centenary in 2012 and the years immediately after. Conservatively, MAGNI (National Museums and Galleries of Northern Ireland) estimate that visitor numbers to a new museum attraction and to Belfast could be in the region of 300,000 per annum. Such is the interest in the Titanic and the city in which she was built, that it is considered that visitors will be attracted from all over the world.

  Lady Hermon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how prominent a role the Titanic story will play in the proposed Museum for Sea and Sky at Titanic Quarter. [182611]

  Angela Smith
  So far as the possible development of a museum at Titanic Quarter is concerned, I would refer the hon. Member to the questions tabled on 28 June 2004,Official Report, column 56W (179804). It is

  £

  Gasyard Feile

  West Belfast Festival

  DCAL

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Arts Council grant in aid ArtsDev Fund

  —

  —

  —

  45,000 ASOP

  45,00 ASOP

  80,000 ASOP

  Strategic Review

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  4,850

  Arts and Business

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  7,500

  1152W
  anticipated that exhibitions on the Titanic will be included in this museum and would obviously feature prominently in the year 2012, the centenary of the Titanic disaster. The museum would also include exhibitions both temporary and permanent on themes related to, for example, the industrial history of Belfast and the story of the people of Northern Ireland.

  University Admissions
  Mrs. Iris Robinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the lowest A level grades were with which students from(a) Northern Ireland and (b) outside the UK were admitted to each faculty at (i) Queen's University, Belfast and (ii) the University of Ulster in each of the last 10 years. [187447]

  Mr. Gardiner
  The Department for Employment and Learning does not hold A level grades for entrants to higher education institutions nor information by faculty. From 1994–95 to 2001–02 A level points scores and in 2002–03 tariff scores are held for full-time undergraduate entrants that accessed higher education through the Universities and Colleges Admissions Service (UCAS).

  In each of the years between 1994–95 and 2002–03 the lowest recorded A level point-tariff score of students enrolled at both Queen's University Belfast and the University of Ulster was equivalent to one E at A level. Information on 2003–04 enrolments is not yet available.

  Although this may be the lowest recorded A level score for entrants, institutions may consider a wide range of qualifications and experience in addition to or instead of A levels when considering student applications. It is also t#e case that A level point-tariff scores may not be available for all students applying directly to the institutions, students making late applications and some students from outside the UK who generally do not take A level examinations.

  West Belfast Festival/Gasyard Feile
  Mr. Gregory Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland how much public money has been allocated to the(a) West Belfast Festival and (b) Gasyard Feile in Londonderry in each of the last three years, broken down by Department. [183788]

  Angela Smith
  The amount of public money allocated by Northern Ireland Departments and their associated public bodies to(a) West Belfast Festival and (b) Gasyard Feile is as follows.

  West Belfast Festival

  Gasyard Feile

  2001–02

  258,030

  0

  2002–03

  358,138

  0

  2003–04

  317,321

  0

  Detailed breakdown by department is as follows.
  1153W

  £

  Gasyard Feile

  West Belfast Festival

  DCAL

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Foras Na Gacilge DCAL

  —

  —

  —

  23,000

  12,000

  16,000

  NI Events Co

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  NIFTC

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  0

  £

  Gasyard Feile

  West Belfast Festival

  DSD

  BRO

  —

  —

  —

  10,000

  46,200

  105,160

  VCU

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  68,811

  EU

  —

  —

  —

  150,330

  113,024

  —

  NWDO

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  —

  DFP

  BLSP

  —

  —

  —

  —

  121,914

  —

  DETI

  NITB

  —

  —

  —

  20,000

  20,000

  15,000

  OFMDFM

  CRU

  —

  —

  —

  9,700

  —

  —

  Total Public Funding Support

  —

  —

  —

  258,030

  358,138

  317,321

PRIME MINISTER

  Government Information
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Prime Minister whether Ministers are required to(a) consult and (b) notify other Ministers before deciding not to comply with recommendations by the Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration under the Code of Practice on access to Government information. [186609]

  Mr. Leslie
  I have been asked to reply.

  Consultation between Ministers is conducted in accordance with the requirements of the Ministerial Code.

  2012 Olympic Gaines
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Prime Minister (1) what plans he has to create a new ministerial post with specific responsibility for London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games; whether the post will carry Cabinet status; and if he will make a statement; [187183]

  (2) what discussions regarding the creation of a new ministerial post with specific responsibility for London's bid for the 2012 Olympic Games he has held with (a) the Department for Culture, Media and Sport, (b) London 2012 and (c) other bodies; and if he will make a statement. [187184]

  The Prime Minister
  Current ministerial arrangements already provide for a Cabinet Minister with explicit responsibility for the Olympic bid. In this capacity, the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport represents the Government, alongside the Mayor and the Chairman of the British Olympic Association, on the Stakeholders Panel, which is overseeing the delivery of the bid.

  EU Army
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister what his policy is on the French Government's position on the establishment of an EU army. [186597]

  The Prime Minister
  The framework for the European Security and Defence Policy was set out in the European Council Conclusions from Nice in December 2000. These were unanimously agreed by all member states. They explicitly say that t#is policy "does not involve the establishment of a European army".

  Intelligence Services
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister what research his Office has commissioned regarding reform of the United Kingdom's intelligence services. [186595]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. Member to my statement of 14 July 2004,Official Report, column 1431.

  Iraq
  Mr. Marshall-Andrews
  To ask the Prime Minister on what date he was informed of the withdrawal of the Iraq intelligence reports to which paragraph 405 of Lord Butler's report refers. [186799]

  Sir John Stanley
  To ask the Prime Minister which official at No. 10 Downing Street was first informed, by whom, and on what date, of the withdrawal of the intelligence on Iraqi production of chemical and biological agent referred to in paragraph 405 of the Butler Report. [186804]

  The Prime Minister
  I refer the hon. and right hon. Members to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Carmarthen East and Dinefwr (Mr. Adam Price), on 21 July,Official Report, column 285W.

  Ministerial Visits
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will list the local authority areas he has not visited as Prime Minister. [186994]

  The Prime Minister
  The information is not held in the format requested. For visits I undertook during 2003, I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Norman Baker) on 26 April 2004,Official Report, columns 829–30W.

  North Korea
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will meet representatives from North Korea to discus#(a) its nuclear weapons programme and (b) security on the Korean peninsula. [186973]

  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  US Presidential Elections
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister whether he plans to meet(a) Mr. John Kerry and (b) President George W. Bush before the US presidential elections. [186593]
  1156W
  The Prime Minister
  I have no current plans to do so.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister what research he has commissioned into the threats from weapons of mass destruction programmes in hostile countries. [186974]

  The Prime Minister
  The Government keep such threats under constant review.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Prime Minister what plans he has to meet leaders of other United Nations Security Council member states to discuss methods of resolving the humanitarian situation in Zimbabwe. [186596]

  The Prime Minister
  I have regular discussions with members of the United Nations including on Zimbabwe. We are considering the next steps at the UN with colleagues on the Security Council arid in the General Assembly.

DEPUTY PRIME MINISTER

  House Prices
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the percentage change in house prices in Suffolk was in each of the last seven years. [187211]

  Keith Hill
  The annual average property prices in Suffolk and the year-on-year percentage price changes for the past seven years have been as follows:

  Annual average price (£)

  Year-on-year percentage change

  1996

  62,205

  —

  1997

  68,377

  9.9

  1998

  73,669

  7.7

  1999

  81,221

  10.3

  2000

  93,495

  15.1

  2001

  106,018

  13.4

  2002

  129,167

  22.3

  2003

  149,167

  15.1

  £

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  North East

  56,503

  58,965

  63,866

  66,599

  69,656

  82,391

  94,590

  North West1

  62,951

  67,555

  72,158

  77,923

  85,059

  99,122

  108,956

  Yorkshire and Humber

  60,874

  63,312

  67,644

  71,416

  77,833

  94,116

  107,325

  East Midlands

  62,656

  68,907

  71,532

  80,259

  89,226

  111,511

  133,215

  West Midlands

  69,598

  75,840

  81,315

  92,055

  99,200

  120,618

  132,898

  East

  84,306

  95,478

  102,525

  118,718

  129,666

  158,248

  181,494

  London

  107,968

  123,921

  150,909

  174,727

  188,342

  206,960

  236,476

  South East

  98,329

  113,194

  124,490

  147,220

  161,049

  187,562

  213,115

  South West

  75,064

  83,269

  92,171

  106,202

  118,902

  146,784

  170,560

  England

  79,814

  89,714

  100,012

  114,335

  123.149

  144,081

  165,834

  1Published figures for the whole of North West region are not available prior to 1999. So the figures shown for 1997 and 1998 are estimates derived from a weighted combination of published prices for Merseyside and for North West excluding Merseyside".

  Notes:

  1. Mix-adjustment nullifies the effect of changes in the mix of properties sold from one period to the next through the use of fixed weights.

  New weights are introduced in January each year.

  2. The above figures are based on mortgage completions only— i.e. they exclude purchases for cash.

  3. Up to 2002, the figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample of completions obtained through the Survey of Mortgage Lenders. From 2003, the figures are based on a substantially larger sample.

  Source:

  Survey of Mortgage Lenders

  Housing Demand
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what his Department's estimate is of demand for housing units in each decade to 2050, broken down by UK region; [187330]

  (2) what his Department's estimate is of extra demand for housing units by decade to 2050, by UK region. [187334]

  Keith Hill
  The following table shows growth in household numbers using the 1996-based household projections for English regions. These give the additional households projected to form if demographic trends continue. They are not estimates of demand as they do not take account of future economic trends and housing supply.

  The household projections are to 2021 only. The figures show projected additional households between 2001 and 2011 ane between 2001 and 2021.
  1158W
  Notes:

  1. The figures reflect prices at the completion stage.

  2. Purchases by sitting tenants (under "Right-to-Buy" schemes) are excluded because the prices are below market value.

  3. Prices below £1,000 or above £20 million are also excluded-so that the average prices are not affected by outliers.

  4. The average prices are simple averages, not mix-adjusted averages. The reason for this is that the number of transactions obtained through the Survey of Mortgage Lenders is relatively small for a single county. Consequently Land Registry figures have been used instead. However, these can only be presented as simple averages. It should be noted, however, that changes in simple average prices from one period to the next may reflect both actual price change and change in the mix of properties sold in the respective periods.

  Source:

  Land Registry

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list average house prices by region in each year since 1997. [187325]

  Keith Hill
  The mix-adjusted average house prices by region for each year since 1997 have been as follows:

  Households in Thousands:

  2001 Base

  Growth to 2011

  Growth to 2021

  England

  20,992

  1,527

  3,008

  North East

  1,099

  36

  68

  North West

  2,875

  122

  235

  Yorks, and Number

  2,136

  124

  236

  East Midlands

  2,189

  110

  209

  West Midlands

  2,189

  110

  209

  East

  2,284

  210

  417

  London

  3,128

  249

  517

  South East

  3,403

  332

  657

  South West

  2,115

  202

  400

  Mortgages
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the average mortgage taken out by first time buyers was in each year since 1997. [187331]
  1159W
  Keith Hill
  The average advance (mortgage) taken out by first-time buyers across the whole of the UK during each year since 1997 has been as follows.

  Year

  Average advance (£000)

  1997

  46,600

  1998

  50,900

  1999

  57,400

  2000

  60,500

  2001

  67,000

  2002

  80,300

  2003

  82,600

  Note:

  The term "first-time buyer" refers to buyers who were not homeowners immediately prior to this purchase.

  Source:

  Survey of Mortgage Lenders.

  Figures are shown to the nearest 100.

  Post Offices
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the Urban Deprived Fund will be extended to include post offices in the 20 per cent. most deprived wards. [186732]

  Phil Hope
  The Deprived Urban Post Office Fund (DUPOF) was created as a one-off programme to target the most deprived areas with a fixed amount of funding (£15 million) which will be fully allocated by the end of October.

  There are no plans to extend the scheme.

  Affordable Housing
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what impact the additional funding granted to his Department in the 2004 Spending Review will have on the provision of affordable housing(a) in the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency and (b) in the South West; and what assessment he has made of the likely impact on the greenbelt and green spaces. [186540]

  Keith Hill
  The funding provided in the Spending Review will, along with efficiency improvements, produce 75,000 social rented homes and 40,000 homes for essential public sector workers and low cost homeownership over the three years to 2007–08. Decisions have not yet been taken on how Regional Housing Pot funding for 2006–07 and 2007–08 (including the additional funding for affordable housing) is split between regions. This needs to reflect the different pattern of needs across regions and the Government's national housing priorities, including development of the growth areas, and targets. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is aiming to complete this work, which raises some complex issues, by the end of the year.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will announce decisions on allocation of funding within regions next summer in the light of recommendations from Regional Housing Boards, which are due in May next year.
  1160W
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has carried out to assess the impact of expanding shared ownership schemes on the production of affordable rental housing for key workers and low-income groups. [187530]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister published the results of an Evaluation of the Housing Corporation funded Low Cost Home Ownership Programme in 2002. The research found that shared ownership proved good value for money for both the public purse and for the consumer.

  Shared ownership provides a means of helping key workers, existing social tenants and those on housing waiting lists into horse ownership while at the same time helping to reduce pressure on housing waiting lists and freeing up existing social rented accommodation for those in priority housing need. The balance between social rented and shared ownership accommodation is dependent on the Government's national housing priorities together with regional and local housing strategies and investment priorities.

  The funding provided in the Spending Review 2004 will, along with efficiency improvements, produce 75,000 social rented homes and 40,000 homes for essential public sector workers and low cost home ownership over the three years to 2007–08.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment his Department has made of the credit needs of low and moderate income borrowers in relation to accessing affordable privately-rented accommodation. [187531]

  Keith Hill
  None.

  Audit Commission
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many full-time equivalent staff of the Audit Commission were working(a) in the Inspection Directorate, (b) in the Housing Inspectorate, (c) on the Comprehensive Performance Assessment, (d) on local authority audits and (e) in administration and management in each financial year since 2000–01. [187561]

  Mr. Raynsford
  This is an operational matter for the Audit Commission. I will ask the chief executive to write to the hon. Member md ensure that copies of the letter are made available in the Library of the House.

  Building Regulations
  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps his Department is taking to ensure conformity of requirements for fire safety under the Building Regulations 2000 and crime prevention measures introduced into the Building Act 1984 by the Su#tainable and Secure Buildings Bill. [186791]

  Phil Hope
  It is anticipated that the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill will receive Royal Assent during September. It will provide an opportunity for Building Regulations to make a fuller contribution to government policies on sustainability and crime prevention. The regulations and guidance needed to implement the powers given by the Bill have not yet been drafted. When doing so, officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will identify the issues that are
  1161W
  amenable to control through the Building Regulations and seek the advice of the Building Regulations Advisory Committee and key stakeholders. The proposals will be subject to Regulatory Impact Assessment and public consultation in the usual way.

  Tom Cox
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister whether fire safety requirements for occupants' means of escape and emergency access for the fire and rescue service in the current Building Regulations will take precedence over requirements for crime prevention measures due to be introduced into the Building Act 1984 and the Building Regulations by the Sustainable and Secure Buildings Bill. [186793]

  Phil Hope
  Security and means of escape and emergency access are important to life safety. However, the practical requirements can conflict if not considered holistically. When new Building Regulations and guidance are drafted for Security, officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will take advice from the Building Regulations Advisory Committee, key stakeholders and other experts, to ensure a sensible and safe balance is achieved. The proposals will be subject to Regulatory Impact Assessment and public consultation in the usual way.

  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what studies he has undertaken regarding the energy losses occurring in public and private heated swimming pool shells in advance of his forthcoming consultation document on improving the building regulations concerning the conservation of fuel and power. [187385]

  Phil Hope
  Proposals for amending the Building Regulations energy provisions next summer were published on 21 July 2004. The consultation document indicates that whilst initial studies have shown significant benefits could accrue from defining standards for pools, more investigations are needed to establish the costs and benefits on a national scale, and whether regulating would be cost-effective and proportionate. It will be impossible to complete the investigations in time to influence 'his amendment but it will be taken into account next time.

  Name

  Number of rooms for smoking

  Number of rooms for Worship

  Number of rooms for Nursing mothers and pregnant women

  26 Whitehall—London

  1—Shared with OGD

  1—Shared with OGD

  1—Shared with OGD

  Ashdown House—London

  1—Shared with OGDs

  1—Shared with OGDs

  1—Shared with OGDs

  Eland House—London

  1

  1

  1

  Portland House—London

  0

  1—Meeting room

  1—First aid room.

  Exchange Tower—London

  2—Shared with OGD

  0—(under discussion with OGD)

  1—First aid room—Shared with OGD

  Ashdown House—Hastings

  3—Shared with OGDs

  1—"Drop in" room available—shared with OGDs

  2-1 "Drop in" room and 1 Medical rooms can be used—shared with OGDs

  Hempstead House—Hemel Hempstead

  1—Shared with OGD

  1—Room available on request

  0

  Fire Experimental Unit—Moreton-in-Marsh

  0

  0

  0

  Fire Service College—Moreton-in-Marsh

  0

  1—Muslim Prayer Room 1—multi-denominational chapel

  1

  Fire Statistics and Research Division—BRE Garston

  0

  1—Room available on request

  1—Room available on request

  Housing Care and Support Division—Glossop

  0

  1—Quiet room available on request

  1—Quiet room available on request

  Emergency Fire Service—Marchington

  1—External Smoking Shelter

  0

  1—First aid room.

  Temple Quay House—Bristol

  1

  0

  0

  QEII Conference Centre—London

  1

  1—private room available on staff

  1—private room available on staff

  Departmental Accounts
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when his Department's resource accounts for 2004–05 will be published; and if he will make a statement. [187565]

  Phil Hope
  The accounts preparation is progressing according to timetable and publication will be before the statutory deadline of 31 January 2005.

  Departmental Travel
  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the cost of(a) air travel by and (b) overnight accommodation for his Department's officials on departmental business was in 2003–04. [186594]

  Phil Hope
  In 2003–04 the cost of(a) air travel was £356,500 and (b) overnight subsistence and accommodation was £1.437 million.

  Derelict Homes
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what estimate has been made of the number of derelict homes; what proportion of these are council owned; what proportion of these are in(a) urban areas and (b) in the south east region; and if he will make a statement. [187328]

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

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which his Department is responsible. [187320]

  Phil Hope
  The data requested is set out in the following table for the buildings occupied by officials of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. As indicated, a number of the rooms are shared with other Government Departments (OGDs).
  1163W

  Name

  Number of rooms for smoking

  Number of rooms for Worship

  Number of rooms for Nursing mothers and pregnant women

  Government Offices

  8

  2—dedicated (multi-faith) 3— Meeting rooms (can be used for prayer)

  7—First aid rooms in 7 locations

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is an equal opportunities employer and is committed to providing an environment in which staff are able to work in safety and with religious tolerance.

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

  East of England
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what percentage of the East of England was classed as#urban area(a) 30 years ago, (b) 10 years ago, (c) five years ago and (d) at the most recent date for which figures are available. [187212]

  Keith Hll
  The following information is available for land area designated for urban settlements with an associated population of 1,000 or more in the East of England.

  Number of vacant dwellings in Tyne and Wear (Met County) at 1 April 2004.

  Local authority

  Registered social landlord

  Other public sector

  Other private sector

  Total dwellings

  Gateshead

  525

  94

  7

  2,936

  3,562

  Newcastle upon Tyne

  1,413

  350

  385

  3,020

  5,168

  North Tyneside

  404

  196

  6

  1,745

  2,351

  South Tyneside

  449

  48

  0

  922

  1,419

  Sunderland

  0

  1,401

  0

  1,185

  2,586

  Tyne and Wear

  2,791

  2,089

  398

  9,808

  15,086

  Source:

  ODPM's Housing Investment Programme (HIP) returns.

  EU Groups/Committees
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will list the working groups and committees at European Union level upon which his Department sits; and if he wi#l list the current agenda of each. [187324]

  Name of working group

  Current agenda

  European Working Group on Land-Use

  To provide guidance on the implementation of Article 12 of the Seveso II

  Planning in the context of Article 12 of the Seveso II Directive 1

  Directive addressing the issue of land-use planning in the vicinity of establishments handling dangerous substances.

  National EIA and SEA experts Committee

  To provide updates and exchange examples of good practice in Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) and Strategic Environment Assessment (SEA).

  Raw Materials Supply Group

  To discuss a wide range of issues concerning the extractive industries with European industry trade associations. The Group examines improvements to industry environmental performance, such as restoration and aftercare, and other initiatives which may impinge in this sector and its competitiveness.

  Working Group of the Environment Council on the proposed EU Directive on management of waste from the extractive industries

  To debate and negotiate proposals for new European environmental legislation, and to forward dossiers to the Permanent Representatives Committee (Coreper).

  Energy Performance of Buildings Directive Commitee

  To assist the Commission in the implementation of the directive.

  Standing Committee on Construction (SCC)

  To examine any questions posed by the implementation and the practical application of the Construction Products Directive (CPD).

  Eurocodes National Correspondents Group

  To assist in the implementation of the structural curocodes.

  The Committee on the Development and

  To implement Structural Funds Regulations, as required under Article 48 of EU

  1164W

  Year

  Percentage

  1981

  6.0

  1991

  6.5

  2001

  7.0

  These figures relate to built-up areas, irrespective of administrative boundaries.

  Empty Properties
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many empty properties there were in each tenure sector in each authority in Tyne and Wear, according to the latest returns available. [186955]

  Keith Hill
  The latest available information on empty properties in Tyne and Wear is tabled below. This data has been provided from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's Housing Investment Programme returns.

  Phil Hope
  The working groups and committees at European Union level upon which the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister sits together with their current agendas are listed in the following table.
  1165W

  Name of working Group

  Current agenda

  Conversion of Regions (CDCR)

  Regulation 1260/1999. It considers issues such as the simplification of funding rules, and other policy issues affecting funding programmes.

  The Structural Actions Working Group

  To address the reform of the Structural Funds for the next round of funding (post 2006), in the light of the "Report on the Economic and Social Cohesion of the EU". The committee will be negotiating the terms of the draft Structural Funds Regulations from September, which are likely to be finalised in the second half of 2005.

  Urban Environment Expert Group.

  The current agenda is the Thematic Strategy on the Urban Environment, which is part of the 6th Environmental Action Plan.

  Fire and Rescue Service
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what assessment he has made of the operational efficiency of regional boundaries in relation to the reorganisation of local fire and rescue services. [186613]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The policy statement accompanying the draft Regional Assemblies Bill published in July 2004 confirmed that where voters choose to have an Elected Regional Assembly there will be a Regional Fire and Rescue Service. A referendum will take place in the North East on 4 November. Other than in regions where referendums are held, the Government have no plans to re-organise local fire and rescue services, which continue to be the responsibility of local Fire and Rescue Authorities.

  All local Fire and Rescue Authorities are, however, expected to work together through Regional Management Boards to deliver the functions which are most efficiently and effectively performed at a regional level. These range from secure Regional Control Centres responding to the new dimension of environmental disaster and terrorist threat to purchasing consortia to secure better value for money for the taxpayer.

  No new assessment has been conducted of the Government Office regional boundaries, but they are the basis on which a wide range of government activities are organised, including contingency planning to deal with civil emergencies.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the basis was for the decision that a single regional fire control room should be created to cover the South West region; what assessment he has made of the operational advantages of such a reorganisation; and what assessment he has made of the impact on the number of deaths as a result of fire. [186698]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government accept the conclusions of the Mott MacDonald report on the "Future of Fire and Rescue Service Control Rooms in England and Wales", published in December 2003. The report concluded that the optimum solution to secure efficiency and effectiveness in the delivery of fire and rescue service control rooms would be nine control rooms in England, matched to the areas of the Government Offices for the Regions. Copies of the report are in the Library of the House.

  The Government's conclusions about the benefits of a regional approach are set out in the White Paper "Our Fire and Rescue Service" (Cm 5808), and are informed by on a number of reviews of the service, culminating in
  1166W
  the report of the Independent Review of the Fire Service published in December 2002. These reports are listed in the White Paper.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what advice he has sought from(a) the Practitioners Forum and (b) the Business and Community Safety Forum on plans for a national procurement strategy for the Fire and Rescue Service; what details of his reform proposals each forum has seen; and what recommendations they have made to him. [186967]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Practitioners Forum has had a presentation on the National Procurement Strategy. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister expects to make copies of the strategy available to the Business Community Safety Forum shortly. The Strategy will be launched at the Fire Conference in September; formal consultation will take place shortly after its publication. Both groups will be consulted at that stage as part of the wider consultation. We will consider all comments before the publication of the final draft.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he plans to remove the constraints imposed on major procurement to the Fire and Rescue Service in November 2003. [186968]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Fire Service Circular (11/2004) gave advice to Fire and Rescue Authorities on the arrangements that fire and rescue authorities should adopt before entering into new contracts for major operational equipment. However, the #eriod initially specified may have had the effect of making it impractical to run a tender exercise. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will therefore shortly be issuing guidance setting out revised milestones which will enable authorities to enter into more viable arrangements and create a natural progression to the proposed national arrangements. Where an Authority requires further clarification of whether a proposed contract will conflict with the National Procurement Strategy, they should not hesitate to contact the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, as two authorities have already done.

  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what conclusions he has drawn on the effect that a national procurement plan for the Fire and Rescue Service will have on competition in the industries concerned; [186970]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the impact that plans to reform guidelines for procurement to the Fire and Rescue Service will have on the supply sector's (a) small and medium-sized enterprises, (b) levels of employment, (c) research and development capability and (d) exports. [186969]
  1167W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Officials in the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister are preparing a Regulatory Impact Assessment on the draft National Procurement Strategy. This Assessment, which will be issued shortly as part of the consultation document on the draft National Procurement Strategy, will include a competition assessment which will look at the impact for UK customers. It will analyse the impact of the proposed regulation in the relevant markets and on importers into the UK. We will carefully consider any comments arising from this consultation exercise. Officials have recently held very constructive meetings with representatives of the Federation of British Fire Organisations (FOBFO) and the Fire Fighting Vehicles Manufacturers Association (FFVMA). Lead officials will also be participating in the procurement workshop lead by FOBFO at the Fire Conference in September.

  Home Buyers
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of home buyers were first-time buyers in each year since 1997; and if he will make a statement. [187326]

  Keith Hill
  The percentage of house purchases made by first time buyers in the United Kingdomin each year since 1997 is estimated to have been as follows:

  Percentage of house purchases made by first time buyers

  1997

  45

  1998

  48

  1999

  47

  2000

  44

  2001

  43

  2002

  38

  2003

  29

  Notes:

  1. The CML figures are based on mortgage completions supplied through the Survey of Mortgage Lenders.

  2. The figures exclude cash purchases and also exclude mortgage purchases where the type of buyer was not stated.

  3. In the context of the Survey of Mortgage Lenders, the term "first-time buyer" refers to those buyers who were not homeowners immediately prior to this purchase. But they might have been homeowners at an earlier stage in their lives. For example someone who, after a period of home ownership, sold up, moved into rented accommodation and is now returning to home ownershipas a "first-time buyer".

  Source:

  Council of Mortgage Lenders

  Homelessness
  Ms Keeble
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department is conducting into homeless families. [186310]

  Phil Hope
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister currently has four externally commissioned research projects on different aspects of homelessness, which include consideration of homeless families.

  1. A nationally representative survey of homeless families will collect data on the characteristics of homeless families and on the reasons for their homelessness. It will also assess the impact of homelessness and living in different types of temporary accommodation on the health and education of children, and collect
  1168W
  information on the additional costs faced by families as a result of their homelessness. Findings from the survey will help to inform future policy on homelessness and the use of temporary accommodation. Planning for this major survey has been informed by a successful feasibility study, which reported this summer. This study will complement quarterly statistical data collected on households accepted as statutory homeless by local authorities.

  2. Research about the causes of homelessness among black and minority ethnic communities. People from BME groups are disproportionately represented in statutory homelessness statistics. A development guide to assist local authorities and other agencies to address the needs of homeless black and minority ethnic households is expected to be published by the end of this year.

  3. A study to evaluate the effectiveness of a range of homelessness prevention initiatives, including family mediation services, help for victims of domestic violence to remain safely in their own homes, and homelessness advice services. This research has recently been commissioned, and will produce good practice guidance for local authorities and service providers, to be published early in 2003.

  4. A survey of households receiving Supporting People legacy funded services. This survey was commissioned to measure satisfaction with housing related support services provided by the Supporting People programme. The survey included interviews with 351 families receiving Supporting People funded services for homeless families. The survey reported on their support needs, the help and services that they receive, and on the problems they had experienced. It is due to be published in the autumn of 2004.

  House Building
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has issued with respect to l#vels of new-house building(a) within the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency and (b) in the south west region; and if he will list for both areas the sites targeted for development. [186533]

  Keith Hill
  The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not issued any guidance in respect of levels of new-house building(a) within the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency.

  Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10), section 7: Housing gives guidance on new-house building in (b) the south west region. General guidance on appropriate levels of house building are also set out in Planning Policy Guidance Note 3: Housing.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not hold lists of development sites, such information is held by the local authorities.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what targets his Department has set with respect to levels of new-house building(a) within the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency and (b) in the South West region; and if he will i mike a statement. [186541]
  1169W
  Keith Hill
  The First Secretary of State, my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has not set any targets for levels of new-house building(a) within the Bridgwater parliamentary constituency.

  The levels of housing development for (b) the South West region are set out in Regional Planning Guidance for the South West (RPG10). Policy HOI says the levels of net additional housing for which provision should be made in the South West region over the period 1996–2016 should be based on the average annual rate of 20,200 dwellings per annum.

  Key Worker Accommodation
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of public sector employees are in accommodation designated for key workers; and if he will make a statement. [187327]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not collect information about the proportion of public sector employees that are in accommodation designated for key workers. Information is, however, collected about the public sector employees given assistance with affordable housing through the following schemes:

  Capital (£ million)

  Revenue (£ million)

  Total (£ million)

  Average number of properties

  Average spend (£)

  1997–98

  2,557,000

  9,241,851

  11,798,851

  15,272

  773

  1998–99

  4,027,000

  8,812,889

  12,839,889

  14,965

  858

  1999–2000

  3,444,000

  9,931,275

  13,375,275

  14,779

  905

  2000–01

  6,519,000

  9,241,717

  15,760,717

  14,439

  1,092

  2001–02

  7,593,000

  8,480,604

  16,073,604

  13,999

  1,148

  2002–03

  7,956,000

  9,752,773

  17,708,773

  13,568

  1,305

  2003–04

  8,931,000

  9,354,808

  18,285,808

  13,077

  1,398

  Total

  41,027,000

  64,815,916

  105,842,916

  —

  —

  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what proportion of council-owned homes are directly run by the council. [187329]

  Keith Hill
  The stock of local authority housing in England is currently about 2.3 million. Of this stock, about 575,000 dwellings are currently managed by Arms Length Management Organisations (ALMOs) and about 4,500 dwellings are managed as part of Private Finance Initiative (PFI) schemes Therefore about three quarters of the stock is directly run by local authorities.

  Local Government
  Mr. Bill O'Brien
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what changes have been made to the 1988 Local Authority Publicity provisions, with particular reference to paragraph 43 on political publicity prior to an election; and if he will make a statement. [186319]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity, (Department of Environment Circular 20/88) was amended in April 2001 to take account of the new council constitutions,
  1170W
  under the Starter Home Initiative (SHI), 9,000 key workers were helped from the original £250 million budget. In addition, an extra £50 million was found to help a further 1,200 key workers in the SHI pipeline; and
  around 3,800 key worker homes are being provided through the Housing Corporation's Chal#enge Fund; and
  Key Worker Living is expected to provide up to 16,000 homes over the next three years.

  In addition, English Partnership's London Wide Initiative will provide some 2,000 key worker homes over the next two to three years through a!pilot scheme with private sector developers.

  Local Authority Housing
  Mr. Tony Clarke
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how much has been spent by Northampton borough council in each year since 1997 on(a) refurbishment, (b) redecoration and (c) renewal of its directly-owned housing stock; and what the average spending per property was each year, excluding the amount spent on central Government schemes, including the New Deal. [186516]

  Keith Hill
  Work carried out on council housing stock is generally categorised as Capital and Revenue. The work carried out under the Capital heading includes installation, replacement or major repairs and could be categorised as refurbishment. Work under Revenue would consist of minor and routine repairs, including redecoration. Figures for Capital and Revenue spend since 1997 are set out in the following table:

  particularly the possibility of individual members holding executive positions, and of mayoral referendums and petitions.

  The amended Code provides for restrictions on publicity in circumstances where there is a by-election or election affecting the local authority's area, a mayoral referendum or a mayoral petition. The 2001 amendment explicitly enables local authorities to respond to events or enquiries during the period preceding an election or referendum with answers that are factual and not party political.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the Audit Commission's latest ratings are for councils in(a) Essex and (b) the Eastern area. [186534]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information is as follows:

  (a) The Audit Commission announced the results of the Comprehensive Performance Assessment (CPA) for district councils in the county of Essex in June this year. The outcomes of the assessments for Maldon and Rochford district councils have not yet been published.

  1171W
  The results are listed in the following table along with the results for Essex county council and single tier councils in Essex.

  Council

  Rating

  Essex County Council1

  Good

  Basildon DC

  Fair

  Braintree DC

  Good

  Brentwood BC

  Good

  Castle Point DC

  Poor

  Chelmsford BC

  Good

  Colchester BC

  Excellent

  Epping Forest DC

  Good

  Harlow DC

  Poor

  Southend on Sea BC1

  Fair

  Tendring DC

  Good

  Thurrock1

  Weak

  Uttlesford DC

  Fair

  1Single tier and county councils.

  (b) The table below shows the CPA results for councils in the counties of Bedfordshire, Cambridgeshire, Hertfordshire and Norfolk. District councils in the County of Suffolk have yet to be assessed. The exception is Ipswich, in Suffolk, which was a Pathfinder council for the CPA methodology and was rated as a 'good' council. CPA categories for Single Tier and County Councils were last announced in December 2003 and their results will be updated again in December 2004. All district councils will have been assessed by December 2004.

  Council

  CPA Rating

  Date Assessment Published

  Bedfordshire County1

  Poor

  18 December 2003

  Bedford BC

  Good

  22 July 2004

  Luton BC1

  Good

  18 December 2003

  Mid Bedfordshire DC

  Fair

  22 July 2004

  South Bedfordshire DC

  Good

  22 July 2004

  Cambridgeshire County1

  Good

  18 December 2003

  Cambridge CC (Pathfinder)

  Excellent

  22 January 2004

  East Cambridgeshire DC

  Good

  22 July 2004

  Fenland DC

  Fair

  22 July 2004

  Huntingdonshire DC

  Excellent

  22 July 2004

  Peterborough CC1

  Fair

  18 December 2003

  South Cambridgeshire DC

  Fair

  22 July 2004

  Hertfordshire County1

  Excellent

  18 December 2003

  Broxbourne BC

  Good

  6 May 2004

  Dacorum BC

  Good

  6 May 2004

  East Hertfordshire DC

  Good

  6 May 2004

  Hertsmere BC

  Fair

  6 May 2004

  North Hertfordshire DC

  Fair

  6 May 2004

  St Albans CC

  Fair

  6 May 2004

  Stevenage BC

  Good

  6 May 2004

  Three Rivers DC

  Good

  6 May 2004

  Watford BC

  Weak

  6 May 2004

  Welwyn Hatfield DC

  Fair

  6 May 2004

  Norfolk County1

  Good

  18 December 2003

  Breckland DC

  Good

  13 November 2003

  Broadland DC

  Fair

  13 November 2003

  Great Yarmouth BC

  Good

  13 November 2003

  King's Lynn and West Norfolk BC

  Good

  13 November 2003

  North Norfolk DC

  Fair

  13 November 2003

  Norwich CC

  Fair

  13 November 2003

  South Norfolk DC

  Good

  13 November 2003

  Suffolk County1

  Good

  18 December 2003

  Ipswich BC

  Good

  22 January 2004

  1Single tier and county councils.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many councils in England were assessed as(a) excellent, (b) good, (c) fair and (d) weak in the last available assessment. [186535]
  1172W
  Mr. Raynsford
  Tables showing the latest results for all single tier and county councils and for all the district councils that have been assessed so far (189 out of 238 councils altogether) have been made available in the Library of the House. Since the Comprehensive Performance Assessment categories for all single tier and county councils were last announced (December 2003), a number of councils have had a corporate reassessment in 2004, seven of which have now moved up a category. These councils are Coventry, Durham, North Lincolnshire, Southwark, St Helens, Wakefield and Walsall.

  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what guidance his Department has issued relating to local authority websites; whether this includes guidance on external links to councillors' party political websites; and if he will make a statement. [186134]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has issued no guidance specifically concerned with local authority websites.

  The Department for En#ironment, Transport and Regions Circular 06/2001 "Code of Recommended Practice on Local Authority Publicity", issued under section 4 of the Local Government Act 1986, sets out certain limits on the nature of material to which a local authority may devote expenditure. It recommends that local authorities should not solely rely on websites as a means of disseminating information, and it sets out that local authority publications, including those published on local authority websites, should treat issues in an objective and informative way. The code does not stipulate which sites may or may not be linked to by a local authority website.

  Bob Spink
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) if he will apply the 2001 Census data for the next round of calculating the local government finance settlement; [187598]

  (2) whether it is his policy to use the most up-to-date data available for calculating grant distribution to local authorities; and if he will make a statement. [187599]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On 21 July 2004, I announced to the House that the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister does not intend to use 2001 Census data for the 2005–06 Local Government Finance Settlement, 21 July 2004.Official Report, column 3OWS.

  This announcement followed work carried out by officials from the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister and local government experts during the last year to remodel Formula Spending Shares (FSSs) using the 2001 Census data. Incorporating the new Census data in the funding formula is not a simple task. It is technically incorrect to update the Census data in the police formula; and in other areas the changes needed to incorporate the 2001 Census data would break the current formula freeze, and could cause large changes to the distribution of FSSs. I should also add that, for the Environmental, Protective and Cultural Services and the Highways Maintenance formulae, we still do not have all the 2001 Census data we need.

  In the Government's December 2001 White Paper 'Strong Local Leadership–Quality Public Services' (CM5237), it was announced that there would be a

  1173W
  freeze on formula changes for 2004–05 and 2005–06 in order to ensure a period of stability for councils. In deciding not to use 2001 Census data in the 2005–06 FSS calculations, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister balanced this aim of providing stability in local authority funding against our desire to use the most up-to-date data in the funding formulae calculations.

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy#Prime Minister what the cost was of the Boundary Committee Review of local government in(a) the North East, (b) the North West and (c) Yorkshire and the Humber. [187254]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The costs of the local government reviews undertaken by the Boundary Committee were:

  £ million

  North East Region

  1,272,168

  North West Region

  1,973,416

  Yorkshire and Humber Region

  662,983

  Non-domestic Rates
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister pursuant to his answer of 1 March 2004,Official Report, column 753W, on the non-domestic rate pool, whether (a) the police and (b) other agencies in Gloucestershire were allocated funding from non-domestic rates in 2003–04. [186327]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Distributions from the non-domestic rate pool are currently based on population and the services which a local authority is responsible for. The national amount per head for 2003–04 was £317.1934786, and the relevant population of Gloucestershire for the 2003–04 Local Government Finance Settlement was 565,000. The resulting total of £179,214,316 from the non-domestic rate pool for the Gloucestershire area was allocated between the Gloucestershire billing and precepting authorities as follows:

  £

  Gloucestershire County Council

  151,436,097

  Gloucestershire Police Authority

  8,064,644

  Cheltenham Borough Council

  3,839,576

  Cotswold District Council

  2,804,945

  Forest of Dean District Council

  2,792,873

  Gloucester City Council

  3,836,122

  Stroud District Council

  3,770,422

  Tewkesbury Borough Council

  2,669,637

  The Fire Authorities in shire areas were not precepting authorities in 2003–04 and so did not receive a share of the non-domestic rate pool in that year. No other agencies in Gloucestershire received a share of the £179,214,316 for the Gloucestershire area.

  One North List
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the value of assets transferred from One North East to the partnership with UK Land Estates was; and what the(a) cost and (b) source of the advice obtained by One North East before the sale was. [186846]
  1174W
  Keith Hill
  The assets transferred (as disclosed in the Agency's 2003–04 accounts as a post balance sheet event) were valued at £122 million.

  The cost of advice sought was £2.2 million.

  The main costs can be broken down as follows:

  £000

  1. Legal advice

  970

  2. Property Consultant costs

  544

  3. Surveying costs

  515

  4. Accounting, tax and other technical advice

  160

  Specialist advice was received from Eversheds (Legal), King Sturge (Property Specialists), PriceWaterhouseCoopers (Tax) and PartnershipsUK (more General advice).

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mrs. Spelman
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when he will reply to the Question tabled by the hon. Member for Meriden on 21 June, reference 180362, on refurbishment of buildings. [186418]

  Phil Hope
  A reply was given to the hon. Member on 13 August 2004.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many contracts#his Office had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg, (d) the Bank of Scotland, (e) Price WaterhouseCoopers, (f) Deloitte and Touche, (g) KPMG and (h) Ernst & Young for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186695]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Since 2001–02, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has had two contracts, one with Ernst & Young and the other with PriceWaterhouseCoopers, both in 2003–04. Ernst & Young was paid £62,734 excluding VAT to review the Fire and Rescue Service private finance initiative programme.

  PriceWaterhouseCoopers carried out work on the Housing Private Finance Initiative Procurement Pack. The Housing Procurement Pack was jointly procured with the 4Ps, (Public Private Partnerships Programme) an agency of the Local Government Association set up to provide advice to local authorities on PPP/PFIs. The total fee paid was £57,486 excluding VAT. 50 per cent. of the fees paid by the Office will be recovered from the 4Ps.

  Planning
  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will req#ire a start on works to activate a time-limited planning approval to represent at least a quarter of the development; and if he will make a statement. [186980]

  Keith Hill
  Under section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990, a variety of works is held to constitute the start of development. A material change of use of land may also indicate that development
  1175W
  has started, provided the change is related to the development. There are no plans to amend the law in the manner suggested.

  Bob Russell
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the minimum requirement of works commenced is for a time-limited planning approval to be activated; and if he will make a statement. [186981]

  Keith Hill
  The activities that may indicate that a planning permission has begun to be implemented include: any work of construction; demolition of a building on the site; the digging of a trench to contain foundations; the laying of any underground main or pipe to the foundations; laying out an access road; and any material change in the use of the land. The full list is in section 56 of the Town and Country Planning Act 1990.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister when the revised Planning Policy Guidance, PPG22, on renewable energy will be published; and if he will make a statement. [186557]

  Keith Hill
  Planning policy statement 22 (PPS22) on renewable energy was published on 9 August 2004. Copies of the document are available in the Libraries of the House and have been sent out to all planning authorities in England.

  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) when the Government will publish good practice guidance for local authorities and developers on the planning obligations; [187150]

  (2) when the Government plan to issue a revised circular on planning obligations. [187175]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister aims to publish a Good Practice Guide on planning obligations in early 2005, alongside a new circular on planning obligations. A draft of the new circular is to be issued for consultation in the autumn.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is also continuing work on developing proposals for an optional planning charge, so that decisions on implementation can be made in the context of the Chancellor's decision on a Planning Gain Supplement at the end of 2005.

  Jim Knight
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many local authorities have conducted n#eds assessments on sport, recreation and open space facilities as required by Planning Policy Guidance Note 17. [187383]

  Keith Hill
  PPG17 was published in July 2002. An assessment of its implementation and effectiveness will be undertaken as part of the normal policy review process within five years of publication.

  The collection of regular statistics on the implementation of specific national planning policies could be attained only at disproportionate cost. However, Government offices do scrutinise statutory development plans for compliance with national policies before these plans are adopted.

  Under the new planning system local development frameworks must be supported by an evidence base comprising data such as that required by PPG17. Where
  1176W
  this evidence falls short of such a requirement, inspectors could rule al public examination that the plan did not meet the test of soundness. Subsequently authorities' annual monitoring reports which will report upon policy performance, will also provide a mechanism by which Government offices can assess whether PPG 17 requirements continue to be met.

  Postal Voting
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he assessed the(a) support for and (b) problems of all postal voting in (i) the North East, (ii) the North West and (iii) Yorkshire and the Humber. [186997]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Government listened to the concerns raised in the Commons debates on 19 and 21 July about whether we should go ahead with referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber. In light of these, the Government decided to proceed with the referendum in the North East, subject to the Electoral Commission's report. The Government also decided to reschedule referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber once we had considered the report prepared by the Electoral Commission. This report was published on 27 August.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what steps he is taking to prevent the postal vote problems in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber from appearing in the North East. [186998]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The rules for the North East referendum were approved by Parliament in July. The administration of the North East referendum is for the Chief Counting Officer, Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive of Sunderland city council and for the local counting officers.

  The Electoral Commission published their report into the June electoral pilots on 27 August and has said:
  "The Commission has therefore considered carefully, in the light of our conclusions in relation to postal voting more generally, whether it is appropriate for the referendum in the North East to continue as planned…our conclusion is that the referendum should proceed as an all-postal ballot without major changes to the process."

  In reaching this conclusion the Electoral Commission highlighted the desirability of avoiding late changes in a process already approved by Parliament, and a number of additional factors specific to the North East referendum, as follows:
  The form of all postal-voting defined in law for the regional referendum is a significant improvement over that piloted in June, in part as a result of changes advocated by the Commission earlier in the year. For example there is no requirement for a witness to sign the security statement and more assistance and delivery points are provided for and discretion given to counting officers to provide additional points as they see fit.
  There is presently no evidence on which to conclude that an all-postal referendum in the North East would be unsafe in terms of fraud or malpractice To the Commission's knowledge, no allegations of electoral fraud made in the North East in relation to the June all-postal pilot scheme have led to formal prosecutions.

  Voters and election professionals in the North East have substantial previous experience of all-postal ballots.

  The public is more positive about all-postal voting, and its future use, in the North East than in any other pilot region; and

  1177W
  The capacity of commercial printers and the Royal Mail to manage an all-postal ballot of the scale required in the North East (with approximately 1.9 million electors) was evidenced in June and their capacity will be further enhanced by the lack of competing pressures from other all-postal ballots taking place simultaneously. Additionally, planning between printers, local authorities and other key suppliers is already well under way.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is considering the Electoral Commission's report and will make a statement to Parliament about the implications for the regional referendums soon.

  Private Sector Housing
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what research his Department has carried out into potential policy mechanisms aimed at stimulating growth in the private rented sector. [187532]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is committed to securing a larger, better-quality, better-managed private rented sector. The Housing Bill currently before Parliament includes a number of measures, the licensing of private rented properties, designed to help achieve this objective.

  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister's research has recently focused on aspects of the condition and management of properties in the private rented sector which are key to building market confidence.

  Recent research carried out for the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister has included: powers for private sector housing renewal; the housing health and safety rating system and houses in multiple occupation; tenancy deposit schemes; the economics of the park homes industry; run-down private sector housing; fiscal policy options to promote affordable housing; voluntary accreditation schemes: and harassment and unlawful eviction of private sector tenants and park home residents.

  The English House Condition Survey (EHCS) is also used to monitor overall improvements in the sector.

  Mr. Love
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what measures his Department is taking to stimulate private sector involvement in the delivery of(a) shared equity and (b) privately-rented accommodation. [187536]

  Keith Hill
  The Housing Bill, currently before Parliament, contains a provision that would allow the Housing Corporation to pay grants to bodies other than Registered Social Landlords (RSLs). Such grants would be essentially for the same housing purposes as the Corporation's grants to RSLs. This could include the provision of shared equity schemes such as Homebuy.

  The Government are keen to secure a larger contribution from the private rented sector towards meeting housing need. Measures in the Housing Bill should raise the standards, the professionalism, and the reputation of the sector. Consultations are also under way on ways of encouraging new institutional investment in residential property, including the use of Property Investment Fund.

  Public Bodies
  Mr. Edward Davey
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what the estimated(a) total budget,
  1178W
  (b) departmental funding and (c) cost to his Department of the (i) Property Consultative Group, (ii) Home Buying and Selling Forum, (iii) Central Stakeholder Group, (iv) Building Regulations Advisory Committee and (v) Home Ownership Task Force are for the financial years 2005–06 to 2007–08. [187564]

  Keith Hill
  With regard to the Property Consultative Group, I refer the hon. Member to the answer given on 28 April 2004,Official Report, column 1139W.

  The Home Buying and Selling Forum and Central Stakeholder Groups are hosted by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister, in, one of its buildings and the costs falls within its general administration and staff budget: there is no separate budget for these groups. The estimated costs for the financial years 2005–06 to 2007–08 are not expected to change significantly from those quoted for 2004–05, in the answer given on 30 June 2004, Official Report, column 294W.

  The Building Regulations Advisory Committee does not receive Government funding other than costs internal to the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister of sponsoring it. We are unable to estimate costs for the financial years 2005–06 to 2007–08, but do not expect them to change significantly from the £70,000 quoted for 2003–04 on 28 April 2004, Official Report, column 1140W.

  With regard to the Home Ownership Task Force, the answer is none. The Task Force's work was completed with the publication of its report "A Home of My Own" on 13 November 2003.

  Regional Assemblies
  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what information was available to his Ministers on 22 July about the likely outcomes of votes for regional assemblies. [186995]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Ministers were aware of a number of published surveys and opinion polls. The decision to reschedule the referendums in Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West followed differences of view in the House of Commons about whether the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister should go ahead with those referendums, on the basis proposed involving all postal ballots, by November 4.

  Peter Bottomley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will estimate the resources which have been put into preparing for the postponed votes on regional assemblies. [186996]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The referendums for Yorkshire and the Humber and the North West are being rescheduled, so preparation for them has been and still is necessary. Some of the preparations are common to all three regions. The main costs incurred by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister which can be attributed to the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber are as follows:The costs for the Boundary Committee's local government reviews in these two regions is included in the answer I am giving to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) today (PQ 187254).

  1179W
  Some costs in relation to the Your Say information campaign. These are detailed in the answer I am giving to the hon. Member for North Essex (Mr. Jenkin) today (PQ 187162).

  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister (1) what the total cost is of the Your Say information campaign on elected regional assemblies in(a) the North West, (b) Yorkshire and the Humber and (c) the North East to date; [187162]

  (2) what his revised estimate is of the total cost of the Your Say information campaigns in the light of the postponement of the referendums in the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber; [187252]

  (3) if he will list each item of expenditure undertaken as part of the Your Say information campaign on elected regional assemblies, broken down by the region in which that expenditure was undertaken. [187253]

  Mr. Raynsford
  Originally, the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister proposed a budget for the Your Say information campaign across all three regions of £5 million.

  Information campaign activity relating to the North West and Yorkshire and the Humber was suspended on 22 July. The Department has sought to secure refunds for expenditure related to these two regions, wherever possible.

  It is estimated that total expenditure until the referendum in November will be approximately £3.2 million.

  Expected expenditure to the end of the campaign can be broken down by region, into its main components, thus:

  £000

  North West

  Yorkshire and the Humber

  North East

  Total

  (a) Production and distribution of leaflets

  98

  72

  308

  478

  (b) Posters

  232

  193

  86

  511

  (c) Broadcast media

  242

  211

  223

  676

  (d) Newspapers

  137

  158

  128

  423

  (e) Events

  49

  39

  68

  156

  (f) Other

  309

  278

  408

  995

  Total

  1,067

  951

  1,221

  3,239

  Regional Bodies (South-West)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what has been the cost(a) each year and (b) in total since their inception of the regional bodies in the South West that fall under the remit of his Department; what responsibilities these regional bodies hold; what these regional bodies' total budgets are; that assessment he has made of their impact; and if he will make a statement. [186538]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for no regional bodies in the South West. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister is responsible for the Government Office for the South West, which is part of central Government and is not a regional body in its own right.
  1180W
  My right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has designated a regional chamber for the South West, under the terms of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998. However, the chamber is an independent, voluntary body and is not the responsibility of the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister makes a grant to the chamber to help it fulfil its responsibilities.

  Since designation in 1999 the regional chamber has been responsible for scrutinising the work of the South West Regional Development Agency and since 2003 has been the recognised Regional Planning Body for the South West. The chamber has been allocated the following maximum levels of grant:

  £

  2001–02

  500,000

  2002–03

  600,000

  2003–04

  1,613,000

  2004–05

  2,101,000

  Regional Planning
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister what rules govern whether a unitary council's area can be treated as a sub-region for the purpose of regional planning arrangements. [187716]

  Keith Hill
  There is no rule. It is up to each RPB (Regional Planning Body) to decide how best to take sub-regional matters forward and to define the subregions in the draft RSS (Regional Spatial Strategies) revision. What might be an effective sub-regional approach in one region may not necessarily suit the circumstances and geography of another.

  The definition of need for a sub-regional approach should be based on an assessment of the functional relationship between settlements, such as journey-to-work patterns, or land uses within the area affected by the same strategic planning issue or issues which may well differ from administrative boundaries. This could include consideration, for example, of how the strategic planning system can assist not only in creating and sustaining the economic competitiveness of a city or a cluster of towns but in spreading the benefits of a prosperous city to the wider region (the concept of a `city-region').

  The sub-regional definition should be based on a clearly recognisable 'strategic policy deficit' which cannot be adequately addressed by general RSS policies or by LDDs (Local Development Documents) on their own. In some parts of a region, LDDs may be capable of being prepared within the context of the generic policies of a RSS. In some cases this may need to be on a joint LDD basis and the RPB may need to encourage the relevant LPAs (Local Planning Authorities) to produce a joint LDD in order that the RSS can be effectively implemented. However, in many cases there will be sub-regional strategies issues which cannot be tackled through a joint plan or where the LDDs require a more detailed strategic policy context which cannot be provided by generic policies in a RSS. Therefore, it will be common to have sub-regional policies as part of the RSS revision.
  1181W
  Where the RPB decides that it is appropriate to have RSS policies which are specific to a particular part or parts of the region, section 5(5) of the Act requires a section 4 (4) authority or authorities to be first to make detailed proposals, unless it is agreed that the RPB itself or a district council should do so instead. Providing these section 4(4) authorities agree, there is no reason why an RPB should not continue to take the lead, as it has in the past, in preparing detailed proposals on a partnership basis with these authorities and others.

  Planning Policy Statement 11: Regional Spatial Strategies (PPS11) will be published on 7 September 2004. Until now it was only available as a draft.

  Suffolk Fire Authority
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister how many firefighters were employed by the Suffolk Fire Authority(a) in 2004–05 and (b) in each of the last 10 years. [187208]

  Mr. Raynsford
  The information requested is set out as follows:

  Number of firefighters employed by Suffolk

  Year1

  Whole-time

  Retained

  Total

  2004

  244

  399

  643

  2003

  250

  415

  665

  2002

  253

  401

  654

  2001

  248

  404

  652

  2000

  249

  396

  645

  1999

  256

  400

  656

  1998

  252

  418

  670

  1997

  256

  423

  679

  1996

  258

  422

  680

  1995

  267

  415

  682

  1994

  264

  421

  685

  1Data refer to workforce as at 31 March for each year except 1995, where data refer to 1 January.

  Supporting People Programme
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Deputy Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to commission research into the effects on vulnerable people of changes in funding for the Supporting People programme. [187523]

  Keith Hill
  The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister undertakes extensive monitoring and research to assess the success of the Supporting People programme. The Office of the Deputy Prime Minister will continue to monitor progress to ensure the programme protects vulnerable people in a cost effective and efficient manner.

DEFENCE

  Army Recruitment
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many(a) officers and (b) other ranks have been recruited into each infantry battalion in each of the last five years for which figures are available; and how many are planned to be recruited in each of the next five years. [187342]
  1182W
  Mr. Ingram
  The following tables show the number of officers and other ranks that were recruited into infantry battalions since financial year 2000–01. Statistics prior to this period are not available.

  Table 1: Officers commissioned into the Infantry since financial year 2000–01 by regiment

  Financial year

  Regiment

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grenadier Guards

  9

  7

  2

  7

  Coldstream Guards

  6

  2

  6

  12

  Scots Guards

  4

  10

  3

  7

  Irish Guards

  8

  4

  3

  3

  Welsh Guards

  2

  6

  3

  3

  Royal Scots,

  7

  3

  2

  7

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  3

  6

  4

  4

  King's Own Scottish Borderers

  4

  4

  2

  4

  Black Watch

  7

  7

  5

  6

  Highlanders

  7

  3

  8

  4

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  5

  5

  7

  6

  Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  6

  6

  10

  12

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  12

  14

  10

  8

  Royal Anglian Regiment

  11

  8

  9

  10

  King's Own Border Regiment

  4

  4

  6

  6

  King's Regiment

  2

  3

  3

  4

  Prince of Wales's Own Regiment

  4

  4

  4

  3

  Green Howards

  1

  2

  10

  5

  Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  1

  3

  4

  4

  Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  6

  4

  5

  2

  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  6

  4

  6

  3

  Cheshire Regiment

  2

  1

  9

  1

  Royal Welsh Fusiliers

  6

  1

  6

  5

  Royal Regiment of Wales

  3

  1

  4

  1

  Royal Gloucestershire. Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  1

  6

  8

  4

  Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  6

  6

  5

  5

  Staffordshire Regiment

  6

  3

  3

  7

  Light Infantry

  8

  10

  30

  10

  Royal Green Jackets

  12

  11

  12

  10

  Royal Irish Regiment

  8

  1

  4

  8

  Parachute Regiment

  12

  16

  19

  14

  Royal Gurkha Rifles

  8

  10

  4

  6

  Total

  188

  170

  196

  148

  Table 2: Trained soldiers passing out from Infantry training centre Catterick to the Infantry since financial year 2000–01 by regiment

  Financial year

  Regiment

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  Grenadier Guards

  119

  108

  78

  137

  Coldstream Guards

  87

  50

  51

  119

  Scots Guards

  91

  78

  50

  83

  Irish Guards

  72

  87

  62

  99

  Welsh Guards

  111

  64

  57

  87

  Royal Scots

  56

  59

  79

  56

  Royal Highland Fusiliers

  55

  52

  97

  85

  King's Own Scottish Borderers

  70

  66

  47

  60

  Black Watch

  78

  58

  66

  88

  Highlanders

  16

  59

  53

  59

  Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders

  55

  57

  85

  72

  Princess of Wales's Royal Regiment

  218

  214

  224

  133

  Royal Regiment of Fusiliers

  95

  122

  135

  198

  Royal Anglian Regiment

  139

  127

  141

  188

  1183W

  Table 2: Trained soldiers passing out from Infantry training centre" Catterick to the Infantry since financial year 2000–01 by regiment

  Financial year

  Regiment

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  King's Own Border Regiment

  83

  69

  46

  55

  King's Regiment

  85

  100

  98

  74

  Prince of Wales's Own Regiment

  64

  81

  76

  104

  Green Howards

  56

  62

  64

  72

  Queen's Lancashire Regiment

  92

  78

  117

  104

  Duke of Wellington's Regiment

  94

  93

  91

  71

  Devonshire and Dorset Regiment

  77

  71

  52

  78

  Cheshire Regiment

  64

  74

  56

  72

  Royal Welch Fusiliers

  94

  102

  87

  91

  Royal Regiment of Wales

  85

  104

  68

  56

  Royal Gloucestershire. Berkshire and Wiltshire Regiment

  75

  82

  54

  102

  Worcestershire and Sherwood Foresters Regiment

  69

  72

  88

  60

  Staffordshire Regiment

  80

  96

  91

  120

  Light Infantry

  136

  149

  146

  170

  Royal Green Jackets

  12

  11

  12

  10

  Royal Irish Regiment

  75

  83

  62

  70

  Parachute Regiment

  379

  240

  246

  190

  Total

  3,065

  2,925

  2,845

  3,211

  The following tables show the latest figures for the number of trained officers and soldiers expected to join infantry over the next five years. At this stage it is not possible to quantify the numbers by individual battalion.

  The figures for financial years 2005–06 to 2008–09 take into account my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's (Mr. Hoon) announcement to the House on 21 July 2004, Official Report, columns 343–70.

  Table 3: Officers

  Financial year

  Method of entry

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  Direct entry

  165

  165

  165

  165

  165

  Late entry

  31

  28

  28

  28

  28

  Total

  196

  193

  193

  193

  193

  Note:

  Direct entry relates to those who enter the Royal Military Academy Sandhurst direct from education or civilian life. Late entry refers to those who apply for a commission through the ranks.

  Table 4: Soldiers

  Financial year

  Category

  2004–05

  2005–06

  2006–07

  2007–08

  2008–09

  Foot Guards

  368

  405

  418

  430

  430

  Line

  2,004

  2,200

  2,134

  2,036

  2,036

  Parachute Regiment

  230

  225

  221

  234

  234

  Total

  2,582

  2,830

  2,780

  2,700

  2.700

  Cheshire Regiment
  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the future of the Cheshire Regiment. [186425]
  1184W
  Mr. Ingram
  As my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence (Mr. Hoon announced on 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 343–70, the reduction in the number of battalions committed to Northern Ireland, means that the overall requirement for infantry battalions can be reduced by four. This reduction will comprise of one battalion recruited from Scotland and three recruited from England.

  Together with the phasing out of the Infantry Arms Plot, a new infantry structure is required. This will seek to preserve the best elements of the regimental system while adapting to ensure operational success for the future. The new structure will be based on large single-cap badge regiments of two or more battalions. Details of the new organisation will be worked through by the Army and announced by the end of the year.

  Mr. George Osborne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the tours of duty undertaken by the Cheshire Regiment in the last 25 years. [186426]

  Mr. Ingram
  The tours of duty and operational tours undertaken by 1st Battalion. The Cheshire Regiment, since 1980. are as follows:

  Date

  Primary Location

  Operational Tours

  Comment

  1980–82

  UK (Tidworth)

  Belize

  1982–84

  Northern

  As resident Northern

  Ireland

  Ireland Battalion (an

  (Ballykelly)

  accompanied tour)

  1984–86

  Hong Kong

  1986–88

  UK (Catterhana)

  Belize

  1988–91

  UK (Chester)

  Northern

  Ireland

  (Armagh)

  1991–94

  Germany

  Yugoslavia

  (Fallingbostel)

  1994–96

  UK (Cakington)

  Northern

  Ireland

  (Fermanagh

  1996–98

  Northern

  As resident Northern

  Ireland

  Ireland Battalion

  (Ballykelly)

  1998–2000

  UK (Chepstow)

  Northern

  Eight week tour

  Ireland

  2000–02

  Cyprus

  Falkland Islands

  Coy only deployed

  2002–05

  UK (Bulford)

  Northern

  Unit returns from Iraq

  Ireland

  in November 2004

  (Dungannon)

  Iraq

  Correspondence
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to the answer of 10 February 2004,Official Report, column 1321W, on deaths in service, when he will write to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull North. [187032]

  Mr. Ingram
  I wrote to my hon. Friend on 31 August 2004 and a copy of my letter has been placed in the Library of the House.

  Drug Smuggling
  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on recent naval operations to combat international drug smuggling. [186772]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Royal Navy makes a significant contribution towards UK efforts to combat international drug smuggling. At home, the Royal Navy act in support of HM Customs and Excise under the terms of "Military Aid to the Civil Power". In the Caribbean, the RN deployment (Atlantic Patrol Task (North), primarily promotes UK interests in the region and provides security to UK Overseas Territories. It is also tasked to carry out counter-drugs activities as part of its deployment and provides a tangible presence as one element of the UK's broader counter drugs activities in the region. In addition. Royal Navy units East of Suez may also be involved in efforts to reduce narcotics trafficking.

  Efficiency Savings
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his oral statement of 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 343–70, if he will list the principal areas where he expects to make the efficiency savings of £2,800 million; how much will be attributable to each area; and over what time scale these savings will be delivered. [186638]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence is committed to achieving annual efficiency gains in excess of £2.8 billion by 2007–08. The principal areas where it is planned to make efficiency gains are set out in the 2004 Spending Review White Paper (Cm 6237), chapter 13; work is continuing to refine these figures. Further details of the Department's efficiency plans, and bow performance against those plans will be measured, will be included in an Efficiency Technical Note, which will be published on the Department's website by the end of October 2004.

  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how the Government's departmental efficiency savings are to be implemented in the British Army in the(a) current and (b) next two financial years. [187341]

  Mr. Ingram
  An additional £3.7 billion was allocated to Defence over the period of Spending Review 2004. In parallel the Ministry of Defence is committed to achieving annual efficiency gains in excess of 2.8 billion by 2007–08. The principal areas where it is planned to make efficiency gains are set out in the 2004 Spending Review White Paper (Cm 6237), Chapter 13; work is continuing to refine these figures. Further details of the Department's efficiency plans, and how performance against those#plans will be measured, will be included in an Efficiency Technical Note, which will be published on the Department's website by the end of October 2004.

  Iraq
  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether British(a) officials, (b) Ministers and (c) service personnel were issued with copies of International Committee of the Red Cross working
  1186W
  papers about detainee conditions and treatment in Iraq delivered to Coalition Forces headquarters in October and November 2003. [183523]

  Mr. Hoon
  The International Committee of the Red Cross produces confidential working papers following visits to detention facilities. The majority of these papers contain information relevant to local Commanders, and concern issues that can be resolved at a local level. However, where working papers have contained more substantive issues, these have been brought to the attention of Ministers.

  A working paper dated 11 October 2003 was issued by the International Committee of the Red Cross to US service personnel in Iraq. This working paper was subsequently passed to UK service personnel and MOD Officials. This working paper was not passed to Ministers.

  We are not aware of an ICRC working paper having been produced in November 2003.

  Adam Price
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information has been given to the families of the deceased about the(a) progress and (b) conclusion of Royal Military Police investigations into deaths allegedly caused by UK forces in Iraq. [185888]

  Mr. Ingram
  Details of the information passed to the families of Iraqis whose deaths were allegedly caused by UK forces are being withheld under Exemption 12 of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information. Bereaved families are kept informed of progress and results wherever possible, although the prevailing security situation in Iraq has made this difficult to achieve in every case.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many service personnel serving in Iraq since 1 January 2003 have been discharged from the forces as a result of injuries sustained from(a) road traffic accidents, (b) armed conflict and (c) other causes; and if he will make a statement. [186378]

  Mr. Ingram
  As of 31 May 2004 centrally held records show that 16 service personnel who had been deployed on Operation Telic have subsequently been medically discharged from the armed forces as a result of injuries. The main reasons for medical discharges are as follows:

  Causes of medical discharge

  Number of military personnel medically discharged1

  Road traffic accidents

  6

  Battle wound or injury

  1

  Other causes

  9

  Total number of injuries

  16

  1Numbers of service personnel deployed on Op Telic and subsequent medical discharges excludes special forces personnel.

  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research his Department has commissioned on the offensive capabilities of enemy insurgents in Iraq. [186773]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Ministry of Defence has commissioned no external research on the offensive capabilities of enemy insurgents in Iraq. However, MOD continuously evaluates the offensive capabilities being used, working-closely with other relevant
  1187W
  Government Departments. This evaluation draws on a range of materials from a variety of sources, and includes work to identify the weaponry and equipment available to insurgent groups as well as their training and military experience.

  Kilve Bend (Somerset)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what future plans his Department has for the use of the range at Kilve Bend in Somerset. [186498]

  Mr. Ingram
  We plan to continue to use Kilve Bend as a helicopter gunnery range.

  NATO/Russian Relations
  Mr. Bill Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on relations between NATO and Russia, with particular reference to security in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet bloc. [186771]

  Mr. Hoon
  Formal relations between NATO and Russia are conducted through the NATO-Russia Council (NRC). The Council facilitates engagement between the twenty-six member-stales of NATO and Russia on a number of key issues. It provides a forum where concerns can be aired and practical solutions to problems can be identified. There is an increasing broadening of political dialogue in the NRC to cover key security issues including Afghanistan, the Balkans and counter-terrorism. Our aim is for Russia to be a long-term strategic partner of NATO. Wider European security can only benefit as a result

  As many countries of Eastern Europe are now members of NATO, their security—like that of other allies—is part of the normal business of the Alliance. NATO has encouraged Russia to make progress in negotiating with-Georgia and Moldova over her presence in the region; this was reflected in the communiqué following the Istanbul Summit (28–29 June 2004). NATO and Russia are working together on a range of security issues including: counter-proliferation; theatre missile defence; arms control and counter-narcotics. They are also conducting work towards joint operations such as Operation Active Endeavour (NATO's counter-terrorist naval mission in the Mediterranean).

  Nimrod MRA4 Aircraft
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects to agree the production contract for the remaining Nimrod MRA4 aircraft. [184458]

  Mr. Ingram
  [holding answer 16 July 2004]: Under the restructured contract with BAE SYSTEMS, formally amended on 23 February this year, design and development and manufacture have been separated as far as possible to ensure that technology is adequately de-risked before making further commitment to production price and schedule. A decision on full production is dependent on design maturity and price negotiation and is planned for next year.

  RAF Aldergrove
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Oral Statement of 21 July 2004,1188W
  Official Report, columns 343—70, what the future operational size of RAF Aldergrove will be; and whether it will include all present forces, with particular reference to aerial surveillance stationed on the base. [186527]

  Mr. Ingram
  No decisions have been taken as to the future operational role of RAF Aldergrove which is listed in the Joint Declaration as one of the locations where, in the context of a peaceful society, the regular garrison in Northern Ireland might be based.

  RAF Leeming (Nuclear Weapons)
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence whether he will make a statement on the security of nuclear weapons stored in transit at RAF Leeming. [186620]

  Mr. Ingram
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave her on 4 February 2004.Official Report, column 890W.

  RAF Servicemen and Women
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on his plans to reduce the number of RAF servicemen and women; and how many(a) military and (b) civilian employees will be affected. [186395]

  Mr. Hoon
  As I announced in a statement to the House of Commons on 23 July 2004,Official Report, columns 344–71, we must transform our armed forces so that they can continue to respond effectively to the global challenges of the 21st century. This means modernising the structure of our forces, embracing new technology and focusing on the means by which our armed forces can work together with other Government agencies to meet the threat of international terrorism and the forces of instability in the modern world.

  A combination of significant advances in capability, both within some existing aircraft fleets and as a result of the introduction to service of new types, such as Typhoon, and changes in investment towards greater deployability. better targeted action and swifter outcomes have enat led us to make a number of changes in the RAFs force structure. These changes, in conjunction with the achievement of planned organisational efficiencies, will lead to a reduced RAF manpower requirement of around 41,000 by 2008, from a current strength of around 48,500.

  In addition to the reductions in service manpower, we envisage reductions of around 10,000 civilian jobs across Defence. These will flow from efficiencies as a consequence of the Department's change programme and other initiatives, as well as changes to the force structure.

  Royal Irish Regiment
  David Burnside
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence pursuant to his Oral Statement of 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 343–70, what the future battalion strength of the Royal Irish Regiment will be; and whether it will include the retention of the three Home Battalions. [186526]
  1189W
  Mr. Ingram
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence announced on 21 July 2004,Official Report, columns 343–370, that the number of Regular battalions in the Army would reduce by four to 36 by April 2008. This will allow the resulting manpower to be redistributed across the Army to create more robust unit establishments under the Future Army Structure. To maintain a regional balance the 1st Battalion Royal Irish Regiment has been exempted from consideration.

  The Royal Irish Regiment (Home Service) battalions are fundamental to the armed forces' support of the Police Service of Northern Ireland. No decisions have been taken concerning their future role, as it is premature to come to conclusions about the composition of the long-term garrison.

  SA80A2/L85 Components
  Mr. Gerald Howarth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what supplies his Department has of replacement components for the(a) SA80A2 and (b) L85; and what plans he has to replenish these supplies. [186640]

  Mr. Ingram
  The SA80A2 family consists of the L85A2 Individual Weapon and the L86A2 Light Support Weapon. Stocks of consumables and repairable spare parts, sufficient to meet all operational and training requirements, are currently held in Ministry of Defence depots. Stock levels are regularly reviewed and replenished as necessary.

TREASURY

  Civil Service/Public Sector Relocation
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of civil service and public sector jobs presently located in London and the South East that will be relocated to(a) Bridgwater and (b) the South West following the report by Sir Michael Lyons, Well Placed to Deliver? Shaping the Pattern of Government Service, and the 2004 Spending Review. [186548]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line, with Sir Michael Lyons' recommendations contained in his report published in March this year and endorsed in the 2004 Spending Review, it will be for departments and public bodies themselves to determine the destination of relocated activities from London and the South East. Departments' decisions will be based on their own business needs and priorities, taking account of the requirement to improve public services, secure greater efficiencies and value for money for the taxpayer as well as of local economic conditions. Departments will also take into account forthcoming locational guidance that will be issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.

  In the course of the Lyons and 2004 Spending Reviews, some departments, including the Chancellor's departmen#s and the Department for Work and Pensions, have identified the South West as a possible destination for public sector activity. As you know, the
  1190W
  South West has already benefited recently following the significant relocation of the Meteorological Office from the South East to Exeter.

  EU
  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on progress with the agenda for structural reform of the EU. [186624]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury published its latest progress report on economic reform "Advancing Long-Term Prosperity: Economic Reform in an Enlarged Europe" in February. It reaffirms the Government's commitment to the Lisbon agenda on structural reform, assesses progress to date and concludes that, despite some recent actions, if the ambitious goals of the agenda are to be realised further efforts are needed.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer whether the EU target of 70 per cent. employment in 2010 is expected to be met. [186653]

  Ruth Kelly
  Employment in the European Union has risen considerably in recent years. Since 1999, EU employment has risen from 154.9 million, or 62.5 per cent. of the working age population to 162 million and 64.3 per cent. in 2003. Though the UK's employment rate already exceeds the EU target (74.5 per cent.), it is clear that significant further reforms are necessary, particularly in the new Member States, to meet the target of 70 per cent. by 2010.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what strategy is in place to improve productivity levels in the EU. [186622]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's approach to economic reform in the EU is based around improving both productivity and employment. To this end the progress report on economic reform, published in February of this year, highlighted a number of priority areas. These included:improving the regulatory framework, building on the four Presidency initiative on regulatory reform;
  strengthening the Single Market, with a more pro-active competition policy, further reform of the state aid rules, and by making the Single Market a reality for services as well as goods;
  promoting enterprise and innovation, including through new European Centres of Enterprise—local centres of excellence in enterprise policy;
  taking a leading role in world trade negotiations, by improving access-to all of Europe's markets and further reform of the Common Agricultural Policy; and
  strengthening the transatlantic economic relationship, by tackling the barriers to trade and investment between the ED and the US.

  Keith Vaz
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the annual growth rate of the EU was(a) in 2002–03 and (b) in 2003–04. [186650]

  Ruth Kelly
  As defined by the UK financial year (i.e., from the second quarter in the preceding year to the first quarter in the following year), annual real GDP growth in the EU25 was 1.7 per cent. for the period 2003–04 and 1 per cent. for the period 2002–03. On the same basis, EU 15 real GDP grew by 1.6 per cent. in 2003–04 and by 0.9 per cent. in 2002–03.

  Absenteeism
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the cost to public funds of absenteeism within the public sector; and if he will make a statement. [186339]

  Mr. Boateng
  The Treasury does not collect data on absence in the public sector but there are other published sources. Figures for the civil service, including estimates of cost, are published annually by the Cabinet Office in "Analysis of Sickness Absence in the Civil Service". The Ch#rtered Institute of Personnel and Development published a survey in July titled "Employee absence 2004—A survey of management policy and practice" which included estimates of average sickness absence across the public sector.

  Barnett Formula
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if, pursuant to his reply of 20 July 2004,Official Report, column 187W, what the (a) increase in the public expenditure programmes used as the comparator spend for the purposes of the Barnett formula for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between 2000–01 and 2003–04, (b) actual increases in the Barnett formula allocations to Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland between 2000–01 and 2003–04 and (c) increase in public spending between 2000–01 and 2003–04 in the North East for programmes used as comparator programmes for Barnett formula assessments were. [186864]

  John Healey
  The operation of the Barnett formula is set out in the Statement of Funding Policy. The formula is applied to increases in the spending of the comparable Government Departments. The increases in spending of Government Departments were announced in the 2000, 2002 and 2004 Spending Review White Papers. The increases in spending for the devolved Administrations were also announced in these White Papers. Information on identifiable public spending in the North East is published in Public Expenditure Statistical Analyses 2004 (Cm 6201). The Barnett formula is not applied to English regional spending.

  British Film Production
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost of tax relief on the production of British films was in each of the last five years broken down by scheme. [187141]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The UK has a number of film tax reliefs that are designed to assist the production of British qualifying films, as certified by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS). The estimated tax cost of Section 48 film tax relief is 440 million for the period 1997–98 to 2001–02 and the estimated costs for 2002–03 and 2003–04 are £300 million and £140 million respectively. The tax cost of the other film tax reliefs is estimated to be an additional £70 million a year.

  Child Poverty
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what resources the Government have 1192W
  provided to reduce child poverty in (a) St. Helens and (b) the UK, broken down by region, since 1997. [186812]

  Dawn Primarolo
  St. Helens, like the rest of the UK, has benefited from a range of measures since 1997 to reduce unemployment and make work pay, and to raise the incomes of the poorest families with children. Since 1997, the Government have committed substantial resources to tackle child poverty, both through universal and targeted public services and through financial support. For example, by 2004–05, total spending on financial support for children through tax credits, child benefit and other benefits will have increased by £10.4 billion in real terms from its 1997 level, a rise of 72 per cent. In addition, the Government have increased spending on the Sure Start Unit, and has invested over £2.9 billion on child care, early years and Sure Start local programmes from 1998–99 to 2003–04.

  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans the Government have to reduce child poverty; and if he will make a statement. [186839]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government are making steady progress towards tho PSA target to reduce by a quarter the number of children in low-income households by 2004–05, as a contribution to the longer-term goals of halving child poverty by 20#0 and eradicating it by 2020. By 2002–03 there were around half a million fewer children in relative low-income households compared to 1998–99. The 2004 Spending Review announced a new child poverty PSA target, shared by the Department for Work and Pensions and HM Treasury, to halve the number of children in relative low-income households between 1998–99 and 2010–11, on the way to eradicating child poverty by 2020. The Government will also set an additional target in the 2006 Spending Review to halve by 2010–11 the number of children suffering a combination of material deprivation and low income. The child poverty review, published alongside the 2004 Spending Review, sets out a range of key measures to reduce child poverty and improve poor children's life chances, thus breaking cycles of deprivation.

  Children
  Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many children(a) under two, (b) under five and (c) aged five to 16 years there were in (i) South-West Surrey constituency, (ii) Waverley borough council, (iii) Surrey county and (iv) England in (A) 1997 and (B) the latest available year; and what the estimate is for (1) 2007 and (2) 2012. [187288]

  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. Virginia Bottomley, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many children (a) under two, (b) under five and (c) aged five to 16 years there were in (i) South West Surrey constituency, (ii) Waverley borough council, (iii) Surrey county and (iv) England in (A) 1997 and (B) the latest available year: and what the estimate is for (1) 2007 and (2) 2012. (187288)
  1193W
  I attach a table showing the 1997 and 2002 mid-year population estimates and the 2007 and 2012 population projections for the areas requested. However, South West Surrey parliamentary constituency is coterminous with the area covered by Waverley borough council.

  Please note that population figures for the years shown are presently on different bases and cannot be compared precisely. This is because of work to improve popular ion statistics following the 2001 Census, which is being incorporated progressively into statistical outputs. By November 2004, all the data shown in the tables will be available on a consistent basis.

  This follows an announcement made on 8 July 2004 about population estimates, which contains information about population estimate revisions and can be found at:http://WWW.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/PEUannouncement_08Jul.pdf

  Information about the subnational population projections due for release on 16 November 2004 can be found at:

  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/Subnational/Projections-22July2004. pdf

  Estimated and projection populations—Age groups and areas as shown, 1997, 2002, 2007, 2012

  Thousand

  Year1

  Area

  Age group

  19972

  20022

  20073

  20123

  England

  All ages

  48,635.9

  49,561.8

  50,503.3

  51,527.1

  0–1

  1,217.7

  1,113.6

  1,153.7

  1,171.6

  0–4

  3,086.2

  2,864.0

  2,880.2

  2,908.4

  5–16

  7,490.4

  7,594.9

  7,244.2

  6,943.4

  Surrey

  All ages

  1,039.7

  1,059.9

  1,090.3

  1,106.4

  0–1

  25.4

  23.6

  24.2

  24.1

  0–4

  64.3

  61.5

  62.1

  60.9

  5–16

  150.0

  156.0

  162.6

  160.0

  Waverley borough council area

  All ages

  115.0

  116.0

  115.4

  116.4

  0–1

  2.7

  2.5

  2.5

  2.5

  0–4

  6.7

  6.5

  6.3

  6.3

  5–16

  17.2

  17.6

  16.9

  16.3

  1Important Note—Population figures for the years shown are presently on different bases and cannot be compared precisely. This is because of work to improve population statistics following the 2001 Census, which is being incorporated progressively into statistical outputs. By November 2004, all the data will be available on a consistent basis.

  2 Mid–year estimates

  3 Mid–year projections

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics, Government Actuary's Department

  Civil Service Relocation
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to relocate civil service staff to the South West of England [186547]

  Mr. Boateng
  In line with Sir Michael Lyons' recommendations contained in his report published in March this year and endorsed in the 2004 Spending Review, it will be for Departments and public bodies themselves to determine the destination of relocated activities from London and the South East. Departments' decisions will be based on their own business needs and priorities, taking account of the requirement to improve public services, secure greater efficiencies and value for money fin the taxpayer as well as of local economic conditions. Departments will also take into account forthcoming locational guidance that will be issued by the Office of the Deputy Prime Minister.
  1194W
  In the course of the Lyons and 2004 Spending Reviews, some Departments, including the Chancellor's Departments and the Department for Work and Pensions, have identified the South West as a possible destination for public sector activity. As you know, the South West has already benefited recently following the significant relocation of the Meteorological Office from the South East to Exeter.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the reasons were for the delay by the Chief Executive of Inland Revenue in answering the letter to him from the hon. Member for the Isle of Wight dated 23 April concerning tax credit. [187507]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Inland Revenue aims to deal with letters from Members of Parliament and members of the public promptly and is targeted to deal with 80 per cent. of letters within 15 days. The Tax Credit Office is on line to achieve this target this year.

  Unfortunately, although the Tax Credit Office dealt promptly with the points raised in the hon. Member's letter, there was a long delay in replying to the letter itself because of an oversight. The Tax Credit Office has apologised to the hon. Member for the delay.

  Mr. Andrew Turner
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the(a) average and (b) upper decile delay by the Inland Revenue is in answering letters about tax credits from (i) hon. Members and (ii) members of the public. [187508]

  Dawn Primarolo
  This information is not available.

  Debt Relief
  Mr. Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has made to(a) the International Monetary Fund, (b) the World Bank and (c) the G8 regarding further topping up of highly indebted poor countries debt relief in the event of further oil price or other price shocks. [186785]

  John Healey
  The HIPC Initiative is delivering real benefits to participating countries. It is providing over $70 billion of debt relief, to the 27 countries that have reached decision point. It is helping increase annual social expenditures in countries receiving debt relief. Total social spending has increased by around $4 billion since 1999—equivalent to 2.7 per cent. of GDP. On average, health and education spending account for 65 per cent. of the use of HIPC debt relief.

  But there are countries that are forecast to exit the initiative with debt-to- export ratios above the HIPC target of 150 per cent. because of factors beyond their control. The UK continues to push for additional relief to be granted to all these countries at completion point ('topping up' relief). We successfully campaigned for Niger and Ethiopia to receive such additional relief, resulting in over $800 million in additional relief for two of the world's poorest countries.

  At the recent G8 Summit at Sea Island, the UK successfully pushed for Heads of Government to reaffirm their commitment to the provision of topping up relief for eligible countries at completion point. The

  1195W
  UK also continues to lobby for a change in the topping up methodology to maximise the quantum of topping up relief.

  The UK also believes that more must be done beyond the HIPC Initiative to ensure debt sustainability in the world's poorest countries. We are proposing that the international community review further debt relief for the poorest countries, including making better use of IMF gold using a revaluation or off-market transactions, so that, to match bilateral debt relief, which we provide at up to 100 per cent., we can begin to consider how we provi#e multilateral debt relief of up to 100 per cent. as well.

  However, all low-income countries will need additional aid to meet the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs). This is why the UK has called for an examination of possible financing mechanisms to provide up to 100 per cent. multilateral debt relief for HIPCs, and continues to push the International Finance Facility (IFF), which could provide the much- needed substantial increase in aid—in the form of grants, concessional loans, or further debt relief—needed to attain the MDGs without threatening the long-term debt sustainability of the world's poorest countries.

  Departmental Performance (Complaints)
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is taking in response to the comments made by the Parliamentary Ombudsman regarding delays by his Department in responding to complaints under the Code of Practice on access to Government information in her review of departmental performance against requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding published on 30 June; and if he will make a statement. [186661]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government takes any delays in responding to complaints under the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information seriously.

  The Government regrets that delays do unavoidably occur in a minority of complex cases. However, the Ombudsman's review of the first nine months of the Memorandum of Understanding (September 2003—May 2004) shows that in most cases the requirements of the Memorandum of Understanding were met.

  In all cases, Departments endeavour to ensure that the time limit of three weeks for departments to respond to a "statement of complaint" from the Ombudsman is met. In accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding, Departments aim to enter into dialogue with the investigating officer should there be any difficulty in replying by the date set by the Ombudsman.

  Employment Statistics
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the change in numbers in employment was in each industrial sector in(a) 2002, (b) 2003 and (c) 2004, broken down by (i) sector, (ii) private sector and (iii) self-employment in each (A) region and (B) county. [186832]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1196W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Cousins, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about the change in the numbers of people in employment in each industrial sector. (186832)

  I am placing four tables in the House of Commons Library, as follows.

  Table A shows the annual changes in the numbers of employee jobs by industry sector and region in Great Britain, for the years 2002 and 2003. The data comes from surveys of employers that provide the most up-to-date source of national and regional information. However, no information is available from them for areas below regional level.

  Table B shows the annual changes in the numbers of employee jobs by industry sector and local authority areas in Great Britain during 2002. This data comes from the Annual Business Inquiry (ABI), which provides information below regional level. However, the equivalent changes for 2003 are not yet available.

  Table C shows the available information about changes in private sector jobs by industry sector in the year ending June 2003, for the United Kingdom as a whole. This information is compiled annually using a special analysis of the employer survey data. Information is not available for all industry sectors, or by region.

  Table, D shows changes in numbers of self-employed people by industry, region and local authority area for the United #ingdom as a whole in the year ending February 2003. This information is obtained using local area data from the Labour Force Survey, which is a survey of people in households across the UK.

  Financial Inclusion Fund
  Mr Battle
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when he will outline his plans for a financial inclusion fund referred to at paragraph 5.28 of the 2004 Spending Review; whether it will cover Leeds, West; where it will be piloted; what support the fund will provide to credit unions; and if he will make a statement. [186777]

  Ruth Kelly
  Further details of the Financial Inclusion Fund, announced in the 2004 Spending Review White Paper to support initiatives to tackle financial exclusion, will be published later in the year

  Financial Products
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what efforts he is making to improve public understanding of financial products and services; and if he will make a statement. [186627]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government are working closely with the voluntary sector, the financial services industry and others to develop and implement a national strategy for raising levels of financial capability, under the leadership of the Financial Services Authority. This strategy has identified a number of priority areas, based around key life events, from prospective parents to those who are planning for retirement. The Government already provide incentives to encourage long-term savings by giving generous tax treatment on pensions and is also working, with industry to set up a suite of simpler savings products. In June this year the Government announced their proposals for the stakeholder suite of savings and investment products to be launched into the marketplace in April 2005. These are a suite of simple, low-cost, risk-controlled products to meet the short, medium and long-term savings needs for all consumers.
  1197W
  Measures to support financial inclusion, such as the Savings Gateway, and the establishment of the Child Trust Fund also serve to encourage people to engage with the financial sector and develop the savings habit.

  Financial Services and Markets Act
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what arrangements are in place for the review of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [186637]

  Ruth Kelly
  As explained in my statement to the House of 4 November 2003, the review is considering the impact of the Financial Services and Markets Act 2000 on competition, changes to aspects of the Financial Services Authority's practices, changes to the Financial Ombudsman Service, and changes to the boundary of regulation. I expect to make an announcement about the outcome of these considerations later this year.

  FSA Regulations
  Mr. Bellingham
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the cost to the financial services industry of complying with Financial Services Authority regulations since 1997. [186353]

  Ruth Kelly
  In 2003 the Financial Services Authority (FSA) commissioned Europe Economics to undertake a major survey of the financial costs of regulation and published the results. This survey found that the median increase in annual incremental compliance costs from 1998 to 2002 resulting from changes to FSA regulation was less than 1 per cent. of operating costs.

  Gross Domestic Product
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the gross domestic product per head was for each of the last 25 years at current prices. [187117]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Chris Ruane, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question asking for the Gross Domestic Product per head for each of the last 25 years at current prices. (187117)

  Estimates of current price Gross Domestic Product per head for the UK, for the past 25 years, are shown in the attached table. These are the most recent data available and are taken from the National Accounts 'Blue Book' 2004.

  Gross Domestic Product per head at current prices UK, 1979–2003

  Year

  GDP per head (£)

  1979

  3,509

  1980

  4,096

  1981

  4,488

  1982

  4,921

  1983

  5,376

  1984

  5,750

  1985

  6,276

  1986

  6,727

  1987

  7,387

  1988

  8,229

  1198W

  Gross Domestic Product per head at current prices UK, 1979–2003

  Year

  GDP per head (£)

  1989

  9,010

  1990

  9,737

  1991

  10,203

  1992

  10,607

  1993

  11,127

  1994

  11,772

  1995

  12,402

  1996

  13,139

  1997

  13,928

  1998

  14,727

  1999

  15,444

  2000

  16,210

  2001

  16,837

  2002

  17,628

  2003

  18,524

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what national productivity growth rates were in each of the last 25 years. [187129]

  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 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the rate of change of productivity in the UK economy in each of the last twenty five years. (187129)

  The accompanying table shows the rate of change of productivity, as measured by output per worker, for the whole UK economy. The data shown are from 1979 to 2003 inclusive.

  Annual change in productivity1 UK, 1979–2003

  Year

  Annual percentage change

  1979

  0.7

  1980

  -1.4

  1981

  2.2

  1982

  4.2

  1983

  4.0

  1984

  0.0

  1985

  2.6

  1986

  3.4

  1987

  2.3

  1988

  1.1

  1989

  -0.7

  1990

  0.3

  1991

  2.0

  1992

  3.6

  1993

  3.5

  1994

  3.7

  1995

  1.5

  1996

  1.9

  1997

  1.4

  1998

  2.5

  1999

  1.3

  2000

  2.8

  2001

  1.3

  2002

  0.7

  2003

  1.0

  1Measured by output per worker

  HM Revenue and Customs
  Mr. Prisk
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer which Minister at HM Treasury will be responsible for the proposed HM Revenue and Customs organisation. [187239]

  Mr. Gordon Brown
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer is responsible for the current revenue departments, and subject to passage of the appropriate legislation this will remain the case for the proposed new department.

  House Prices (Consumer Expenditure)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research has been undertaken into the impact of changes in house prices on the level of consumer expenditure; and if he will make a statement. [186632]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury published evidence on the link between the housing market and consumer behaviour in June 2003 as part of the EMU Five Tests Assessment, in the supporting study 'Housing, Consumption and EMU'.

  Household Saving
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to increase the level of household saving; and if he will make a statement. [186544]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Government's strategy for savings and assets is focused on providing individuals with security, opportunity and independence throughout life, and with the information, incentives and income to make savings decisions.

  We have delivered this with reforms such as the introduction of Individual Savings Accounts, the application of the 10 per cent. starting rate for income tax to income from savings, and the new Child Trust Fund, as well as creating a stable economy with low interest rates, and radical reform and simplification of financial regulation and pensions. Net household wealth has now risen by over 50 per cent. since 1997.

  Inheritance Tax Revenues
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much, and what proportion, of inheritance tax revenues in fiscal year 2003–04 was derived from(a) primary homes, (b) other homes, (c) financial assets, (d) land, (e) art and similar assets, (f) investments overseas, (g) individual savings and trusts, (h) life insurance and (i) other sources, broken down by main categories. [186963]

  Table 1: Number of people aged 50 and over who are long-term unemployed1, by gender, UK regions, 1997 to 2004 three-month periods ending May each year)

  Thousand

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Total

  North East

  9

  10

  11

  8

  0

  5

  6

  6

  North West

  16

  18

  15

  16

  10

  9

  7

  6

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  14

  12

  12

  5

  5

  4

  9

  6

  East Midlands

  15

  7

  7

  6

  5

  5

  5

  5

  West Midlands

  20

  15

  13

  15

  12

  10

  8

  5

  Eastern

  16

  12

  10

  7

  4

  7

  5

  5

  1200W
  Dawn Primarolo
  IHT receipts were £2.5 billion in 2003–04. A breakdown of this figure into asset types is not yet available. The available information relates to the asset breakdown for taxable estates passing on death in 2001–02 which is published in Table 12.6 of Inland Revenue Statistics, available at http://newinternet.inrev.gov.uk/ stats/#nheritance_tax/tble12–6.pdf.

  Loan Repayments
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what research is being conducted into the size of(a) secured and (b) unsecured loan repayments in different (i) socio-economic and (ii) income groups. [186861]

  Ruth Kelly
  Annex C of "Tackling Over-indebtedness—Action Plan 2004", published on 20 July 2004 by the Department of Trade and Industry, provides a summary of recent research into over-indebtedness. Furthermore, Annex D, of the same document, reinforces the DTI's commitment to developing a monitoring approach, as promised in the Consumer Credit White Paper. "Tackling Over-indebtedness-Action Plan 2004" can be found at http:// www.dti.gov.uk/ccp/topics1/pdf1/overdebt0704.pdf.

  Long-term Unemployment
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) what estimate the Government have made of how many(a) men and (b) women over the age of 50 were defined as long-term unemployed in each year since 1997; [186930]

  (2) what estimate the Government have made of the percentage of men and women over the age of 50 who were defined as long-term unemployed in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [186945]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Questions about long-term unemployment. (186945, 186930)

  Table 1 shows the number of men and women aged 50 and over in long-term unemployment. Table 2 shows the rate of long-term unemployment as a percentage of all unemployment in this age group. Both tables relate to the three month periods ending in May of each year from 1997 to 2004.

  Estimates are taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability. In particular, estimates for UK regions are based on small sample sizes and are subject to a high degree of sampling variability. They should be treated with caution.
  1201W

  Table 1: Number of people aged 50 and over who are long-term unemployed1, by gender, UK regions, 1997 to 2004 (three-month periods ending May each year)

  Thousand

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  London

  32

  25

  24

  18

  15

  13

  16

  12

  South East

  18

  17

  9

  10

  6

  6

  5

  7

  South West

  11

  12

  9

  5

  5

  4

  5

  2

  Wales

  7

  9

  6

  5

  4

  5

  2

  3

  Scotland

  17

  13

  15

  18

  10

  15

  11

  8

  Northern Ireland

  7

  6

  3

  4

  3

  3

  3

  3

  United Kingdom

  183

  157

  134

  118

  85

  87

  82

  69

  Male

  North East

  6

  9

  8

  6

  5

  4

  5

  5

  North West

  14

  14

  12

  13

  7

  7

  7

  4

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  12

  11

  11

  4

  4

  4

  7

  6

  East Midlands

  11

  5

  5

  4

  4

  4

  3

  4

  West Midlands

  15

  12

  10

  12

  11

  8

  6

  4

  Eastern

  12

  8

  7

  5

  2

  5

  3

  4

  London

  22

  16

  18

  14

  12

  9

  10

  8

  South East

  15

  11

  6

  7

  4

  4

  5

  4

  South West

  7

  9

  7

  4

  3

  4

  3

  2

  Wales

  6

  8

  6

  4

  4

  4

  1

  2

  Scotland

  13

  10

  12

  15

  8

  12

  9

  6

  Northern Ireland

  6

  6

  3

  3

  2

  2

  3

  3

  United Kingdom

  139

  119

  104

  92

  67

  66

  62

  52

  Female

  North East

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  1

  1

  1

  North West

  3

  4

  3

  4

  3

  2

  1

  2

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  2

  1

  1

  1

  0

  1

  2

  0

  East Midlands

  4

  2

  2

  2

  1

  1

  2

  1

  West Midlands

  6

  3

  2

  3

  1

  2

  2

  1

  Eastern

  4

  5

  3

  2

  2

  2

  2

  1

  London

  10

  8

  7

  4

  3

  4

  6

  4

  South East

  3

  6

  4

  3

  2

  2

  1

  3

  South West

  4

  3

  2

  1

  2

  1

  2

  0

  Wales

  1

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  0

  1

  Scotland

  4

  3

  3

  3

  1

  3

  2

  2

  Northern Ireland

  1

  0

  0

  1

  1

  1

  0

  0

  United Kingdom

  44

  38

  30

  26

  17

  22

  20

  17

  1Unemployed for one year or more.

  Note:

  Estimates for UK regions are based on small sample sizes and are subject to a high level of sampling variability. They should be treated with caution. In particular, year-to-year changes are likely to show considerable volatility, and should not be used is isolation from the estimates for a sequence of years.

  Source:

  ONS: labour Force Survey.

  Table 2: Percentage of unemployed people aged 50 and over who are long-term unemployed1, by gender, UK regions, 1997 to 2004(three-month periods ending May each year)

  Percentage2

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Total

  North East

  55

  55

  57

  47

  47

  38

  46

  49

  North West

  51

  61

  43

  49

  36

  40

  36

  35

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  53

  52

  44

  24

  33

  27

  44

  38

  East Midlands

  56

  48

  37

  33

  37

  23

  28

  32

  West Midlands

  63

  57

  44

  46

  54

  38

  39

  23

  Eastern

  52

  47

  46

  38

  27

  38

  26

  24

  London

  59

  57

  55

  46

  53

  38

  44

  35

  South East

  41

  47

  34

  36

  27

  23

  18

  26

  South West

  41

  51

  38

  24

  35

  24

  29

  15

  Wales

  57

  57

  37

  47

  51

  39

  17

  31

  Scotland

  51

  46

  50

  50

  39

  52

  49

  35

  Northern Ireland

  73

  68

  66

  55

  49

  49

  40

  53

  1202W 1203W

  Table 2: Percentage of unemployed people aged 50 and over who are long-term unemployed1, by gender, UK regions, 1997 to 2004 (three-month periods ending May each year)

  Percentage2

  Region

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  52.9

  52.9

  45.4

  41.7

  40.2

  35.4

  35.2

  31.5

  Male

  North East

  53

  66

  60

  48

  53

  40

  50

  49

  North West

  55

  60

  44

  54

  38

  45

  43

  37

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  61

  59

  49

  29

  39

  39

  50

  46

  East Midlands

  61

  48

  43

  35

  45

  25

  26

  38

  West Midlands

  64

  57

  53

  56

  55

  43

  43

  23

  Eastern

  53

  43

  50

  43

  25

  50

  30

  28

  London

  64

  59

  57

  50

  55

  40

  45

  42

  South East

  49

  46

  34

  35

  26

  21

  22

  26

  South West

  38

  59

  42

  32

  39

  31

  31

  17

  Wales

  76

  72

  45

  52

  55

  55

  15

  33

  Scotland

  55

  51

  55

  51

  43

  58

  52

  35

  Northern Ireland

  74

  77

  73

  60

  49

  48

  47

  62

  United Kingdom

  57.3

  56.7

  49.6

  46.0

  43.8

  40.3

  38.5

  34.5

  Female

  North East

  62

  24

  49

  47

  31

  33

  32

  52

  North West

  38

  62

  40

  37

  31

  30

  12

  30

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  32

  25

  25

  16

  11

  11

  33

  11

  East Midlands

  45

  49

  27

  27

  23

  18

  29

  19

  West Midlands

  59

  54

  25

  27

  38

  27

  30

  23

  Eastern

  49

  54

  38

  27

  30

  22

  20

  17

  London

  50

  53

  51

  36

  46

  34

  41

  26

  South East

  23

  49

  34

  39

  29

  29

  10

  28

  South West

  47

  35

  30

  11

  29

  12

  26

  10

  Wales

  18

  24

  11

  32

  31

  18

  26

  27

  Scotland

  40

  35

  35

  47

  23

  37

  39

  38

  Northern Ireland

  63

  20

  38

  43

  49

  50

  20

  23

  United Kingdom

  42.7

  43.7

  35.0

  31.4

  30 6

  26.0

  27.8

  25.0

  1Unemployed for one year or more.

  2 Long-term unemployed people as a percentage of all unemployed people.

  Note:

  Estimates for UK regions are based on small sample sizes and are subject to a high level of sampling variability. They should be treated with caution. In particular, year-to-year changes are likely to show considerable volatility, and should not be used is isolation from the estimates for a sequence of years.

  Source:

  ONS: Labour Force Survey.

  Mortgage Market
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he is proposing to improve the working of the UK mortgage market following the Miles Review; and if he will make a statement. [186633]

  Ruth Kelly
  On 12 March 2004 David Miles published his review of the UK mortgage market. His remit was to undertake analysis of supply and demand side factors limiting the development of the longer-term fixed-rate mortgage market in the UK, and to examine whether there has been any market failure that has held back the market for longer-term fixed-rate mortgages. In Budget 2004 the Chancellor endorsed the conclusion in David Miles review of the UK mortgage market that "urgent reform is desirable to make the market work better for consumers in a number of areas". The Treasury has been discussing the recommendations with a range of stakeholders including the Financial Services Authority, and intends to provide a detailed update in the Pre-Budget Report.

  Older Workers
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer pursuant to his answer of 5 July 2004,Official Report, column 602W, on people of retirement age, how many people above state pension age were in employment for the same period in each year since 1992. [186770]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. David Willetts, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about people of retirement age in employment. (186770)

  The attached table gives the estimates of the number of people above state pension age in employment for the three months ending May each year from 1992 to 2004.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) are subject to sampling variability.
  1205W

  Number of people above state pension age2 in employment, United Kingdom, 3 month periods ending May each year from 1992 to 2004

  Thousand

  Number of People

  1992

  814

  1993

  770

  1994

  779

  1995

  794

  1996

  770

  1997

  802

  1998

  775

  1999

  817

  2000

  831

  2001

  819

  2002

  887

  2003

  933

  2004

  995

  1Seasonally adjusted.

  2This refers to men aged 65 and over and women aged 60 and over

  Source:

  ONS: Labour Force Survey.

  One-parent Households
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate the Government have made of

  Number of dependent children living in lone parent families—UK Government Office Regions, 1997–2004

  Thousand

  Area of residence

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  2,762

  2,916

  2,905

  2,863

  3,043

  3,037

  3,033

  3,084

  North East

  142

  146

  145

  148

  144

  149

  164

  158

  North West

  392

  428

  405

  397

  410

  464

  430

  411

  Merseyside

  116

  129

  116

  103

  107

  122

  125

  111

  St. Helens

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  11

  12

  1—

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  241

  247

  242

  242

  260

  248

  249

  262

  East Midlands

  175

  174

  163

  162

  196

  195

  187

  170

  West Midlands

  240

  258

  251

  257

  279

  269

  254

  255

  Eastern

  197

  206

  205

  196

  222

  226

  219

  230

  London

  427

  458

  486

  487

  461

  480

  485

  554

  South East

  298

  289

  289

  285

  325

  325

  328

  315

  South West

  181

  193

  192

  175

  209

  197

  192

  191

  Wales

  144

  169

  181

  169

  165

  160

  157

  166

  Scotland

  231

  250

  249

  246

  269

  233

  259

  261

  Northern Ireland

  93

  98

  95

  100

  103

  94

  108

  110

  Percentage of dependent children living in lone parent families—UK Government Office Regions, 1997–2004

  Percentage

  Area of residence

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  20.8

  22.0

  21.9

  21.6

  23.3

  23.2

  23.2

  23.6

  North East

  24.3

  24.8

  24.7

  26.2

  26.3

  27.4

  30.5

  30.6

  North West

  24.7

  26.8

  25.7

  25.4

  26.7

  28.9

  26.7

  26.3

  Merseyside

  31.9

  37.1

  35.2

  32.8

  34.0

  35.3

  36.3

  316

  St. Helens

  1—

  1—

  1—

  1—

  26.9

  27.2

  1—

  1—

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  21.4

  22.4

  21.9

  22.2

  23.3

  23.5

  23.5

  24.5

  East Midlands

  19.1

  19.1

  17.6

  18.0

  21.3

  20.9

  20.3

  18.7

  West Midlands

  19.8

  21.8

  21.2

  21.4

  23.1

  22.7

  21.8

  21.4

  Eastern

  16.6

  17.4

  17.4

  16.6

  18.6

  18.7

  18.1

  19.1

  London

  26.0

  27.6

  28.8

  28.2

  29.0

  28.1

  27.9

  31.2

  South East

  17.3

  16.4

  16.3

  15.9

  18.6

  18.7

  19.4

  18.1

  South West

  17.4

  18.6

  18.4

  16.2

  20.3

  19.3

  19.2

  18.6

  Wales

  22.1

  25.0

  26.6

  25.2

  25.4

  24.1

  24.9

  26.3

  Scotland

  21.2

  23.1

  23.8

  23.7

  25.3

  23.0

  24.9

  26.0

  Northern Ireland

  19.3

  20.9

  21.1

  22.6

  22.9

  21.1

  24.0

  24.9

  1Not available.

  Source:

  Labour Force Survey and 2001 Census. ONS

  2001 Census Northern Ireland Statistics

  2001 Census General Register Office for Scotland

  1206W
  (a) how many and (b) what percentage of children lived in one parent households in (i) St. Helens and (ii) the UK, broken down by region, in each year since 1997. [186821]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent question #oncerning the number and percentage of children living in one-parent households in (a) St. Helens and (b) the United kingdom broken down by region in each year since 1977. (186821)

  The attached table shows estimates of the numbers of dependent children living in one-parent families in private households, and the proportions they represent of all dependent children living in families in private households. These estimates have been derived from the Labour Force Survey (LFS), apart from the year 2001 for which that year's Census data are shown.

  The LFS provides estimates for the United Kingdom, countries of the UK and Government Office regions as well as local authority data for certain variables. However, the most recent year for which estimates are available on children in one-parent families in St. Helens local authority is 2001. Estimates for this specific variable are not available at local authority level before 2001.

  Pensions (Tax Relief)
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the cost to public funds was of tax relief for individuals on pension contributions in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [186634]

  Dawn Primarolo
  Available estimates of the cost of tax relief on private pensions are contained in table 7.9 of Inland Revenue Statistics. The latest version is on the Inland Revenue website: http://www.inlandrevenue.qov.uk/stats/pensions/ table 7 9.pdf These estimates are due to be updated in September 2004.

  Personal Income Tax Allowance
  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the effects would be on the incomes of households in each quintile of the income distribution of raising the personal income tax allowance to £10,000 per annum. [186783]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The information is as follows.

  Percentage increase

  Quintile

  Percentage change in net equivalised household income (before housing costs)

  1

  1.4

  2

  3.1

  3

  4.9

  4

  5.9

  5

  5.1

  These changes in household income are based on IGOTM tax and benefits model using the Family Resources Survey 2002–03.

  Personal Tax Allowance
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what plans he has to change the personal tax allowance for those of pensionable age. [186582]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government's policy is to increase the age-related personal allowances for those 65 and over at least in line with earnings for the remainder of the Parliament.

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many contracts his Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186662]

  Ruth Kelly
  None
  1208W
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what level of costs for insurance is included in PFI/PPP schemes agreed in the last two years; what review of insurance costs has been undertaken; and what conclusions have be en reached. [186845]

  Mr. Boateng
  The contractor in a PFI consortium is responsible for procuring the necessary insurance for a PFI scheme. The costs will vary depending on the nature of the project as well as the conditions in the insurance market at the time the insurances are taken out.

  There has been no official review of PFI insurance costs by HM Treasury. However, guidance on the treatment of insurance costs is contained in the HMT Standardisation of Contracts Version 3 (SOPC3) and OGC Business and Operational Guidance "PFI Contracts: Insurance Costs". SOPC3 states that the risk of increases in insurance costs should be borne by the contractor, while recognising that it will not represent best value for money if bidders price in worst case scenarios for future insurance premium levels in to their bids. The OGC guidance therefore sets out a mechanism for sharing insurance cost increases should there be exceptional circumstances in the international insurance market.

  Population Changes
  Mr. Hayes
  To ask the Chancellor of the Excheque# what estimate he has made of the change in population arising from changes in(a) net indigenous population and (b) net immigration in each decade to 2050, broken down by region. [187335]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. John Hayes, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the change in population arising from changes in net indigenous population and immigration in the decades to 2050, by reg on. (187335)

  The attached table shows population projections at Government Office Region level for the years 2000, 2010 and 2020. These figures an 1996-based and are the latest basis on which long-term subnational population projections are currently available. These projections have a 25 year "horizon" and so only figures to 2020 are available at this geographical level.

  The projected natural population change (number of births less number of deaths) and i he assumed level of net international migration, for each region, are also shown in the table. It should be noted that these two components are not independent, and that the level of natural change projected for the future is itself partly dependent on the assumed level of net migration.

  The figures shown in the table for England are not the latest 2002-based projections produced by GAD but are 1996-based to be consistent with the subnational projections shown. Please note that these include a lower assumption for international migration than the latest set which can be found at: http://www.gad.gov.uk/Population/index.asp

  A note considering the overall impact of assumed net migration on future population growth is available from the Government Actuary's Department website at: http://www. gad.gov.uk/ Population/2002/methadology/mignote.htm. This is a UK level analysis from GAD's latest (2002-based) national projections. Comparable analysis is not available for the 1996-based projections.
  1209W
  The Office for National Statistics will publish 2003-based subnational population projections on 16 November. Information about this release can be found at:

  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/downloads/theme_population/ Subnational/Projections-22July2004 pdf

  Projected Population by Government Office Region for Decades—Total population for Government Office Regions as shown, 2000, 2010, 2020

  Thousand

  Year

  Area

  Population

  2000

  2010

  2020

  England

  Total population

  49,730.2

  51,031.6

  52,361.2

  (10-year change)

  1,301.5

  1,329.6

  Net natural change

  640.8

  669.0

  Net international

  658.6

  658.6

  migration

  North East

  Total population

  2,584.0

  2,539.4

  2,511.8

  (10-year change)

  -44.7

  -27.6

  Net natural change

  -18.7

  -16.5

  Net international

  10.9

  10.9

  migration

  North West

  Total population

  6,875.4

  6,823.7

  6,809.4

  (10-year change)

  -51.7

  -14.3

  Net natural change

  25.5

  36.5

  Net international

  -5.3

  -5.3

  migiration

  Yorkshire and

  Total population

  5,065.2

  5,122.9

  5,193.5

  the Humber

  (10-year change)

  57.7

  70.6

  Net natural change

  43.1

  56.1

  Net international

  34.3

  34.3

  migration

  East Midlands

  Total population

  4,217.0

  4,369.4

  4,510.4

  (10-year change)

  152.4

  141.0

  Net natural change

  25.2

  20.2

  Net international

  41.7

  41.7

  migration

  West Midlands

  Total population

  5,338.5

  5,369.2

  5,407.5

  (10-year change)

  30.7

  38.3

  Net natural change

  53.3

  47.5

  Net international

  42.4

  42.4

  migration

  East

  Total population

  5,418.8

  5,678.4

  5,918.1

  (10-year change)

  259.6

  239.8

  Net natural change

  63.2

  44.5

  Net international

  58.2

  58.2

  migration

  London

  Total population

  7,191.6

  7,442.6

  7,712.3

  (10-year change)

  251.0

  269.7

  Net natural change

  422.8

  480.8

  Net international

  310.0

  310.0

  migration

  South East

  Total population

  8,088.6

  8,496.5

  8,869.5

  (10-year change)

  407.9

  373.0

  Net natural change

  81.8

  67.2

  Net international

  113.5

  113.5

  migration

  South West

  Total population

  4,951.0

  5,189.6

  5,428.7

  (10-year change)

  238.6

  239.1

  Net natural change

  -55.4

  -67.3

  Net international

  53.0

  53.0

  migration

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Post-65 Population
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how the percentage of the population over the age of 65 has changed in each year since 1975. [186946]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1210W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Woodward, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your question concerning the annual change in the percentage of the population aged over 65 since 1975. (186946)

  I attach a table showing the population estimates for England and Wales, the percentage of the population aged 65 and over, and the annual change in this percentage. The table incorporates interim revised estimates for England and Wales for mid-1992 to mid-2000, which take account of research carried out into population estimates following the 2001 census.

  Population estimates for mid-1992 to mid-2002 are subject to future revision. Information about population estimate revisions can be found at:

  http://www.statistics.gov.uk/about/Methodology_by_theme/ revisions_popestimates.asp.

  Total population and change in the percentage of population aged 65 and over England and Wales, 1975–2002

  Thousands

  Year1

  Total population

  Population aged 65 and over

  Percentage population aged 65 and over

  Change in percentage population aged 65 and over

  1975

  49,469.8

  7,033.5

  14.2

  —

  1976

  49,459.2

  7,119.1

  14.4

  0.18

  1977

  49,440.4

  7,214.2

  14.6

  0.20

  1978

  49,442.5

  7,315.8

  14.8

  0.20

  1979

  49,508.2

  7,409.6

  15.0

  0.17

  1980

  49,603.0

  7,505.4

  15.1

  0.16

  1981

  49,634.3

  7,548.1

  15.2

  0.08

  1982

  49,581.6

  7,550.0

  15.2

  0.02

  1983

  49,617.0

  7,505.2

  15.1

  -0.70

  1984

  49,713.1

  7,482.6

  15.1

  -0.07

  1985

  49,860.7

  7,646.9

  15.3

  0.29

  1986

  49,998.6

  7,767.6

  15.5

  0.20

  1987

  50,123.0

  7,865.7

  15.7

  0.16

  1988

  50,253.6

  7,931.9

  15.8

  0.09

  1989

  50,407.8

  7,997.1

  15.9

  0.08

  1990

  50,560.6

  8,033.0

  15.9

  0.02

  1991

  50,748.0

  8,080.3

  15.9

  0.03

  1992

  50,873.5

  8,115.8

  16.0

  0.03

  1993

  50,983.0

  8,145.0

  16.0

  0.02

  1994

  51,109.3

  8,157.8

  16.0

  -0.01

  1995

  51,252.2

  8,191.5

  16.0

  0.02

  1996

  51,385.5

  8,213.7

  16.0

  0.00

  1997

  51,528.2

  8,228.1

  16.0

  -0.02

  1998

  51,685.3

  8,249.2

  16.0

  -0.01

  1999

  51,884.2

  8,251.6

  15.9

  -0.06

  2000

  52,070.7

  8,275.3

  15.9

  -0.01

  2001

  52,297.3

  8,330.8

  15.9

  0.04

  2002

  52,480.5

  8,389.5

  16.0

  0.06

  1Mid-year estimates. Population estimates for 1992–2002 are subject to revision

  Source:

  Office for National Statistics

  Productivity
  Mr. Kenneth Clarke
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what has been the rate of change of productivity in the UK economy in each of the last seven years. [186210]

  Ruth Kelly
  The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician, who has been asked to reply.
  1211W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Kenneth Clarke, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your recent Parliamentary Question on the rate of change of productivity in the UK Economy in each of the last seven years. (186210)

  The accompanying table shows the rate of change of productivity, as measured by output per worker, for the whole economy. The data shown are from 1997 to 2003 inclusive.

  Percentage

  Annual growth rate

  1997

  1.4

  1998

  2.5

  1999

  1.3

  2000

  2.8

  2001

  1.3

  2002

  0.7

  2003

  1.0

  Public Sector Jobs (Gloucestershire)
  Mr. Dhanda
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate his Department has made of the implications of the Spending Review for public sector jobs in Gloucestershire. [186313]

  Redundancy rates1 for people aged 50 and over—UK regions, 1997 to 2004 (3 month period ending May of each year)2

  Rate per 1.000 employees2

  Area of residence

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  United Kingdom

  8.7

  8.1

  9.1

  8.0

  7.1

  9.S

  7.2

  7.1

  Great Britain

  8.7

  8.2

  9.3

  7.9

  7.3

  9.6

  7,3

  7.2

  England

  8.8

  8.1

  9.2

  8.1

  7.2

  10.0

  7.2

  6.8

  North East

  20.0

  7.9

  2.2

  6.1

  6.0

  17.1

  12.6

  1.7

  North West

  13.1

  6.7

  15.8

  9.3

  7.2

  8.1

  5.5

  4.2

  Yorkshire & Humberside

  7.4

  9.5

  11.2

  8.5

  6.8

  8.3

  6.3

  8.0

  East Midlands

  13.3

  12.8

  9.1

  8.0

  12.3

  15.7

  14.0

  7.9

  West Midlands

  7.9

  9.5

  10.3

  10.1

  10.1

  12.6

  11.3

  12.2

  Eastern

  5.1

  11.1

  8.2

  5.4

  7.2

  8.5

  3.6

  8.8

  London

  4.0

  5.3

  7.0

  8.1

  9.0

  9.2

  1.0

  4.9

  South East

  9.0

  7.6

  7.7

  8.5

  3.7

  10.3

  7.3

  6.0

  Southwest

  5.9

  3.9

  8.0

  7.8

  5.1

  4.9

  8.7

  5.6

  Wales

  7.8

  4.8

  9.8

  3.7

  9.9

  9.1

  8.8

  7.7

  Scotland

  9.0

  10.7

  9.7

  7.8

  6.I

  6.1

  7.3

  10.4

  Northern Ireland

  9.1

  2.6

  0.0

  13.5

  0.0

  6.5

  3.1

  1.8

  1The redundancy rate is based on the number of people resident in an area who are made redundant in the three months prior to interview in the LFS expressed as a proportion (per 1,000 employees) of the total number of employees

  2Not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Residential Stamp Duty
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what the revenue from residential stamp duty was in(a) 1996–97, (b) 2001–02, (c) 2002–03 and (d) 2003–04; and what the projected revenue is for 2004–05. [186950]
  1212W
  Mr. Boateng
  There will be an overall gross reduction in posts of 84,150 by 2008 and Departments will pursue these reductions in line with business need. Departments are still developing their plans concerning the SR04 work force changes.

  Redundancy
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what information the Government have collated on the percentage of people over the age of 50 who have been made redundant in each year since 1997(a) nationally, (b) by region and (c) in St. Helens. [186875]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Shaun Woodward, dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about redundancy. (186875)

  The attached table gives estimates from the Labour Force Survey (LFS) of redundancy rates for people aged 50 and over for the UK as a whole and by region for the three month periods ending in May of each year from 1997 to 2004.

  As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability. The LFS sample sizes were too small to yield meaningful estimates for St Helens local authority.

  Ruth Kelly
  Estimates of the revenue from stamp duty on residential property in 1996–97, 2001–02 and 2002–03 are given at http://www.inlandrevenue.gov.uk/ stats/stamp_duty/03IR152.pdf.

  Estimates of the revenue from stamp duty on residential property for 2003–04 will be published later in the year. Projections for 2004–05 are not available.

  Savings Gateway Pilot
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what evaluation has taken place of the impact of the Savings Gateway pilot on levels of savings among low-income consumers; and if he will make a statement. [186631]

  John Healey
  The Saving Gateway pilot final evaluation is due in early 2005. No substantial conclusions can be drawn until we receive the full research findings, however indicators so far are good. The latest interim evaluation report showed that 1,478 accounts had been opened (the target was 1,500), and the participants were mostly drawn from young families with childre#. The total amount saved by account-holders was approaching £300,000 by the end of February 2004, and there was little evidence that people had transferred money from existing savings accounts or borrowed to save. This report is available on the HM Treasury website.

  Staff Recruitment
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what media outlets are used for the recruitment of each level of staff in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [187087]

  Ruth Kelly
  The Treasury uses a wide variety of different publications for recruitment advertising, tailored according to the nature of the vacancy to be filled. This includes the use of professional journals and magazines, national and local newspapers, and websites.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how vacancies are publicised within his Department; how non-fast streamers are recruited to work in his Department; and if he will make a statement. [187088]

  Ruth Kelly
  HM Treasury publicises its internal vacancies on the Treasury's intranet site, and the Civil Service Recruitment Gateway. For external recruitment of non-fast streamers, HM Treasury uses a wide variety of different publications for advertising, tailored according to the nature of the vacancy to be filled. This includes the use of professional journals and magazines, national and local newspapers, and other relevant websites, including HM Treasury's website (www.hmtreasury.gov.uk/careers). Recruitment in HM Treasury is based upon the Civil Service Commissioners Recruitment Code of fair and open competition, and selection on merit.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much the Treasury spent on recruitment in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [187089]

  Ruth Kelly
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave him on 5 March 2004,Official Report, column 1211W. The costs of recruiting staff fall largely to individual teams, and are charged to team budgets.
  1214W
  Therefore, information on the total cost of recruiting staff is not available centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many people the Treasury recruited in each of the last three years. [187090]

  Ruth Kelly
  The number of new recruits to HM Treasury, as recorded in the Treasury's Departmental Report, can be found in the following table:

  2001

  2002

  2003

  Permanent appointments

  135

  80

  103

  Fixed-term appointments

  20

  9

  13

  Permanent transfers/reinstatements

  2

  0

  2

  Secondments in

  17

  15

  19

  Casual appointments

  42

  32

  45

  Total

  212

  136

  182

  Unemployment Payments
  Chris Ruane
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the cost of unemployment payments(a) in total and (b) as a percentage of national income in each of the last 25 years. [186102]

  Mr. Pond
  I have been asked to reply.

  The information is in the table.

  Unemployment benefits (£ million)

  Nominal terms1.2

  2004–05 prices1.2

  Percentage of gross domestic product1

  1979–80

  1,176

  3,752

  0.6

  1980–81

  2,074

  5,600

  0.9

  1981–82

  3,214

  7,923

  1.2

  1982–83

  4,067

  9,364

  1.4

  1983–84

  4,753

  10,464

  1.5

  1984–85

  5,308

  11,104

  1.6

  1985–86

  5,803

  11,519

  1.6

  1986–87

  6,070

  11,676

  1.6

  1987–88

  5,453

  9,934

  1.3

  1988–89

  4,152

  7,070

  0.9

  1989–90

  3,364

  5,352

  0.6

  1990–91

  3,810

  5,618

  0.7

  1991–92

  5,804

  8,071

  1.0

  1992–93

  7,139

  9,615

  1.2

  1993–94

  7,389

  9,693

  1.1

  1994–95

  6,482

  8,381

  0.9

  1995–96

  5,925

  7,445

  0.8

  1996–97

  5,112

  6,215

  0.7

  1997–98

  3,893

  4,615

  0.5

  1998–99

  3,558

  4,099

  0.4

  1999–2000

  3,255

  3,670

  0.4

  2000–01

  2,882

  3,213

  0.3

  2001–02

  2,606

  2,832

  0.3

  2002–03

  2,624

  2,760

  0.2

  2003–04

  2,548

  2,606

  0.2

  1Unemployment benefits totals are rounded to the nearest million; the percentage of gross domestic product has been rounded to nearest 0.1 per cent.

  2Unemployment benefits include: unemployment benefit, which was replaced by jobseeker's allowance contribution-based in October 1996; supplementary benefit paid to unemployed people, which was replaced by income support for the unemployed in April 1988, and was further replaced by jobseeker's allowance (income-based) in October 1996.

  Women Workers
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimates the Government have made of the percentage of women in(a) full-time and (b) part-time employment in (i) St Helens and (ii) the UK, broken down by region, in each year since 1997. [186926]

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

  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Sean Woodward dated 7 September 2004:

  Female employment: percentages in full and part-time 3 months ending May each year from 1997 to 2004 not seasonally adjusted

  March to May

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Full Time1

  United Kingdom

  55.1

  55.2

  55.6

  55.5

  55 6

  55.9

  55.6

  55.6

  Great Britain

  55.0

  55.0

  55.3

  55.4

  55 4

  55.8

  55.5

  55.4

  England

  54.7

  54.7

  55.2

  55.5

  55 4

  55.7

  55.4

  1 55.3

  North East

  51.4

  54.1

  52.2

  52.9

  53 5

  53.9

  53.8

  56.3

  North West:

  55.7

  55.2

  55.7

  56.6

  57.1

  57.5

  57.2

  57.4

  St Helens (Local Authority)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  44

  56

  56

  59

  63

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  52.5

  51.3

  51.0

  52.9

  51 5

  52.8

  52.1

  52.3

  East Midlands

  51.0

  51.8

  52.8

  53,0

  52 7

  52.4

  54.0

  53.7

  West Midlands

  54.2

  54.8

  53.8

  54.7

  54 8

  54.7

  54.9

  53.6

  Eastern

  54.4

  54.0

  55.3

  53.0

  53.9

  53.8

  55.1

  52.1

  London

  65.6

  64.3

  66.2

  65.6

  66,3

  66.9

  65.9

  66.1

  South East

  53.4

  53.7

  53.8

  54.6

  54 4

  54.3

  52.6

  53.5

  South West

  47.9

  49.2

  50.0

  50.6

  48,4

  49.3

  48.9

  49.5

  Wales

  53.6

  54.8

  55.0

  53.3

  53,7

  55.3

  56.1

  54.2

  Scotland

  57.9

  57.6

  56.5

  55.5

  56,8

  57.6

  56.6

  57.8

  Northern Ireland

  61.3

  61.6

  63.6

  58.5

  61,8

  58.8

  59.0

  62.5

  Part Time1

  United Kingdom

  44.9

  44.8

  44.4

  44.5

  44.4

  44.1

  44.3

  44.3

  Great Britain

  45.0

  45.0

  44.6

  44.6

  44.5

  44.1

  44.4

  44.5

  England

  45.3

  45.2

  44.7

  44.5

  44.6

  44.3

  44.6

  44.7

  North East

  48.6

  45.9

  47.7

  47.1

  46.5

  46.1

  46.2

  43.6

  North West:

  44.3

  44.8

  44.3

  43.4

  429

  42.5

  42.8

  42.6

  St Helens (Local Authority)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  56

  44

  44

  41

  37

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  47.5

  48.7

  #8.9

  47.0

  48,5

  47.2

  47.9

  47.7

  East Midlands

  49.0

  48.2

  47.2

  47.0

  47.3

  47.6

  45.9

  46.3

  West Midlands

  45.8

  45.1

  46.2

  45.3

  45.2

  45.3

  45.0

  46.4

  Eastern

  45.5

  46.0

  44.7

  47.0

  46,1

  46.1

  44.9

  47.9

  London

  34.4

  35.6

  33.7

  34,4

  33.7

  33.1

  33.9

  33.8

  South East

  46.6

  46.2

  46.2

  45.3

  45.6

  45.7

  47.4

  46.4

  South West

  52.1

  50.8

  50.0

  49.4

  51.6

  50.7

  51.0

  50.4

  Wales

  46.3

  45.2

  45.0

  46.7

  46.3

  44.6

  43.8

  45.8

  Scotland

  42.1

  42.4

  43.5

  44.5

  43.1

  42.4

  43.4

  42.1

  Northern Ireland

  38.6

  38.2

  36.4

  41.5

  38.2

  41.1

  41.0

  37.4

  Total in employment (thousands)

  United Kingdom

  12,000

  12,092

  12,294

  12,471

  12,017

  12,764

  12,847

  12,971

  Great Britain

  11,697

  11,792

  11,984

  12,175

  12,307

  12,442

  12,520

  12,647

  England

  10,091

  10,179

  10,359

  10,534

  10,636

  10,764

  10,767

  10,893

  North East

  485

  469

  469

  483

  489

  507

  489

  515

  North West:

  1,339

  1,322

  1,346

  1,365

  1,418

  1,420

  1,433

  1,445

  St Helens (Local Authority)2

  n/a

  n/a

  n/a

  35

  34

  37

  35

  35

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  986

  1,006

  1,006

  1,039

  1,044

  1,034

  1,056

  1,077

  East Midlands

  881

  884

  891

  908

  886

  919

  918

  944

  West Midlands

  1,045

  1,067

  1,086

  1,082

  1,086

  1,099

  1,109

  1,119

  1216W
  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about females in full-time and part-time employment. (186926)

  The attached table' shows the percentages of females in full-time, and part-time employment and the number of women in employment in St. Helens Local Authority and each region of the UK for the three month periods ending in May of each year from 1997 to 2004.'

  Estimates are taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling Variability. Estimates for St Helens Local Authority District are based on small sample sizes and are subject to a high level of sampling variability. In particular, year-to-year changes are likely to show considerable volatility.
  1217W

  Female employment: percentages in full and part-time 3 months ending May each year from 1997 to 2004 not seasonblly adjusted

  March to May

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Eastern

  1,118

  1,144

  1,164

  1,190

  1,225

  1,221

  1,228

  1,265

  London

  1.466

  1,474

  1,537

  1,554

  1,557

  1,576

  1,534

  1,543

  South East

  1,731

  1,768

  1,790

  1,833

  1,839

  1,859

  1,883

  1,856

  South West

  1,040

  1,046

  1,070

  1,081

  1,091

  1,128

  1,118

  1,128

  Wales

  551

  545

  555

  560

  560

  559

  625

  605

  Scotland

  1,054

  1,068

  1,070

  1,081

  1,111

  1,119

  1,129

  1,149

  Northern Ireland

  304

  300

  310

  296

  310

  321

  327

  324

  n/a no available data

  1Percentage of all women in employment. Percentages are based on total that includes people who did state whether they were full or part-time who did not answer the full or part time question

  2Estimates for St. Helens Local Authority are based on smaller sample sizes and are therefore subject to a higher degree of sampling variability. They should therefore be treated with caution and, in particular, changes from year to year should not be used in isolation from the figures for a run of years.

  Source:

  ONS Labour Force Survey

  Work Force Statistics
  Mr. Woodward
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of the(a) female work force aged between 50 and 60 and (b) male work force aged between 50 and 65 have been in employment in each year since 1997, broken down by region. [186929]

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

  Percentage of men aged 50–64 and women aged 50–59 in employment UK regions, 1997 to 2004 (three month period ending May of each year)

  Percentage

  Area of residence

  1997

  1998

  1999

  2000

  2001

  2002

  2003

  2004

  Men aged 50–64 in employment United Kingdom1

  67.2

  67.7

  68.4

  68.5

  70.0

  69.7

  71.7

  71.7

  Great Britain

  67.3

  68.0

  68.6

  68.8

  70.3

  69.9

  71.8

  71.9

  England

  68.4

  69.1

  69.9

  69.9

  71.3

  71.0

  72.6

  72.5

  North East

  54.6

  53.5

  54.3

  54.1

  58.2

  55.1

  60.0

  58.0

  North West

  61.9

  60.6

  62.8

  63.6

  64.3

  64.0

  68.7

  68.0

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  61.8

  64.6

  62.7

  68.1

  67.9

  70.1

  69.1

  71.4

  East Midlands

  70.2

  70.8

  71.6

  74.0

  72.6

  72.1

  75.5

  73.8

  West Midlands

  71.0

  71.3

  71.3

  67.6

  68.9

  70.6

  73.3

  69.9

  Eastern

  72.8

  76.9

  74.7

  75.3

  78.4

  77.6

  77.2

  76.2

  London

  67.7

  65.2

  68.8

  67.7

  69.7

  68.8

  68.6

  70.7

  South East

  74.5

  77.4

  78.9

  76.8

  77.8

  77.8

  77.7

  79.3

  South West

  72.8

  72.4

  73.3

  72.9

  75.2

  72.8

  75.6

  75.7

  Wales

  58.2

  57.7

  58.7

  60.6

  60.1

  62.4

  64.5

  66.1

  Scotland

  62.9

  63.1

  61.8

  62.5

  66.7

  63.9

  69.1

  69.5

  Northern Ireland

  60.7

  57.7

  61.2

  58.6

  61.0

  62.7

  66.5

  64.8

  Women aged 50–59 in employment United Kingdom2

  60.7

  62.2

  62.8

  63.9

  64.9

  65.3

  67.3

  67.5

  Great Britain

  61.0

  62.5

  63.1

  64.2

  65.3

  65.6

  67.6

  67.9

  England

  62.0

  63.7

  64.0

  65.3

  66.0

  66.5

  68.0

  68.3

  North East

  52.3

  48.1

  52.5

  57.8

  60.6

  59.9

  58.6

  54.7

  North West

  56.0

  58.3

  58.8

  57.9

  60.9

  61.7

  68.5

  65.8

  Yorkshire and Humberside

  59.0

  61.6

  60.8

  64.0

  63.8

  62.6

  67.9

  67.3

  East Midlands

  64.8

  66.0

  62.3

  66.3

  68.0

  67.1

  67.0

  68.5

  West Midlands

  60.6

  63.3

  63.9

  64.8

  64.0

  66.2

  65.7

  67.3

  Eastern

  65.9

  66.5

  67.3

  68.7

  68.3

  69.3

  72.8

  73.7

  London

  60.6

  61.5

  63.3

  63.2

  64.8

  63.9

  64.0

  64.4

  South East

  66.7

  71.1

  69.3

  71.6

  72.0

  73.4

  72.5

  72.4

  South West

  67.5

  67.4

  69.5

  68.7

  67.6

  68.5

  67.9

  72.4

  Wales

  55.7

  50.7

  52.9

  56.7

  56.8

  54.5

  62.7

  62.2

  Scotland

  53.9

  57.7

  60.9

  58.1

  63.5

  63.5

  66.1

  66.7

  Northern Ireland

  50.3

  49.0

  52.7

  53.4

  48.4

  54.1

  56.4

  54.3

  1As a percentage of male population aged 50-64

  2As a percentage of female population aged 50-59 *Not seasonally adjusted

  Source:

  ONS: Labour Force Survey

  1218W
  Letter from Len Cook to Mr. Sean Woodward dated 7 September 2004:

  As National Statistician, I have been asked to reply to your Parliamentary Question about employment of people aged 50 and over. (186929)

  The attached table shows the percentage of (a) men aged 50–64 and (b) women aged 50–59 who are in employment in each region for the three months ending in May each year from 1997 to 2004.

  Estimates are taken from the Labour Force Survey (LFS). As with any sample survey, estimates from the LFS are subject to sampling variability.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Archaelogical Sites (Theft)
  Mr. Gamier
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what studies her Department has made of(a) the incidence of theft from or criminal damage to and (b) the market value of items or artefacts stolen from sites of archaelogical interest in England and Wales since 1 June 1997. [187180]

  Mr. Caborn
  This information is not currently available. English Heritage, however, is in the process of designing a data system that will centrally compile the statistics for damage to English sites.

  Free Television Licences
  John Robertson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will introduce free television licences for blind and partially sighted people. [187569]

  Estelle Morris
  The Government introduced a 50 per cent. reduction in the television licence fee for registered blind people in April 2000. We have no plans at present to change the concessionary arrangements but will consider all aspects of BBC funding, including concessions, as part of the BBC Charter review process.

  Mr. Anthony D. Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many old age pensioners in the Great Yarmouth constituency have benefited from the introduction of free television licences. [186708]

  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 indicate that there are approximately 8,600 people aged 75 or over living in the Great Yarmouth constituency.

  Arts Council Grants
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many individuals who have received an Arts Council grant have had to pay back part or all of their grant because they did not meet the standard conditions for grants in each year since 1997. [187283]

  Estelle Morris
  Since April 2003, one grant to an individual has been reduced due to a breach of the standard conditions.

  Figures for individuals are only available from April 2003, when Arts Council England introduced Grants for the Arts, Individuals. Previously, Arts Council England funding programmes did not make a distinction between organisations and individuals; therefore they do not hold records of this nature.

  Arts Programmes
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much is being spent by the Government on arts programmes in(a) Yorkshire and (b) England (i) directly and (ii) indirectly. [186850]
  1220W
  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not fund the arts directly, but through Arts Council England, who are responsible for distributing public money from Government.

  The following table supplied by Arts Council England provides a breakdown of the allocation of Government Grant- in-Aid, 2004–05.

  Arts Council England—Allocation of grant-in-Aid, 2004–05

  £

  National

  Yorkshire

  Regularly Funded Organisations (over 1,300 organisations receive guaranteed funding corresponding with the Spending Review)

  280,081,000

  21,363,000

  Total flexible funds (awards to one-off projects through an open application system)

  28,000,000

  —

  Grants for the arts, individuals (1 April 2004–10 August 2004)

  2,988,000

  291,000

  Total

  315,581,000

  21,654,000

  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will list the government-sponsored arts programmes in(a) London, (b) Yorkshire and (c) England (i) in 2004 and (ii) in the next five years. [186949]

  Estelle Morris
  The Department for Culture, Media and Sport does not fund the arts directly, but through Arts Council England, who are responsible for distributing public money from Government.

  Arts Council England's funding allocations correspond with the Treasury's Spending Review—the current allocations run from 2003–04 to 2005–06. Arts Council England's Spending Plan 2003–06 for Regularly Funded Organisations lists the 1,300 + organisations that receive Government Grant-in-Aid, categorised by region, and is available on their website—www.artscouncil.org.uk

  Arts Council England will announce its funding allocations for the period 2006–07 to 2007–08 in 2005.

  Culture (Improved Access)
  Sandra Gidley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to improve accessibility to(a) sports and (b) arts for older people. [186450]

  Mr. Caborn
  My Department fully recognises the benefits participation in activities like sport and the arts can bring to older people.

  Arts Council England funds a number of arts organisations which aim to encourage older audiences and engage older people in artistic opportunities. Older people were also a focus of the Arts Council's recent New Audiences pilot project. Over £250,000 was awarded to projects targeting older people. Projects designed for older people addressed barriers such as lack of transport, price and having no one to go with. Information about successful New Audiences projects will be disseminated to arts practitioners and arts organisations across the country.
  1221W
  On Sport, Game Plan, our strategy for delivering Sport and Physical Activity Objectives, identified older people as one of the key priority groups for increasing physical activity. Following discussions with the British Heart Foundation, Sport England's 9 Regional Plans for Sport are providing the framework for regional action. Older people are also one of the target groups for Local Exercise Action Plans (LEAPs). The Public Health White Paper due in the autumn will set out the Government's proposals for increased activity across the population.

  Designated Accommodation
  Bob Spink
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many rooms are set aside for(a) the use of smokers, (b) worship, broken down by religion and (c) nursing mothers and pregnant women in each building and set of offices for which her Department is responsible. [187313]

  Mr. Caborn
  DCMS leases all or part of four buildings. Two of those have a room set aside for smokers. One building has a room available to an Islamic worshipper. There are no discrete facilities for nursing mothers as children are not brought to work and pregnant women have the facility of a first aid/ medical rest room in each building.

  Digital Television (Bridgwater)
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people in the Bridgwater constituency do not have access to digital television. [186499]

  Estelle Morris
  Digital television in the UK can be accessed through Satellite, Cable or Digital Terrestrial Television (DTT).

  The BBC calculate that, of the 40,800 households in the Bridgwater constituency, around 19 per cent. (7,600) do not have access to DTT services (including Freeview). Therefore 81 per cent. (33,200) of households should be able to receive DTT from either the Mendip or Stockland Hill transmitter, compared with 73 per cent. nationwide.

  According to Ofcom figure Digital Satellite television is available to the vast majority (96–98 per cent.) of households in the UK. Unfortunately, it is not possible to give a breakdown of Digital Satellite coverage in individual areas.

  Digital Cable is not currently available to any households in the Bridgewater constituency.

  English Institute of Sport
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget for the English Institute of Sport is for(a) 2004–05, (b) 2005–06 and (c) 2006–07. [186932]

  Mr. Caborn
  The English Institute of Sport (EIS) is funded by a grant from Sport England.

  For the financial year 2004–05 the budget for EIS is £8.5 million.
  1222W
  For each of the financial years 2005–06 and 2006–07 the budget currently agreed by the EIS and Sport England is also £8.5 million for each year.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) full-time and (b) part-time staff are employed at each English Institute of Sport Hub. [186933]

  Mr. Caborn
  The number of full-time and part-time staff employed (as of 30 July 2004) at the nine regional English Institute of Sport Hubs are as follows:

  Full-time

  Part-time

  Total

  East

  4

  0

  4

  East Midlands

  13

  2

  15

  London

  2

  3

  5

  North East

  7

  1

  8

  North West

  11

  1

  12

  South East

  11

  1

  12

  South West

  7

  1

  8

  West Midlands

  4

  1

  5

  Yorkshire

  8

  1

  9

  Freeview
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many more Freeview broadcasting licences the Government are planning to grant. [186858]

  Estelle Morris
  Digital television services, except those provided by the BBC, S4C and TeleG, are licensed by the Office of Communications (Ofcom) under the powers granted to it by the Broadcasting Acts of 1990, 1996 and the Communications Act 2003. With the exception of the public service channels (Channel 3, 4 and 5), the choice of whether a licensed television programme service is available free of charge or as part of a subscription package is for the broadcaster to decide. Where services are to be broadcast via satellite, Ofcom does not limit the number of licences available to either pay-TV or free channels and it will#issue licences to any eligible organisation wishing to broadcast television programme services provided they meet the relevant regulatory requirements, for example as to content, advertising and sponsorship issues. In relation to the digital terrestrial platform, however, spectrum capacity is a key factor in determining how many services may be licensed at any one time.

  Gaming Machines
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions her Department has held with owners of category D gaming machines in relation to the proposed ban on them in the Government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling, broken down by(a) mini-cab offices, (b) fish and chip shops, (c) kebab shops, (d) other take-away food outlets and (e) others; and if she will make a statement. [187181]

  Mr. Caborn
  Many, if not most gaming machines, are owned by machine suppliers who have rental agreements with retail outlets. While the Department has had no recent discussions with trade associations representing any of the above categories of outlets, it
  1223W
  meets regularly with trade associations who represent suppliers and manufacturers of gaming machines to discuss a range of matters relating to the Gambling Bill.

  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessments her Department has made of the likely impact of the ban on category D gaming machines proposed in the Government's response to the Joint Select Committee on Gambling on(a) mini-cab companies, (b) fish and chip shops, (c) kebab shops, (d) other take-away food outlets and (e) others; and if she will make a statement. [187182]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department will publish a full Regulatory Impact Assessment (RIA) for the Gambling Bill when publishing it. In the meantime, consultations on the RIA continue.

  The Department's policy on the siting of Category D gaming machines acknowledges that their removal from unlicensed premises may reduce the turnover which they would otherwise have had; but we take the view that it is necessary to give more weight to the difficulties of ensuring that children are adequately supervised when using gaming machines in unlicensed premises and ensuring that unlawful machines are not sited there. We do not intend to cut back on entitlements to install machines conferred by current permits prior to their expiry.

  Government Policies
  Mr. Rosindell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will make a statement on the Government's policy on(a) sport, (b) culture and (c) art. [186951]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government's policy is to improve the quality of life for all through cultural and sporting activities and to support the pursuit of excellence and to champion the creative and leisure industries.

  To achieve this we have developed four strategic priorities:

  Strategic Priority 1: Children and Young People

  Further enhance access to culture and sport for children and give them the opportunity to develop their talents to the full and enjoy the full benefits of participation.

  Strategic Priority 2: Communities

  Increase and broaden the impact of culture and sport, to enrich individual lives, strengthen communities and improve the places where people live, now and for future generations.

  Strategic Priority 3: Economy

  Maximise the contribution which the tourism, creative and leisure industries can make to the economy.

  Strategic Priority 4: Modernising Delivery

  Modernising delivery by ensuring our sponsored bodies are efficient and work with others to meet the cultural and sporting needs of individuals and communities.

  Human Remains
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she expects to publish the Government's response to the report on the retention of human remains conducted by the Working Groups on Human Remains. [187262]

  Estelle Morris
  On Wednesday 28 July DCMS launched a consultation to assess the necessity and appropriateness of the recommendations of the Working Group on Human Remains. The consultation will run for three months, and the Government will make their response after that point.

  Lower Priority Olympic Sports
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what definition the Government uses of the term "lower priority Olympic sports". [186376]

  Mr. Caborn
  All sports were assessed in 1997–98 against UK Sport classification criteria (significance in the UK, significance internationally, international success) and more refined indicators which were: the recent record of success or achievement in the international arena, recognition as an Olympic sport, the quantity and quality of the competitive field, the number of world class performers in the UK, the public profile of the sport in the UK and the number of affiliated members in the UK.

  Based on these criteria, a number of sports were not considered to be high priority for support from UK Sport. The Olympic Sports Development Fund established by UK Sport and the BOA attempts to help such sports achieve their potential.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport if she will estimate the National Lottery-derived balances held by(a) lottery funds, (b) each arts council and (c) each national sports body as at 1 April (i) 2002, (ii) 2003 and (iii) 2004. [186836]

  Estelle Morris
  The information is in the table.

  £

  1 April 2002

  1 April 2003

  1 April 2004

  Lottery bodies

  Community Fund

  401,424,347 40

  299,618,282.83

  213,264,652.72

  Heritage Lottery Fund

  993,667,076.93

  1,019,998,113.28

  942,584,325.01

  Millennium Commission

  386,384,791.53

  217,263,126.69

  155,697,623.33

  New Opportunities Fund

  826,417,473.31

  877,706,762.87

  737,229,803.65

  Total

  2,607,893,689.17

  2,414,586,285.67

  2,048,776,404.71

  Arts lottery

  bodies

  Arts Council England

  246,267,031.91

  245,670,398.81

  224,087,590.60

  Scottish Arts Council

  44,642,966.34

  49,568,856.98

  41,965,097.49

  Arts Council of Wales

  32,542,529.69

  30,410,338.37

  23,972,897.04

  Arts Council of Northern Ireland

  33,555,929.90

  34,925,265.14

  35,643,987.16

  1225W

  £

  1 April 2002

  1 April 2003

  1 April 2004

  UK Film Council

  67,640,453.91

  75,587,327.45

  44,281.587.69

  Scottish Screen

  3,637,995.37

  2,273,214.37

  2,194,824.31

  Total

  428,286,907.12

  438,435,401.12

  372,145,984.29

  Sport lottery bodies

  Sport England

  382,438,489.79

  268,225,324.48

  201,571,121.41

  Scottish Sports Council

  72,899,223.81

  78,840,531.03

  65,033,163.09

  Sports Council for Wales

  39,765,549.00

  31,719,079.87

  21,471,242.28

  Sports Council for Northern Ireland

  19,539,173.47

  21,070,644.46

  23,487,949.83

  UK Sports Council

  8,011,661.64

  3,630,659.65

  3,786,512.05

  Total

  522,654.097.71

  403,486,239.49

  315,349,988.66

  Overall lottery total

  3,558,834,694.00

  3,256.507,926.28

  2,736,272,377.66

  PFI/PPP Contracts
  Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many contracts her Department had with(a) Barclays, (b) the Royal Bank of Scotland, (c) UBS Warburg and (d) the Bank of Scotland for advice on private finance initiative and public private partnership contracts in each financial year since 2001–02; and what fees were paid in each case. [186689]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Department (including the Royal Parks Agency) has had no contracts with any of these firms for advice on Public Private Partnership contracts.

  Public Bodies
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people(a) the National Lottery Commission, (b) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (c) the Film Council, (d) the Football Task Force, (e) the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, (f) Historic Royal Palaces, (g) the Millennium Commission, (h) the New Opportunities Fund, (i) the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd., (j) Resource, (k) the Spoliation Advisory Panel, (l) the Treasure Valuation Committee, (m) the Working Group on Human Remains, (n) the Craft Council, (o) the British Film Institute, (p) the National Film and Television School, (q) the Alcohol Education and Research Council, (r) the Gaining Board for Great Britain and (s) the Horserace Betting Levy Board employs on a (i) full-time and (ii) part-time basis. [187138]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is shown in the table.

  Body

  Full-time staff

  Part- time staff

  (a) National Lottery Commission

  41

  0

  (b) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

  65

  13

  (c) UK Film Council

  89

  1

  (d) Football Task Force (wound up in 1999)

  —

  —

  1226W

  Body

  Full-time staff

  Part- time staff

  (e) National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  91

  6

  (f) Historic Royal Palaces

  526

  65

  (g) Millennium Commission

  52

  0

  (h) New Opportunities Fund1

  333

  30

  (i) New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. (in voluntary solvent liquidation)

  0

  0

  (j) Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (formerly known as Resource)

  75

  2

  (k) Spoliation Advisory Panel

  0

  0

  (l) Treasure Valuation Committee

  0

  0

  (m) Working Group on Human Remains (dissolved in 2003)

  —

  —

  (n) Crafts Council

  39

  17

  (o) British Film Institute

  385

  81

  (p) National Film and Television School

  65

  20

  (q) Alcohol Education and Research Council

  0

  2

  (r) Gaming Board for Great Britain

  73

  3

  (s) Horserace Betting Levy Board

  23

  2

  1#igures for 1 April 2004. The New Opportunities Fund has since undergone an administrative merger with the Community Fund. The merged body is now operating as the Big Lottery Fund.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total salary bill has been for(a) the National Lottery Commission, (b) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (c) the Film Council, (d) the Football Task Force, (e) the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, (f) Historic Royal Palaces, (g) the Millennium Commission, (h) the New Opportunities Fund, (i) the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd, (j) Resource, (k) the Spoliation Advisory Panel, (l) the Treasure Valuation Committee, (m) the Working Group on Human Remains, (n) the Craft Council, (o) the British Film Institute, (p) the National Film and Television School, (q) the Adult Education and Research Council, (r) the Gaming Board for Great Britain and (s) the Horserace Betting Levy Board in each year since its creation. [187139]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is shown in the tables.

  (a) National Lottery Commission

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  1,750

  2002–03

  1,380

  2001–02

  1,294

  2000–01

  1,375

  1999–2000

  1,367

  The figures cover the years since the National Lottery Commission's inception in its current form.

  (b) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  2,231

  2002–03

  1,013

  2001–02

  543

  2000–01

  331

  1999–2000 (from 29 September—31 March)

  136

  1227W
  (c) UK Film Council

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  5,010

  2002–03

  4,161

  2001–02

  3,922

  2000–01

  2,928

  1999–01

  176

  (d) the Football Task Force had no staff

  (e) National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  3,932

  2002–03

  3,429

  2001–02

  2,282

  2000–01

  1,380

  1999–2000

  944

  1998–99

  222

  (f) Historic Royal Palaces

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  17,774

  2002–03

  16,142

  2001–02

  14,611

  2000–01

  13,415

  1999–2000

  12,917

  1998–99

  12,577

  The figures cover the years since Historic Royal Palaces's inception in its current form.

  (g) Millennium Commission

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  2,647

  2002–03

  2,754

  2001–02

  3,460

  2000–01

  3,834

  1999–2000

  3,181

  1998–99

  3,249

  1997–98

  2,115

  1996–97

  1,818

  1995–96

  1,076

  1994–95

  283

  Up to 31 March 1994

  12

  (p) New Opportunities Fund

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  11,597

  2002–03

  9,769

  2001–02

  7,036

  2000–01

  4,591

  1999–2000

  2,329

  1998–99

  401

  1228W
  (i)New Millennium Experience Co. Ltd.

  Salary bill (£000)

  January—December 2001

  4,642

  January 2000—December 2000

  40,055

  April 1999—December 1999

  14,194

  April 1998—March 1999

  7,121

  February 1997—March 1998

  2,493

  (j) Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (formerly known as Resource)

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  3,062

  2002–03

  2,601

  2001–02

  2,380

  2000–01

  2,053

  (k) the Spoliation Advisor# Panel has no staff

  (l) the Treasure Valuation Committee has no staff

  (m) the Working Group on Human Remains had no staff

  (n) Crafts Council

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  not yet available

  2002–03

  1,481

  2001–02

  1,376

  2000–01

  1,199

  1999–2000

  1,019

  1998–99

  1,118

  The earlier figures for the years since the Crafts Council's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (o) British Film Institute

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  not yet available

  2002–03

  15,381

  2001–02

  13,243

  2000–01

  11,034

  1999–2000

  11,383

  1998–99

  10,981

  The earlier figures for the years since the British Film Institute's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (p) National Film and Television School

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003

  2,387

  2002

  2,551

  2001

  2,611

  2000

  2,850

  1999

  2,639

  The earlier figures for the years since the National Film Television School's creation School's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.
  1229W
  (q) Alcohol Education and Research Council

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  63

  2002–03

  74

  2001–02

  61

  2000–01

  61

  The earlier figures for the years since the Alcohol Education and Research Council's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (r) Gaming Board for Great Britain

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  2,399

  2002–03

  2,391

  2001–02

  2,236

  2000–01

  2,090

  1999–2000

  2,073

  The earlier figures for the years since the Gaming Board for Great Britain's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  (s) Horserace Betting Levy Board

  Salary bill (£000)

  2003–04

  1,046

  2002–03

  1,037

  2001–02

  925

  2000–01

  961

  1999–2000

  909

  The earlier figures for the years since the Horserace Betting Levy Board's creation could be provided only at disproportionate cost.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people who work for(a) the National Lottery Commission, (b) the Commission for Architecture and the, Built Environment, (c) the Film Council, (d) the Football Task Force, (e) the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, (f) Historic Royal Palaces, (g) the Millennium Commission, (h) the New Opportunitie# Fund, (i) the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd, (j) Resource, (k) the Spoliation Advisory Panel, (l) the Treasure Valuation Committee, (m) the Working Group on Human Remains, (n) the Craft Council, (o) the British Film Institute, (p) the National Film and Television School, (q) the Adult Education and Research Council, (r) the Gaming Board for Great Britain and (s) the Horserace Betting Levy Board are untitled to a final salary pension scheme. [187140]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information is shown in the table.

  Body

  Number entitled to a final salary pension scheme

  (a) National Lottery Commission

  40

  (b) Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment

  78

  (c) UK Film Council

  55

  1230W

  Number entitled to a final salary pension scheme

  (d) Football Task Force (wound up in 1999)

  —

  (e) National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts

  31

  (f) Historic Royal Palaces

  445

  (g) Millennium Commission

  0

  (h) New Opportunities Fund (Figure for 1 April 2004. The New Opportunities Fund has since undergone an administrative merger with the Community Fund. The merged body is now operating as the Big Lottery Fund)

  363

  (i) New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. (in voluntary solvent liquidation)

  0

  (j) Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (formerly known as Resource)

  77

  (k) Spoliation Advisory Panel

  0

  (l) Treasure Valuation Committee

  0

  (m) Working Group on Human Remains (dissolved in 2003)

  —

  (n) Crafts Council

  10

  (o) British Film Institute

  264

  (p) National Film and Television School

  42

  (g) Alcohol Education and Research Council

  0

  (r) Gaming Board for Great Britain

  77

  (s) Horserace Betting Levy Board

  21

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the remit is of(a) the National Lottery Commission, (b) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (c) the Film Council, (d) the Football Task Force, (e) the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, (f) the Millennium Commission, (g) the New Opportunities Fund, (h) the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd., (i) Resource, (j) the Spoliation Advisory Panel, (k) the Treasure Valuation Committee, (l) the Working Group on Human Remains, (m) the Craft Council, (n) the British Film Institute, (o) the National Film and Television School, (p) the Alcohol Education and Research Council, (q) the Gaming Board for Great Britain and (r) the Horserace Betting Levy Board. [187142]

  Mr. Caborn
  The terms of reference for public bodies are contained in the annual Cabinet Office publication Public Bodies. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The bodies listed are contained in Public Bodies 2003, with the following exceptions:
  The Football Task Force, which was dissolved in 1999.
  The New Millennium Experience Company Ltd., which is in voluntary solvent liquidation.
  The Crafts Council. The object of the Crafts Council shall be to advance and encourage the creation of works of fine craftsmanship and to foster, promote and increase the interest of the public in the work of craftspeople and in the accessibility of those works to the public.
  The British Film Institute. The objects of the British Film Institute are contained in its Royal Charter, available on the British Film Institute website (www.bfi.org.uk).
  The National Film and Television School. The mission of the National Film and Television School is to educate the best creative talent to the highest professional standard for tomorrow's screen media industries.
  1231W
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what annual Government expenditure on(a) the National Lottery Commission, (b) the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, (c) the Film Council, (d) the Football Task Force, (e) the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts, (f) the Millennium Commission, (g) the New Opportunities Fund, (h) the New Millennium Experience Company Ltd., (i) Resource, (j) the Spoliation Ad#isory Panel, (k) the Treasure Valuation Committee, (l) the Working Group on Human Remains, (m) the Craft Council, (n) the British Film Institute, (o) the National Film and Television School, (p) the Alcohol Education and Research Council, (q) the Gaming Board for Great Britain and (r) the Horserace Betting Levy Board was in each year since its creation. [187143]

  Mr. Caborn
  Expenditure on the National Lottery Commission, the Commission for Architecture and the Built Environment, UK Film Council, the Museums, Libraries and Archives Council (formerly known as Resource), the National Film and Television School and the Gaming Board for Great Britain is shown in the Department for Culture, Media and Sport's Annual Report 2004, Vol. 1 (Cm 6220) and in previous editions. Copies are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Gaming Board for Great Britain has been sponsored by the Department for Culture, Media and Sport since 2001. Expenditure figures for earlier years are contained in the Annual Reports of the Home Office, which are available from the Libraries of both Houses.

  Expenditure on the National Endowment for Science, Technology and the Arts is contained in its 2002–03 Annual Report, copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The Millennium Commission and the New Opportunities Fund are funded by money raised from the National Lottery. (The New Opportunities Fund has undergone an administrative merger with the Community Fund and the merged body is now operating as the Big Lottery Fund). The New Millennium Experience Company Ltd. (now in voluntary solvent liquidation) was funded by the Millennium Commission.

  The Spoliation Advisory Panel and the Treasure Evaluation Committee (and the Working Group on Human Remains and Football Task Force, when they existed) form part of the Administration and Research budget of DCMS; they are not recipients of grant-in-aid. Their administration costs are borne by the DCMS, whose staff provide secretariat support, accommodation and legal advice. These costs are centrally budgeted and could be disaggregated only at disproportionate cost. Details of the Department's administration costs are published in the Department's Annual Report.

  The Crafts Council is funded mainly by Arts Council England and earned income and has not received any direct Government funding since 1998–99.

  The British Film Institute is funded by the UK Film Council and earned income and has not received any direct Government funding since 1999–2000.
  1232W
  The Alcohol Education and Research Fund is vested in and administered by the Alcohol Education and Research Council (AERC) and the AERC does not receive any direct Government funding.

  The Horserace Betting Levy Board is funded by collection of a statutory levy and does not receive any direct Government expenditure.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people who work for(a) Culture North East, (b) the East Midlands Cultural Consortium (c) Living east, (d) the North West Cultural Consortium, (e) the South East England Cultural Consortium, (f) the South West Regional Cultural Consortium, (g) the West Midlands Life Cultural Consortium and (h) the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium are entitled to a final salary pension scheme. [187145]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is in the table. The Regional Cultural Consortiums do not at present directly employ any staff themselves. Those who work for the Consortiums are employed by other regional agencies and partners and may be entitled to join the pension schemes of the organisations which employ them. Not all those entitled to join a final salary pension scheme are currently members of that scheme.

  Consortium

  Staff entitled to a final salary pension scheme

  Culture North East

  3

  East Midlands Cultural

  1

  Consortium

  Living East

  3

  The Cultural Consortium

  4

  England's Northwest

  South East England Cultural

  2

  Consortium

  Culture South West

  0

  West Midlands Life

  4

  Yorkshire Culture

  5

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total salary has been for(a) Culture North East, (b) the East Midlands Cultural Consortium (c) Living east, (d) the North West Cultural Consortium, (e) the South East England Cultural Consortium, (f) the South West Regional Cultural Consortium, (g) the West Midlands Life Cultural Consortium and (h) the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium in each year since its creation. [187146]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not available and could be provided only at disproportionate cost. The Regional Cultural Consortiums do not at present directly employ any staff themselves. Those who work for the Consortiums are employed by other regional agencies and partners and paid by those organisations. In most cases, the salary costs are subsequently invoiced to the Department for payment from the resources allocated to the Consortiums, but the Department does not record these costs separately from other Consortium expenditure.

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many people(a) Culture North East, (b) the East Midlands Cultural Consortium, (c) Living east, (d) the North West

  1233W
  Cultural Consortium, (e) the South East England Cultural Consortium, (f) the South West Regional Cultural Consortium, (g) the West Midlands Life Cultural Consortium and (h) the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium employs on a (i) full-time and (ii) part-time basis. [187147]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Regional Cultural Consortiums do not at present directly employ any staff themselves. Those who work for the Consort it ms are employed by other regional agencies and partners and seconded to work for the Consortiums. The number of people currently working full-time and part-time for each Consortium is shown in the table.

  Consortium

  Full-time staff

  Part-time staff

  Culture North East

  3

  0

  East Midlands Cultural Consortium

  1

  1

  Living East

  3

  0

  The Cultural Consortium England's Northwest

  3

  2

  South East England Cultural Consortium

  1

  1

  Culture South West

  4

  0

  West Midlands Life

  4

  0

  Yorkshire Culture

  5

  0

  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the Government expenditure on(a) Culture North East, (b) the East Midlands Cultural Consortium, (c) Living east, (d) the North West Cultural Consortium, (e) the South East England Cultural Consortium, (f) the South West Regional Cultural Consortium, (g) the West Midlands Life Cultural Consortium and (h) the Yorkshire Cultural Consortium was in each year since its creation. [187148]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is in the table.

  Regional Cultural Consortiums Annual Expenditure, from DCMS funds

  £

  Consortium

  1999–20001

  2000–01

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–042

  Culture North East

  1,355

  41,855

  32 415

  92,952

  197,326

  East Midlands Cultural Consortium

  857

  34,366

  15,927

  108,880

  141,267

  Living East

  388

  26,358

  31,621

  110,150

  184,763

  The Cultural Consortium England's Northwest

  230

  21,995

  32,890

  93,686

  240,695

  South East England Cultural Consortium

  968

  20,229

  36,929

  30,242

  204,862

  Culture South West

  4,823

  33,609

  22,043

  152,725

  213,750

  West Midlands Life

  1,613

  31,089

  6,097

  120,100

  223,217

  Yorkshire Culture

  829

  29,800

  17,326

  131,450

  217,629

  1The Regional Cultural Consortiums were established in October 1999.

  2 Expected outturn.

  Public Swimming Pools
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport (1) what action she has taken to ensure that access to public swimming pools in London increases; [186923]

  (2) what action she (a) can and (b) will take to increase the number of swimming pools in London. [186924]

  Mr. Caborn
  Sport England is working with the Amateur Swimming Association on an agreed strategy "From Armbands to Gold Medals" to support the development of swimming in London and across the country.

  At present, Sport England is working with the Greater London Authority (GLA), London Development Agency (LDA) and London 2012 on the provision of new swimming facilities in Stratford which will be built whether the Olympic bid is successful or not.

  Sport England is also working to encourage greater investment in privately owned swimming facilities that provide public access.

  Under the Community Club Development Programme, the Amateur Swimming Association (ASA) will receive £1.6 million from the Government's Capital Modernisation Fund to invest strategically in community swimming clubs in all parts of the country.

  The overall aim of the programme is to both increase and widen participation in sport at a local level and encourage an active lifestyle. It is expected that this programme will help to raise the number of people, particularly juniors, involved in competitive sport and will also help to improve the health of the nation through encouraging people of all ages to become involved in the sport of their choice.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many(a) public lidos and (b) swimming pools have closed in London since 1997. [186925]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since 1997, three public lidos and five swimming pools have closed.

  Of the five swimming pools that have closed, one is due to be replaced in 2005 (Swiss Cottage Baths).

  There are currently 104 pools in London open to the public. This includes two pools that are currently run independently of local authorities, but fully open to the public (these are Brockwell Lido and Hampton outdoor pool).

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many public swimming pools there are in Coventry, South. [187302]

  Mr. Caborn
  There are 18 swimming pools within a five-mile distance of the CV1 postcode in Coventry, South. Full details of all public swimming pools in the area can be found by visiting the Active Places website at www.activeplaces.com

  Public Transport
  Sue Doughty
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what discussions she has held with(a) the Department of Transport, (b) transport authorities, (c) public transport user groups and (d) companies operating public transport services on ensuring that public transport services are able to respond to the increased demand for late night services arising from increased use of late licences resulting from powers granted to licensing authorities under the Licensing Act 2003. [187157]

  Mr. Caborn
  The implementation of the Licensing Act 2003 can have no impact on the demand for late night transport services until November 2005 at the earliest. The content of the Licensing Act 2003 and the Licensing Guidance issued by the Secretary of State on 7 July this year, following approval by Parliament, were discussed with and approved by the Department for Transport. There have been no direct discussions with individual transport authorities, public transport user groups and companies operating public transport services other than through the public consultations that preceded the introduction of the Licensing Bill and the laying of the Guidance in Parliament. At paragraph 3.50, the Licensing Guidance advises licensing authorities when developing local statements of licensing policy to have regard to the existing policies and strategies of the relevant local transport authority as set out in their local Transport Plan. Local Transport Plans are the mechanism by which local authorities are expected to work in partnership with all appropriate bodies to deliver effective local transport services that meet the needs of local people. These are expected to include provision of night-time and evening services, where this is appropriate to the local situation. It is for local authorities to identify where and how to take action.

  Regional Cultural Consortiums
  Miss Kirkbride
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the remit is of the regional cultural consortiums. [187149]

  Mr. Caborn
  The remit of the Regional Cultural Consortiums is set out in the Cabinet Office publication "Public Bodies", copies of which are available in the Libraries of both Houses. The role of the Consortiums is to champion the whole spectrum of cultural and creative interests in the regions, including tourism and sport. The Consortiums have responsibility for implementing the regional cultural strategies and they have a role in central policy-making, regional data collection and research.

  School Sports
  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many children aged between five and 16 years she estimates have not participated in at least two hours per week of physical activity and sport at school this year. [186504]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is not held centrally for all pupils.

  As a result of the 2004 Spending Review the PE, School Sport and Club Links PSA target is being increased and extended to 2008. The ambition is to
  1236W
  further increase the percentage of five to 16-year-olds spending a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and school sport from 75 per cent. in 2006 to 85 per cent. by 2008. 1 he target also seeks to ensure that all School Sport Partnerships are able to demonstrate that at least 75 per cent. of their pupils spend a minimum of two hours a week on high quality PE and schools sport. From this month, 50 per cent. of schools will be in a School Sport Partnership.

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how many schools in the Bridgwater constituency(a) are and (b) are not participating in a school sports partnership. [186505]

  Mr. Caborn
  Within the constituency of Bridgwater there is one School Sport Partnership, based around the hub school, King Alfred's, and comprising four secondary schools, 25 primary schools and two special schools. All schools within Bridgwater will be within a School Sport Partnership by September 2006.

  Shooting
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport whether she plans to meet the governing bodies of shooting in the near future. [186922]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has no plans to meet the governing bodies of shooting in the near future. Officials from the Home Office and Defra have recently met representatives from the governing bodies of shooting to discuss the Home Office consultation on firearms. DCMS officials will continue discussions with Home Office and Defra officials to ensure that the interests of shooting clubs are given appropriate consideration.

  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when she last met representatives of the governing bodies of shooting to discuss the impact of recent legislation on the sport. [186935]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State has not met representatives of the governing bodies of shooting to discuss the impact of recent legislation.

  Sport England
  Joyce Quin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the budget of Sport England in the North East region of England was in each of the last three years. [186428]

  Mr. Caborn
  The following table provides figures for Sport England's budget in the North East region for each of the last three financial years and the current financial year.

  £

  North East budgets

  2001–02

  2002–03

  2003–04

  2004–05

  Exchequer

  1.16

  1.17

  2.59

  1.17

  Lottery1

  15.23

  18.70

  5.33

  11.49

  Total budget

  16.39

  19.87

  7.92

  12.66

  1Lottery includes Community Schemes and Awards for All

  Sports Lottery Fund
  Kate Hoey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the total reserves in the Sports Lottery Fund are. [186931]

  Mr. Caborn
  Balances held by each of the sports Lottery distributors as at 1 August 2004 are shown in the table.

  Distributing body

  Balance (£)

  Sport England

  193,912,849.51

  Sport Scotland

  60,688,533.81

  Sports Council for Wales

  17,974,275.50

  Sports Council of Northern Ireland

  24,127,137.58

  UK Sport

  2,880,357.25

  Total

  299,583,153.65

  St. Kitts Maritime Archaeological Project
  Mr. Hawkins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to assist maritime archaeology of sunken British vessels in the waters off Commonwealth countries, with particular reference to wrecks off St. Kitts being researched by the St. Kitts Maritime Archaeological Project. [185002]

  Mr. Caborn
  [holding answer 19 July 2004]: We have no current plans to assist the St. Kitts Maritime Archaeological Project.

  Tourism
  Mr. Ruffley
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much revenue she estimates tourism generated for(a) the East of England and (b) Suffolk in each of the last seven years. [187210]

  Mr. Caborn
  The information requested is as follows.

  (a) The available figures for tourism expenditure in the East of England region are shown in the table.

  Tourism expenditure in the East of England region by year1

  £ million

  Visits by overseas residents

  Trips by domestic residents with an overnight stay

  Tourism day trips by domestic residents

  Total

  1997

  500

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  550

  n/a2

  2,870

  n/a

  1999

  550

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  650

  1,540

  n/a

  n/a

  2001

  520

  1,800

  n/a

  n/a

  2002

  620

  1,700

  2,930

  5,250

  2003

  590

  nya

  n/a

  n/a

  1Sample sizes at this level of detail will be small which means that th estimates will be subject to a high margin of error. Particular caution should therefore be exercised when comparing any two of the estimates.

  2Figures for overnight stays by domestic tourists are taken from the UK Tourism Survey. Comparable figures at regional level prior to 2000 are not available due to a major change in survey methodology.

  n/a = not available,

  nya = not yet available

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey, UK Tout ism Survey, GB Leisure Day Visit Survey

  1238W
  (b) The available figures for tourism expenditure in Suffolk are shown in the table. Figures for tourism day trips are only available at regional level.

  Tourism expenditure in Suffolk by year1

  £ million

  Visits by overseas residents

  Trips by domestic residents with an overnight stay

  Tourism day trips by domestic residents3

  Total

  1997

  30

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  1998

  40

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  1999

  55

  n/a2

  n/a

  n/a

  2000

  50

  225

  n/a

  n/a

  2001

  40

  310

  n/a

  n/a

  2002

  70

  160

  n/a

  n/a

  2003

  40

  nya

  n/a

  n/a

  1Sample sizes at this level of detail will be small which means that the estimates will be subject to a high margin of error. Particular caution should therefore be exercised when comparing any two of the estimates.

  2Figures for overnight stays by domestic tourists are taken from the UK Tourism Survey. Comparable figures at regional level prior to 2000 are not available due to a major change in survey methodology.

  3Due to small sample sizes in the GB Day Visits Survey, data are not available below Government Office Region level.

  n/a = not available

  nya = not yet available

  Sources:

  International Passenger Survey, UK Tourism Survey

  Mr. Liddell-Grainger
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what steps the Government are taking to support the tourism industry in Bridgwater. [186506]

  Mr. Caborn
  Since April 2003, the Regional Development Agencies have had strategic responsibility for tourism development in the regions, reflecting its importance as a driver of regional economies. Over 2003–06, South West Regional Development Agency (SWRDA) will receive £403,000 per annum from my Department for tourism development activity, which is currently passed to the Regional Tourist Board, South West Tourism (SWT), as core funding. The board of SWRDA has recently endorsed the new tourism strategy, 'Towards 2015' and additional funding of £1.5 million per annum for the next four years has been proposed to cover its implementation. SWRDA has also funded other projects which benefit tourism in the region, including regional marketing, the Tourism Skills Network and capital investment in regional attractions.

  DCMS has made available to VisitBritain in 2004–05 grant in aid of £35.5 million to promote Britain overseas and £12.9 million to lead the domestic marketing of England. Tourism in Bridgwater benefits from this expenditure, as does the rest of the country.

  Mr. Wiggin
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans she has to visit Herefordshire to promote it as a tourist destination for(a) British and (b) foreign holiday-makers. [186823]

  Mr. Caborn
  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State currently has no official plans to visit Herefordshire. However, Herefordshire is promoted
  1239W
  both globally and domestically in many of VisitBritain's campaigns. Domestically, it is featured in the flagship £2.5 million 'enjoyEngland' campaign and other themed promotions. For example, in the 'Outdoor England' campaign the region's natural attractions, such as the
  1240W
  Wye Valley walk and the Forest of Dean are featured. Internationally, the county is included in campaigns such as 'Good Living', 'Lifestyle & Culture' and 'Hidden Britain'. Further information can be obtained from VisitBritain's website www.visitbritain.com.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Piteairn Island
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr. Gareth Thomas)
  Following detailed engineering assessment and design work over the past 12 months or so, I have set aside a total of £1.9 million from DFID funds to repair and refurbish the Hill of Difficulty road and the jetty/slipway in Pitcairn Island. Preparations are now in hand, with a view to expected commencement of the work in November of this year. In addition to this assistance, we will continue to provide medical and social welfare support for the island community.

  Reducing Maternal Deaths
  The Secretary of State for International Development (Hilary Benn)
  Last week I published a strategy paper, "Reducing Maternal Deaths", setting out the evidence on what is needed to reduce maternal deaths in developing countries. The paper complements our recent position paper on sexual and reproductive health and rights, and DFID's target strategy papers on "Better Health for Poor People" and "Realising Human Rights for Poor People".

  There is an urgent need to make faster progress towards the fifth millennium development goal of improving maternal health. Every year worldwide, more than 529,000 women die from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, all but 2,500 of them in developing countries. The UK is firmly committed to the target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths per 100,000 live births) by three quarters by 2015, from a 1990 baseline. The health of the mother is inextricably linked to the health of her newborn child.

  The paper sets out four priorities for DFID: increasing awareness and commitment to action, supporting partner countries to improve access to services, addressing wider barriers to maternal health, especially improving the status and rights of women, and generating and using new knowledge.

  DFID is already supporting work in all these areas but will increase those efforts and encourage partners to do likewise. The strategy includes a commitment to increase year-on-year investment in maternal health.

  I am placing a copy of the paper in the Library of the House. It is also available on DFID's website at www.dfid.gov. uk.

TREASURY

  United Kingdom Coins
  The Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr. Gordon Brown)
  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the following coins should be issued in 2005 and 2006:a gold half-sovereign, sovereign, double-sovereign and five pounds in 2005 bearing a new reverse design;
  a crown piece to celebrate the eightieth birthday of Her Majesty the Queen in 2006;
  a pair of two-pound coins to mark the 200th anniversary in 2006 of the birth of Isambard Kingdom Brunel; and
  a series of three fifty-pence pieces to commemorate the 150th anniversary in 2006 of the institution of the Victoria Cross.

  Collector versions of all these coins will he released at a premium above face value. In the case of the crown, the two-pound coins and the fifty pence pieces, during the course of 2006, versions will also become available at face value from banks and post offices.

HEALTH

  Pharmacy Services (Control of Entry Regulations)
  The Minister of State, Department of Health (Ms Rosie Winterton)
  On 17 January 2003, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) published its report "The Control of Entry Regulations and Retail Pharmacy Services in the UK". It recommended abolition of the current restrictions on National Health Service pharmacy applications known as "control of entry".

  On 17 July 2003 the Government published their response to the report for England, in which they announced their intention to move cautiously in the direction recommended by the OFT.

  In summary, the package of measures proposed first the introduction of new criteria of competition and choice to the current regulatory test. Secondly they would exempt completely four types of pharmacy applications from that test. These four exemptions would apply to applications in respect of large shopping developments over 15,000 square metres (though we will not now include town centre developments); to pharmacies intending to open more than 100 hours per week; to pharmacies which are part of consortia developing new one-stop primary care centres; and to pharmacies which would be wholly internet or mail-order based. Finally, we would further reform and modernise the current regulatory system.

  We issued a consultation document on 29 August 2003, "Proposals to Reform and Modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992", which explained these proposals in more detail and sought views on how best to implement the package of measures; 270 responses were received. A summary of those responses is available on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/mpi.

  We also set up an expert advisory group, the advisory group on the reform of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, under the chairmanship of Mrs. Anne Galbraith, chair of the Prescription Pricing Authority. Its role was to advise how best to implement the proposals, taking account of the OFT report and

  99WS
  responses subsequently received, and to offer further advice. We received the group's report in January this year. We published the executive summary of their report in March. This is available on the Department's website at http://www.advisorybodies. doh.gov.uk/pharmacyregulationconsultation/execsum.htm.
  We will publish the group's full report later this year when we bring forward the necessary regulatory changes.

  We took careful account of the advisory group's report and recommendations and the responses to the consultation in drawing up our plans for implementation. Stakeholders from a wide range of key interests were represented on the group. These included patients and consumers, the NHS, pharmacists and health professions as well as those with experience of competition and regulatory reform. The group provided constructive and valuable advice. In order to end any uncertainty for patients, for the NHS and for community pharmacies, I announced on 18 August that the Government had accepted the great majority of their recommendations in relation to the proposals set out in the consultation document and would now proceed to implement them, but with some amendments.

  We will work to introduce the new criteria of competition and choice to the current regulatory test through secondary rather than primary legislation. We also intend to develop criteria for primary care trusts (PCTs) to reject administratively any application which does not undertake to provide the required essential pharmaceutical services under the proposed new contractual framework for community pharmacy. Similar arrangements will be made for appliance contractors. We intend these criteria to be rolled out to all PCTs later this year subject to our ongoing discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee (PSNC) and NHS Confederation to finalise the details of that framework.

  We will proceed with our plans to exempt four types of pharmacy application from the control of entry test.

  However, we will not exempt pharmacy applications for town centre shopping developments over 15,000 square metres. The exemption would still apply to out-of-centre and out-of-town developments as we originally proposed. Such exempted developments will be included in a published list and a provisional list is now available on the Department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/mpi. We are considering further how the list is to be updated and will provide more information when we bring forward the draft changes to the regulations. Pharmacies, which have hitherto found difficulty in gaining a NHS pharmacy contract in shopping developments in town centres, will nonetheless be able to apply to their local PCT for admission to the pharmaceutical list under the reformed regulatory test, when it is introduced, or to make use of the exemption to open more than 100 hours per week.

  For pharmacies which intend to open for more than 100 hours per week, we will include a requirement for PCTs to remove from their pharmaceutical list any pharmacy that consistently fails to meet the terms of the exemption unless there is good cause—for example, a fire causing temporary closure.
  100WS
  Applications from members of a consortium establishing a new one-stop primary care centre will also be exempted, provided the centre provides a regular, comprehensive range of services and serves a substantial population of 18,000 to 20,000 patients. The exemption will only apply to centres which are part of the local PCT's strategic service development plan or equivalent written service development strategy. Such centres will, in addition to usual general practitioner services, offer a wide range of primary and community based services, such as dentistry, optometry, podiatry, or other social or community services. The Regulations will define a consortium and specify governance arrangements. Guidance for PCTs will cover situations where a service provider withdraws from a centre so that this does not require the closure of the exempted pharmacy.

  Applications for wholly mail order or internet-based pharmacy services will similarly be exempted and we will apply a number of measures to ensure such pharmacies provide a fully professional service within the provisions of the new contractual framework. Internet pharmacies, as with all retail pharmacies in England, Wales and Scotland, must be registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). All pharmacies, whether or not they provide online services, are subject to the same statutory requirements; and to the RPSGB's requirements including standards; inspection arrangements; and code of professional ethics.

  We will also introduce regulatory safeguards to protect against manipulation or abuse of the new freedoms. For example, the four exemptions will require applicants to provide a full and prescribed range of services. These would be for local determination by the PCT in relation to the first three exemptions, or nationally determined by the Department in discussion with the NHS in relation to the exemption for wholly internet or mail order based pharmacies. Apart from dispensing prescriptions, such services might include managing a patient's repeat medication, helping patients get the best from the medicines they are taking and promoting healthier lifestyles. For example, pharmacies are well placed to provide support for people at risk of coronary heart disease, giving advice on stopping smoking, or how to improve nutrition or physical activity.

  Key elements of our proposals, including the four exemptions, are either implicitly or explicitly linked to the delivery of pharmaceutical services under the new contractual framework. Our plan is to implement these reforms in tandem with that framework. The Department has held tripartite negotiations on the framework with the PSNC and the NHS Confederation for the last 18 months. On 24 August, the PSNC accepted our offer of funding subject to final agreement on a number of detailed issues which we are discussing with them and the NHS Confederation. We aim to conclude these as soon as possible. We will prepare and consult on the necessary regulatory changes and aim to implement the reformed regime as soon as is practicable thereafter.

  Guidance for the NHS on how to implement the regulations was last drawn up in 1992. An overhaul is long overdue. So we will amend this information to bring it fully up to date to assist PCTs in implementation. This would include developing supplementary questions to inform PCT assessments of

  101WS
  pharmacy applications. We will also propose enhanced data collection from PCTs, subject to approval by the body overseeing NHS data requirements, to inform assessment of progress on our package of reforms and evaluate the impact of these exemptions in 2006.

  We will also take additional steps as proposed to further modernise and reform the current system through a combination of regulatory and administrative changes.

  PCTs will be able to invite applications from contractors. We will revise the application forms to reflect the criteria that PCTs use in assessing applications. We will require PCTs to reach a decision on an application within four months of the due date for receipt, unless there is good cause. We will also require them to consult widely with patient, consumer and local community groups that have a direct interest in local pharmaceutical provision, and set an administrative minimum consultation period of 45 days.

  We will introduce an automatic exemption for all minor relocations under 500 metres, but retain the discretion for PCTs to override this where there is good cause. An example of this would be where geographical obstacles or transport difficulties would affect continued access to pharmaceutical services. Similarly there will be a minimum 12-month trading period requirement before a further application for a minor relocation can be accepted, unless, again, the applicant shows there is good cause.

  We will remove the current restriction, which prevents cross-PCT boundary minor relocations, but ensure there are means to remove the contractor from the list of the PCT he is leaving and the receiving PCT agrees to the relocation.

  We will retain the concept of preliminary consent for a pharmacy application, but will limit the maximum period for grant of such consent to six months.

  Similarly, we will provide for a maximum period of grant of full consent of nine months. We will also enable PCTs to have the discretion to require an applicant to commence pharmaceutical services within a given period not exceeding three months unless there is good cause.

  In addition, we will introduce two measures proposed to us by the advisory group. We will allow PCTs to set a fixed date every month for the receipt of applications and we will require PCTs to deal with applications that do not require local consultation within a maximum of 30 days.

  However, we will retain in guidance the long-stop discretion which enables PCTs to decide competing applications of equal merit on the basis of the first past the post.

  We will also reform the appeals system. We will allow appeals for change of ownership to be combined with appeals concerning minor relocations.

  Certain of our proposals would require primary legislation. When parliamentary time permits, we will consider introducing new legislation to enable reasonable charges, but not full cost recovery, for pharmacy applications to be introduced. We will also consider enabling PCTs to take into account, when assessing applications, the improvements they would bring to the provision of, or access to, over-the-counter
  102WS
  medicines and other healthcare products. We do not intend, however, to introduce legislation to enable charges to be levied for appeals. We would consult further on such legislation.

  We also plan to introduce, subject to further discussions, measures developed by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the General Practitioner's Committee of the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors' Association to reform the rules governing NHS rural dispensing. These bodies reviewed their proposals in the light of the Government response to the OFT report, presented their findings to the advisory group which in turn recommended they should proceed. Officials from the Department have met these organisations recently to hold further discussions on how best the reforms should be introduced to the current legislation. We aim to implement these in tandem with the other reforms I am announcing today.

  The measures I have announced represent an important step forward for community pharmacy services and our ambition to deliver a balanced package of reform measures. They will raise standards for patients, encourage innovation and excellence in service provision whilst at the same time supporting community pharmacies, many of which are small businesses. Community pharmacies provide a highly valued service and we are committed to their ongoing development and integration in the NHS. We also want to ensure that our reforms do not mean that services to more vulnerable groups of patients or those in deprived or rural areas suffer.

  We are determined to improve access to, and the choice of, pharmacy services so that community pharmacy is recognised as a key player in the provision of NHS services. These reforms will provide an environment in which community pharmacy services can thrive.

  NHS Foundation Trusts
  The Secretary of State for Health (Dr. John Reid)
  I announced on 26 July that I would support 20 National Health Service trusts in their bids to become NHS foundation trusts as part of wave 1A.

  These trusts have made an application to Monitor (whose statutory name is the independent regulator of NHS foundation trusts) for authorisation as NHS foundation trusts, and are setting up their new governance arrangements including recruiting members to hold elections to the board of governors. On 2 August, Monitor announced that wave 1 A applicants would be handled as two groups, with target dates for authorisation being 1 November 2004 and 1 February 2005. Details of the two groups are as follows:

  1 November 2004

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  Harrogate Healthcare NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust

  103WS

  South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 February 2005

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Frimley Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lancaster Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  On 26 July, I indicated that in addition to three-star rated acute and specialist trusts, mental health trusts would for the first time be invited to apply for NHS foundation trust status. We will formally invite applications for wave 2 later this autumn and outline the timetable for authorisation, which will be subject to the outcome of the review into NHS foundation trusts being undertaken by the Healthcare Commission (whose statutory name is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection).

EDUCATION AND SKILLS

  Summer Examinations Results
  The Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr. Charles Clarke)
  I would like to report on this summer's results for Key Stages 1, 2 and 3, GCSE and A level, which show that we are making steady progress in raising standards at every level.

  At age 7—Key Stage 1

  Some 1.85 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in reading (an increase of 1 percentage point over 2003) and 90 per cent. of pupils did so in maths (unchanged from 2003).1

  At age 11—Key Stage 2

  A record 77 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in English, an increase of 2 percentage points from last year (up 12 percentage points compared to 1998), and 74 per cent. of pupils achieved the expected level in Maths, a 1 percentage point increase from last year (up 15 percentage points from 6 years ago). These are good results and show that standards achieved by pupils in our primary schools are continuing to improve. Pupils and parents can be confident that their primary schools are still getting better and better.

  Standards at Key Stage 2 are improving in all areas but some of the biggest strides are in some of the poorest areas, such as Hackney where English improved by 7 percentage points and Maths by 6 percentage points compared to 2003 and Sunderland, where there was a 5 percentage point improvement in English and a 4 percentage point improvement in Maths. Among other LEAs Hartlepool and Southampton recorded the highest improvements in both English and Maths results. It shows that poverty is not a barrier to success.
  104WS
  It is a tribute to the hard work of teachers who have made this possible. We will continue to offer them targeted help and support.

  At age 14

  I am pleased to see progress made in maths. At Key Stage 3, there has been a 2 percentage point increase in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in Maths and over 50 per cent. of 14 year olds are now reaching level 6 in maths, a tremendous achievement. There has been a 2 percentage point fall in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in Science compared to last year, although there has been a 10 percentage points increase since 1998.

  Publication of Key Stage 3 English results has been deferred until the outcome, in terms of scale and nature, of the extended marking process for schools is known. Under the National Statistics Code of Practice, it is the statistics Head of Profession in the Department who decides on the content and timing of the release of National Statistics, and provides advice to ministers.

  At GCSE

  I welcome the rise in the number of entries achieving top grades for all candidates in England and Wales—the biggest rise in A* to C grades since 1999. The provisional results show that:
  Grades at A*—C for all candidates in England and Wales have increased by 1.1 percentage points to 59.2% (compared to a 0.2 percentage point rise last summer)
  Some 97.6 per cent. of GCSE entrants achieved a grade A*—G—the same rate as last year
  Grades A*—C at maths have increased by 1.6 percentage points to 51.7 per cent. English is up by 0.2 percentage point to 59.9 per cent.
  An increase of entries in chemistry of 5 per cent., in physics of 5.1 per cent. and in biology of 4.4 per cent.
  Boys' improvement at grades A*—C has increased by 1.3 percentage points compared with 0.9 for girls

  These results are excellent and reflect the hard work of pupils and teachers. I am encouraged that more pupils are taking maths and gaining good grades, mirroring the rise for 14 year olds. It is also good to see more pupils taking science.

  As with the primary schools, some of the biggest improvements this year have been in schools in some of our poorer and lowest attaining areas. In North Tyneside early indications are that the GCSE results have increased from 48 per cent. of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs to 54 per cent. this year. At school level the International School in Birmingham increased from 9 per cent. of its pupils gaining 5 A* to C grades last year to 32 per cent. this year — still a long way to go but huge improvement and a tribute to the leadership of these schools.

  A further example of this improvement can be seen in London. For the first time all London boroughs are now achieving above 40 per cent. of pupils gaining 5 A* to C grades at GCSE. The provisional results also indicate that some of the fastest improving areas are among the most deprived boroughs: Islington is up by 7 percentage points; Tower Hamlets is up 5.3 percentage points; Haringey is up by 5.6 percentage points; Hackney is up by 5.8 percentage points; Lewisham is up by 6.3 percentage points and Newham is up by 3.9 percentage points.
  105WS
  These results build on very fast improvement from last year's results when Hackney was up by 8 percentage points and Islington up by 5 points. So the trend is clearly upwards.

  At A level

  The overall pass rate rose to 96 per cent. from 95.4 per cent. last year. A grades at A level increased by 0.8 percentage points to 22.4 per cent. and the overall AS pass rate has increased by 0.2 percentage points to 86.9 per cent. Excluding General Studies, English and Mathematics attracted the highest number of entries at A level and are two of the three most popular subjects at AS.

  These results are built on the hard work of students, schools and colleges and will open up more opportunities for our young people to achieve success. I congratulate the students and thank our teachers for their commitment.

  At a time when Ofsted says the standard of teaching has never been higher, we should expect to have rising levels of achievement in our schools and colleges. We are getting better as a country at getting the best out of our young people. We should applaud them and applaud their teachers, schools and colleges.

  I am determined that we should move forward to improve performance further.We will continue to progress with some important developments from the start of the new school term.

  Specialist schools

  Some 506 specialist schools will begin operating as specialist for the first time this September. This means that 2.1 million pupils will be educated in one of the 1,954 specialist schools—62 per cent. of all English secondary schools, up from just 257 in 1997. The evidence shows that specialist schools help pupils to gain better grades.

  Academies

  Five new Academies open in Barnet, Hackney, Hillingdon, Lambeth and Northampton. They will build on the success of the existing 12 where I was pleased to see some excellent GCSE results this summer. For example The King's Academy in Middlesbrough where 34 per cent. of pupils achieved five or more A*—C GCSEs, an increase of around 12 percentage points on the joint results of the predecessor schools in 2003.

  Workforce Reform

  Workforce reform is in the next phase and the radical enhancement of the role of teachers continues. There are not just more teachers than at any time since the early 1980s but teachers are being given professional support in class with more assistants. Teachers will increasingly have more time to prepare better lessons.

  Education Maintenance Allowance

  This will be available nationally to help young people stay on in education, at school or college.

  ICT

  Current activity focuses on supporting the personalised learning and transforming school workforce agendas. Over 99 per cent. of schools in England are now connected to the Internet of which, at June 2004, 61 per cent. of primary and 98 per cent. of secondary had a connection at broadband speeds appropriate to their needs.
  106WS
  Schools continue to invest in the new technologies that support enhanced teaching and learning. By March 2004 63 per cent. of primary schools had an electronic interactive whiteboard (average 1.9 a school) and 92 per cent. of secondary schools (average 7.5 a school).

  In the longer term I am looking forward to receiving later in the autumn the final report from Mike Tomlinson's Working Group on 14-19 Reform. He will be coming forward with proposals looking at how we stretch the most able, boost participation, improve the vocational offer and reduce the burden of assessment.
  1Figures for 2004 and 2003 are not strictly comparable because of the trial involving 34 LEAs and a quarter of 7 year olds that reported only teacher assessment. The independent assessment of the trial is expected later this month and we shall comment further on these results then.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Animal Procedures Committee
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  In accordance with Section 20(5) of the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986, I have placed the Committee's annual report for 2003 in the Library today. Among other things the report includes advice given by the Committee to Ministers about applications for licences to perform particular experiments on animals; results of research projects funded by the Home Office on the Committee's advice; and advice presented to Ministers on how to assess more accurately the costs and benefits of animal experimentation.

  Scientific Procedures on Living Animals
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Caroline Flint)
  I wish to announce that the publication entitled "Statistics of Scientific Procedures on Living Animals in Great Britain-2003" is being presented as a Command Paper, Cm 6291, today. Copies will be placed in the House Library.

  This annual report meets the requirement in the Animals (Scientific Procedures) Act 1986 to keep Parliament informed about the use of animals for experimental or other purposes. It also forms the basis for meeting periodic reporting requirements at EU level. The format and content of future reports is currently being reviewed by the Animals Procedures Committee.

  The report shows an overall increase over last year of 2.2 per cent. in the number of procedures undertaken. The total number of procedures was 2.79 million, an increase of 59,000 over the previous year. This is within typical year-on-year variability.

  Non-toxicological procedures accounted for about 84 per cent. of the procedures carried out in 2003. These included studies for fundamental biological or applied research in human and veterinary medicine, with the main areas of use being for immunological studies, pharmaceutical research and development, and cancer research.
  107WS
  Procedures for toxicological purposes accounted for the remaining 16 per cent. of all procedures. About 63 per cent. of these were for testing the safety and efficacy of new drugs and medicines.

  In keeping with previous years, those procedures which used mice or rats (or other rodents) were the great majority at 85 per cent. Those using fish amounted to 6 per cent. and those using birds, 4 per cent. The total of all procedures using dogs, cats, horses and non-human primates, that is those species offered special protection by the Act, was less than 1 per cent. of the total.

  Genetically normal animals were used in 1,749,000 regulated procedures, representing 63 per cent. of all procedures for 2003 (compared with 65 per cent. in 2002 and 84 per cent. in 1995). Genetically modified animals (nearly all rodents) were used in 764,000 regulated procedures, representing 27 per cent. of all procedures for 2003 (compared with 26 per cent. in 2002 and 8 per cent. in 1995).

  These trends have been evident over recent years, reflecting the changing balance in use between genetically normal and modified animals, and are set to continue as advances in genetic science open up new and promising avenues of research.

  I should point out in relation to the statistics that the Home Office, as regulatory authority under the 1986 Act, does not control the overall amount of animal research and testing which takes place, the imperative being to minimise the numbers of animals used for justifiable purposes. We ensure, in carrying out our licensing function, that the provisions of the Act are rigorously applied in each programme of work. All animal use must be justified, and for each particular programme of work the number of animals used and the suffering caused must be minimised.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Director and Auditor Liability
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  The House will be aware that, between December 2003 and March 2004, the Government consulted widely on the case for reform of the law on director and auditor liability. Over 120 responses to the consultation were received from investors; companies, both large and small; auditors; legal advisers; industry bodies; academia; and the general public. I am grateful to all those who took the time and trouble to contribute. In the light of the consultation responses the Office of Fair Trading was asked to undertake a study of the potential impact on competition in the audit market of a cap on auditor liability. I am grateful to them for completing and publishing this so quickly.

  Directors

  It is essential for British competitiveness that we have a diverse pool of high-quality individuals willing to become directors, and that directors are willing to take informed and rational risks. But it is also important that directors act in accordance with their duties, and that negligent directors can be held to account by their companies. The courts have in recent years imposed a much more demanding standard of care, skill and diligence on directors. This has been a very welcome development.
  108WS
  The consultation built on the recommendations both of the Company Law Review and of Sir Derek Higgs' study on non-executive directors. It identified two particular concerns:
  exposure to liabilities arising from legal action against directors by third parties. The sharp rise in the number of class actions by groups of shareholders in the US has made this a particular concern for directors of British companies with a US listing;
  the cost of lengthy court proceedings. Companies are currently permitted to indemnify a director against the cost of defending legal proceedings, but only when judgment has been given in the director's favour or he has been acquitted. For many directors, such indemnification comes too late and the prospect provides cold comfort.

  The consultation indicated these issues are affecting the recruitment and behaviour of directors. I therefore intend to introduce a balanced and proportionate package of reforms, by tabling amendments to the Companies House (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill at its Commons Committee stage. The proposals will in particular introduce two important relaxations of the current prohibition on companies exempting their directors from, or indemnifying them against, liability:
  they will permit, but not require, companies to indemnify directors in respect of proceedings brought by third parties (covering both legal costs and the financial costs of any adverse judgement, except for the legal costs of unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, fines imposed in criminal proceedings and penalties imposed by regulatory bodies such as the financial services authority);
  they will permit, but not require, companies to pay directors' defence costs as they are incurred, even if the action is brought by the company itself. The director would still be liable to pay any damages awarded to the company and to repay his defence costs to the company if his defence were unsuccessful (except where the company chooses to indemnify the director in respect of his legal costs in civil proceedings brought by third parties).

  The Government amendments will also remove an arguable loophole under which a company in the same group may currently provide an indemnity to a director that would be unlawful if it was provided directly by the company of which the individual was a director.

  The amendments will also require disclosure in the directors' report by companies that indemnify directors. Shareholders will also have the right to inspect any indemnification agreement. Companies that do not indemnify directors will not have to make any disclosure.

  Auditors

  The consultation also covered the position of auditors.

  The Government wish to see a competitive and high-quality market for audit services, shareholders using high quality and reliable information, and an adequate system of redress for when things go wrong. There must also be an appropriate degree of transparency and accountability for the audit process.

  The Government are actively pursuing this agenda. The Bill already extends the powers of auditors to obtain information, and contains new provisions for each director to confirm there is no relevant audit information of which he is aware but the company's auditors are unaware.
  109WS
  There are also a number of initiatives to improve the quality of the audit and other information provided to shareholders. For example:
  the recommendations of the Review chaired by Sir Robert Smith mean that in listed companies there will shortly be enhanced audit committee reporting to shareholders, including better information on key audit judgements;
  the auditing practices board, a subsidiary of the financial reporting council, has published for comment draft new ethical standards relating to the independence of auditors which are expected to be finalised this autumn;
  the financial reporting council has established an audit inspection unit which has begun independent reviews of the effectiveness of the audit procedures of the four largest audit firms;
  the audit regulatory activities of the professional accountancy bodies are now subject to independent oversight by the professional oversight board for accountancy, a subsidiary of the financial reporting council;
  a new accountancy investigation and discipline board has been established, as a subsidiary of the financial reporting council, in order to investigate public interest cases of alleged breaches of professional standards by auditors and it has commenced its first investigation;
  the financial reporting council has recently set up a group under Douglas Flint to review the current guidance on internal risk control;
  we are also considering carefully the responses to our recent consultation on the operating and financial review.

  In line with the company law review's recommendations, and as supported in the consultation, I have decided not to bring forward amendments to the current Bill to extend an auditor's duty of care.

  The consultation showed a wide variety of views both as to whether reform of the law on liability of auditors was needed, and if so what form it should take. Some investors also had concerns about whether the audit process was serving them sufficiently well. It was also a matter of concern that the leaders of some of our largest companies were worried their choice of auditor was limited.

  I have considered carefully whether there is a case for a change in the law on auditor liability. I am grateful to the Office of Fair Trading for looking at the competition implications of enabling shareholders to agree in advance a maximum amount for which the auditor would be liable. In the light of the consultation responses, and the OFT's advice that introducing a cap would not significantly enhance competition, I have concluded against proposing changes to the law on this.

  The Government remain committed to improving the operation of the audit market and will continue to consider any proposals, including the possibility of limiting liability on a proportionate basis by contract, which can be demonstrated significantly to enhance competition, and to improve quality, in the audit market. The Government intend to look closely at this option and actively call upon auditors, business and investors to work together to examine whether proposals for a system of proportionate liability via contract are practical and/or desirable.

  However no change to the law on financial liability could protect one of an auditor's greatest assets—its reputation. That responsibility rests with the professionalism of auditors themselves.

  National Grid Company
  The Minister for Energy, E-Commerce and Postal Services (Mr. Stephen Timms)
  On 17 December 2002,Official Report, column 45WS, the then Minister for Energy and Construction, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cunninghame, North made a statement to Parliament saying that Ministers were minded to accept the recommendation of the GB system operator selection panel that National Grid Company's application for the role of GB system operator should be accepted. Licensing of the GB system operator could not take place until the Energy Bill had received Royal Assent. The necessary legislation is now in place and I have confirmed the appointment of the National Grid Company as the GB system operator under the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA), with effect from 1 September 2004.

  World Trade Organisation
  The Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Patricia Hewitt)
  On 1 August the General Council of the World Trade Organisation agreed a framework text for further negotiations on the Doha development agenda. Commissioners Lamy and Fischler negotiated on behalf of the European Union. I warmly welcome this framework agreement, which is a crucial step on the road to delivering a trade round that will benefit developed and developing countries alike.

  On 17 September last year I made an oral statement to the House, Official Report, columns 861–863, about the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun, where WTO Members had been unable to reach an agreement. In that statement I said that in order to get the Doha development agenda back on track, the WTO community would need to lift its sights to the prize on offer. I believe that WTO members have done just that. The period since Cancun has been marked by a much more positive and business-like atmosphere and the framework agreement has now cemented the progress made.

  For the most part the purpose of the framework agreement is to set out guiding principles for future negotiations rather than to provide specific proposals. However, it contains sufficient detail to allow technical discussions to continue during the rest of this year, when the US presidential elections and the appointment of a new College of Commissioners are likely to limit political engagement in the round.

  The framework agreement gives greater detail on the direction of the negotiations on agriculture, industrial tariffs, commits WTO members to negotiate on a trade facilitation agreement and sets a revised target date for more requests in the ongoing services negotiations. Agriculture is generally acknowledged to be the key to progress in the round and the agriculture section contains a welcome level of detail. The agreement provides for extensive special and differential treatment for developing countries across all the sectors covered. Three of the four so-called Singapore issues (competition, investment and transparency in government procurement), divergent views on which did much to derail talks at Cancun, have been dropped from the Doha development agenda. The fourth—trade facilitation—will now be the subject of negotiations.
  111WS
  The text of the agreement reflects the increasing influence of developing countries within the WTO. This is a development that I have previously welcomed. India and Brazil in particular played an influential role in the lead up to the agreement. Both the G20 group (larger developing country agricultural exporters) and G90 (some 62 smaller developing countries) engaged in the negotiations in a flexible and constructive manner. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for International Development, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I were in regular contact with a number of influential members of both of these groupings, as well as our EU colleagues, to underline the importance of reaching an agreement. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I between us attended the two General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings held in the last week of July to agree the EU's position for this stage of the negotiations.

  The Government have been strongly supportive of the Commission's approach to negotiations in the period since Cancun. We consider that the Commission have shown leadership and flexibility to move talks forward, capitalising on the stronger negotiating position that the EU enjoys after the CAP reforms of June 2003 and March 2004, which will cut significantly the level both of trade-distorting domestic support and export subsidies. In particular, the conditional offer to eliminate of export subsidies in the letter of 9 May from Commissioners Lamy and Fischler to WTO trade Ministers helped to breathe new life into the talks and encouraged other developed countries to match the EU's level of ambition. My hon. Friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I attended meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the week leading up to the Framework Agreement where we strongly supported the European Commission.

  There is much still to be done. The challenge now for the whole WTO membership of 148 countries is to build on this success and to ensure that the momentum that has been built up is maintained in the detailed negotiations that will now follow. Success in the round has the potential to deliver huge benefits, including for developing countries as their opportunities for trade increase, so adding to their prosperity, aiding development and contributing towards the achievement of the millennium development goals.

  The Government will continue to do all we can, both inside the EU and within the broader WTO community, to help deliver an ambitious development-focussed round. In particular, we will press hard for substantial progress before the sixth WTO ministerial meeting in Hong Kong scheduled for December 2005.

WORK AND PENSIONS

  Remploy
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Work and Pensions (Maria Eagle)
  I have, on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions, written to the Chairman of Remploy 112WS
  approving the 2004–05 and 2005–06 performance and resources agreement targets between the Department and the company. The targets have been negotiated by the chief executive of Jobcentre Plus on behalf of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Work and Pensions. The targets for 2004-05 are:
  a total of 1,400 progressions from Remploy factories or Interwork to mainstream unsupported employment;
  Remploy Ltd will keep within an average cost per supported employee of £10,500;
  the company will achieve a gross margin (sales less cost of materials) figure of £60.5 million;
  the company's employee development time will be at least 5 per cent.

  The full agreement for 2004–05 has been placed in the Library.

  Pension Credit
  The Minister for Pensions (Malcolm Wicks)
  I can now provide the latest monthly progress report on the take-up of pension credit, which became payable on 6 October 2003.

  At the end of July, there were 2.58 million pensioner households (3.13 million individuals) being paid pension credit, an increase of 33,000 households (40,000 individuals) during July. As at 31 July, there were 1.92 million households (2.33 million individuals) receiving more money as a result of the introduction of pension credit, gaining by an average £16.02 a week. The average pension credit award at the end of July was £41.80 per week.

  Customers whose applications are successful in the period up to October this year will have their entitlement backdated to 6 October 2003 (or to the date of entitlement if this is later). The 2004 Budget statement confirmed that backdating arrangements will continue beyond October 2004. This means that anyone eligible applying after October 2004 will see their entitlement backdated by up to 12 months. A report showing progress to the end of July is available in the Library. The report includes regional breakdowns of the number of pension credit households and is accompanied by tables showing numbers of pension credit awards in parliamentary constituencies in Great Britain. Copies of the report are also available for hon. Members in the Vote Office.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Middle East Peace Process (Civilian Deaths)
  The Minister for Europe (Mr. Denis MacShane)
  I answered PQs 180074 and 180090 on 28 June 2004,Official Report, columns 129W and 131W respectively. Both PQs related to the Middle East Peace Process. The questions and answers given were as follows:

  PQ 180074
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of Israeli civilians killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000; and how many were under the age of 18.
  113WS
  Mr. MacShane
  We estimate that 944 Israeli civilians have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. This estimate is based on a variety of sources, including the UN, NGOs and the media. We do not hold figures for those killed under the age of 18 years.

  PQ 180090
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his Department has made of the number of Palestinian civilians killed since September 2000; and how many were under 18.

  Mr. MacShane
  We estimate that 3,242 Palestinian civilians have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. This estimate is based on a variety of sources, including the UN, NGOs and the media. We do not hold figures for those killed under the age of 18 years.

  Since answering PQs 180074 and 180090 however, it has been brought to our attention by the British Embassy in Tel Aviv that the figures provided in these answers on 28 June were inaccurate. The figures given were for total deaths on each side rather than civilian deaths, so these figures would also include Israeli Defence Force soldiers, militants and suicide bombers as well as civilians.

  I apologise for this error and would like to clarify that the figures initially given in the answer of 28 June were for the total numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths rather than just civilian deaths. Figures for civilian deaths are not held centrally and could be provided only at disproportionate costs.

  Sanctions
  The Parliamentary Under—Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  Currently the United Kingdom implements mandatory UN sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Al Quaeda and the Taliban, the Democratic Republic of Congo, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Somalia. In addition, the UK implements sanctions imposed by the European Union in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, the DRC, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Libya, Moldova, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In accordance with a decision of the OSCE, the United Kingdom implements arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. A full list of sanctions regimes and restrictive measures implemented by the UK has been placed in the Library of the House. Annexed to this is a summary of additional UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. These documents are also available on the FCO website at http://www.fco.gov.uk/sanctions. and are updated each time there are changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK, or to UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. Restrictive measures implemented in the UK are also implemented in the Overseas Territories and Crown dependencies.

  European Union
  The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Jack Straw)
  I will today lay before Parliament the latest White Paper on Prospects for the EU (Cm 6310). Copies will be placed in the Library of 114WS
  the House and will be available from the Vote Office in the House of Commons and the Printed Paper Office in the House of Lords. A copy will also be available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website www. fco.gov. uk.

  This White Paper is a supplement to the one published in April on Prospects for the EU in 2004 (Cm 6174). As well as setting out the issues we expect the Union to address in the rest of the year, it updates readers on developments since April and provides a short breakdown of the achievements of Ireland's EU Presidency, which ran from January to June. It covers the full gamut of EU business, from enlargement—and whether we should start negotiations with Turkey on membership of the Union—to the Lisbon Agenda for economic and social reform which includes developing the single market, simplifying new and outdated regulation, and increasing employment.

  The purpose of this White Paper, and April's, is to keep Parliament and the public informed about developments in the EU, the Government's approach to them and the benefits they will bring to the UK and its citizens.

  The next White Paper on Prospects for the EU will be published in January 2005, to be followed by a shorter update—along the lines of the one published today—in July 2005.

  These White Papers are part of the Government's commitment to make EU business more accessible and interesting for Parliament, the media and members of the public alike—by providing an appropriate amount of detail and depth on significant progress that might have an impact on our daily lives. I hope they will play a vital role in involving Parliament more closely in EU affairs, and trust that Members of both Houses will read them. I commend this White Paper to the House.

  Sanctions (Recent Changes)
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Mr. Bill Rammell)
  On 11 June the Council of the European Union adopted common position 2004/510/CFSP. The Council adopted EC regulation 1353/2004 on 27 July. These amend common position 2004/31/CFSP of 10 January and EC regulation 131/2004 of 28 January, which renewed the arms embargo against Sudan and added an exemption for the supply of de-mining equipment. The new measures broaden the exemptions to the prohibition on the supply of arms, technical assistance and financial assistance to include crisis management operations of the African Union. This allows EU member states to offer full practical and financial support to the deployment of the African Union's ceasefire commission to Darfur. With the support of her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 30 July unanimously adopted resolution 1556 (2004), which, inter alia, imposes an arms embargo against non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur in Sudan.

  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 27 July 2004 unanimously adopted resolution 1552 (2004) on the

  115WS
  situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This renewed the arms embargo imposed by UNSCR 1493 (2003) for one year and extended the mandate of the UN expert group established by UNSCR 1533 (2004) to monitor the embargo for a furter six months.

  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 8 June unanimously adopted UN Security Council resolution 1546 (2004). Among other measures, the resolution leaves the arms embargo in place, with new exemptions for arms and related material required by the Government of Iraq or the multinational force to serve the purposes of the resolution. The resolution passes all outstanding rights, responsibilities and obligations relating to the oil for food programme to the Government of Iraq, including ensuring independently authenticated confirmation that goods have been
  116WS
  delivered, and it leaves in place the financial sanctions upon former Government of Iraq funds and any funds belonging to Saddam Hussein, senior members of his regime and their immediate family members.

  On 26 April, the Council of the European Union adopted common position 2004/423/CFSP and EC Regulation 798/2004, concerning Burma. These renewed the restrictive measures imposed by common position 2003/297/CFSP from 30 April 2004 for a further 12 months, in view of the current political situation in Burma, notably the failure of the regime to pursue the process of national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy. The restrictive measures comprise an assets freeze and travel ban against members of the regime and others, an arms embargo, a prohibition on the attachment and hosting of military personnel to diplomatic missions, restrictions on development programmes and a suspension of high-level bilateral governmental visits to Burma.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of St Edmundsbury and Ipswich.

Lord Young of Norwood Green
Sir Anthony Ian Young, Knight, having been created Baron Young of Norwood Green, of Norwood Green in the London Borough of Ealing, for lift—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Baroness Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde and the Lord Clarke of Hampstead, and made the solemn affirmation.
Lord Cameron of Dillington
Sir Ewen James Hanning Cameron, Knight, having been created Baron Cameron of Dillington, of Dillington in the County of Somerset, for life—Was, in his robes, introduced between the Lord Haskins and the Lord Best.

Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre
2.49 p.m.
Lord Avebury Lord Avebury asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will hold an inquiry into the recent disturbance at Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre.
The Minister of State, Home Office (Baroness Scotland of Asthal): Yes, my Lords, this was announced by my honourable friend the Minister for Immigration by means of a Written Statement on 21 July. In that Statement it was said that Francis Masserick would undertake an internal investigation. I can now tell the House that this work is instead being undertaken by Sue McAllister, former governor of Onley young offender institution and now head of security within the Prison Service.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, does the Minister honestly think that an internal investigation of this kind is a satisfactory response to what happened at Harmondsworth? Has the department yet received the report of Mr Stephen Shaw on the events which took place in February 2002 at Yarlswood, and is it going to sweep under the carpet what happened at Harmondsworth for two and a half years? Does not the noble Baroness agree that a public inquiry would be the right way of proceeding and that there is no reason in precedent why that should not be done, bearing in mind the investigation conducted
434
by Mr Justice Keith into the death of Zahid Mubarak in Feltham young offender institution coterminous with a police inquiry into the same event?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I think that this is an appropriate response. The noble Lord will know that my honourable friend Des Browne announced that there would be a full investigation by the Prisons and Probation Ombudsman for England and Wales into the death, together with the internal inquiry. We do not yet have the report of the inquiry as regards Yarlswood, and it is right that the noble Lord should know that when that report comes out it is likely to cover certain generic issues which will apply to the whole estate. I am sure that the noble Lord will agree that it is likely to be a full and comprehensive report, which the Government look forward to receiving.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, is the noble Baroness able to tell us whether any Immigration Act detainees are now being held in prison? Further, are any being held for longer than three months, beyond which point detention becomes unacceptable?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, 40 detainees are currently being held in prison. We hope that all of them will be moved out during the month of September.
Lord Corbett of Castle Vale: My Lords, can my noble friend explain what further measures the Government are taking to try to expedite the removal of those whose claims for asylum have failed in order to ensure that the period during which some of them are detained is kept to the absolute minimum?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, we are working very hard to ensure that, wherever possible, consensual arrangements are made with detainees and that when they are detained, it is for the shortest possible time. Some people are detained for only a couple of hours, while others are detained for a number of days. However, we are doing everything possible to ensure that detention is kept to the absolute minimum.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, how many detainees have been charged with criminal offences following the disturbances at Harmondsworth? Further, can the Minister inform the House whether arrangements are in hand to ensure that witnesses are not deported, and that those who have been deported will be brought back to this country so that a fair trial can take place?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not in a position to provide that information because, as noble Lords know, it is privileged information. We know that the police are investigating these issues and it would be reasonable to assume that a number of people may be charged. Regrettably I am not able to respond to the specific issues raised by the noble Lord.

435
However, I can assure him that all proper measures will be taken to make sure that any subsequent trial is conducted appropriately.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, pursuant to the question of the noble Lord, Lord Hylton, how many of the 40 prisoners who are being transferred in September will have served more than three months?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, I am not able to give the noble Lord that precise information. However, I shall ensure that those details are obtained and write to him accordingly.
Lord McNally: My Lords, can the Minister clarify whether these centres are regularly inspected by an external body? Is that body Her Majesty's Inspectorate of Prisons?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, noble Lords will know that these establishments are regularly inspected, although I cannot tell him precisely how that is done. Again, I shall be happy to write to the noble Lord. I can give noble Lords my assumption, although I am not quite sure whether it is correct since I do not have specific briefing on the matter.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, does the Minister recall that in the report published last year, Ann Owers described the Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre as "an unsafe place"? She said that there were no means of locking down the centre in the event of concerted indiscipline. Why was not a fuller response made to her report in order to prevent that happening?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, a very full response was made to Ann Owers's report. Over 101 of its recommendations were accepted and/or have already been acted upon, while around 14 recommendations made primarily in relation to family accommodation—which are no longer directly relevant as a result of changes that have been made—were not acted upon. The Government have done absolutely everything to ensure that reports are acted upon properly.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the noble Baroness aware that in Scotland, whenever someone dies in custody, a public inquiry is held by the procurator fiscal? Does she not think that that would be a good thing to adopt into English law?
Baroness Scotland of Asthal: My Lords, the noble Lord knows that whenever someone dies in this country an inquiry is set up. The ombudsman undertakes those inquiries. There has never been any suggestion that the efficacy and ability of the ombudsman is such that that is not an appropriate course to take.

NHS Dental Services
2.55 p.m.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes Baroness Gardner of Parkes asked Her Majesty's Government:
Why the implementation of the new National Health Service dental contract has been put back to 1 October 2005; and what interim arrangements they will make to improve immediate access to National Health Service dental treatment for patients.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner): My Lords, responses to our consultation on the proposed new contractual arrangements indicated a preference for the new contract to be implemented in October 2005 rather than in April 2005. In the interim, dentists can move their practices into the new Personal Dental Services to gain advance benefit of most of the reforms proposed in the new contract.
We have allocated additional funding of £59 million in 2004–05 specifically to improve access to NHS dentistry, especially in primary care trusts with the most pressing access problems. We will be increasing the dental workforce capacity by the equivalent of 1,000 additional dentists by October 2005. Funding will be devolved to primary care trusts from October 2005, with a 19 per cent increase in expenditure over 2003–04—which is an extra £250 million a year.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. Will he join me in congratulating Martin Anderson, the principal dentist in a Sunderland practice, on winning this year's international Picker award for the advancement of patient-centred care? Further, what can the Minister say to reassure me that the deferment in 2005 he referred to in all those dates is not simply related to the date of the next general election?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I join the noble Baroness in offering congratulations to Martin Anderson on his award. It was for patient-centred care and we are seeing much more of this in the NHS under this Government.
This deferment was a result of consultation with the profession and other interests. We listen to people with whom we consult and we have deferred to October to meet their wishes.
Lord Skelmersdale: My Lords, why has it taken seven years for the Government to announce the extra 170 places which were announced in July? During that time the problems of NHS access to dentistry have been growing and growing and we have had questions and debates in your Lordships' House. Why has it taken so long?
Lord Warner: My Lords, the noble Lord will not be surprised when I say that some messes which we inherit take rather longer to clear up than others. He will

437
recall that we have said on a number of occasions that the flight from NHS dentistry started with—and I use the word advisedly—a "shambles" on contracts in arrangements introduced in the early 1990s by his party's government. I remind the House that his party shut down two dental schools.
Lord Hunt of Kings Heath: My Lords, would my noble friend confirm that the 1991 contract had the result of penalising NHS dentists for doing more NHS dentistry by clawing back money that rightfully belonged to the dentists? Does that not show that we need to get the contract right rather than rushing into it—if indeed the details are not complete?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I am grateful to my noble friend. He has given a clearer explanation than that involving the technical term "shambles" that I used in describing the discussions on the contract under the previous government in the early 1990s.
My noble friend is right. The profession has called the contract arrangements a treadmill. That is why we are moving dentists off that treadmill with discussions over a new contract which will reward prevention as well as treatment.
Lord Addington: My Lords, Options for Change suggested that many of the changes that were needed—for instance, the move from invasive to preventive health care—should be field tested. Can the Government assure us that we can take advantage of the extra time to conduct field testing, given that much of the dentistry profession seems to think that it has been pre-empted?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we are continuing discussions with the profession on some of the detail of the new contract and I am sure that people will take the noble Lord's point into account.
Baroness Knight of Collingtree: My Lords, where are all these extra dentists going to come from? Was there a sudden influx of people studying dentistry some years ago? If so, why were we not told about it when we formed queues to get a place in a dentist's surgery? Are they coming from abroad?
Lord Warner: My Lords, my right honourable friend pointed out in his statement of 16 July that we will be increasing capacity by the equivalent of an additional 1,000 dentists. About one third of these—probably a shade more—will come from increasing the NHS commitment of existing dentists who have mixed practices, so the balance between their NHS and private work will change. We are working on a programme of getting more returners to dentistry. We are helping overseas dentists who are already here to qualify by working with the General Dental Council and others to speed up that process. We are also recruiting dentists from a number of foreign countries,
438
including Poland, Spain and India. Dentists from Poland are already being interviewed for work in hard-pressed parts of the country.
Baroness Gardner of Parkes: My Lords, will the new contract help to offset the problems which occur between the higher-cost areas in the south-east and the north where this model practice is? What will the new contract do to equalise things? The cost of premises and staff in the south is a problem.
Lord Warner: My Lords, there is much more variety of arrangements for dentists to practise. They can commit themselves to much more work with the NHS—a much clearer commitment under the new contract. There are better rewards for preventive work under these arrangements. As I said, we are introducing dentists from a wider range of sources to work in some of the hard-pressed areas.
Lord Brooke of Sutton Mandeville: My Lords, when the Minister referred to one-third, or thereabouts, of 1,000 dentists increasing their service to the National Health Service, is he double-counting them in terms of the number of dentists in the service, or is he giving us the full-time equivalent figure of their extra work?
Lord Warner: No, my Lords, I was saying that a great number of dentists in this country have mixed practices—part private patients and part NHS treatment. We will be increasing the proportion of their time in a number of places to take on more NHS work. That is the equivalent of about a third of the 1,000 extra workforce capacity that I mentioned.
The Earl of Listowel: My Lords, is the Minister aware that while 72 per cent of children in public care—that is, children fostered or in residential care—had dental check-ups in 2002, 75 per cent had check-ups in 2003? Is he pleased with the progress being made in this area, particularly against the background of these children's poor dental health in the past?
Lord Warner: My Lords, I think we are making progress in this area, and that is good news. There is still more to do, and that is why we want to ensure that there is better dental access in some of the poorer areas for people who have in the past not always had access to the dental care they need.
Lord Roberts of Conwy: My Lords, what assurance can the noble Lord give that the measures he has talked about will end the existing shambolic situation?
Lord Warner: My Lords, we have every confidence in the work that we are doing and the extra money that is going into dentistry—some £368 million over the next few years, £250 million of which will be available to primary care trusts. We are confident that, with the new contract this will improve the quantity and quality of NHS dental care.

Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000: Section 68
3.4 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I beg leave to ask the Question standing in my name on the Order Paper. In doing so, I declare an interest in that I was a party to one of the earlier cases on this matter—not this one—which was much cited during the proceedings to which I have referred.
The Question was as follows:
To ask Her Majesty's Government, in the light of the judgment of the House in Bakewell Management v Brandwood and others, what action they propose to take in connection with Section 68 (vehicular access across common land) of the Countryside and Rights of Way Act 2000.
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, we are still considering the implications of the judgment, including the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne, of Section 68.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply, as far as it goes. But is it not the case that noble and learned Lords have on this occasion, it would seem, sought to change the law rather than simply explaining or clarifying it? Is not changing the law the responsibility of Parliament?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, when I came to this Dispatch Box, I thought that I was dealing with a difficult Question. The noble Lord has, not untypically, managed to make it even more difficult. I understand the point that he is making, but it is not for me to comment on the judgment of the Law Lords in this case. The judgment was obviously made within the legal rights of those who made it.
With regard to the implications, I appreciate that the noble Lord would like to know more about the Government's thinking. We understand that it appears at this stage that Section 68 has become redundant, and we are considering the implications. Beyond that I am not really able to go.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, I should like to press the Minister further. She has indicated that this will happen shortly. May we have clarification of when "shortly" will be? Does she appreciate that the judgment not only affects the vehicular access rights to which my noble friend has referred but that there is grave doubt regarding the possibility that the judgment might provide greater access for modern vehicles to be driven off-road, something about which we are all concerned? Will that also be considered?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, in response to the second question of the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, most certainly. We are aware of the implications of the Bakewell judgment in the context of the Ridgeway, for example. We are satisfied that existing traffic management measures open to local
440
highway authorities are able to deal with this. We will, of course, seriously consider the matter and keep it under review all the way through, because we share the concern of, I believe, all Members of your Lordships' House.
The best clarification I can give of shortly, I am afraid, is "shortly".
Baroness Miller of Chilthorne Domer: My Lords, will the Minister comment on village greens, one of the best loved features of English country life? The judgment did not touch specifically on village greens but might well have implications for them. Will the noble Baroness make sure that her department carefully considers the issues surrounding village greens and the possibility of driving on them that might result from the judgment?
Baroness Farrington of Ribbleton: My Lords, as the noble Baroness, Lady Miller of Chilthorne Domer, knows, we issued a policy document in 2002 on town and village greens. We will, of course, take into account the point she raises in the context of this judgment. As the noble Baroness recognises, they are not exactly coterminous issues.

Iraqi Kurdistan
3.9 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones Lord Clement-Jones asked Her Majesty's Government:
What plans they have to open a consulate in Erbil in Iraqi Kurdistan.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean): My Lords, Her Majesty's Government are represented in northern Iraq by the Office of the British Embassy in Kirkuk. There are no current plans to open a consulate in Erbil.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I thank the Minister for confirming the position. When I visited Iraqi Kurdistan in August, this was an issue of major concern. It appears quite illogical for the Government to expect people to travel from a safe area in Iraqi Kurdistan to an unsafe area in Kirkuk to obtain a British visa. The FCO seems to be indulging in a somewhat contradictory policy in this area. UKTI sponsored a conference on direct investment in Iraqi Kurdistan only in June. Is it not time that the Government adopted a consistent policy towards trade with Iraqi Kurdistan?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, we are adopting a consistent policy. I am glad that the noble Lord visited the region in August, but I am surprised to hear him say that it is a matter of major concern. It is certainly a matter of concern; it has been raised with me, and I understand that there has been some disappointment among some of our Kurdish

441
interlocutors that the embassy office is based in Kirkuk rather than Erbil. However, most of those with whom I have spoken have expressed satisfaction that there is a third office in addition to the embassy in Baghdad and the consulate in Basra.
Let us be clear: there are no current plans to open an office in Erbil, but none of the decisions is set in concrete. We will watch security developments; security in part informs the decision. We shall also watch developments on constitutional issues over the next period and, if necessary, the location can be reviewed.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is the Minister in a position to say whether the Prime Minister of the Kurdistan regional Government raised the matter personally with Mr Straw in their meeting on 24 June? Do the regional Administration consider, if there is a consulate in Kirkuk, and now possibly one in Mosul, that after the boundaries between the regions are decided by the transitional government in January 2005 the northern region may be left without consular representation, which would be harmful not only to inward investment—as my noble friend said—but to the possible development of tourism and academic and cultural exchanges between Britain and the Kurdish region?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, it is precisely because the situation in Iraq is developing and we do not know the likely future constitutional position of Erbil and Kirkuk that I placed a caveat on my remarks to the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, about keeping matters under review.
The noble Lord, Lord Avebury, is right to say that the issues have been raised, but they were not raised in the spirit of despair that the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, seemed to imply in his supplementary question.
Lord Hylton: My Lords, the Minister will be aware that over a long period Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials travelled from Ankara to Iraqi-Kurdistan. Does she agree that that strengthens the case for moving the existing office from Kirkuk to Erbil or somewhere similar?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I cannot agree. Our representative in Kirkuk, Mr Noel Guckian, has been travelling to Erbil. He has seen the leaders of both the principal Kurdish parties and, from the most recent reports of meetings that he has held in the past week, which I received from him only this morning, I would say that he has established excellent relationships.
Your Lordships should not underestimate the importance of Kirkuk, which is a key city politically, as many noble Lords know. Many of your Lordships will also know that it is the subject of a great deal of controversy because of the policy of Arabisation pursued by Saddam Hussein. To answer the point made by the noble Lord. Lord Clement-Jones, I would say that it is also of enormous commercial importance.
442
We cannot have an office everywhere. I have told your Lordships that this is where the decision has been taken for now, but the issues are not set in concrete. If there is a reason to change in the future, we will consider it properly.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, Kirkuk is not currently in Iraqi Kurdistan. The Minister mentioned security. Has she taken account of the fact that Iraqi Kurdistan is far more secure than Kirkuk? When will the decision about the location of a consulate in Erbil be reviewed?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, of course specific issues of security were a major consideration in taking the decision. The noble Lord has reached his conclusions, but I am bound to tell him that the FCO experts on the ground gave very different advice. Their advice was that the security that we were able to offer to those operating out of the British office in Kirkuk was likely to be better and therefore the costs would be lower, which is an important consideration.
I have said not that the issue will be reviewed but that it is not set in concrete and if there is reason to review it in the future my colleagues and I will willingly do so.

Royal Mail
3.15 p.m.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes asked Her Majesty's Government:
What steps they will take following the report on Post Office services published on 31 August.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are disappointed that Royal Mail's quality of service performance, announced by the company on 31 August, was below the targets in the first quarter of this financial year. The Secretary of State has Allan Leighton's assurance that improving quality of service is the top priority for the management. We are confident that the management is committed to putting things right and expect to see significant improvement in the near future.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, while I thank the noble Lord for his reply, I hope that he will not continue to be too disappointed. Does he accept that Royal Mail, which is giving less for more money, has become a national scandal presided over by a chief executive who is being richly rewarded when he should have been sacked? Does he accept that the chaotic delivery of Royal Mail is depriving many small businesses of their livelihood and is causing misery to some disabled groups? Above all, does he accept that the Government have a role and obligation where a

443
monopoly service is treating its customers with contempt and therefore abusing its monopoly position?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House will be aware that Postcomm obliged Royal Mail to pay the highest compensation award at that time for its failure in the previous year. I have no doubt that Postcomm is looking at performance this year with the same critical scrutiny. We are assured by the chairman that the present level of performance is completely unacceptable. The noble Baroness is right that all classes of consumers are suffering badly from a lower level of performance by the Post Office than we have the right to expect. Everyone in Royal Mail is fully aware that standards must be improved.
Lord Clarke of Hampstead: My Lords, it is not compensation that the public want from the Post Office, but a good service. Would the Minister like to comment on the reported statement in today's papers by David Mills, who heads the counter services, that it is all right for people to queue for five or 10 minutes because it gives them a chance to talk to their neighbours and friends? I wonder what the Minister thinks of that.
At the previous election the party that I support said that the network would be safe. Is the Minister aware that in five years the network has declined from 17,500 to 14,000 outlets?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I want to emphasise to the House and to my noble friend that in indicating that Postcomm had obliged the compensation to be paid I was not saying that that was a solution. I am eager to emphasise that Royal Mail is all too aware that the public expect a higher standard of service than that at present and that the targets that have been set and committed to should be reached.
My noble friend will recognise that throughout Royal Mail there has been major change in operation. We are judging an organisation that is going through the greatest reorganisation of its existence. We may therefore be prematurely judging too harshly an organisation that is committed to improvement, which the changes are intended to effect; not least the enormous losses that Royal Mail was sustaining on its second delivery in previous years.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister accept that opinion on all sides of this House clearly reflects the opinion in the country that the Royal Mail and the Post Office have a particular place in our national life? Will he also accept, in the light of that fact, that the bonuses that are being paid to various executives in the Royal Mail are regarded by the country at large as grotesque? Will he not accept, therefore, that Her Majesty's Government, in the light of all that, can really no longer say that the problems of the Royal
444
Mail have nothing to do with them, while claiming credit when things go well? What are the Government going to do about the matter?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the Government are all too well aware of the crucial role which the Royal Mail and the Post Office play in our national life; that is why we sought the assurances from the chairman that he recognised that targets had to be reached and performance improved. He gave those assurances and for went his bonuses for that past year. Of course, the whole House has had the opportunity on past occasions to emphasise the fact that, unless the Royal Mail improves on its performance, the concept of bonuses for key executives will be regarded with considerable distaste.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, of the targets agreed between the Government and the Post Office, which have been met?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the reason why this Question was tabled was because, at the beginning of August, the Royal Mail indicated that the 15 main performance targets which it had set had not been met. That is a source of very considerable concern. Those figures were for the first quarter of the year, and we do see some degree of improvement from that point. But let us be absolutely clear: the Government, on behalf of the nation, are not prepared to tolerate the Royal Mail's failure to hit the targets thus far. That is why, on all sides, it is necessary that everyone serving in the Royal Mail plays his part in ensuring that performance improves.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, does the Minister not accept that the situation, which is quite dreadful, is totally self-defeating? Small businesses, and many medium-sized businesses, have turned to other means of sending mail, such as e-mail, or other means of delivery. The only people who are left are the most vulnerable, who cannot afford to use other means of postal delivery. The targets have not even been set at 100 per cent; I have never understood why we have targets below 100 per cent. The situation is getting worse and worse, the losses are getting greater and greater, and that will go on unless the spiralling situation is brought under control.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, the House should be fair to Royal Mail and the Post Office. There are a number of factors behind the present difficulties, but one important factor has been the massive reorganisation that the Post Office and Royal Mail has effected over the past two years as a consequence of the very point that the noble Baroness sought to emphasise—that customers were turning elsewhere for services. Of course, there is also international competition to provide such services. That is why Royal Mail and the Post Office were obliged to engage on a major reorganisation of their activities. We have been going through that reorganisation for many months, and the Government had certainly expected

445
that the targets set by Royal Mail for the beginning of this year would be hit. They were not—and that is the source of the disappointment that we share with the whole House.
Baroness Sharpies: My Lords, I wonder whether the Minister can help me. On two separate occasions, I have sent cheques to British Telecom, neither of which have been received, resulting in my telephone being cut off and resulting in a £20 charge for reconnection. Am I able to collect that £20 from the Royal Mail?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, as I indicated, there is a structure whereby compensation can be given. However, I would just say to the noble Baroness that cheques being lost in the post have rather a long history in British life.
Baroness Oppenheim-Barnes: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that cheques are even longer in the post than they ever used to be? Does he also accept that this is not about targets but about people? If the Government would only stop the silly business of targets and deal with real people and a real service, the situation would be a great deal better. I am sure that noble Lords will want to put further questions in the months to come to see what progress has been made.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, of course, the Royal Mail is a service industry, and the quality of the people and the work that they do are important. That is why the Royal Mail has given every assurance that it will tackle the issue, which my noble friend Lord Clarke of Hampstead has raised at previous Question Times, about the use of casual labour and the necessity of seeing that such casual workers are adequately trained. The Royal Mail is committed to effecting that.
The issue with regard to targets is straightforward. If the target of 90 per cent of first class mail being delivered the next day were hit, the service that people received would be far better than it is presently. It is right that a target should be set, and it is also right that that target should be hit. I have not the slightest doubt, either, that when the Royal Mail hits that target, we shall expect higher standards to be set beyond it.
Baroness Byford: My Lords, does the Minister accept the unsatisfactory position that post offices are continuing to be closed, which obviously has a direct effect on people? Does he accept, too, that that is partly due to the Government's stand, and their insistence, that welfare and benefit payments are paid through people's banks, rather than through the post offices? That adds to the demise of urban and, particularly, rural post offices; hence, the service is declining, and people have greater difficulties in gaining access to the facilities.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, that situation partly reflects a changing environment with regard to bank accounts and the efficacy of payments. But the noble Baroness is right: everyone regrets the closure of
446
a local post office, because all local post offices provide a significant service that is valued by people in their locality. Let me make the obvious point that the Post Office intends that everyone in an urban area should be within one mile of a post office. That is a significant commitment to providing the standards of local service that we value.
Lord Haskel: My Lords, if I remember rightly, last year the Post Office was losing £1 million a day. What is the position now?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I cannot go into detailed figures at this stage, but I can say this: it was made clear to the Royal Mail that the losses that obtained on the question of second delivery were making the service hopelessly uncompetitive with others entering the field, and that those losses were being borne by the whole service and by all paying customers. The Royal Mail has engaged in a transformation of its operations to wipe out that area of loss. I am not in a position at present to demonstrate how efficacious it has been. Certainly, none of us would want to see an improvement in its finances at the cost of quality of service to our people.
Lord Faulkner of Worcester: My Lords, will my noble friend confirm that in the days when the Post Office conveyed a far higher proportion of its mail by rail, it met a much higher proportion of targets for next-day delivery? Does that not underline the need for the organisation radically to rethink its decision to remove mail from the trains and put it on the road?
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I hear what my noble friend says, but I believe that he would also recognise that we must be fair in comparing a steady state that obtained for more than a century, with a great deal of our mail being transported by rail, and a situation that has obtained only for a matter of months, with the transfer of a great deal of mail to road. The Royal Mail will need some time to establish that it has in fact effected a worthwhile economy in that regard; but, of course, it would never have embarked on that action if it was not persuaded that such economies would be effective.

Select Committees
The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara): My Lords, I beg to move the first Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
In moving the Motion I am sure that I speak for the whole House in thanking the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, for his services as Convenor of the Cross-Bench Peers. As the Motion indicates, the role of convenor is a busy one involving, among other things, sitting on all the main domestic committees of the House. I can vouch for the noble and gallant Lord's assiduous membership of these committees and his constant efforts not only to promote the interests of his flock of Cross-Benchers, but also to serve the best

447
interests of the House as a whole. He will be much missed in that role. But I am sure that I again speak for the whole House in wishing his successor, the noble Lord, Lord Williamson of Horton, the very best in his new role.
Moved, That the Lord Williamson of Horton be appointed a member of the following committees, in the place of the Lord Craig of Radley: House, Administration and Works, Liaison, Privileges, Procedure and Selection.—(The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

West Northamptonshire Development Corporation (Area and Constitution) Order 2004
The Chairman of Committees: My Lords, I beg to move the second Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the First Report from the Hybrid Instruments Committee (HL Paper 145) be agreed to and that the order be referred to a Select Committee.— (The Chairman of Committees.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Armed Forces (Pensions and Compensation) Bill
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Ministry of Defence (Lord Bach): My Lords, I beg to move the Motion standing in my name on the Order Paper.
Moved, That the amendments for the Report stage be marshalled and considered in the following order—
Clauses 1 to 5,
Schedule 1,
Clause 6,
Schedule 2,
Clause 7,
Schedule 3,
Clauses 8 to 12.—(Lord Bach.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.

Business
Lord Grocott: My Lords, before we start the debate on Iraq, I make a customary comment about timing. There are 35 Back-Bench speakers on the list. As the House knows, we have a target rising time of 10 o'clock which, if it is to be met, allows, roughly speaking, eight minutes per speaker. These are not precise figures. Obviously, if the time runs to nine minutes per speaker, rising time would be approximately 10.30 p.m. Eight minutes may not sound a great deal of time but, according to my
448
calculations, that amounts to approximately 1,500 words. Admittedly, one cannot put the world right in 1,500 words, but one can make a start!

Iraq
3.32 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean rose to move, That this House takes note of the situation concerning Iraq.
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, it is now more than two months since the sovereign Interim Government assumed power in Iraq. As your Lordships will recall, Dr Allawi's Government was put together painstakingly as an interim government representing a wide spectrum of groups in Iraq, with advice from the United Nations. These two months have continued to present enormous challenges to the people of Iraq and their new Interim Government, but not only to them. The international community, close neighbours in the region, and those whose armed forces make up the multinational force, as well as the wider community, are also having to adjust to a new set of circumstances.
First, the Government of Iraq are a sovereign government. They are making their own decisions, on internal issues as well as on their international relationships. They are planning their own future on the basis of the model agreed under UN guidance, so that by the end of 2005 they will have a new constitution, a new government and enhanced security capacity.
Whatever opinions there may be about the rights and wrongs of the military intervention in Iraq last year, the overwhelming view of people of good will around the world is that Iraq should now be a success for its people, for the region and for international stability. But of course doubts remain. There are those who will never be convinced that the decision to intervene was right; or those who will always believe it was a decision that was not taken in good faith. There are those who believe that Iraq's future will be dominated by violence, divisions within the country, coupled with constant friction with its neighbours; and those who believe that Iraq's recent history has undermined international security through provoking increased terrorism. We are all familiar with the arguments. To be honest, I suppose that our debate today will not resolve them, but we shall do our best. I look forward to the maiden speech from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale, giving us the benefit of his wisdom on the issue.
I suggest that resolution will take not only months—the next months of moves towards a constitution and an elected government—but years, as Iraq's identity as a sovereign state becomes clearer and the nature of its people's chosen government is established. But today I hope that we can discuss at least some of the latest developments on security; on the political process; on Iraq's internal development; on reconstruction; and on Iraq's relationships with its neighbours and others.

449
I shall also touch on some of the issues arising from the reviews we have had of our own involvement in the conflict.
I shall begin with what, I believe, remains the toughest issue: security. Iraq's security is a dominant theme, understandably. Without real security on the ground, it is impossible for democratic institutions to flourish and for daily lives to function. Schools, hospitals, transport systems, economic growth and cultural energy are all affected. But it is also the case that in all those spheres—making people's lives better, democratic inclusiveness, functioning social services and economic prosperity—the appeal of violence as a means to achieve an end is undermined. So security and democracy, civil order and the rule of law are all interdependent. Terrorists know that as well as the rest of us, which is why they attack ordinary institutions so indiscriminately. They attack Iraqis who want to join the police force or to work on oil production or electricity generation. Some terrorist attacks have followed a familiar but horrifying pattern of vicious suicide bombings. Only last Friday, a car bomb outside a police training academy in Kirkuk killed at least 17. Iraqi leaders have been assassinated and the MNF continue to be targets. What is noticeable of course is the way in which terrorists target not only foreign nationals associated with security or reconstruction, but Iraqi nationals who are trying to build a more secure future for their families and society.
The latest round of kidnappings and brutal murders is a further hideous twist. Any country with a presence in Iraq is a target, and any issue, such as secularism in French schools or Turkish efforts to help a neighbour, is fair game to terrorists who will stop at nothing to try to ensure that Iraq's future is as bleak and wretched as its past.
At a different level, Moqtada al-Sadr's rebellion in Najaf has posed an early test for the capability of the Iraqi security forces and the authority of the Interim Government. Prime Minister Allawi's sensitivity towards the sanctity of the Imam Ali shrine for the Shia community and his restraint in using force to quell the rebels have been instrumental in bringing an end to the fighting. The Interim Government, Ayatollah Sistani and other senior religious leaders have shown that they do not accept violence and that Iraq's future will be secured only through peaceful means. But as we have all heard today, there is now fresh fighting in Sadr City. Prime Minister Allawi is now considering how to tackle the continuing insurgency in the so-called "seven towns" of the Sunni triangle.
Having said all that, I must also say that the picture is not universally grim. Prime Minister Allawi is making a determined effort to implement a national reconciliation process through an amnesty law aimed at low level, non-lethal insurgents, while concurrently creating special police units trained and equipped in counter-terrorism and insurgency and forming a new Iraqi National Guard.
There is much to be done tackling border security and tackling neighbouring governments about their own security controls, as well as effective policing in towns and cities. But the Iraqi security forces now number over 200,000 and are gradually assuming full responsibility for restoring law and order. The multinational forces continue to support this effort acting under the mandate in UNSCR 1546 and under the policy of a sovereign government of Iraq.
I pay tribute to the 9,500 men and women of the British Armed Forces serving in Iraq, to those who have served there over the past 18 months, and to the many civilian volunteers who have willingly put their life at risk to help the Iraqi people. Let us not forget that Iraq is a vast country and for many, although there are outbreaks of violence and other setbacks, rebuilding and improving security are evident on the ground.
While the world's attention has been focused on the intense fighting around Baghdad, Kirkuk and the Sunni triangle, British troops, stationed in and around Basra, have played a vital role in improving security and rebuilding southern Iraq. They are providing extensive training and mentoring to the Iraqi security forces in the south and we have other personnel engaged in Iraq-wide training programmes to help meet the challenge of restoring order. I thank the commanding officer and our new Consul General, Simon Collis, and their teams for their dedication and professionalism.
Try as they might the men of violence did not disrupt the transfer of power to the new government. They will now try to impede the political process, a process which, if it goes well, will undermine any claim they make about puppet governments, exclusion from political institutions or the truly Iraqi nature of the future leaders of their country.
The bald fact is that political stability will bring security but without security a political process cannot take root. The national conference in August brought together 1,300 Iraqi delegates across Iraqi society, including members of Sunni tribes opposed to the interim government and representatives of Moqtada al-Sadr. After vigorous debate a broadly representative 100-member national council was elected. Twenty-six per cent of the members are women.
The council has an important role to play in holding the government to account, in advising Ministers and approving the budget. It has already held its first meeting at which it elected a Speaker and agreed operating mechanisms and a work programme. But, of course, the council's task is not an easy one. It must work closely with the interim government to prepare for the January 2005 elections. Those elections are the key milestone in the transition towards election for a constitutionally based Iraqi government by the end of next year. A new constitution is key. By mid-2005 we hope that the transitional government will have a draft constitution ready for consultation with the Iraqi people. Subject to its adoption, constitutionally based elections will be held at the end of next year. The

451
timetable is an ambitious one, but with real commitment by the Iraqi government, the Iraqi Elections Commission and the United Nations, and with the full support of the international community, the groundwork for the elections can be completed on time.
Post Saddam there has been a strong appetite for elections across Iraq, and ad hoc local elections have taken place in a number of cities including Najaf, Salah Ad Din, Dhi Qar, Basra, Ninewah and elsewhere. Iraqi election officials are learning lessons such as the need for effective organisation, effective security and proper funding.
A number of commentators have said that the United Nations should now take a greater role, implying perhaps that leading members of the multinational force have somehow been an obstacle to this. This Government have made it clear that we welcome the UN role but we must be patient and understand that the UN must be satisfied with its ability to fulfil its duty of care to its own staff before it can confidently redeploy to fulfil its full range of duties under the mandate given to it by UNSCR 1546. But I am pleased that this is well in hand and that, throughout July and August, the UN has begun to redeploy in Iraq and that this will continue with the imminent arrival of Ashraf Qazi, the Secretary General's new Special Representative, and his team.
Just as Ambassador Brahimi's patient negotiation with Iraq's political and religious leaders was vital in preparing the handover, so Ambassador Qazi's will be in the next stage of supporting the Iraqi Election Commission. We shall continue to do everything that we can to support that process. We welcome our own diplomatic relationship with Iraq—our ambassador Edward Chaplin now in Baghdad and Ambassador alShaikhly, who is very welcome here in London. We wish them well.
Economic development is the lifeblood of any country. That must be particularly true for an economy which has suffered decades of mismanagement, embezzlement and war under Saddam. Huge debts were accumulated and poverty was endemic in some parts of the country. The economy was starved of investment across all sectors: electricity, water, health and education, as well as oil production, which provides almost all of Iraq's income. However, there has been real progress since May 2003. The International Monetary Fund expects Iraq's economy to grow by 33 per cent this year. The newly independent Central Bank has kept inflation below 30 per cent and the new Iraqi dinar is holding its value internationally. The financial sector is at last beginning to grow again.
However, many areas of Iraq's economy are still in need of major reform. Fuel prices remain hugely subsidised, draining the budget and encouraging smuggling to neighbouring countries; no charges are collected for the electricity and water supplied by the state; food is handed out virtually free to everyone, rich and poor alike; and many inefficient state-owned enterprises are running up great losses. But reforms—
452
and they are much needed—must protect people who are already poor and vulnerable. DfID is providing policy advice on subsidy reduction programmes and the reform of state-owned enterprises.
Iraq's health and education services are also in need of reform and, of course, large-scale investment. The United Kingdom is supporting these sectors, along with others, through DfID's contribution of £70 million to the trust funds set up by the World Bank and the United Nations.
My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development visited Iraq last week to see for himself progress on reconstruction on the ground. He met with Prime Minister Allawi in Baghdad, other key members of the government and representatives of the UN, civil society and the Electoral Commission. He was struck by the change that had occurred since the handover of power on 28 June. The Iraqis are now clearly in charge, although recent events in Najaf have inevitably dominated the IIG's first couple of months in power.
My right honourable friend was able to see the progress made on reconstruction since his previous visit in February 2004. Forty-five kilometres of water pipes have been laid in Basra and electricity distribution is now more equitable across the national grid. My right honourable friend also announced £50 million of new bilateral projects, in addition to the £78 million that we have already committed. The bulk of that will be spent on building Iraqi capacity and employment creation.
My right honourable friend was left under no illusion: security will be a major factor affecting the pace of reconstruction. However, I know that he joins me in thanking all those who have made tireless efforts on reconstruction and have kept working under difficult and sometimes dangerous conditions; military and civilian personnel who are helping Iraqis to build a better future.
I turn to international questions. Iraq is now taking its place in international fora around the world. Its Foreign Minister, Zebari, has become a familiar and welcome participant at the UN, in the Arab League and at EU meetings with regional representatives. He has put Iraq's case clearly and effectively to Iraq's neighbours, on difficult issues concerning security and border controls. Of course, UNSCR 1546 calls on all member states to support the new government in Iraq. The international conference planned for later this year will be an important opportunity for the international community to come together to provide more support for Iraq, which it so desperately needs.
However, the fact remains that the war in Iraq has divided international opinion. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has said on a number of occasions that he respects the view of those who disagree with the war because of a difference of judgment on the right thing to have done. It may be a decision that will continue to divide opinion for years. However, I hope that the accusation that it was a decision taken in bad faith can be laid to rest. Just before your Lordships went to a well earned summer

453
Recess, we received the Butler report, and I note that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, is to speak later in this debate. The report is thorough; it is detailed, and in places clearly critical of some aspects of the intelligence processes in this country. However, the noble Lord's inquiry, like the three that preceded it, including that by the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, found that the allegations of misusing intelligence or being deliberately misleading were wrong and misplaced.
I thank the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and their teams, including the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, for their hard work and their contribution to the important debate on terrorism and the spread of weapons of mass destruction.
Let me be clear: the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, raised important questions about intelligence-gathering, intelligence analysis and presentation. As my right honourable friend the Prime Minister said on 20 July, the Government fully accept the report's conclusions and criticisms and have already taken action to implement its recommendations. I have no doubt that there will be further comment on the report during the debate and I look forward to responding to it in my winding-up speech.
It is important to emphasise that our intelligence services do an outstanding job for this country and have made a significant contribution to exposing the extent of illicit weapons programmes, and the threat they pose, around the world. The joint operations on counter-terrorism, now run across government, are highly effective. This huge effort against terrorism, coupled with our concern to control the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, are key issues, certainly for us here in the United Kingdom but also for countries across the globe. The appalling and heartrending events in Russia are an horrific and stark reminder of the indiscriminate nature of terrorism: terrorists acknowledge no limits to who they attack or the numbers they kill. Our hearts go out to all those who have suffered so grievously in recent days.
While acknowledging this dangerous and turbulent backdrop of terrorism, we must learn the lessons of the past 18 months in Iraq. We need to acknowledge our own shortcomings: what might have been foreseen and was not, and what we can learn about helping countries which wish to come closer to a democratic and peaceful future. While we look back—and it is right that we should do so—I hope, too, that we shall also concentrate on the next 18 months in Iraq. We must look to the future. It is going to be very tough. There will be many setbacks. But the overwhelming majority of people in Iraq believe in their future. They believe in a better, more peaceful and fairer society: a democracy under the rule of law and at peace with their neighbours. Iraqis believe they have a real future now. Let us do our best to help them to that future.
Moved, That this House takes note of the situation concerning Iraq.—(Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean.)
3.51 p.m.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for bringing us up to date with the situation in Iraq and wider issues. I certainly look forward to the speech of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, as he expounds on and illuminates his fascinating report, and to the maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale, who has enormous expertise in middle-eastern affairs.
A great deal has happened in Iraq, the wider Middle East and in the wider world of terrorism generally, since we last met here. It all seems to be part of a huge network of connections, examples and copycat activities. Foremost in our minds, as the Minister has reminded us, are the hideous events of the past few days at Beslan, west of Grozny, in the heart of the Caucasus and the continued slaughter in Darfur, about which my noble friend Lady Rawlings may have something to say at the end of the debate. We cannot forget—indeed, one is not allowed to forget—the endless bombings of airplanes, buses, metro stations, the massacres and the shooting down of innocent workers which have filled the daily columns throughout August.
As to Beslan—and I know it is not the main theme of our debate—I have read some rambling comments and articles speculating about the connection, or lack of it, between this almost unspeakable atrocity in Number I School, and the A1'Qaeda and other terrorism in Iraq and elsewhere. I think that misses the point, in a way. People have criticised Mr Putin for claiming that A1'Qaeda is involved. I do not care how many or how few Islamic fanatics were involved in slaughtering children at Beslan. The point is that the new terrorist mentality which we are all up against has now infected extremism everywhere, so that beheadings, kidnapping, torture, the slaughter of women and children and maximum injury to innocent civilians has become the monstrous norm—not just in Iraq, alas, but around the entire world.
I see that President Bush has now redefined what he originally called a "war on terrorism" as a struggle against totalitarian murders, people who cut off heads, bayonet children, shooting in cold blood, almost casually, randomly, to make their case. Terrorism combined with a suicidal mentality—for that is what we are up against—is now a pattern of global crime which, if it is not checked, makes free and open civil society, and normal life, impossible. That was a point wisely made from these Benches right at the start of these events by my noble and learned friend Lord Howe of Aberavon. He is not with us today, but I know we all wish him a speedy recovery from his recent illness and a rapid return, which will certainly take place. Until the people with such mentalities and methods, whether in Iraq or elsewhere, are crushed, we have no society and no security in Iraq or anywhere else.
I turn to the details of the situation in Iraq, where there have been many developments, some positive—to which the Minister has quite rightly alluded—and quite a lot, I am afraid, negative. On the positive side,

455
Moqtada al-Sadr and his rebels were successfully winkled out of the holy mosque at Najaf. Everyone was dreading what would have happened if that had not occurred. Incidentally, I cannot help noting that when Saddam's forces mercilessly bombarded that same mosque in 1991, there was scarcely a murmur from the wider world. This time, one bullet off the golden dome and everyone seems to be in uproar.
There is also the new sovereign government, to whom the Minister also referred, under Dr Iyad Allawi, whom stays firmly in place. They are brave men, all under threat to their lives. They act toughly and clearly. The Iraqi army and police are beginning to gather strength, and a credible national security force is emerging. The country has not yet fallen apart, and some areas are prospering and doing extremely well. Enterprise is flourishing and, of course, elections are in prospect.
On the negative side, the deal with al-Sadr and his Shia minority—because that is what it is—is only temporary. His gunmen are still around and may regroup at the first opportunity, especially if the Iraqi Government try the tactic of wiping them out while Ayatollah Ali Sistani is trying the different approach of conciliation. I foresee many great dangers if that happens. Indeed, there is news even today of more killing in mosques and so on by the Iraqi official forces. Seven more US marines died only yesterday at Fallujah.
Meanwhile, my own reports from the front tell of a very big deterioration in Basra, with our consulate having been under siege. I hope that is better now. The Ba'athist thugs are back in position, wheeling their relatives and friends into all the jobs. There is very little rule of law. There is corruption. Sects and tribes are busy murdering each other. British troops now have less power, in the sense that they are part of the multilateral force, and I am afraid they are inevitably less respected. I believe they have in all instances been driven back from foot patrols into armoured vehicles, making their very difficult job more difficult still. At Al-Amarah, I am told, there have been 450 mortar attacks on British troops in a recent 10-day period. Under these conditions, it is an absolute marvel that our troops have managed to retain control—just—of the Basra region. This reminds us of what a fantastic and brilliant job they are doing. But, I am afraid, there are still too many stories for comfort about inferior equipment and concerns that the armed forces of other countries have better tax treatment than ours and things like that. Meanwhile, there is a lot of rubbish everywhere, and open sewers. Services are better, as the Minister says, but they are still not working. We must be realistic and balanced about what is actually happening.
Are we further forward with our objective of a democratic Iraq as a source of Middle East stability, instead of turbulence and terrorism? Was there an imminent threat in the first place? Are the Saudis and others now pressing ahead with serious reform? It is very hard to give an answer to these questions. There
456
are, inevitably, doubts all around, shared by many sincere people and, dare I say it, possibly even by the Minister herself.
It may be that in Iraq we have stopped Saddam's third try for nuclear dominance. After the first two attempts we may have stopped him building up again that which he appeared to have got rid of temporarily—the stock of chemical and biological weapons. But Iran will get its nuclear weapons inevitably. Proliferation is all too easy, given that people like AQ Khan in Pakistan provide the know-how and send round the catalogues of equipment. It is a very difficult task to stop proliferation. It needs to be brought under control and to have transparency, but it may be impossible to stop it.
The truth is that the new terrorism has its own agenda of which Iraqi developments are only part and which is being driven by a raft of considerations—not least by the Palestine/Israel situation, about which I hope we shall hear more. That is one of the key issues that is still worsening further in a crazy tit-for-tat slaughter.
Turning to the bigger picture, we now have, as the noble Baroness reminded us, the interesting report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. I know that we shall hear more from him but, for me, having had the time to read his report at leisure during August, it contains three main messages. The first is that the report, if read carefully, is a tough indictment of the intelligence services and of the JIC. Rather bravely—perhaps I should say, loyally—the report talks about intelligence "successes", but the text cannot disguise the obvious failures and urgent needs for repairs in our intelligence services.
What went wrong? The answer is, quite a lot. The SIS—that is MI6—and the JIC involvement in the disgraceful dossier episodes revealed "serious weaknesses" in the process, although Ministers carry much of the blame for that as well. The report makes clear that it was wrong that the key expert Dr Brian Jones was not shown the nonsense regarding the 45-minute arming of missiles. The key judgments of the JIC put up to Ministers were plain wrong all along—both in March and September 2002—about Iraq having a current CW and BW capability. The JIC,
"misread the nature of Iraqi governmental and social structures",
which is deplorable if it is true—which I am sure it is. One wonders where, if anywhere, these great experts had been and how much history they had read. As for intelligence sources and validation procedures, they were a sorry tale. The report confirms that "a high proportion" of sources were duds and key information from them had to be withdrawn later.
All of that is worrying and it is to be hoped that the reforms will put it right, but it takes second place to the extraordinary distortions imposed on us by the Prime Minister and others and the way in which they took already dodgy intelligence and converted it into apparently hard facts. We were indeed deceived, not deliberately, and that has tainted the whole enterprise. A good case for the original invasion, which many of us adhere to firmly, was messed up not by dishonesty,

457
but by stupendous naivety and undoubted exaggeration. The world is waiting to hear and will go on waiting to hear why those fanciful and misleading distortions came to be uttered by the head of the British Government.
The third main message—which is a mild criticism of report and I am ready to be put down firmly by the noble Lord, Lord Butler—is that the authors are curiously and almost cavalierly dismissive about the real case for getting rid of Saddam; not the one the Government rather clumsily put in the end, but the one about Iraq's promotional links with the rise of hyper-terrorism, for which there is growing evidence, and the glaring fact that Middle East stability matters because the region is still sitting on two-thirds of the world's oil reserves—and the cheapest two-thirds at that. As some of us argued from the outset, before the invasion—and it is not being wise after the event—and as I said at this Dispatch Box in February 2003, it would have been far better if the emphasis had been put from the start on the converging interest between Saddam's Iraq and international terrorism.
I realise that the remit of the Butler inquiry related to weapons of mass destruction and intelligence. But what is the most glaring fact about all the terrorist events since 9/11? It is that none of those horrors had much to do with WMDs—not 9/11, not Bali, not Madrid, not Moscow, not Beslan, not the embassy slaughters, not the sickening hostage taking and beheadings in Iraq or the bombs in Riyadh and Jiddah, or the endless barbarities against innocents through suicide explosions in crowded public places or in aeroplanes. This is the new form which terrorism has taken in the information age. It uses grisly old-style methods but is empowered by the mobile telephone, communications technology and by the mentality which the communications revolution has helped to stoke up and incentivise. The influence of Al-Jazeera TV, which now dominates Arab opinion, not to the exclusion but the downgrading of the BBC's Arab service, is a prime example. Iraq was in the forefront of all of that and I do not know why we have to shut our eyes to that fact. It was the main but largely unstated case for changing the regime there.
We need to see officials and intelligence agencies from all responsible countries working still more closely together on both homeland and international measures to protect us against that backdrop of the new terrorism—whether its sources are in the Middle East or elsewhere. The operations of those agencies are now closely interwoven—national and international, "homeland" and international. In my view, stabilising Iraq is just one part of the larger jigsaw of containing the global and local terrorist virus. The kind of intelligence work to which we should now be giving priority is that carried out by the Joint Terrorist Analysis Centre, which gets an honourable mention in the Butler report, and similar organisations and agencies, and that is where intelligence reform, which is needed, should now be focused—together with the necessary resources.
458
A free Iraq undoubtedly lies—although some will argue otherwise—on the path to a safer, more stable, Middle East and to the more successful struggle against fanatical terror worldwide. Unfortunately, the Iraqi experience to date—which we hope will turn positive and that the bottle is half full not half empty—tells us, regrettably, that at several levels of government the necessary focus has been severely lacking and that the hand on the helm of our Government is not always as steady, trustworthy or reliable as we hope for and need. That is a matter of the deepest concern to every man, woman and child in this kingdom.
4.8 p.m.
Baroness Williams of Crosby: My Lords, I, too, thank the Minister for her opening remarks. This debate has attracted an extraordinarily high level of interest in this House. I agree particularly with the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that we much look forward to the maiden speech by the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, and to the undoubtedly expert contribution that will be made by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and others in your Lordships' House.
Before I plunge into the debate itself, perhaps I should say first how much we welcome the new ambassador to this country from Iraq and we hope that he will follow carefully the proceedings of this House and the other House—we are sure that he will. Secondly, I should like to follow the noble Lord, Lord Howell, in saying a word about the unspeakably awful happenings in Russia at the weekend. There are some occasions when the very values upon which humanity itself stands begin to be washed away. That was such an occasion. All of us feel totally inadequate in being able only to offer our profoundest sympathy to the parents and families so bereaved as a result of that terrible occasion.
Perhaps I may add one more word. I hope and pray that in responding to such terrible outrages we understand that if we ourselves destroy those same humanitarian values there will be nothing left to hope for. This is a moral as well as a political challenge, and it should be seen in that light.
Fourteen months ago, when the Prime Minister advocated the invasion of Iraq in his speech to the other place, he set out objectives that he asked us to bear in mind and to consider embracing them in a new United Nations resolution. It seems appropriate 14 months on to remind the House of those objectives: an international reconstruction programme; the use of all oil revenues for the benefit of the Iraqi people on a transparent basis; an appropriate post-conflict administration in Iraq that would be dedicated to the concepts of human rights and the rule of law without distinction between the peoples of Iraq. The speech had all the oratorical brilliance of which the Prime Minister is so capable. It was the basis of a humanitarian crusade and the basis of the argument that we were absolutely right to go ahead with the invasion of Iraq.

459
In May, the military victory was complete and President Bush could have said that the military mission was accomplished. However, he did not add that qualifying adjective, but said only that the mission was accomplished.
Since that time we have had four inquiries in this country, culminating in the brilliant report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. In the United States there have been innumerable congressional investigations, many of which are still continuing. What has come out already is that Iraq was invaded on the basis of misleading intelligence, misleading individuals, such as Mr Chalabi, and on a set of assumptions that have not been borne out in fact or in history. Those include the strongly held belief that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction, and moreover, was developing further such weapons. That was based on the belief that there was a close link between A1'Qaeda and the Government of Iraq. Despite what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, all the evidence is that there was no such link, and even the United States Administration have recognised that.
In addition, we had the confident claims of the neo-conservative elements in the American Administration that military victory in Iraq would be followed by a great welcome by the Iraqi people for the incoming invading forces, and that establishing a new regime would be relatively straightforward and easy. Sadly, the promise of that stable and democratic Iraq has turned into a grim and deeply dispiriting irony.
So far, for all those events that I have outlined—I shall not repeat them—not a single senior person has been found accountable; not one. From the atrocities in Abu Ghraib prison through to the maladministration of the Iraq development agency, which I shall discuss shortly, no senior person been made accountable either by the British Parliament or the United States Congress, even though there are clear indications that at the most senior level there must have been some recognition of the atrocities against prisoners both in Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo Bay, and even though there is clearly official recognition in the report of the inspector general of the CPA on how financial development has been conducted that there must be senior people who, at the very least, are answerable for serious mismanagement. It is not much of a lesson to a country, which we have said we wish to bring to democracy, that we ourselves are utterly incapable of finding anybody accountable for what has gone wrong.
That is an issue not only in Iraq. I draw attention again to the Butler report. It is not only a matter of shaky intelligence being exaggerated, but what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, had to say in his report—and my colleague and noble friend Lord Holme of Cheltenham will have more to say in this regard—about how government business was conducted. There were no minutes at meetings; decisions were not registered; the Cabinet was excluded from a good deal of information that it should have known. There was clearly a misunderstanding, or at least a failure to recognise that experts were risking their careers to give desperate warnings. Dr Jones was only one of those
460
experts who were either simply ignored or had their recommendations and evidence dismissed or set on one side. It was not a happy period for our Government and their proper machinery.
We were given two further promises. First, we were told that there would be a more stable and secure Iraq. The noble Lord, Lord Howell, has already said some of the things that I wanted to say, so I shall limit my speech as much as I can. The chaos, deaths and attacks continue. The largest number of US servicemen and women ever injured occurred last month—August 2004. So much for a reduction in the levels of tension. Sixty-six American soldiers lost their lives, as did four British soldiers. Since then there has been the further attack on American marines near Fallujah. We are very far away from achieving security in Iraq.
In attempting to try to build some kind of security, the new interim Iraqi Administration has already fallen into some of the ways of coercion. They have tried to silence elements of the press and to use coercive measures to get the better of the desperate situation.
The Foreign Affairs Committee of another place, in a brilliant report, said:
"Iraq has become a battleground for A1'Qaeda".
A1'Qaeda was not a serious threat in Iraq two years ago, but it is a serious threat today. That is at the heart of the Liberal Democrat objection to the war. It has not addressed, weakened and undermined terrorism, but tragically—although nobody intended it that way—it has led to the development and expansion of terrorism in the Middle East.
We do not know how many Iraqi casualties there have been because we do not count them. It might have been a good thing if we had done so. Independent reports suggest that there are many thousands, and those many thousands are being added to every week that passes.
Secondly, we promised to reconstruct Iraq's battered economy. The Prime Minister, in our name, pledged the use of Iraqi oil revenue for that purpose, and for the benefit of the Iraqi people. The truth has been different. Even though the US Congress voted for $18.5 billion in addition to the sums from the Iraqi oil revenue, only 2 per cent of the money spent on Iraqi reconstruction has come from those US bilateral funds. Almost all of them remain unspent. Almost all the money came from the Iraqi development agency's funds, which were subject to far less tight controls and regulation than those of the bilateral arrangements of the United States.
The easiest thing for the Coalition Provisional Authority was to switch contracts from one source of money to the other, which it did in case after case. Of some 37 contracts worth $5 million or more assigned for the reconstruction of Iraq, 85 per cent went to American companies, and two thirds of that 85 per cent went to one major company, called Halliburton and its associated subsidiaries.
Halliburton is currently under investigation for allegedly charging more than $1.5 a gallon to Iraqi civilians for oil supplied, as distinct from the 98 cents a gallon that the Iraqi oil company would have

461
charged. If that is true, what an extraordinary thing to do. Not only would the Iraqi oil agency have needed the revenues and used them for Iraqis, it would have provided more employment for a country in which some 60 per cent of people are currently unemployed.
Worse than that, questions about those Halliburton contracts and about the general administration of the Iraqi development agency which were raised by the United Nations international advisory and monitoring body, set up last spring, were not answered. The United Nations is still seeking answers to many of its auditors' questions.
The Coalition Provisional Authority, towards the end of its life, withdrew 1 billion dollars from the remaining funds which, we must not forget, were meant to be for the benefit of the Iraqi people. We do not know where that 1 billion dollars went nor what it was to be spent on. It would be helpful if at the end of the debate the Minister could comment on the CPA's administration of the money.
Even the general accounting office of the US Congress said that the CPA had failed to meet its targets for water, transport and electricity; that all production amounts to only two thirds of the target set for December this year; and that oil exports from Iraq are today at their lowest level since well before the Iraq war.
On every criterion of success, whether that be security, economic recovery or the grounding of democracy in Iraq, we cannot claim success. The evidence points to failure. I agree with what the Prime Minister said in his press conference today—and he said it directly—that the battle now is between the terrorists and the ordinary, decent people of Iraq. Of course, in that battle none of us—none of us—can shrink from supporting the battle against terrorism. But we cannot even pretend that the decisions made by our Government, committed both to the invasion and the implementation of the post-war recovery, and the terrible misjudgments associated with them—admittedly, some of them made primarily by an extraordinarily arrogant American Administration—have nothing to answer for in respect of the outcome in Iraq.
The conclusion was not inevitable. There were alternatives. Looking back, would it not have been much better to have kept Iraq under the control of the UN inspectors rather than embark, as we did, on an outcome which we could not imagine and cannot even now calculate?
In conclusion, we are entitled to ask the Prime Minister: was it for this outcome that so many lives have been sacrificed? Was it for this outcome that so much destruction was permitted? Was it for this that we have now brought about an even more difficult situation vis-á-vis the terrorist threat so movingly described by both the Minister and the noble Lord, Lord Howell? Have we any reason to believe that all that price was paid for a better outcome?
4.23 p.m.
Lord Butler of Brockwell: My Lords, I hesitated over taking part in this debate because, if the review that I chaired has done its job, people will feel that they have enough evidence to form their own conclusions about the matters that it covered and can move on—as, indeed, this debate is rightly doing. As the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, said, we cannot wipe out the past; the present and the future matter more.
However, since some of your Lordships clearly want to refer to the review that I chaired, it may be useful if I say something about some of the comments made in its aftermath. I want in particular to thank my noble friend Lord Williamson of Horton, on this first occasion as Convenor, for waiving his high spot in the batting order to allow me to do so.
This is my first opportunity in the House to thank my colleagues on the review. Although our subject matter was such a controversial one, we were a congenial group, my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge being in the van. I particularly thank Mr Michael Mates for his courageous decision to continue serving on the review after the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his support from it. We would have liked to have had a Liberal Democrat representative, but if Mr Mates had withdrawn, the committee would have been politically unbalanced and, I believe, it would have collapsed. That would have been a pity because we have been able, I hope, to perform a useful role.
I am grateful to the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for her favourable comment on the thoroughness and detail of the report. That would not have been possible, particularly in the time given to us, without a first-rate staff, led by our secretary, Bruce Mann, for whose skill and dedication no praise of mine is adequate. I also want to point out that the members of the staff of the review were all civil servants, predominantly drawn from the departments and agencies which were the subject of the review and where their futures lie. Yet there was never any question in the mind of the committee—nor has any question been raised outside—about their objectivity and commitment. Similarly, the committee was entirely dependent on the co-operation and transparency of the government departments and agencies we were examining. They, too, took immense pains in providing us with a huge volume of documents. There are few countries in the world where such commitment could be so unquestioningly counted on; that is a great tribute to our Civil Service.
In the time remaining, I should like to comment on three aspects of the report which have received attention: first, the suggestion that no one was blamed for the shortcomings and the handling of intelligence; secondly, the report's comments in support of Mr John Scarlett; and, thirdly, the comments on Cabinet government.
On the first, we did not of course say that no one was to blame for the shortcomings. At the press conference, I said that no individual was to blame. Although none of us on the committee doubted, or doubts today, the good faith of the Prime Minister and the Government in concluding that Saddam Hussein

463
had concealed stocks of chemical and biological weapons—and with great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that view was shared by most other countries and by Hans Blix—the Government's dossier in September 2002 did not make clear that the intelligence underlying those conclusions was very thin, even though the JIC assessments had been quite clear about that. How grave a fault that was in the context of the lead-up to the war is a matter on which people will and should reach their own conclusions. But we regard it as a serious weakness—a weakness which subsequently came home to roost as the conclusion about deployable stocks of chemical and biological weapons have turned out to be wrong.
That brings me on to the position of Mr Scarlett. The committee was well aware that the consequence of our criticism of the September 2002 dossier, for which the JIC took responsibility, was likely to be—and indeed has been—demands that Mr Scarlett should not take up his appointment as chief of the Secret Intelligence Service. If the report had not said what it did, it now seems to me very likely, perhaps certain, that Mr Scarlett would have found himself unable to take up that post. Suppose that had happened. If so, he alone among the many people involved would have paid the penalty for the shortcomings we identified. That indeed might have satisfied the public's demand that some head should roll, but it would have been unfair in respect of what were collective shortcomings.
But, in my view, there is a wider point than fairness; that is, the national interest. The question whether Mr Scarlett should be the next head of the SIS—a hugely important post particularly in present circumstances—should turn on whether he is the best person for the post, taking into account all the circumstances. That was not a decision for our committee to take; but nor was it a decision which should have been determined by the public desire, however understandable, for some head to roll. If what we said in our report has helped to prevent that happening, I do not regret it.
With regard to what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, said, among many generous comments on the review, by way of mild criticism about the case for removing Saddam Hussein—there were many aspects to the case for removing Saddam Hussein—the link between the Iraq regime and the spread of international terrorism was not supported by the intelligence. The intelligence, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, was not there on that and indeed the American Government have acknowledged that.
Finally, I come to the comments in the report about Cabinet government. As the report said, we were not suggesting that there is an ideal or unchangeable system of collective government; indeed, one of the glories of the British constitution is its flexibility. Still less were we suggesting that the procedures are in aggregate any less effective now than in earlier times. I would go further and say that, during my time as Cabinet Secretary, I do not think that we cracked the problem of adapting the systematic but somewhat ponderous procedures of Cabinet government set out
464
in the ministerial code to the requirements of a faster-moving, more media-driven world. But the positive features of that system, designed to draw in the expertise available in all parts of the government in a systematic way, and to subject policy decisions to constructive criticism and challenge from those political colleagues with a wider perspective than those grappling with the issues day to day, are still worth pursuing.
Some of the decisions which turned out worst for the governments I served were, in my view, due to bypassing that procedure. I hope that this and future governments will take these points seriously, in the interests not of constitutional nicety but of effective governance.
4.32 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, my overriding concern now is for the security, stability and renewed prosperity of Iraq. Whatever our views about the rightness and wisdom of the war and whatever lessons need to be learnt from the mistakes made in the early stages of the occupation we need at this stage to unite in a determination to bring order out of chaos and long-term stability out of the present turmoil. So I will not rehearse old arguments but will concentrate simply and solely on the present serious situation and on how we might move towards a more ordered, flourishing society.
The present instability and violence in Iraq is very serious indeed. So I would like to begin by paying tribute to all those who are putting their life at risk there in the name of a new, better order. First, our own service men and women, who continue to show their characteristic courage, together with their usual constructive approach to keeping order. Then there are the UN officials and members of NGOs and all those working in the areas of aid and reconstruction. Finally, and not least, there are the Iraqis who are exposing themselves to great risk by being associated with the new regime and by being willing to become policemen or administrators. A new and better Iraq is very literally dependent on the bravery of these and other such people.
The present situation in Iraq is fraught with danger for a number of reasons. There have been—and still are—most obviously, those whom the media have termed insurgents, many of them foreign, who are set on opposing the present Interim Government as an agent of the occupying power by every violent means possible, including suicide bombing. In addition to that, there are other elements that give rise to increasing concern.
First, there is the emergence of traditional tribal loyalties and feuds. It is widely recognised that the creation of Iraq in 1920, on the break-up of the Ottoman Empire, was carried out along somewhat artificial lines and that Saddam Hussein's cruel and tyrannical regime battened down many potential conflicts. The situation now is not unlike the break-up of the former Soviet Union, with the eruption into the open of long-standing tensions, though on a smaller scale.

465
Secondly, there is the rise of criminal elements, exploiting the present chaos, particularly through hostage taking. More than 150 hostages have now been taken in Iraq. Very often, they are taken by one group with a financial motive and passed on to other groups who wish to exploit the hostage for political purposes. I am afraid that the rise and fall of Saddam Hussein, with the anarchic aftermath, bears out a very Hobbesian view of society. But it is important not to despair and to remember that the Hobbesian view, according to which people can be held together only on the basis of strong government, is only half the truth. There is also our human capacity to see the wider good and our powers to persuade and be persuaded in the interest of that common good.
Here I draw attention to all those working with traditional tribal and religious leaders, as well as with potential new political leaders, to find a new consensus for a new Iraq. For good or ill, here religion has a crucial role to play. As is well known, Iraq is composed not only of different tribal and ethnic groups, but of different religious groupings—Sunni Muslims, Shia Muslims, as well as the 3 per cent of Christians and other minority groups.
People sometimes accuse religion of being the cause of conflict. Sometimes, sadly, it has been just that. But in the modern world it is true to say that religion is more often a marker of identity in a conflict which has begun for other reasons but which can, as such, be exploited by unscrupulous people to exacerbate that conflict. The religious dimension can also be brought into play to emphasise what is held in common between different groupings and what can unite them. Here in particular I draw attention to and commend the work of the Iraqi Institute of Peace and its international director Canon Andrew White of Coventry Cathedral, who has been spending much if not most of his time in Iraq, liaising with different tribal and religious leaders to encourage a common religious vision for the future of Iraq. Through a major conference for religious leaders this month and by setting up six fora dealing with different aspects of society in which religion has a key role to play, that is, I believe, a crucially important element in work for a better future.
It is also highly dangerous work. When Baghdad airport was closed recently and Canon White had to get into Iraq across the borders, his journey involved some 27 security men. I was particularly disturbed yesterday to receive an e-mail which seemed to indicate that a significant section of the Iraqi police force was in fact out of control. In relation to all that, I pay tribute to Her Majesty's Government, particularly the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, for the strong moral support that she has given to this work as well as the financial backing for it. The work has recently been evaluated by the Foreign Office and is, I know, well thought of. It has the potential to make a crucial commitment and contribution to that area because religion can divide or unite. It is desperately important that in such a fraught security situation it is a force for unity and healing.
466
I make one further point. It is a mistake to believe that western-style liberal democracy can simply be imposed on a country with a very different culture and religious tradition. We may believe, as I do, with Reinhold Niebuhr and Sir Winston Churchill, that,
"Democracy is the worst possible system in the world … except for all the others".
In that spirit I would like Iraq to be a democracy, but Iraq's traditional tribal and religious forms of government cannot simply be ignored. The hope must be that within Islam there are seeds of democracy, as we understand it, through the traditional emphasis on consensual government and through the traditions of creative interpretation of the Koran, which are there together with the literalist ones. A friend said, not long ago, that what we needed were,
"appropriate forms of consensual government".
Those can be congruous with, and perhaps develop into, western-style liberal democracy, but the task has to begin with recognising a very different cultural and religious context. So I express the hope that the emergence of democracy in Iraq will develop in close consultation with religious leaders in particular, so that what emerges may not be regarded as alien to the culture, but compatible with and, indeed, a flowering of it. But it is clear that, if democracy is to have a long-term future in Iraq, it needs to be appropriated in Islamic terms, not simply imposed in Western, secular ones.
Over the west door of Staunton Harold Church is the following inscription:

"In the year 1653

When all things sacred were throughout the nation

either demolished or profaned

Sir Robert Shirley, Baronet,

founded this church:

whose singular praise it is

to have done the best things in the worst times,

and

hoped them in the most calamitous".

So I end by commending the efforts of all those in Iraq who are seeking to do the best things in the worst times and, through their day-by-day activities, giving expression to their hope in what is, for many Iraqis, still a very calamitous situation.
4.41 p.m.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I have always made clear that I consider military action against Iraq to be morally, legally and politically justified. Morally justified because no one can dispute the unmitigated evil of the ruthless reign of terror which the Saddam regime practised in Iraq and was able to continue to do so after 1991 because the coalition made the cardinal error of halting military action too soon. It was legally justified because if defiant refusal to comply with 16 Chapter 7 resolutions of the UN Security Council is not a legal basis for action, then I do not know what is. It was politically justified because this unpredictable, dangerous, rogue regime was a menace to its volatile region and, through

467
that, a menace to the world—a menace all the more threatening in the light of new dangers that we all face from new forms of international terrorism.
I know that others start from a different premise. One cannot but be troubled at the moment at the present state of affairs in Iraq. But let some things be said clearly. Military action was brilliantly successful, unexpectedly swift and meticulously planned and executed by the alliance forces, who deserve great credit for that. Many problems predicted did not materialise—the expected flood of refugees, and so on. But the awful problems with which we are all now living are enormous although, I believe, not insurmountable, given time, patience and sustained effort.
Of course, we all wish that some things had been done differently. The abrupt disbanding of the Iraqi army struck many at the time as unwise and fraught with danger, although I understand the thinking behind that, as well as for not acting immediately against Moqtada al-Sadr when the moderate young Shia cleric leader al-Kooie was murdered when, without armed protection, he visited the holy Imam Ali shrine in Najaf on his return to Iraq from the UK and exile. It was no doubt considered more politic to wait until an Iraqi judiciary could deal with it, but one must wonder if swift action on that murder would have caused more bloodshed than the two uprisings that al-Sadr has now led.
We can all hope that the efforts of the Grand Ayatollah Ali al-Sistani will continue to keep Najaf in some kind of peace, but Moqtada al-Sadr remains a viciously dangerous force and I, for one, hope that the murder of the talented moderate al-Kooie will not be forgotten. All people of good will have to hope that the provisional government of lyad Allawi succeeds in holding his country together and restoring some kind of normality to a society that has not been normal since Saddam took power in 1979.
Listening to people who were currently knowledgeable about Iraq, such as my honourable friend Ann Clwyd, it is clear that there are some good news stories among the unmitigated black reports from the media. I agree with my noble friend Lady Symons and the noble Lord, Lord Howell, about that. No one with any sense or experience underestimates the problems, but they can be dealt with, given time, patience and careful investment of resources. The murder of Iraqis trying to reconstruct their society is evidence of the determination of those ex-Baathists, as well as extremists, Iraqi and foreign, who do not want that reconstruction, as my noble friend Lady Symons said.
But let us try to look clearly at the overall picture. There are specific problems with some of the Shia community, especially those connected to al-Sadr, but, with the assistance of the respected leadership of the majority of the Shia, those can be resolved. There are security problems among the Sunni community, especially in the Sunni triangle—readily understandable from ex-Baathists, aided by foreign volunteers, but also from a community accustomed to being in control and fearing the Shia majority. They need reassurance.
468
Meanwhile, Kurdistan, while not a complete haven of peace, continues to administer itself. Its leaders are so far displaying maturity in playing their part in an integral Iraq and not being tempted into a dangerous move to secession, with all the perils that that would unleash in Iraq, as well as in Syria and Turkey.
There is now an interim government and a national conference has been held, which was concluded on 18 August. That was never intended to be fully democratic or any kind of substitute for the general election scheduled for January, but it did hammer out an agreement on an interim parliament—a new national council—described by my noble friend Lady Symons. As the Economist commented at the time,
"the throng of clerics, tribal leaders, professionals and veiled and unveiled women at the conference looked a fair cross-section of Iraq".
Perhaps it is, as some have said, going to be, for a time, "a rough democracy for a rough country", but let us admit that many did not think that we would be even this far by now.
I conclude with a comment on something that has featured so prominently in Iraq debates: intelligence, its acquisition and processing—a field in which I spent some 22 years. I firmly believe that secret intelligence should never be put into the public domain. I know that that is not in the spirit of the times and I well recall the clamour from the media and others to show us the intelligence. But whatever the fashionable pressures, I think they have to be resisted. If there was one thing that dismayed me about the otherwise excellent Butler report, it was the implication that the next time that intelligence was published, procedures should be different. That dismayed me because I fervently believe that there should be no next time.
In parenthesis, perhaps I may say how much I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said about John Scarlett. I think that it would have been outrageous if the due process of selection of the chief of the Secret Intelligence Service were to have been diverted from choosing the best person for the job. John Scarlett is someone whom I have known for a great number of years and whom I admire for both his professional ability and personal integrity. But the whole point was that the due process should take place without any external interference. The Butler report did exactly the right thing in what it pronounced on that point.
I say that I fervently believe that there should be no next time for the publication of intelligence not because I am not in favour of transparency and accountability, but because I know the enormity of the problems of producing the substance of intelligence reports for an audience unused to reading it and not given any on guidance on how to read it. Much has been written and said about "caveats", but it is much more complicated than it appears. The concept of caveats regarding an intelligence report encompasses a variety of quite different and specific signals designed to give the reader road signs at different, defined points—source description;

469
introduction; field comment; desk comment—all to help the reader understand and evaluate the report without betraying the identity of the source.
Unfortunately, time prevents me from explaining that in any more detail, but all of those together are, if you like, what can be classified as caveats. But there is no way that you can incorporate them into a public exposure of your core intelligence. So-called caveats are just one of the reasons that it is well nigh impossible to put intelligence meaningfully into the public domain.
Another example of where some caveats are necessary, but difficult to spell out, is the chairmanship of the JIC, which has changed greatly over the years. There have been many misunderstandings attached to that title, which might have remained an esoteric subject except that the media have taken to parading it as a powerful credential for the pundits that they produce to criticise the Government on Iraq. For example, in one case, the lady held that office for a bare two months.
Also, until 1983, when the Franks report on the Falklands recommended that the practice be discontinued, the chair was taken automatically by the Foreign Office representative on the JIC—a career diplomat—whose day job was that of an FCO deputy under-secretary, which would include intelligence among its other responsibilities. So the chair of JIC can mean very different levels of experience in intelligence. It all depends on when and in what context people come to be in that position. In this—as in so much connected with intelligence—things are not always what they seem and they are rarely straightforward.
4.51 p.m.
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, I welcome the fact that your Lordships' House chose to debate the issue of Iraq after our Summer Recess. It is essential that at the earliest moment we should send the message to our forces in Iraq that they are not the forgotten army; that they are facing an increasingly dangerous and difficult time; and that the thoughts of this House are with them in the difficult and important task that they are undertaking.
Those of us who wish them every possible success often find it very difficult to keep in touch with what actually is happening and the current situation. My noble friend Lord Howell gave some worrying figures about the amount of attacks that are alleged to have occurred against British forces in Basra and the region during a recent 10-day period. Will the Minister confirm that there is no truth in the rumour that there was a news blackout imposed by the Government during that time of great tension and attack? If that was so, it was wrong and contrary to the spirit that we try to follow in such matters. It would have been unfair to families and to the Armed Forces who are engaged in the situation. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a clear answer.
470
I pay the warmest tribute to our forces and the way in which they have discharged themselves. Anyone who has had any involvement with them would not be surprised that they have discharged their duties as they have. I also pay tribute to the US forces in the very difficult challenge that they are undertaking. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, referred to "mission accomplished". Today, I think I saw a figure that, since "mission accomplished" was announced, there have been 1,000 fatalities in the US forces. I have no knowledge of the number injured and wounded, but that too will be very substantial.
We have paid tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his report, from which we all learned quite a bit. I note that the Prime Minister learned something that he had never heard before; namely, that the crucial intelligence on which some of the main claims were based had been withdrawn. The Prime Minister was never informed and it was only when he read the Butler report that he learned of something that had occurred a year before.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, made a powerful defence of the position of Mr John Scarlett, for whom I—as does the noble Baroness—have considerable respect. But since the House rose, allegations have been made that Mr Scarlett sought to influence the Iraq Survey Group report. Apparently, he wrote to the Iraq Survey Group suggesting that 10 possible "nuggets" could be included in their report. I am not sure if the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues were made aware of that or whether there is any truth in it; it was in a report by Mr Tom Marigold. Obviously, that is a serious matter because it suggests further involvement in what would appear to be the presentation of intelligence, which many might have thought was not appropriate action to undertake in that way. Perhaps the noble Baroness may clarify that.
While the noble Baroness said that the Butler report was carefully studied, is being followed up and acted on, one cannot help but notice that the Government have already acted in contradiction of one recommendation of the report as regards the chairmanship of the JIC. I accept that the Prime Minister has announced that this appointment is an interim appointment. But it is against the recommendation of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his colleagues. The post of chairman is being held by someone who has experience of dealing with Ministers in a very senior role, who is demonstrably beyond influence and thus probably in his last post. Mr William Ehrman has now been appointed on an interim basis and is doing it on his way to his new ambassadorial appointment.
I have the highest regard for Mr Ehrman, but it is interesting that a key recommendation about the chairmanship of the JIC has been immediately ignored by the Government. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, used to see the reports of the Intelligence and Security Committee: this was a recommendation that we on that committee have made consistently since 1999. We were merely drawing on the advice of Lord Franks at the time, which the Government have consistently continued to ignore. I just make that point.

471
I feel very much for the position of our troops. While I trust that no one in this House will do anything but offer the fullest support to our forces in their very difficult task, that does not mean we are embargoed from criticism of the Government. I think that the Government have served our forces very unhelpfully. It has been a PR disaster. Mr William Hague made a very good speech on 20 July in a House of Commons debate on Iraq. He said that he thought the policy was correct, but that the Government have ruined the case for doing so. He first coined the phrase "PR disaster".
Against that background, I note that the Foreign Affairs Committee and the Intelligence and Security Committee are now reopening their inquiries, which is right in the light of the further information that has come to light. It is against that background that I turn to the events in Iraq. We have all been observers of the tragic events—whether in Najaf or the heightened tension and the much greater violence in the Basra district. I noted that the noble Baroness used a carefully crafted phrase to say the situation was not universally grim. I understand why she said that. It is an understatement of the year for some of the people.
If I am being unkind or unfair about the position, again I say to the Government, and to the noble Baroness in particular, that it is extraordinarily difficult to have an accurate position of what is really going on in Iraq. What is the position about the reconstruction efforts? What is the position about electricity and water supply? What is the position that is faced in the rebuilding of the Iraqi security forces, the police and the Army?
The noble Baroness will know that I have raised that issue on a number of occasions. On the first occasion I was referred to the DfID website, which I did not think was the total answer to the request that I had made. If we are to have public support for what we are doing, it is important that we have proper information from the Government on the situation.
About the only cheerful note that I noted in preparing for the debate was the encouraging letter from the BBC World Service. The efforts of the BBC and its Arabic Service, and the way in which they are trying to communicate British values as well as accurate information, is important.
I have one further point. The current situation is putting great strain on our Armed Forces. In certain areas there is the risk of deterioration. Against that background, I think it extraordinary that the Government should choose this moment to introduce some difficult and damaging cuts to the defence programme, ones that will impact in particular on some of the regiments that may well be asked to face very difficult times. I draw the parallel that we produced Options for Change, but shortly after we announced it Saddam Hussein invaded Kuwait. We withdrew the programme at that point because we did not want there to be any conflict whatever.
I agree entirely with the right reverend Prelate that we must see this through to see order come out of chaos. However, the challenge is not simply that which
472
the noble Baroness spoke of when she quoted the Prime Minister today: that it is a battle between decent Iraqis and terrorists. The problem is that decent Iraqis are not likely to form a cohesive force and that in trying to restore order out of chaos, we cannot get ourselves into a situation where we back individual factions. That, in the end, is something that the Iraqis will have to decide for themselves.
We face a very challenging situation and we have to stand together to see it through. I hope very much indeed that we can secure wider support in the world to help us to do so.
5 p.m.
Lord Thomas of Gresford: My Lords, many of my noble friends on these Benches will deal with where we go from here in Iraq, but at this point in the debate I want to ask how was it that we got here. Paragraph 382 of the Butler report reveals that on 12 March 2003, the Chief of the Defence Staff required confirmation that it was lawful for him to issue the order to commit military forces to action. That was not and is not an irrelevant legal quibble.
The use of armed force by one state against the sovereignty of another state is a crime against peace. Personal responsibility was clarified at Nuremberg, where in his opening statement Lord Shawcross said that,
"it is both logical and right that, if the act of waging war is itself an offence against international law, those individuals who shared personal responsibility for bringing such wars should answer personally for the course into which they led their states".
Saddam Hussein is to face trial on just such a charge, laid against him personally, for the invasion of Kuwait. However, it is not a charge that is limited to the head of state, as the execution of the German Chief of Staff, Field Marshall Keitel, demonstrated at Nuremberg. So the question of legality raised by the Chief of the Defence Staff was not only crucial to him on a personal basis, but was also one that exercised the people of this country, many of whom demonstrated their concerns on the streets of our major cities.
There are two sets of circumstances where the use of force against another state is justified. The first is self-defence, and the Attorney-General has never wavered on this point. Having considered all the evidence, he concluded in his initial advice that there was no threat to Britain or to British interests which justified a preemptive strike on the basis of self-defence against Iraq.
The second justification is the authority of the United Nations Security Council. On this score, for the invasion to be a legal act, there were two questions for the Attorney-General to answer: first, was the United Kingdom authorised by the Security Council to be its agent to carry out such an attack? On 21 April last, I pursued this matter in debate with the Attorney-General, and I summarise my points by saying that the United States and the United Kingdom sought specific authority in October and November 2002 and again in February and March of 2003, and failed absolutely to get the necessary trigger words authorising military action into any resolution. As the report acknowledges,

473
Miss Wilmhurst, the Foreign Office legal adviser, resigned over this issue. Moreover, last week, Mr Cheney denigrated Senator Kerry for saying that he would like to see American troops deployed,
"only at the directive of the United Nations".
Noble Lords will recall the jeers with which the Republican delegates greeted Mr Kerry's correct interpretation of international law.
But the second question was equally important to establish the legality of the war. Was there a breach of a Security Council resolution of such importance and materiality that it was justifiable in fact and in law to invade Iraq? Until the publication of the Butler report we had all assumed that all the relevant circumstances would have been placed before the Attorney-General for him to make an independent and impartial assessment of whether there had been a material breach of the resolutions. That was his duty.
But that is not what happened. His advice, as is disclosed in paragraph 379 of the report, had been that the Prime Minister had to be satisfied that it was possible to demonstrate hard evidence of noncompliance and non-co-operation by Saddam with the terms of Resolution 1441. But if there was such hard evidence, it was not put before the Attorney-General for his opinion.
What happened was this: on 14 March, two days after the request of the Chief of the Defence Staff for legal advice, the Attorney-General sought confirmation that,
"it is unequivocally the Prime Minister's view that Iraq has committed further material breaches as specified in paragraph 4 of resolution 1441".
On the next day, the Prime Minister's Private Secretary informed the Attorney-General that,
"it is indeed the Prime Minister's unequivocal view that Iraq is in further material breach of its obligations, as in Operative Paragraph 4 of UNSCR 1441, because of false statements or omissions in the declarations submitted by Iraq pursuant to this resolution and failure by Iraq to co-operate fully in the implementation of the resolution".
In other words, no independent analysis and opinion was obtained from the Attorney-General himself. The assessment of the evidence, if there was any, that there was a material breach of Resolution 1441, was that of the Prime Minister rather than of the person charged with the duty to make that assessment. The result is that the Attorney-General can say, "Well, it's not my fault. The Prime Minister decided that there was a breach of the terms of the Resolution. It was not me because I never had to consider it". Meanwhile, the Prime Minister shelters behind the Attorney-General by saying, "I have a legal opinion which says that it was all right", and his advice was based entirely on the Prime Minister's own unsupported assurances. No one was to blame.
What was the basis of the Prime Minister's "unequivocal view"? The officials' advice to Ministers referred to in paragraph 267 of the report had been that any authorisation to use force in the original Resolution 678, which was passed before the 1990 Gulf War, could be revived only if the Security Council—
474
not the Prime Minister—was convinced of a breach by incontrovertible proof of large-scale activity. In their advice officials added that:
"Current intelligence is insufficiently robust to meet this criterion".
That was in March.
The JIC made its initial assessment on 18 December, before the fresh inspections by Dr Hans Blix under Resolution 1441 could be evaluated; he had been in position for only three weeks. No update was sought or received by the Prime Minister when he made his pronouncement of an unequivocal breach of the resolution in March.
The Foreign Secretary, Mr Straw, in his letter of 17 March, justified the Prime Minister's position by reference to the 12th quarterly report of Dr Blix to the UN Security Council. However, in that report Dr Blix said that he wanted more time, and that things were going much better than they had in the past. But he did not get that time.
I must disagree, as I did on 17 March last year when the tanks began to roll, with the remarks of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale. The war was clearly unauthorised; we were not the agents of the UN Security Council; and it was illegal. Today the Prime Minister approves of an American Administration that professes belief in the pre-emptive strike rather than self-defence and jeers at the need to obtain United Nations authority for military action. That is the ethical foreign policy of New Labour.
One of the things that I have noticed about this debate is the absence from the Government Benches opposite and from the speakers' list of those who cheered the Government on in March 2003, at the time when the decision was made.
5.10 p.m.
Lord Owen: My Lords, those of us who supported in this House the invasion of Iraq have a very special responsibility to question our judgments and to ask ourselves how it could be that a brilliantly successful military operation could have been followed by so great a degree of ineptness and incompetence in the handling of the occupation.
I hope that I am ready to say that I have made a mistake, but I still believe that the toppling of Saddam Hussein was justified. We need to recover from the abysmal record of those early few months—and we are recovering. In that context I agree with the very measured evaluation of the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, of where we have been successful and where we have failed.
It is by no means certain that we will recover. It is by no means certain that there will be a successful transition in Iraq. But it is profoundly important that it is successful. There can be few other things on the agenda of the international community that are more important than making a success of this transition.
We are not doing enough—neither quickly enough nor with enough resources and capacity—to train the Iraqi police or military. There can be no better investment than to put that to rights quickly. If it is

475
necessary to have more troops in Iraq to do this, then that need should be met. All our efforts in the short and medium term should be put into shifting from British and American defence forces and building up a capability inside Iraq.
An insurgency is a very difficult thing to defeat. We all know that. The word "patience" has been used on a number of occasions. That is the only way in which an insurgency will be defeated. There can be no time scales, there can be no planned exits. However well the Iraqi people build up that military force and that police force and however well the relationships between their religious leaders such as Sistani and the Iraqi Government work out, they will still need a mobile force equipped with helicopters and, if necessary, with aircraft with all the modern capabilities that are mainly attached to American forces. That force could be utilised to act as a constant deterrent to the insurgents from making crippling attacks on the emergence of this democratic government.
The right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford got very close to arguing a case that these countries—and Iraq in particular—cannot have a democracy. We made grievous errors—and I include myself in this—in believing that the Arab world was different from everybody else, and that we could therefore turn a blind eye to what was going on in Saudi Arabia and justify monarchs and regimes for year after year that we knew lacked the support of their people, for which there was not remotely a consensus. We often sought refuge—not only in the Middle East but in Africa too—in tribal customs and tribal leaders and found excuses for not going for that essential discipline: one person, one vote and the ability to throw people out of office. That is what democracy is about.
And so to the future. I hope that this House will demonstrate its commitment to the overwhelming view—although there are notable exceptions—that we must now persist, monitor and watch those decisions being carried out. The first step is the sort of debate that we have had today. I come from a profession that believes that a post-mortem is not much use unless it stops people making the errors that caused death.
We need to start with the intelligence. We have done so in the committee review of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. There are many conclusions and many recommendations tucked neatly away in that document that could easily be forgotten. The noble Lord, Lord King, has mentioned that the Government have already sidestepped the clear-cut recommendation about the chairmanship of the JIC on the justification that this is an interim appointment. It is a scandalous decision not to follow through on their decision to accept the review committee's recommendations and to evade one of its most clear-cut recommendations within weeks.
The question of John Scarlett is a difficult one. I gave evidence on the day that John Scarlett was appointed. I thought that it was an outrageous decision in advance of hearing from the committee. I refused to give evidence until I got an assurance from
476
the chairman that this would not fetter the committee from making criticisms of John Scarlett. To its credit, it did not fetter it and it did make criticisms. It then came to the conclusion that, nevertheless, he should be appointed. I came to the conclusion that I cannot accept its recommendations and then pick and chose between them.
It is of fundamental importance that the authority, competence and trust that we have given MI6 hitherto be restored. We must now give John Scarlett—who was among other things the agent responsible for the most important Soviet agent in almost the whole of the Cold War—and the service that he leads every support in making the necessary changes recommended in the Butler report and in going on to prove, as it has often done in the past, that it is a very effective intelligence service.
I turn to the other recommendations of the Butler report. It is a pity that the committee members did not go further into the question of the conduct of governments in foreign and defence policy. I understand why; it was, after all, an inquiry about intelligence. The committee members had to steer within the intelligence remit, as I had to in my evidence to them. Nevertheless, nobody reading their reports on this matter can be in any doubt that there have to be substantial changes in the manner of cabinet government. We must monitor this particularly carefully.
In previous speeches I have criticised the creation inside No. 10—and therefore within the political and public relations framework of No. 10—of the conduct of foreign policy to the extent that has happened. It is one thing to have Cabinet Secretariats who are answerable to the Cabinet; the present machinery is quite another thing and it has failed miserably over Iraq. Downgrading the Cabinet Secretary—effectively taking him out of the intelligence sphere—and having another person answerable to the Prime Minister with oversight of intelligence has not worked either. I would like to go back to the broad overriding remit of the Cabinet Secretary which has served us well over many decades.
I am worried about receiving an invitation to mark the end of the United Nations department in the Foreign Office after 58 years of continuous service. I am told that this may not be as bad as it seems, as there may be two departments or its function will spread across them.
One of the biggest mistakes that was made over Iraq was the decision to go for a second UN resolution. There can be no doubt about that. Why was that decision taken? The French said, quietly and privately, that they would live with the first resolution. They might not vote for it, but they would not act against it. Some people might say that they did not mean to carry that out. I believe that it was the act of a friendly power. That was the message delivered in Washington. None of the senior Americans wanted a second resolution and—most importantly for those of us who believe in the role of the UN—nor did Colin Powell. Why did we pursue it?

477
The role of the UN representative is not unmonitored. The existence of the UN department inside the Foreign Office was to monitor the Permanent Representative and, quite frequently, to challenge the judgment of the Permanent Representative across a broad range of government decisions and to come to the Foreign Secretary with recommendations that were not always the same as that of the Permanent Representative.
I think that a strong UN department is essential for foreign policy—never more so than now, when the Security Council ought to be, and often is, working much more effectively than it did during the Cold War. The Prime Minister cannot make these decisions about voting, with the short time span that he can give to these big events. He needs independent advice on these questions. Yet we hear that the Prime Minister was ringing up the Permanent Representative, not just once or twice but day after day, on frequent occasions, as if he could sense whether some small country would vote yes or no in the Security Council. That is a very difficult judgment to make, and what one is told at one time is often quite different another time.
I shall not belabour the point but I hope that the Foreign Secretary will give very careful thought to dismantling a powerful department, which the UN department was, and come to us all, perhaps with a consultation paper, before lie makes that irrevocable decision, after 58 years. It is very important that it carries weight; it is very important to have that department in trying to develop an overall view of our foreign policy. We have an EU department that co-ordinates all matters, as the Cabinet Office used to do—sadly, that is now in the political offices of No. 10. I hope that an equivalent independence, integrity and knowledge base will not be lost for the UN in the Foreign Office.
Finally, on Iraq, I hope that at every stage the Government will send out a message that we are going to stay, that we will be patient and persistent, and that we will see a successful democratic transition in Iraq. In my judgment, nothing would show that better than to put Saddam Hussein on trial before the end of the year and give him a fair trial. It may need to take a long time, such as the trial of President Milosevic.
5.22 p.m.
Lord Holme of Cheltenham: My Lords, since I intend to be critical of the Government's policy in some respects, I shall start by associating myself with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord King, about the performance of our armed services in Iraq. They are made up mostly of very young men and women. The task they are carrying out—in this, if nothing else, I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Owen—is necessary, thankless and dangerous. It has been carried out, for the most part, with very great care and in the best traditions of the British armed services. I ally myself with all noble Lords who have taken this opportunity to thank them for what they are doing.
It is particularly appropriate, from these Benches, to thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his committee. I believe that they have done Parliament and the
478
country a great service in their report. As the noble Lord well knows—he referred to it—we on these Benches thought that the terms of reference were too narrow, confined as they were to intelligence on weapons of mass destruction. We still think so. We still regret the absence of a synoptic overview of the origins and operation of what can be seen more clearly every day to have been one of the greatest disasters for British standing in the world since Suez.
Nevertheless, it is right to acknowledge that, far from producing what was widely, and unfairly, predicted to be an establishment whitewash, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, actually stretched the terms of reference as far as he could. In my view, he has produced, within constrained parameters, a powerful and damning report. Some people may say that it does not sound very damning, but that is because they do not speak mandarin—that elegant and carefully nuanced language which no doubt many of your Lordships speak. I confess that I do not, but I have had the benefit of a skilled translator. This is an example from paragraph 611, in which the noble Lord and his colleagues say:
"we are concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures which we saw in the context of policy-making towards Iraq risks reducing the scope for informal collective political judgment".
Or, as my translator put it in the vernacular, "What a shambles".
On the dossier, a close reading of the Butler report, as well as the sadly neglected appendices of the Hutton report, which bear close study, can leave no reasonable doubt that this was a piece of journalistically driven, politically inspired, public advocacy to make the case for the defence of the action which the Prime Minister had already agreed with the United States. It has been a tragedy for the JIC and the whole intelligence community that they allowed themselves to be used as builders' labourers, handing the bricks to those skilled builders of walls of spin who reside in No. 10.
As has been referred to several times in this debate, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, very chivalrously threw his protective cloak around John Scarlett. Here, perhaps, the system did close around its own, but I wonder whether even the noble Lord realised what his defence meant and what its significance is. If the JIC information was, at best, filleted and exaggerated and, at worst, misrepresented, and since we are told by the noble Lord—and who would argue with him?—not to blame John Scarlett, the chairman of the JIC, for that, it follows that the responsibility lies elsewhere. Where else does it lie but with that serial charmer, the Prime Minister, and his coterie of advisers, whose fingerprints are all over the e-mails? John Scarlett, like others before him, got too close to the sun. Thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, his wings are still intact but the whole intelligence community today is the weaker for it.
I come back briefly to A1'Qaeda, to which the noble Lords, Lord Butler and Lord Howell, referred. That is one feature of the report which was "in clear". There was no co-operation between A1'Qaeda and the Saddam regime. This is important, because of the

479
elision and confabulation that the US Administration has made from the beginning of the war on terrorism and the war on Iraq. The Minister will be well aware that public opinion polls in the United States throughout this year have shown that approaching two thirds of the US public, believe that Saddam was somehow involved in 9/11. Yet despite the clear conclusion of the Presidential Commission, as well as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, that that was not the case, as recently as two months ago, Vice-President Cheney was still asserting that there was indeed a connection between the two. Of all the political pressures on the intelligence community emanating from Washington, that which tried to establish this link between A1'Qaeda and Saddam was one of the most malign and distracting. I have good reason to believe that the British intelligence services were not immune to such pressure. That is all the more reason to welcome the clarity of paragraph 484 of the Butler report.
It is clearly high time for a total intelligence review. If we are serious about the so-called war on terrorism—a phrase, incidentally, which I mistrust increasingly; it is time to disaggregate and focus on aspects of terrorism rather than aggregating it as one impermeable mass—we need a comprehensive analysis of what we do and how we do it. Are we, for instance, relatively underinvested in human intelligence? Is there adequate inter-agency co-ordination and liaison? Is there, as other noble Lords have asked, adequate global co-ordination of intelligence agencies? How can members of the JIC be ring-fenced and firewalled from their mates in No. 10, to recall Alastair Campbell's phrase? I agree with other noble Lords that the omens are not good when the committee's advice on the chairman of the JIC was disregarded.
We must ask ourselves again whether our system of parliamentary supervision and oversight is adequate. As has been mentioned often in the House over the past year, it is certainly time to have a Civil Service Act, which would more clearly define the roles of advisers and officials. I look forward to the Government telling us when they will bring that forward.
Finally, the Prime Minister's technique with regard to Iraq, looking ahead to the election, reminds me irresistibly of Basil Fawlty—"Don't mention the war". He tells us quite often that he would like to move on. I have no doubt that he would like to move on. How nice it would be if the past two years could be spun away—if we could spin away our damaged credibility in the world, the abandonment of the road map in the Middle East, and the clear and present danger of Iraq slipping into the hands of one or other set of mullahs and becoming a theocracy rather than the democracy that we all want. The accession to the cause of anti-Westernism of countless new young enthusiasts, who are therefore potentially a pool of terrorists, must concern us all.
Of course, we all want to move on. I agree that we have to stick with this course of action, now that we have embarked on it, but it would be difficult, if not
480
impossible, for the Prime Minister to move on politically without some expression of contrition and regret—an apology, if you like—for having misled Parliament and the public about the reason for going to war. I accept what the noble Baroness said, so let us not call that bad faith, let us call it over-enthusiasm. But whatever the reason, it is quite clear that Parliament and the public have been seriously misled.
The Observer on Sunday, although not necessarily a Bible in these matters, tells us that No. 10 aides are now saying that they would advise an apology from the Prime Minister. I may have sounded critical of the coterie in No. 10 earlier but it cannot always be wrong: in this respect, at least, I think it is right. I sincerely hope that its advice will be taken so that we can all move on and that the wishes expressed by the noble Baroness at the beginning of this debate may be realised.
5.31 p.m.
Lord Craig of Radley: My Lords, the valuable report of my noble friend Lord Butler and his committee has done a lot to explain the workings of the intelligence system, and I congratulate them. Delving into the report, I was struck by the expose in Chapter 1. Clausewitz's quote on war at the start of the chapter hits the nail on the head. This chapter is a valuable introduction to the intelligence process. Noble Lords who have held high ministerial or official office will be familiar with the JIC process; others should certainly study Chapter 1.
Assessments do not merely report facts; they try to foretell and foresee the future. The human element is always present and what a reasonable man might do will not be the inevitable choice of a dictator. So there will always be caveats, not solely because the available source material may be sketchy or incomplete, but because of the essential element of judgment about what the target will actually do. One example of this was the judgment about Saddam's intention to use chemical or biological weapons. The Prime Minister and other senior Ministers expressed the view, based on assessments, that that was likely. Noble Lords will recall the Prime Minister's foreword to the September 2002 dossier. He said:
"Saddam has used chemical weapons, not only against an enemy state, but against his own people … his military planning allows for some of the WMD to be ready within 45 minutes of an order to use them".
A presumption of use was heavily hinted at.
But, rather like the dog that did not bark in the night, scant attention seems to have been paid to another, by then historical, fact. Saddam possessed WMD during the first Gulf War but he did not use them, even though the coalition forces were invading Iraq as part of their strategy to drive his forces out of Kuwait. In the light of the experience of 1991, why, when Saddam faced once again a similar coalition of nations and another invasion of Iraq, was a presumption of use rated likely by 2002? Indeed, the presumption of possession of WMD now seems demonstrably wrong. But, of course, the UK Government's rationale for embarking on military

481
operations was disarmament, not regime change, although, to give him his due, the Prime Minister said in his Statement:
"We know, again from our history, that diplomacy not backed by the threat of force has never worked with dictators and never will".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/9/02; col. 5]
Nevertheless, I have reservations about a policy of major pre-emptive action against a nation state that is not posing an imminent threat to our interests. In the run-up to hostilities, with our Armed Forces committed, it was not the right time to air them.
I have listened to the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, with great interest. There seems to be a presumption, even international agreement, that if the United Nations is confronted by a material breach of a resolution and has authorised all appropriate measures necessary to deal with the breach, this legalises the use of force in all circumstances against the offender. But is a UN resolution directing a country to take steps to correct a material breach within its own territory to be treated in the same way as a material breach of failure to withdraw forces from a neighbour's territory?
In 1991, Iraq was in material breach as its forces were in neighbouring Kuwait. But in the case of its failure to respond to Resolution 1441, Saddam might have argued that, as he had already disposed of his WMD stocks, he could not be in major breach of a resolution requiring him to dispose of them. Noble Lords will recall that the noble and learned Lord the Attorney-General required the Prime Minister,
"to be satisfied that there were strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations",
in order to underpin the legality of pre-emptive action.
I also noted that the Chief of the Defence Staff, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Boyce, was concerned about the legal position before ordering military action, as has already been mentioned. I fully share his concern to be satisfied about the legality of preemptive action. I suggest that, in the relative calm of the present military situation, greater clarity about a policy of pre-emptive action and its legality is required. Is there a legal distinction between the use of air power to carry out occasional punitive raids and the full-scale assault of another country followed by prolonged occupation? It is a slippery slope and every preemptive operation must have its own exit strategy in place.
I turn to the present unsettled state in Iraq. Regrettably, the terms of reference of my noble friend Lord Butler did not require his committee to examine assessments and papers relating to the post-hostilities phase. The committee only touched on this in the commentary about the machinery of government. I am sure that it was a confident UK assessment that the weight of coalition air effort, followed by overwhelming use of ground forces, would soon overrun Iraqi defences and eliminate all but some sporadic opposition. But the pre-hostilities statements by the Prime Minister and other senior Ministers painted a rosy picture of Iraq following regime change and the removal of Saddam. Was this just blind faith
482
or was it based on a close and careful review of the likely political and other developments within Iraq? Certainly, nothing that was said before hostilities gave any sense of the chaos, and continuing security problems, that still confront the Iraqis today.
In his Statement on 24 September, the Prime Minister said:
"Iraq deserves to be led by someone who can abide by international law, not a murderous dictator; by someone who can bring Iraq back into the international community where it belongs, not leave it languishing as a pariah; by someone who can make the country rich and successful, not impoverished by Saddam's personal greed; and by someone who can lead a Government more representative of the country as a Whole while maintaining absolutely Iraq's territorial integrity.
We have no quarrel with the Iraqi people. Indeed, liberated from Saddam, they could make Iraq prosperous and a force for good in the middle east".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/9/02; col. 6]
Where is that someone who can make Iraq rich and successful and who is representative of the country as a whole? It would be interesting to learn how the Prime Minister was persuaded that the removal of Saddam was going to bring a quick peace and stability and prosperity to a people who had been terrorised for so long. We have seen the difficulties that nations emerging from under the heel of the Soviet Union had in overcoming their fears of repression and a permanent lack of freedom. Surely it was expecting far too much of Iraqis, given the different strands of race and culture within Iraq's borders, to be better at moving from dictatorship to democracy than ex-Warsaw Pact countries. On this, not only the Iraqi people, but the whole world, were misled. It is a serious blot on the Government's and the coalition's handling of the whole Iraqi affair.
5.40 p.m.
Lord Judd: My Lords, my noble friend the Minister was right to recognise the courage of our military personnel and civilians working among the agonies of Iraq; she was right, too, to urge us to look to the future. On one point, I am sure that we shall all be agreed: if we will the ends, we must will the means, and there must be no stinting of resources to ensure the successful building of a future Iraq. It is easy to generate resources for war; it is sometimes much more difficult to generate resources for winning peace. That must not be the case in Iraq; unfortunately, there are indications that it has been the case in Afghanistan.
I hope my noble friend will agree that it would be perverse not to ensure that the lessons of Iraq inform our future conduct of foreign policy as a whole. I briefly make five points. First, it has become clear that it was unwise and misguided to take action on the scale involved, with all its implications, in the absence of a sufficiently widespread global consensus. The importance of a specific Security Council resolution was not some necessary ritual in a religion of multilateralism; it would have represented the seal on the consensus that should have been built.
It is of course argued that that consensus was impossible because of the determination of the French to use their veto. However, on reflection, that may be to misinterpret the position of the French. To their

483
credit, they wanted the UN inspectors to finish the job and report to the Security Council so that the basis for a well-informed debate on what action was required would be there. I have no doubts that inspectors should indeed have been allowed to complete their task. The denigration of the work of Hans Blix and his staff in some quarters of the coalition was deplorable. Fulsome apologies from those responsible would not go amiss.
My second point is that our experiences have underlined that the international rule of law is indispensable for the future of humanity; any tendency to rough-ride over the international rule of law could bring us perilously close to the abyss of global anarchy. The challenge is to make international institutions more effective, not to desert them in favour of the law of the jungle. We must help our American friends to see that the historic role for them, with their unrivalled power, is to contribute that power in helping to build a viable multilateral system.
Thirdly, simply because the regime of Saddam Hussein was so cruel, tyrannical and cynical, it was and remains essential to demonstrate clear contrasts. To go to war with one set of justifications and then to begin advocating a new set when the first set proves invalid is not the way to establish the indispensability of transparency and integrity.
Fourthly, we have learned that intervention can prove complex and full of pitfalls. For example, there is the difficult issue surrounding the internalising of political responsibility, when, whatever the talk of sovereignty, those outside the country have in effect assumed responsibility for its strategic future. There is also the acute need to think through the range of potential consequences of intervention and prepare for them. In the case of Iraq, a great deal, to say the least, has been left to be desired in that respect.
Fifthly, we take our eye off the battle for hearts and minds at considerable cost. Whatever our minimal formal regrets, our failure convincingly to demonstrate real and continuing concern and compassion for the loss of Iraqi lives is lamentable. Thousands of innocent Iraqi men, women and children have been killed in the bombing and bombardments; large numbers of Iraqi servicemen, who under the sinister regime had no alternative but to serve, were killed. The inexplicable refusal to register the scale of that loss of life is wrong. It has also provoked alienation, resentment and recruits for the extremists.
The same is of course true of the treatment of prisoners. Abuse is not simply nauseatingly wrong and unprincipled, but drives people in their desperation to extremism. Along with rash and insensitive brutality in Chechnya and the grotesque realities of Guantanamo Bay, it is a recruiting agent for terrorism. A genuine commitment to hearts and minds demands the highest standards, a consistent determination to protect human rights, and civilised sensitivity at all times, whatever the provocation.
The forthcoming consultative conference will have a vital role, but it must be as inclusive as it is possible to be. Difficult, not just more amenable, participants
484
must be there. As wide a cross section as possible must be won to the political process. To drive by exclusion any who could potentially be so won into the arms of the irreconcilable rejectionists and wreckers would be unforgivably short-sighted. The conference must be imaginative and sensitive to history and culture. Realities of power within the existing society will have to be faced, not avoided.
There is no single stereotype for democracy; democracy is not necessarily equivalent to, or inseparably linked with, the free market economy. There are different forms of democracy and accountable government, and both the conference and the power brokers in the wings must be open to that. As we have seen too often in recent years, elections of themselves can prove hollow and even damaging, unless the context for meaningful elections has been generated.
Events in Iraq, Afghanistan, the Middle East, and in Chechnya, North Ossetia and Ingushetia, are making one reality clear. Peace and stability cannot sustainably be enforced from above, but must be built from sound foundations, upwards. Short cuts, however tempting in pressing circumstances, are fraught with the dangers of counter-productivity.
5.47 p.m.
Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale: My Lords, the Hutton report, the Butler report and other investigations of the war in Iraq have been prompted by the concerns of ordinary voters and Members of Parliament. Those concerns have raised a number of questions, but I shall deal with only one of them, as eight minutes is not a long time.
Within the limits necessary to protect our intelligence sources and services, were people and Parliament properly and fully informed of the facts as believed or known before Parliament made the decision to support the invasion? The Prime Minister to some extent based his advocacy of the invasion, or the American position, on the intelligence services. He said, on 24 September 2002:
"people will have to take elements of this on the good faith of our intelligence services"—
not of our politicians—
"but this is what they are telling me, the British Prime Minister, and my senior colleagues. The intelligence picture that they paint is one accumulated over the last four years. It is extensive, detailed and authoritative".—[Official Report, Commons, 24/9/02: col. 3.]
I suspect that, in the uncertain world of intelligence, the Joint Intelligence Committee would not want to be called "authoritative".
The impression surely was that the Government's public statements would be based on the authoritative advice of the intelligence services. There are a number of statements that raise doubt about that—and I illustrate with an example. The September dossier said:
"Intelligence indicates that as part of Iraq's military planning Saddam is willing to use chemical and biological weapons".
That is a simple statement. But, at that time, the JIC believed that Saddam would use chemical and biological weapons only if he was threatened by internal revolution or external attack. The draft prepared by the JIC said:
"Intelligence indicates that Saddam is prepared to use chemical and biological weapons if he believes his regime is under threat".
That caveat was left out of the dossier. The two versions are contradictory rather than complementary. The omission of the last clause could significantly change the reader's perception.
The dossier told the truth and it did not lie, but it did not tell the whole truth. It is possible to mislead or deceive by failing to tell the whole truth, as is recognised in the oath that we swear in our courts every day. This leads to the Hutton report. At page 320, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, says:
"However in the context of the broadcasts in which the 'sexing-up' allegation was reported and having regard to the other allegations reported in those broadcasts, I consider that the allegation was unfounded as it would have been understood by those who heard the broadcasts to mean that the dossier had been embellished with intelligence known or believed to be false or unreliable, which was not the case".
He is saying that the dossier was not embellished; it did not have anything added to it. But the Hutton report apparently failed to consider fully that sexing-up could be achieved by omission as well as by embellishment. Would the noble and learned Lord's conclusions have been different if he had considered the possibility that just by omitting the fact that the famous 45 minutes related only to battlefield weapons, it may be thought that the document was sexed up? The omission may have been an oversight, even a slightly negligent oversight, but it could have been part of a pattern of omissions, each of which tended to support the case for war. Which was it? It is an issue that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, did not investigate seriously, as his terms of reference in that area were,
"to investigate the accuracy of intelligence on Iraqi WMD up to March 2003, and to examine any discrepancies between the intelligence gathered, evaluated and used by the Government before the conflict, and between that intelligence and what has been discovered by the Iraq Survey Group since the end of the conflict".
That is also in Mandarin. What it says is that the noble Lord was not authorised to investigate the use of intelligence by the Government. He was authorised to question the intelligence and compare it with the outturn.
Sir Humphrey, Jim Hacker or someone had drawn up the terms of reference in a way that stopped any questioning at the political door. In those circumstances, when intelligence output did not accurately reflect the essence of the intelligence input, that was OK, which is where we had misunderstandings. The point is this: suppose the Prime Minister had said, soliloquising, as he and his loyal staff saw the first draft of the September dossier, "Will no one rid me of these wimpish words that may reject a just war on Iraq"; and suppose that his closest No 10 colleagues then called in the JIC chairman and asked him for a statement of the current position; and suppose the chairman said, "The JIC believes that Saddam has only small amounts of chemical and
486
biological weapons, much of them no longer dangerous due to decay, and we also believe that he has a very small number of ballistic missiles of short range, which in the past have been very inaccurate", that would have been a simple statement. It sounds as if Saddam is not an immediate and serious threat to his region, let alone the whole world. Now edit that statement by removing some words but not adding any, thereby showing no "embellishment": "The JIC believes that Saddam has chemical and biological weapons, and we also believe that he has ballistic missiles". The revised sentence is true, but creates a different, almost opposite impression to the original JIC draft. The failure to demand the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth is clearly open to abuse.
Your Lordships may say that that example is absurd; and indeed it is. But is it really different in kind from removing the JIC caveat on Saddam's chemical and biological weapons, that he would use them only internally or if his regime was threatened?
I hope that the committee of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, will volunteer to complete its excellent report by a small amount of additional investigation. The evidence is easily available to investigate the whole truth of the information provided to MPs and others before the vote on war. That would give a signal for the future that in such matters being economical with the truth is not an acceptable form of conduct.
5.54 pm
Lord Wright of Richmond: My Lords, it is a privilege to follow the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale, and to congratulate him on your Lordships' behalf on a fascinating maiden speech. He will be well known to your Lordships for his distinguished career in business, but I would like to single out the remarkable support that his foundation, founded in memory of his father Charles, gives to medical research. We all look forward with great anticipation to hearing his future contributions to debate in this House.
A number of us had the opportunity on 14 July to make some preliminary comments on the Butler report immediately after its publication and the Prime Minister's Statement. I would nevertheless like to add a few comments today, having now had the opportunity to read the report in full. I congratulate my noble friend Lord Butler and his colleagues for a clear and balanced report. It is no less than I would have expected from many years of working closely with him both in 10 Downing Street and later as respective heads of the Cabinet Office and the Foreign Office.
The Butler report was necessarily limited in scope, as was the earlier report by my noble and learned friend Lord Hutton, by its remit to exclude any questions related to political or diplomatic misjudgments or strategic assessments and priorities. I shall similarly avoid today repeating my earlier comments on the conflicting and dishonest reasons given by Washington for invading Iraq when we did, which has led to many

487
thousands of deaths among Iraqis and members of the coalition forces, a toll that tragically continues to mount week by week.
Unlike the report by the committee chaired by Lord Franks following the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands in 1982, the report by my noble friend Lord Butler deliberately devotes no attention to the legal or political—as opposed to the intelligence—case for going to war, beyond noting the view of officials frequently echoed by ministerial statements, that regime change of itself has no basis in international law.
The report does, however, contain some useful and pointed criticism of the machinery and processes of government, at least one of which, on the relative lack of use of established Cabinet Office machinery, echoes a point made by Lord Franks when he criticised the failure of the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, to call meetings of the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee in the weeks preceding the Argentine invasion. When I asked a related Question in this House on 7 October last year, I was assured by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that there had been regular Cabinet discussion of Iraq and the Middle East from September 2002 until "after the conflict"—if indeed the conflict can even now be said to be over. The Butler report makes it clear that those discussions in Cabinet were unscripted occasions without the benefit of the papers that had been prepared by officials for discussion in Cabinet Committee. The Prime Minister told Members of the other place that he accepted my noble friend Lord Butler's report in full, and I hope that, as my noble friend himself said today, he will have paid particular attention to that important procedural point in the conduct of government—on which it would be difficult to find a more experienced exponent than my noble friend Lord Butler of Brockwell. I have commented before on the important point in the Butler report about the relationship between the political and press advisers in No 10 and the intelligence assessment machinery of Whitehall. As a former chairman of the Joint Intelligence Committee, I have been shocked by accounts of discussions of intelligence assessments and of their public relations handling in apparently informal and unrecorded meetings chaired by the then Director of Communications and Strategy in the Prime Minister's office. I also find it curious that the Butler report states as a matter of fact that the dossier,
"was not intended to make the case for a particular course of action in relation to Iraq"—
a point surely contradicted by Mr Jonathan Powell's email, in which he complained that the draft was inadequate to support the Government's case for going to war. If the dossier was not designed to convince us that we should join those in Washington who had long been pressing for military action to remove Saddam Hussein, what on earth was it for?
I do not intend to waste your Lordships' time by rehearsing yet again the extent to which the decision to go to war in Iraq was based not only on what now
488
turns out to be false intelligence, but on the inadequate use of diplomacy and regional and technical expertise. What I deplore is the extent to which the war in Iraq has diverted attention from the wider and more pressing priorities of the Middle East, including the appalling current situation in Israel and Palestine, where the prospect of creating a viable Palestinian state along side a secure Israel appears to be attracting no attention whatsoever in the White House.
I hope that there will be other opportunities before long to debate the problems of the wider Middle East. I ask again at this point: what has become of the road map and the hopes of negotiating a two-stage solution in the next year or two, and what has happened to the assurances that President Bush gave the Prime Minister in Belfast last year that he would put as much effort into trying to solve the Palestinian problem as the Prime Minister had put, was and is still putting, into the problems of Northern Ireland?
6.1 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I add my thanks to the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale, for a most thoughtful and persuasive maiden speech.
Like my noble friend Lord Thomas of Gresford, I want to concentrate on one particular aspect of the Butler report: the light that it throws on the legality of the war. In fact, it throws a good deal of light on it. Until then, all we had seen in the way of legal advice to the Government was a one-page summary of the views of the Attorney-General published on 17 March 2003 and supplemented by a somewhat fuller statement from the Foreign & Commonwealth Office published on the same day. Both of those documents are set out in Appendix D to the report.
Thanks to the report, we now know a lot more about the legal advice given to the Government before 17 March. I start with the legal advice given to the Government in March 2002 by officials from an unidentified department, presumably the FCO. That is covered in paragraphs 266 to 269. That advice said that neither regime change nor self-defence was a justification for action. Military action could be justified only if Iraq was in breach of Security Council Resolution 687. The advice was that at least one of three conditions must be satisfied before the Security Council could take the view that Iraq was in fact in breach.
The first condition was proof that Iraq was in breach of its obligations concerning weapons of mass destruction and ballistic missiles. The report quotes the paper directly in paragraph 267:
"Proof would need to be incontrovertible and of large-scale activity. Current intelligence is insufficiently robust to meet this criterion".
The second condition was a refusal by Iraq to re-admit inspectors after a clear ultimatum from the Security Council. The third condition related to a situation in which inspectors were re-admitted to Iraq and found sufficient evidence of weapons of mass destruction activity or were again expelled trying to do so. In the event, none of those conditions was satisfied.

489
Resolution 1441 followed, and the inspectors went back into Iraq in November 2002. They found only one significant breach of the restrictions put on Iraq following the first Gulf War. That was the construction of al-Samoud missiles and the engines for them, with a range somewhat greater than the permitted 150 kilometres. Most of those missiles were destroyed by March 2003. It is not suggested that they in themselves justified the war on Iraq.
We next discover from paragraph 378 of the report that the Attorney-General expressed his views of the legal position in a meeting with three senior members of the Prime Minister's staff on 28 February 2003 and put his views in writing on 7 March. The Butler committee saw that advice, and in paragraph 379 it summarised the crucial part of it as follows:
"It did, however, require the Prime Minister, in the absence of a further United Nations Security Council resolution, to be satisfied that there were strong factual grounds for concluding that Iraq had failed to take the final opportunity to comply with its disarmament obligations under relevant resolutions of the Security Council and that it was possible to demonstrate hard evidence of non-compliance and non-co-operation with the requirements of Security Council Resolution 1441, so as to justify the conclusion that Iraq was in further material breach of its obligations".
That was a vital qualification to the Attorney-General's views. At paragraph 381, the report states that,
"The Attorney-General decided that it was in the interests of public servants, both civil and military, who would have to carry though any decision to take military action, that a statement should be made in clear and simple terms as to his view of the legal position".
The Attorney-General's office then wrote to the Prime Minister's private secretary asking confirmation that it was unequivocally the Prime Minister's view that Iraq had committed further material breaches of Resolution 1441. The private secretary replied that it was. That was the wrong question for the Attorney-General to ask. The right question was raised in his advice of 7 March: did that hard evidence exist?
As a result, the Attorney-General's published statement of 17 March was too clear and simple. It did not repeat his call for hard evidence of non-compliance and non-co-operation; it simply assumed noncompliance. That assumption was based on intelligence, and in that context I believe that paragraph 362 of the Butler report is of critical importance:
"we are surprised that neither policy-makers nor the intelligence community, as the generally negative results of UNMOVIC inspections became increasingly apparent, conducted a formal re-evaluation of the quality of the intelligence and hence of the assessments made on it. We have noted in departmental papers expressions of concern about the impact on public and international opinion of the lack of strong evidence of Iraqi violation of its disarmament obligations. But those involved appear to have operated on the presumption that the intelligence was right, and that it was because of the combination of Iraqi concealment and deception activities and perceived UNMOVIC weaknesses that such evidence was not found".
The committee was saying that, following the failure of the inspectors to find hard evidence of mass destruction, the validity of the intelligence should have been reconsidered. Had it been reconsidered, the Government would, in all probability, have been
490
forced to the conclusion that the evidence of serious breaches of Resolution 687 and 1441 was at best equivocal. That would have been insufficient to justify the war. Why, therefore, did not the Government do what the Butler report says that they should have done? I believe that the Government—I borrow a phrase from the Hutton report—may have been subconsciously influenced by the fact that a change of view would have been extremely embarrassing for them. By March 2003, logistics had taken over from legality. It is plain that the American Government were unwilling to leave their troops sweltering in Kuwait through the summer while the inspectors were given the time that they needed to come to a final conclusion. If the Government had backed out in March, they would have lost all influence with the Americans, who would have gone it alone, while a last-minute conversion by the United Kingdom would not have restored our credit with France and Germany and the other advocates of delay. Politically, we would have been left with the worst of both worlds, and the Government would have had a great deal of egg on their face.
The Butler report does not expressly draw those conclusions from its own findings in paragraph 362, but I believe that those conclusions are inescapable and devastating. Had the Government done what they should have done in reviewing the validity of the intelligence, the Attorney-General would, in all probability, not have been able to advise that the invasion of Iraq was legal, and we would not have gone to war.
6.9 p.m.
Lord Lamont of Lerwick: My Lords, it is my pleasure to be the first noble Lord on this side of the House to be able to congratulate my noble friend Lord Wolfson on his excellent maiden speech. Neither of the two noble Lords who previously congratulated him commented on the fact that he has been 15 years in this House without making his maiden speech. It was certainly worth waiting for. Those in my party who know the noble Lord know very well his great skill and his forensic abilities that he demonstrated to the full in his speech. I hope that he will not wait another 15 years before making his next speech.
I first declare an interest in that I am a director of a company which was specifically formed to participate in the reconstruction of Iraq, although nothing that I say is likely to enhance the prospects of that company.
At the time I strongly supported the war both in this House and outside, but subsequently I changed my mind because I gradually came to believe that the country was misled about the reasons for the war. Of course, I am not saying that the Prime Minister acted in bad faith. I am not saying that the Prime Minister misled the country intentionally, but that he was so keen to go to war that he seemed to lose all critical faculty. The fact that his motives were right does not in any way modify or justify the consequences.
I watched with disbelief the evidence that unfolded from the Hutton inquiry and read with concern the conclusions of the Butler report. I find it impossible to

491
resist the conclusion that No. 10 was desperate to grasp at any evidence to support a decision that it desperately wanted to make. Like other noble Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for his excellent report. Thanks to him we know that the JIC lamented the fact that the intelligence was sporadic and patchy. His report was struck by the thinness of the intelligence. Thanks to him we know that the policy shift from containment to the more aggressive stance was,
"not based on any new development in the current intelligence picture in Iraq".
Since the time when I supported the war I have reread the Prime Minister's speeches and the intelligence dossier. The intelligence dossier in particular makes ironic reading, not least the chapter entitled,
"Abuses at Abu Ghraib Prison".
The Prime Minister's speeches for war lent almost exclusively on the threat posed by WMD and, indeed, the very Motion on which the House of Commons voted lent extensively on the existence of WMD.
The way that the Prime Minister chose to make his case has had the unintended consequence of making us all less safe and more vulnerable to terrorism. The threat of a catastrophic attack by WMD armed terrorists is certainly real, but the next time the politicians call for military action even more people will refuse to believe them.
Rereading the Government's dossier on Iraq's alleged WMD, I was struck by the very precise estimate that the Government made of the number of people who were killed by Saddam Hussein through the use of mustard gas in the Iran/Iraq war—20,000. The precision of that estimate, of course, stands in complete contrast to the Government's coyness and refusal in response to repeated questions to make any estimate of the number of Iraqis who have been killed in this war—a point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, and also by the noble Lord, Lord Judd. I find it very difficult to reconcile the willingness to estimate Saddam Hussein's actions in killing people and our inability to estimate how many people we killed in a war in which we participated and in which we fired the ammunition and in which we know how much ammunition we fired.
To watch last week the Republican Convention in New York was to watch a gathering in denial that seems to have turned this war into a fantasy. We know that the two governments were wrong and out of touch with reality before the war. The question is: are they any more in touch with reality now? The two governments continually assert that the people of Iraq are much better off. Many are but some might question that, particularly the families of the 15,000 to 20,000 dead civilians and military personnel. So, too, might the Christians who have lived peacefully for years in Iraq and now find their churches bombed and fired. Some people in Fallujah might disagree. This was formerly a Sunni city, a near secular city, which today, according to the Washington Times, is a city where Sharia law is now in force, Western haircuts are banned, men are
492
forced to grow beards, women are forced to cover themselves and Sharia punishments are carried out in the city centre.
The invasion of Iraq has been discredited also by the subsequent chaos hugely influenced by Iraqi exiles who have their own agenda. The "American appointed government" control only part of Baghdad; even there its Ministers are car-bombed and assassinated. According to the press, Baquba, Samara, Kut, Mahmoudiya, Fallujah and Ramadi are all outside government authority. In their efforts to retain and regain control the Iraqi Government re-employ some of Saddam's generals and re-recruit his secret police. Mr Allawi has said that he wants to slash some throats. This has led some Iraqis such as Sheik Mahdi al Sumayda to compare Mr Allawi's new public safety law with the rules that Saddam used to wield.
When the United States transferred sovereignty over Iraq things did not improve. Forty-two Americans died in June, 54 in July, 66 in August. The death toll of Iraqis in Baghdad alone reached 700 in July, the worst month since the invasion ended.
Last month's national political conference in Baghdad was supposed to provide a broader base for the government than Prime Minister Allawi's narrow exile dominated cabinet. In her opening speech the Minister referred to that and to the wider grouping which met to influence the cabinet. However, her conclusion was not one that was shared, for example, by the Herald Tribune of 23 August, which stated that the whole proceedings were influenced by a familiar cast of characters drawn from the same narrow sources as the first US-appointed Iraqi governing council, and that an opportunity had been lost to draw disaffected Iraqis into peaceful politics.
The question that the Government should ask themselves is why is it that even the Shias of Sadr City—among the people most oppressed by Saddam Hussein—turned against the coalition. This was an area of Baghdad where it was rumoured that Saddam Hussein had dug trenches around the city and filled them full of petrol in order to prevent the inhabitants aiding the Americans. These were the same people who flocked south to fight at Najaf—why?
The other night I watched on BBC2 an excellent programme, "Randall in Iraq". It was simply a programme in which ordinary people in Iraq spoke. It was not unsympathetic to America. It included many interviews with ordinary Americans and Iraqis. However, one point was made repeatedly by the Iraqis. The words were more or less always the same: "When someone does something bad—'bad' was the word that they used—the Americans always take it out on a hundred of us". And so it was in Fallujah where the US military followed similar tactics to the Israelis. It is an approach that is doomed to fail. Each day America creates more terrorists than it is killing.
The Prime Minister says that the world is a safer place today, but Iraq has become a magnet for international terrorism. There was no link between A1'Qaeda and Iraq but there is now. We have unleashed forces of religious fanaticism that were

493
previously contained. We have squandered the sympathy that there was for the United States immediately after 9/11. The Minister says that people will never agree about the war but this is not just an academic question; it is a question that affects Arab opinion right across the world. Not just Arabs, but, increasingly, Muslims have turned intensely hostile towards the United States and the West.
This war has been the worst foreign policy debacle since Suez. No doubt we have to soldier on, as others have suggested, in order to find the least bad answer. I shall support that and the rebuilding of political society in Iraq. However, the Government can hardly be surprised that confidence and trust in those who led us into this disaster have been severely dented.
6.20 p.m.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, it is, I believe, one of the strengths of this House that we should be debating the significant and, in my view, very well marshalled and judiciously weighted report by the noble Lord, Lord Butler and his colleagues, not in the heat of the moment, or a day or two after its publication when tactical considerations and instant reactions predominate, but rather after a period of careful reflection when the waters have calmed a little and a sense of perspective is easier to achieve. I say this not to criticise the other place, but to make the point that these are complex and tangled matters of considerable importance to our own national security, which should not be addressed only by a quick debating response. In concentrating so single-mindedly on systemic issues rather than on the ever-fascinating topic of the responsibility of individuals and the implications for them, the report surely made the right choice. For it is those systemic weaknesses in the way we gather, analyse and present intelligence, and what the Government do to remedy them, which will have a lasting effect, for better or for worse, on the effectiveness of the intelligence and the intelligence services in safeguarding our security.
One of the first aspects to which a sense of perspective surely needs to be applied is the extent of the intelligence failure in respect of Iraq's WMD programmes. That there were failures in the gathering, analysis and public presentation of this intelligence is not in doubt. The report analyses these failures meticulously, and the facts on the ground—or rather, the lack of them—reinforce those judgments. But, to judge from the media hype, this was one of the greatest intelligence failures of the last century. Is that really so? I rather doubt it. Should this rank alongside the failure to spot the Japanese fleet approaching Pearl Harbour, the German divisions marshalling on the Soviet Union's western border or the invasion of the Falklands in 1982? I would suspect not. Indeed, the intelligence failure to spot in 1990 how far advanced were Iraq's WMD programmes—in particular the nuclear programme, which would in all probability have given Iraq nuclear weapons and the means of their delivery by 1993—was of much greater potential risk to us and our allies. What was a mistake, as the report says, was to put more weight than it was
494
able to carry on intelligence material which was patchy and hard to verify. But do not let us now swing from one extreme to another, and say that because intelligence may be patchy we should simply ignore it. When we are dealing with ruthless totalitarian regimes, that may be the only timely intelligence we ever get. Do not let us embrace, as if it were a given truth, the idea that a piece of intelligence which cannot immediately be confirmed by a second source is of no value at all.
It is not only generals, but also diplomats, politicians and journalists who have a slight tendency to focus on the last war and to allow that tendency to distort their view of future threats. Therein lies one of the greatest risks to us from the series of events under scrutiny: that because mistakes were made in this instance, we will undervalue the indications derived from intelligence on future occasions when the use of force has to be contemplated. The report—rightly, in my view—recommends a complete separation between the gathering and analysis of intelligence on the one hand, and its public presentation on the other, the latter being a matter for the Government, with the intelligence agencies' role being limited to checking the facts which the Government plan to make public. But is there now not a risk that reliance on intelligence at all in such circumstances will be treated as flawed and unsatisfactory? In any case where the use of force by this country does have to be contemplated, there will be, as in this case, honest and deeply-felt differences of opinion. But we should surely try to avoid the kind of group-think whereby reliance on intelligence is simply shouted down.
One thing is sure. We have not heard the last of threats to international peace and security from the proliferation of WMD, nor of the risks to the whole international community if these weapons were to fall into the hands of terrorists. In this context, the report most valuably underlines the pre-emptive role that international inspections can play in countering these threats. The credit here given to the work of UNSCOM, of UNMOVIC and the IAEA is overdue, welcome and merited. International inspection regimes are often denigrated as imperfect and easy to circumvent, an opinion expressed in neo-Conservative circles in Washington—most recently today in an article by Mr John Bolton in the Financial Times—and one which has led the present US Administration, unwisely in my view, to resist the establishment of an intrusive inspection regime for biological weapons.
The sensible response, surely, is to strengthen these inspection regimes in the light of experience, and to make them more effective. In the case of Iraq, the evidence now is that while these regimes were indeed inadequate before Iraq's invasion of Kuwait, they were a lot more effective thereafter. They were one of the main reasons why, despite Saddam Hussein's continued determination to acquire such weapons systems in the future, there were in fact no stockpiles of them found after last year's invasion. The UN Secretary-General's panel, on which I have the privilege to serve, is focusing seriously on this area of proliferation and will be reporting before the end of

495
this year. It will then be for the member states to decide how best to strengthen the international defences against the proliferation of all these weapons systems. It will, I hope, be seen to be in our own national interest to play a prominent and constructive role in such effort, and urge the US Administration and others to do so too. We cannot possibly afford to shrug our shoulders, as the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford did, and say Iran will get its nuclear weapons.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I did not say "Iraq". I said "Iran will get its nuclear weapons". It is a very different thing.
Lord Hannay of Chiswick: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Howell, for that. But I also said "Iran", and that I do not think we can afford to shrug our shoulders and say that Iran will get its nuclear weapons.
Time does not permit me to say a great deal about the current situation in and around Iraq. I will mention only one point, relating to regional security. For far too long, the Gulf has been an area of instability. Each of the three principal regional players—Iran, Saudi Arabia and Iraq—have faced off against each other. Now there ought to be an opportunity to set off on a new course, to consider how this sub-region can find a basis for co-operation and confidence building, and could gradually reduce the rivalries and mutual threats which have contributed to the feeling of insecurity which has prevailed. After all, Iraq desperately needs the co-operation of its neighbours if it is to find stability. But its neighbours equally desperately need a stable and unthreatening Iraq if the mistakes of the past are not to be repeated. Clearly, too prominent a role by non-regional powers in any attempt to establish sub-regional co-operation is likely to be counter-productive, but it would be helpful to hear from the Minister how she views the prospects in this respect.
In concluding, I would like to return to the issue of Britain's intelligence assets and the report by the noble Lord, Lord Butler. We often in this House praise the professionalism and courage of our Armed Forces, and rightly so. They are our main line of defence. But they are not the only guarantors of our security and, in the shadowy struggle against the forces of international terrorism in which we are now engaged, it is already clear that the use of military force will be the exception, and that intelligence-based pre-emptive action through police co-operation on a worldwide basis will be the crucial determinant of success or failure. After all, if you reflect on it, the only case of the use of military force so far in the struggle against terrorism took place after the events of 9/11, and after intelligence-based pre-emptive action had proved wanting. So we depend on the professionalism of our security services.
Having worked alongside the intelligence services for more than 40 years, I believe them to be as good as any in the world. But they will not remain so if we do
496
not give them our full support and backing—not just in material terms, although that is vital, but also in terms of political and moral support. Mistakes were made on this occasion, and not only by the intelligence services. They must now be remedied. But, as with our Armed Forces, let us be no more stinting of praise when it is due, than we are of criticism.
6.28 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I mentioned earlier that I visited Iraqi Kurdistan this August as a guest of the Kurdistan regional government. In passing. I must say that I admire the impeccable sang-froid of Mr O'Brien and the Minister's private offices. Despite telling them of my plans, asking for travel advice for both Turkey and Iraq in two telephone calls, I was not briefed or rung back. Either they were quite rightly very confident about the region and its security or it is an illustration of just how dispensable opposition politicians are so far as concerns the private offices of Ministers.
Your Lordships need little reminder that the Iraqi Kurds helped the coalition forces during the invasion. They are the only people who gave direct military support, and are one of the few instinctively pro-Western Muslim societies.
The political structure of the region was essentially founded in the period after the no-fly zone and safe haven was imposed by the US and UK—John Major must take a great deal of credit for that—after the Kurds of northern Iraq had suffered appalling hardship at the hands of Saddam Hussein on several occasions, particularly at Halabja and during the so-called Anfal campaign, when 4,000 villages were destroyed by Saddam Hussein's troops.
In contrast to those terrible times, the future is bright for the region. It is probably the only place in Iraq about which one can say that here and now. With little resource other than border tolls and an inadequate proportion of the UN Oil for Food money, the KRG has done wonders in starting to build a modern infrastructure. They have built a religiously tolerant, secular, pluralistic democratic society. It is notable that many of the Cyhaldean Christians retreating from the bombs in Mosul are taking refuge in Iraqi Kurdistan. Women comprise 45 per cent of the undergraduates in the region's universities. There is a free press.
It is now by far the most stable and secure part of Iraq. No US or UK soldier has been killed in the region. The transport infrastructure is rapidly improving, with quality roads being constructed. Hawler (Erbil) International Airport is due to open shortly, both for cargo and passengers. Great progress has been made in providing universal education at primary, secondary and tertiary levels in Kurdistan, even in the smallest village, and in adult education.
There are other building blocks yet to come into place which are important and need to happen, but where the timing is less certain. Agreement will be needed between the PUK, which controls Sulemania province, and the KDP, which controls Dohuk and

497
Erbil provinces, to form a joint administration. Regarding the return of oil-rich Kirkuk province to Iraqi Kurdistan, although not contained in the Transitional Administrative Law, there appears to be an understanding between the KRG and the central interim government on a process for return which should start in the relatively near future with the repatriation of dispossessed Kurds and culminate in a referendum. But the outcome is uncertain and Kirkuk remains unstable—a political battle probably lies ahead.
There appears to be a commitment from international donors and the interim government for the funding and construction of the Beckhma dam, which will have a major impact on agriculture in the region and generate hydro-electricity for the whole of Iraq. But that is a major project costing some 500 million dollars and it is unclear just how much of the money committed by donors to Iraq has yet been received. Agreement on ownership of oil assets and share of oil revenues is also further down the track but, as Nechirvan Barzani, the Prime Minister of the region, has indicated, that is a matter of negotiation.
In the meantime, there is a degree of trust between the KRG and individual members of the central government in Baghdad because the deputy Prime Minister and foreign Minister are Kurds and because the Prime Minister, Dr Allawi, is very familiar with Iraqi Kurdistan and has many friends in the region. As an act of faith the KRG has been prepared to forgo revenues that previously they had regarded as being essential for the administration of Kurdistan, namely the border tolls, and assign those to central government on the basis that the central government will in future allocate funds fairly to them.
Another building block not yet in place is the future shape of the legal system after the TAL (the provisional constitutional agreement reached before handover by the Central Provisional Authority) gives way to a new permanent constitution and legal system. The contents of the TAL and its acceptance by the members of the transitional government are, however, highly significant: acceptance of Kurdish as an official language; specific recognition of the Kurdistan regional government and its current functions, particularly over policing and security; and the right of the Kurdistan regional assembly to amend laws, except those falling within the exclusive competence of the federal government.
However, there is no guarantee that it will apply after the elections due to be held next year. As the Minister said, a new permanent constitution needs to be agreed. One of the stumbling blocks for the US, UK and the CPA has been the failure to understand the nature of the federal way forward for Iraq. In the UK we have what might be called asymmetrical federalism, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and the intended English regions having very different powers; likewise, in Canada. There is no neat solution in Iraq but any constitutional settlement there must recognise the political, social and economic contribution that
498
Iraqi Kurdistan can make to the country and ensure that it retains the degree of autonomy that it has achieved at such a historically high price.
Given so much progress and the co-operation between the KRG and the transitional government, you would have thought that the British Government would be doing their bit to help Iraqi Kurdistan with its development. Yet, as we have heard from the Minister today, they are not even planning to set up a consulate in Erbil. The FCO has, or intends to have, consular facilities in Basra, Baghdad and Kirkuk, all of which are far less secure than Erbil, the administrative centre of Iraqi Kurdistan and its fastest growing city.
Visas are mostly required by business people in Iraqi Kurdistan who wish to come to the UK to do business. In June, UKTI—UK Trade and Investment—sponsored jointly with the Kurdistan Development Corporation a direct investment conference which the KRG Prime Minister, Nechirvan Barzani, attended. Mr O'Brien, the DTI/FCO Minister, welcomed the participants to it. The failure to install a consulate is a complete contradiction of the enlightened approach of UKTI. It amounts to shooting British business in the foot; yet it appears to have been done on cost and security grounds. Is this a case of the FCO, as ever regarding the Kurds and Iraqi Kurdistan, listening to the wrong advice?
Needless to say, I hope that the Government will adopt a more helpful attitude, try to solve some of the problems now facing Iraqi Kurdistan and help it to develop economically. The consulate is one matter; another is using its influence in the EU to ensure that Turkey improves conditions at the Khabur border point with Iraq. When I crossed in August this year I found that essentially nothing had changed since a piece was written in 2001, which describes the run down towns from Diyarbekir to the Kurdistan border, "shabby and threatening border controls", and where,
"several check points and controls to be inspected, to have this and that paper stamped and our passports cleared".
In summary, the piece said:
"The strained and Kafkaesque image of the Turkish side of the border control could not have been a greater contrast to the scene that was awaiting me on the Kurdistan side of the Khabur Bridge".
I felt exactly the same sentiments. My return journey was, if anything, worse, with border guards describing my literature about agriculture and education as a "problem", because it mentioned the words "Iraqi Kurdistan".
Border traffic is restricted by the Turkish Government to 750 trucks a day. Currently it takes four days for a truck to pass through from the Iraqi side of the border to Turkey. These are not administrative processing problems. The Iraqi Kurdistan side of the border can process 3,000 trucks a day. Currently Turkey, as a threat to Iraqi Kurdistan, is also proposing to build a new border point with Iraq through Turkomen populated territory and to close the existing border. Economic development in the Kurdish areas of south-eastern Turkey is reported by the independent commission on

499
Turkey to be taking place, but it is certainly not very apparent. It appears that the Turkish military is now resorting once again to clearing Kurdish villages in the name of security, continuing an oppressive policy that has been carried out for the past 15 years.
I have visited Turkey many times in the past 30 years and I admire many of the developments that have taken place there. I respect it as a staunch member of NATO and I am keen to see it as a fully fledged member of the EU. In particular, I hope that the EU summit agrees this December to start negotiations for accession. However, it is vital that the UK and other member states make Turkish entry conditional on a change of approach to both its own Kurdish people and the Kurds of Iraqi Kurdistan. There are enlightened voices in the Turkish Government and they must be given every encouragement to accord full human rights, a free press, autonomy and economic development to their Kurdish population in southeastern Turkey. Turkish companies are playing a major role in Iraq generally, but particularly in Iraqi Kurdistan, so it is greatly in Turkey's economic interest to recognise the economic potential of the region.
The KRG and the major parties in Iraqi Kurdistan do not have separation from Iraq on their agenda. Kurds elsewhere, particularly in Turkey, are much more interested in economic development than separation. I hope that this Government above all recognise the realities in the way that they treat the region in their policies.
6.39 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Portsmouth: My Lords, a cartoon in one of today's newspapers depicts the supposed evolution of homo sapiens from semi-crawling ancestors on the one hand to a black-hooded terrorist holding a gun against the head of a small child. This debate is inevitably coloured more than slightly by recent tragic events in Beslan, and I shall return to that mal-description of human evolution in a few moments.
Anything worth saying about Iraq seems to have to carry both what might be called a credible particularity as well as some moral depth, as has been clear from all the speeches in the debate, including the distinguished maiden speech of the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson.
I shall briefly address two areas. First, I shall speak about Guantanamo Bay and, secondly, I want to make some observations about the handover of power. I have always been doubtful about our involvement in this war, and I have a profound admiration for members of our Armed Forces of all ranks who had similar doubts, but who went where they were ordered to go—into new darknesses.
On the issue of Guantanamo Bay, the policy of detaining non-US nationals at Camp Delta constitutes one of the most questionable unilateral actions by the US Government in international law. There are now approximately 585 detainees, although in total, about 700 have been held there at various times, including
500
juveniles as young as 13. Detainees include an Australian and four UK citizens. We all know that five were released earlier this year.
Because the US Government have steadfastly refused to describe them as prisoners of war, they cannot claim rights under the third Geneva convention of 1949. Instead, they are detained under a military order issued by President Bush in November 2001, just over two months after 9/11. In practical terms it means that the same military official, or his or her delegate, is responsible for laying the charges against the detainee, selecting the members of the tribunals that will hear the charges—the official commands authority over them—and potentially making the final decision as to the detainee's guilt or innocence from which there is no appeal.
This state of affairs merits the description of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Steyn, as,
"a monstrous failure of justice",
which places detainees,
"beyond the rule of law, beyond the protection of any courts and at the mercy of the victors".
I would go further and suggest that, first, such action infringes detainees' rights to trial by an independent and impartial tribunal. The noble and learned Lord, Lord Goldsmith, the Attorney-General, in a speech he made in France in June said:
"While we must be flexible and be prepared to countenance some limitation of fundamental rights if properly justified and proportionate, there are certain principles on which there can be no compromise".
Secondly, it infringes detainees' rights to a speedy trial. Thirdly, it violates detainees' rights to a fair trial because they admit evidence obtained through torture—that is a saga in itself. Fourthly, it fails to ensure that the fundamental rights afforded to US citizens are also afforded to non-US detainees.
I shall now make a few observations about the handover of power in Iraq. There have been many occasions in the House when the role of the United Nations has been highlighted as one which could well have delivered more and which needs as much strengthening as possible. The Minister indicated that in her opening remarks, and it has recurred in the debate.
The role of UK forces has been well and favourably reported. It has even been suggested more than once that their softer approach on the ground has helped to build up some degree of trust with local communities in Iraq. But what training have Iraqi troops been given to deal effectively, but in a restrained way with insurgents? Is there a timetable for the final withdrawal of UK troops? There are also some worrying factors that are in danger of clouding public debate and heightening awareness of easily overlooked issues. They include the increasing election climate in the US where involvement in Iraq and elsewhere is in danger of becoming a touchstone for supposed toughness.
In that respect, I can speak for other religious leaders who are becoming a bit tired of accusations that we do not live in the supposed real world when we say things that some find unpalatable. It is not the first

501
time it has happened, but if any noble Lord would like to shadow my work for a week, he will see an interesting line of human nature in my work which is a great privilege and a joy.
Concerns have been expressed by the BBC World Service about the danger of too much government control of the media in Iraq, and the recent bombings of Assyrian and Chaldean Christian churches that represent communities that have lived in what we now call Iraq—an unnatural 20th century invention—since the dawn of the Christian religion. Those bombings make one ask serious questions about that litmus test for a just, sustainable and participatory society—how it treats its minorities.
I shall counterbalance that observation by echoing the words of my colleague, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, on historic Islam and ways of local consensus that are democratic in ways that do not necessarily coincide with western secular models.
All that makes me come back to the cartoon depicting our—supposed—evolution into an unthinkingly violent animal. The history of human conflict is as old as the history of the human race, however and whenever that is defined. There are always debates about that. It tells us a simple but hard truth, which is that the temptation to become a mirror image of one's attacker can become almost irrestible. But it always has profoundly negative consequences.
I do not think that the Prime Minister lied to us. I share much of what the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said about the Prime Minister's motives and the Butler report. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for his speech, and for his observations on Cabinet government, about which I am sure lessons have been learnt. In any organisation when events move fast, it is sometimes very difficult to keep everybody up to speed. None the less, the lessons are there.
However, I am not a determinist, and I do not think that we are evolving into black-hooded terrorists. Nor do I believe that forgiveness and reconciliation at both local and international levels can be ordered from a department store or the all-night corner shop. In order to know more about those profoundly human qualities, we need to find new ways for the western democracies to engage in dialogue with the Arab world. They are not all members of A1'Qaeda. There is an urgency, too, about the need to rebuild international trust.
I shall quote from an article in the Times by the most reverend Primate the Archbishop of Canterbury in March of last year, when he said:
"So it is not enough to have been critical of the way war with Iraq came about. We need urgently to develop better methods of working together. Too often, the Security Council seems to be incapable of functioning as more than the sorry sum of its frequently disparate parts. Would we be helped, for example, by a standing body, more broadly drawn, and charged with formulating and clarifying options for dealing with such crises? Could we imagine such a group taking in NGOs as well as diplomatic representation, so that issues about humanitarian relict' and social reconstruction could be fully factored in to the main discussion?".
I believe that those questions still stand.
502
Early this morning in my chapel in Fareham, I happened to be reading with my chaplain some words from the prophet Isaiah—a book that is regarded as sacred by all three Abrahamic faiths. It is quite eerie that this canticle was set for Tuesday. It states:
"They shall beat their swords into ploughshares and their spears into pruning hooks".
Then I thought of coming here. Those words are part of a description of a world made new, that is not airy-fairy and out of touch with reality, but takes seriously human nature as being capable of both good and evil. I do not think that one could find a better foundation for the long reconstruction of international trust in this debate.
6.50 p.m.
Lord Tomlinson: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, for the singular work he has done on our behalf. It was the fourth inquiry into the veracity and good faith of the Prime Minister. Each of them found our Prime Minister not wanting in those respects and I thank the noble Lord, Lord Butler, and his committee for what I hope we can take as an opportunity to get on and debate the future of Iraq rather than spending quite so much time going over the genesis of the problem.
In my opinion, it is futile to continue to examine the genesis of the war. It will change none of the fundamentals concerning where we are now and where as a people we need to be. I say that as one who supported the Government and still does. I assume that all of us are now agreed about what we want for a post-war Iraq. We want a free Iraq, run by Iraqis, with the best possible basis for economic progress and the creation of stable democratic institutions.
The Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington has recently rendered singular service in publishing Anthony Cordesman's analysis of the strategic lessons of Iraq entitled The War After the War. I am most impressed by his reading and his argument. He argues that strategic engagement requires objective rather than ideological assessment of the problems which demand action. He goes on to argue that that assessment must include the size and cost of the effort necessary to achieve these decisive strategic goals. Without such a systematic approach, it can be as easy to lose the peace as it was militarily easy to win the initial conflict.
Today, despite many excellent activities—and I commend the role of DfID—it is not yet possible to predict a successful outcome of the combination of, first, the activities of nation-building; secondly, the low-intensity continuing conflict; and, thirdly, the Iraqis' efforts to recreate their nation whose complexity we sometimes overlook. Of its population, 60 per cent are Shia Muslims; 20 per cent are Sunni Muslims; 15 per cent are Kurds; and 5 per cent comprise Turcoman and other groups. It can be further subdivided by tribes, by differing rural and urban lifestyles and by differing religious and secular lifestyles.

503
It is a country whose complexities have been further exacerbated by serious demographic explosion. In 1980, the Iraqi population was 13.2 million. Today, it is estimated at 25 million and projected to grow by 7 million a decade for at least the next two, taking it to 44 million by 2030. Today, 530,000 people seek to enter the workforce—and there is 50 to 60 per cent unemployment.
Post-conflict security and the whole process of nation-building should have been subjects of clear operational plans, formulated before military action began and subjected to at least as rigorous cost appraisal and risk analysis as the military action. That failure to have a seamless transition from the war to the imperatives of security and nation-building created a power vacuum. That power vacuum left the coalition appearing too often as remaining in conflict with Iraqis; too often as being the enemy; too often as being an unwelcome occupier; and decreasingly as being a force liberating Iraq from tyranny.
In my opinion, the power vacuum made the creation of the provisional government more difficult. That power vacuum has made it more difficult to address what I consider to be the central needs of Iraq—those relating to economic reconstruction. Few governments in the region have over the decades less experience of either a free market or of participating in global competition. Belatedly I believe that we need a grand strategy for security and nation-building and that we must look then to the economy on which Iraq's future will rest.
I want to mention four aspects of that economy. The first is investment. Iraq has no recognisable banking system. Industrial employment was largely in some 250 state monopolies and the military ones have been destroyed. The remainder offer no basis of industrial competitiveness and are unable to compete in any foreseeable way either as exports or with imports.
The second area for economic reconstruction is the country's infrastructure, especially the utilities which have been systematically neglected for more than 20 years. Saddam Hussein favoured obscene consumption by his regime at the expense of his people's need.
The third area for economic reconstruction is the agricultural sector. Historically, it has been run on the basis of a hopeless combination of state planning and subsidies. The results have been and remain appalling. Poor productivity and poor quality have left Iraq importing 60 per cent of its food needs and an agricultural population with no experience whatever of how to finance its farming or how to market its crops.
The fourth area is oil, where the situation is dramatically bad. Today, oil is the only meaningful export earner. The United States Department of Energy estimates that in constant year-2000 dollar prices, the value of oil exports has fallen from 58 billion US dollars in 1980 to 12.3 billion in 2002; probably falling to between 9 billion to 12 billion in 2003, and possibly rising to 15 billion in 2004 and 19 billion in 2005.
504
Those figures indicate the value of Iraq's oil exports to be about a quarter of the real-terms figure in 1980. Anthony Cordesman estimates that even with an expansion of oil exports to 6 million barrels a day,
"it is unlikely that real per capita oil income during the next decade can be more than half what it was in 1980 in constant dollars".
Against that background, I conclude with the expression of hope that soon we will be able to see a grand strategy; one which does not deal individually with jigsaw-puzzle pieces of Iraq, but deals with that country holistically. It must deal with the stabilisation operations and security; the nation-building operations; the creation of democratic self-government; and with a coherent programme of the various aids necessary for the reconstruction of the economy in the areas of investment, infrastructure, agriculture and oil. Then, I will begin to be confident that we can win the peace as well as we won the war.
6.59 p.m.
Lord Mayhew of Twysden: My Lords, we have listened to a most impressively knowledgeable speech which I for one look forward to reading.
I am pleased that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, has resumed his place because he said that those who had cheered on the Attorney-General when we last debated the legality of the war were singularly absent from today's list of speakers. I diffidently draw his attention to the fact that I supported the Attorney-General then and continue to do so.
I may not have cheered him on, but I said that there was more than one view that it was possible to take conscientiously on the legitimacy of going to war. I said that the better view was that of the Attorney's and that if it were not the better view it certainly ought to be. I hold to those views today and without repeating the arguments I want to explain why, notwithstanding the absence of any finding of weapons of mass destruction so far, the legality of the fundamental basis of the case for the Government's invasion of Iraq remains sound.
First, I want to draw attention, as a number of noble Lords already have done, to the lamentable consequences of the way in which the dossier of September 2002 was compiled and the tendentious, not to say disingenuous, manner in which it was subsequently made use of—unfortunately by the Prime Minister among others. There are three aspects of the damage that has been done which we do well to recall.
The first has been that it has managed to make the credibility of the Government a casualty of the Iraq war, almost, some might think, a fatal casualty. That is of enormous importance because the Government need every ounce of credibility they can muster to carry the country and the international community with them through the difficult decisions that have to be taken from now on.
Much has been achieved. We are in danger in this country of neglecting sometimes the success of our actions. I am happy to acknowledge those parts of the Minister's speech that drew attention to them. But

505
credibility has been gravely damaged. The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, said a few minutes ago that it will be very difficult to justify and to carry the country's support for any use of military force said to be based upon intelligence. That point carries a great deal of wisdom.
Secondly, it is a sorry thing for the Armed Forces—who trusted in the reliability of the case that the Government put forward for going to war, and went on, as we have all acknowledged, to carry out with great bravery and indeed brilliance a dangerous task which the Government imposed upon them—that the legality of the whole thing has been seriously called in question in terms of reliance upon the way in which the dossier was drawn up and subsequently made use of.
Perhaps, above all, that has contributed more than any other factor bar one to assertions—mistaken as I believe they are—that the whole case for going to war was dodgy, and that the legality of this enormously important decision by the Government was shaky to say the least. That other factor is the failure so far to find weapons of mass destruction. I emphasise those words "so far" because of a passage in the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler—a report to which I like everybody else pay most respectful tribute—which I think has not been mentioned. He said:
"We believe it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological and chemical agents, or even of banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found."
We would do well to remember those words.
I want to focus in the minute or two remaining on the absence so far of weapons of mass destruction because it is now said that that emasculates the whole basis of the legal case for going to war. But it does not. The lawfulness of the actions, whether taken by individuals or by governments, surely has to be assessed in the light of the information available at the time those actions were taken and in the light of the perceptions and deductions that reasonably could have been held, and of fears that reasonably could have been entertained, which those actions were intended to avert. Surely that is ordinary common sense.
Governments, like individuals or bishops, have to operate in the real world. It has become an increasingly unpleasant and terribly dangerous world by reason of the actions of a proportion of mankind. That point has been laboured today. There is no need to go into it more than to say that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, referred to it as the calculus of the threat of terrorism having changed. We all know that it is because of the arrival on the scene of people who do not care a bit about how many they kill. Or rather, they do care, because they desire mass murders and mass destruction. They do not mind if they get blown up at the same time; indeed, in some circumstances they desire it.
That has changed the whole calculus and made it vastly more difficult for governments who, on behalf of their countrymen, have to take a line of maximum protection, and which if they happen to be permanent members of the Security Council with military means
506
have to secure the enforcement of Security Council resolutions. They have to exercise their judgment in that capacity as well. Everybody realises how dangerous the world now is. I found nothing in the report to lead me to reverse the view I have held from the beginning that the Government acted lawfully—as of course they always must.
My last point is that we now know what was actually going on quite irrespective of weapons of mass destruction. We found it in the conclusions set out at paragraph 397 of the report. For shorthand purposes and time I will read just three. The Iraqi Government:
"Had the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes …
"In support of that goal, was carrying out illicit research and development, and procurement, activities.
"Was developing ballistic missiles with a range longer than permitted under relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions".
To have neglected those circumstances would have been criminal and they fully justify the unequivocal view expressed by the Prime Minister that there was ongoing material and serious breach by Iraq of its obligations under 1441.
I believe that the war was necessary, alas. I am certain that it was legal. It could not have been necessary if it was not legal. It could not have been legal if it was not necessary. The pity of it is that the case, genuinely and conscientiously argued by those who take a different view, has been so unnecessarily strengthened by the way in which the dossier and related matters were handled.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Maclennan of Rogart: My Lords, there can he few considering the circumstances surrounding this debate, coming as it does after a weekend of unparalleled, unlawful violence in Russia, who would question the belief that the lawless use of force between and within the member nations of the United Nations is one of the great challenges of our time. It is therefore not a matter about which one needs to apologise if one focuses, as so many have done during the debate in this House, upon the issues of the legality of the war in Iraq. I was grateful to the Minister for her kind words, when opening the debate, that it was all right to look back. Indeed, we needed to look back. Certainly, as she put it, we must learn the lessons. She is in a better position than most of us in this House to chart what is happening on the ground in Iraq. We must pay due deference to her reading of what is happening there. I will return to that point.
For me, the Iraq war is, as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont of Lerwick, put it, the greatest diplomatic defeat of this country since the 1956 Suez adventure. In many ways, it is a worse defeat than that. To some extent, that situation was recoverable by the intervention of our long-standing friends in the United States. On this occasion, the boot is very much on the other foot.
The terms of reference for the inquiry by the noble Lord, Lord Butler, were regrettably narrow. We are grateful to the noble Lord for interpreting them

507
creatively to allow him to look at some of the issues that were so vexing the public, not least the issue of the Government's purported legal justification for the military invasion.
Perhaps it is a little difficult to dig out what that committee had to say on the subject, but, none the less, it is clear. In paragraph 429 of the Butler report, it is clear that as early as March 2002 British Government officials had advised not only that regime change of itself had no basis in international law but that any offensive military action against Iraq could be justified in Iraq only if Iraq were held to be in breach of its disarmament obligations under United Nations Security Council Resolution 687 or some new resolution. Proof of that breach would need to be "incontrovertible" and of "large scale activity". At that time, the intelligence available was insufficiently robust to meet such criteria.
It is a matter of some satisfaction that the committee also recorded its surprise that policy makers and the intelligence community did not, as the generally negative results of the UNMOVIC inspection became increasingly apparent, re-evaluate in early 2003 the quality of the intelligence. In the absence of that re-evaluation, it is plain that the Prime Minister took it on himself to determine the necessity of the action.
In his interesting intervention, the noble Lord, Lord Butler, spoke of the systems of government that allowed advice to be forthcoming when required. It is plain that on this occasion, in the critical three months prior to the war, not only was such advice not sought, it was not proffered. Nor was there any updating action to enable the British Government to claim in the United Nations or anywhere else that the situation merited the response proposed.
It would be wrong to focus entirely on that point. The Iraq war has brought death in uncounted thousands. It is fairly clear that it has sustained and extended support for terrorism in the Middle East—even in Iraq itself—such that it has become, in the words of the noble Lord, Lord Howell, who opened the debate from the Opposition Benches, the monstrous norm. It is also clear that this war has diverted the international community from addressing the central danger in the Middle East—the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. It makes any aspiration to impose, by force or any other means, democracy on another country in that part of the world a vain aspiration.
The greatest sadness and the greatest need in this debate is the requirement that we should recognise how the international legal order has been undermined by that action. Article 39 of the United Nations charter spells out that the Security Council should determine,
"the existence of any threat to the peace, breach of the peace, or act of aggression and shall make any recommendations, or decide what measures shall be taken in accordance with Articles 41 and 42, to maintain or restore international peace and security".
It is spurious to claim that articles decided in the context of the Kuwaiti liberation had any direct bearing on the circumstances that led to the invasion in March 2003.
508
The requirement now is for the international community to recognise that this system of peaceful resolution of disputes has been challenged by some of the greatest powers among its members. That the law is not universally accepted or universally regarded as acceptable is clear. The Prime Minister was not wrong in his Sedgefield speech to businessmen on 5 March to point out the need for a general debate on the updating of international law to make it capable of dealing with the new threats. But it is not acceptable that he should have taken the law into his own hands with an attempt to describe as legal what was essentially a political justification.
Political justifications may be acknowledged and understood but they cannot be accepted, as was made entirely clear by the International Court of Justice in the Nicaragua case in 1986. It is time that that task was taken on by the international community. No doubt a first step has been taken by the Secretary-General in establishing his high-level panel of which the noble Lord, Lord Hannay of Chiswick, is a most distinguished member. But it will require more than that no doubt highly political report. It will require a longer period of persuasion to bring to a conclusion the procedural steps that are required to take away from the nation state the capacity in law to inflict such mayhem as we have seen.
In such crises, the ultimate question is whether the use of force may be justified beyond the cases provided for in the charter—I am thinking of humanitarian cases and drug trafficking—which threaten lives and livelihoods. The question is: who is to make the determination that such action is necessary? That cannot be simply a decision for those with the greatest power to impose themselves on others. We had hoped that that system would have been put to bed by the UN charter, but it needs updating.
7.20 p.m.
Lord Inge: My Lords, given my involvement with the Butler review I had reservations, as did my chairman, about taking part in this debate. However, I should say at the start how much I enjoyed working under his chairmanship, a view that I know is shared by all the other members of that committee. I should also like to say that I strongly support his comments, not least those he made about Mr Scarlett. Mr Scarlett has been through a difficult time, but I am sure that he will have learnt from this testing experience about the way he has to lead what I believe is a remarkable Secret Intelligence Service. I strongly endorse the remarks made about the service by the noble Lord, Lord Hannay. I also believe that Mr Scarlett will get right his relationship with policy and decision makers. He has to work with them, but not be part of their club.
I would like to make one or two personal comments about the Butler review. The chapter in the report that deals with the nature and limitations of intelligence is a seminal piece of work which should be studied by every policy maker and decision maker dealing with intelligence material. This is particularly relevant given the current security situation we face from the threat of international terrorism. That threat poses the intelligence services of the free world with a huge

509
challenge. We are not dealing with a nation state, but fighting an organisation that is diffuse and scattered, and wishes to cause mass casualties among innocent people. It is not afraid to use weapons of mass destruction. I am not convinced that the threat is fully understood or recognised, and what a challenge it poses. Like the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, I think that it would be a disaster if, because of some of the things that went wrong over Iraq, we become reluctant in the future to use military and other force where necessary.
The final point I want to make about the Butler review is not directly related to the committee. However, during my work on the committee I began to recognise starkly the huge responsibility put on our policy and decision makers when a nation looks as though it is going to go to war. I asked myself what were the qualities they needed if they were to look after the interests of the nation. I came to what your Lordships will probably consider to be a rather simplistic conclusion.
The two qualities I felt were most important were, first, that of judgment. I sense you can have judgment only if you have knowledge, which I believe includes a sense of history and an understanding of what it means if you commit your nation's armed forces to military conflict. The nature and limitations of intelligence have to be understood.
The second quality that I felt was fundamental was that of moral courage. Only then will a policy maker or adviser, even if he has the knowledge, have the courage to challenge or perhaps support a decision—which is a very difficult decision—at the highest level.
That is enough about Butler. I shall turn to Iraq in a moment, but first I want to mention post-conflict planning, where there is a major lesson for the future. A part of my military education was that, prior to conflict, a key part of the political and military planning process was to look at the consequences of the use of military force. While I recognise that it is not an exact science, we must consider what will happen and what it is likely that we will have to deal with after conflict has finished. It is clear that in this case that that proper planning process did not take place, or if it did, it was ignored. Equally importantly, it was not adequately resourced in terms of money, people and capabilities. That was a serious planning failure which must be a lesson for the future.
Whether or not one supported the war, noble Lords have already pointed out that the key issue is now to recognise that we are in for the long haul. If we were tempted to walk away, that would be disastrous and have serious and major implications for the security of the whole region. It would send a terrible message to the people of Iraq and give great encouragement to terrorists in that country and beyond. We are in for the long haul, and it will be a time that requires great wisdom and courage. In all this, I should also point to the important role that the media have to play. I also take this opportunity to pay tribute to what our Armed Forces have achieved.
I turn to Iraq today. The Minister gave us a measured and balanced view of the situation in Iraq at the moment, but I have to say that I remain deeply
510
concerned about the security situation—not only because of the threat posed by terrorists, but also because of the limits of the influence of the interim government. It will be a long time before a government in Iraq have any major impact on the country as a whole. Moreover, the capabilities of Iraqi security forces in the form of its police and armed forces are extremely limited. Not only are they badly trained—it takes years to develop effective security forces—but I am also concerned about the effect of the ballooning in the number of private security organisations now operating in Iraq. That cannot be right when seeking to co-ordinate a proper security situation.
I remain gloomy, but we must remember that we are talking not only about Iraq, but also about Iran, the Palestine/Israel problem and the Gulf as a whole. What happens in Iraq will be watched closely by the people of the region.
7.26 p.m.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, Monday's news of seven United States Marines killed by a car bomb near Fallujah brings to just under 1,000—in fact, 993—the number of American soldiers killed since the war in Iraq began. Over the past two weeks, 500 people have been killed by terrorist actions in Russia. At least 338 people lost their lives in perfectly appalling circumstances in Beslan. The casualty lists in the war on terrorism are lengthening: soldiers, civilians, children, the old and infirm, and the young and strong. There is no sign of the carnage ending. There are moments, perhaps, when the imprudent banner displayed on the United States aircraft carrier, "Abraham Lincoln", and voiced on that occasion by President Bush—namely, "Mission Accomplished"—may seem justified, but only as a respite and not, sadly, as a conclusion.
Nothing—no explanation and no cause—can diminish the crimes of those who have slaughtered so cruelly in Manhattan, in Bali, on Israel's buses and in the schoolhouse in Beslan. Nothing justifies those crimes. But if the mission of ending terror is ever to be accomplished, political processes are vital and must be resolutely pursued. To defeat terrorism, its roots have to be understood, its motivations comprehended and its causes addressed. We have urgently, as an international community, to seek out and dry up the springs of horror. President Bush sees America's role in Iraq and in the wider war as "draining the swamp". But what point is there in draining the swamp if it instantly refills? To eradicate what the noble Lord, Lord Howell, referred to earlier as "hyper-terrorism", we must seek to do more than counter it; no matter how hard or impossible it may seem, we must seek to cure it. How to do this is surely the most difficult challenge we face.
Military action is necessary but clearly not enough. As my noble friend Lady Williams said from these Benches today, it is a fact that one result of the allied invasion of Iraq is that Iraq itself has become a battleground for A1'Qaeda. That was not what was intended, of course, but it is one result.

511
Two American voices in that country's increasingly anguished debate this summer about Iraq struck me by their candour. A few weeks ago, George Packer wrote in the New Yorker magazine that:
"The Iraq War, from its inception in Washington think tanks to its botched execution on the ground has always been a war of ideas … By now facts have reduced most of these to rubble, notably the argument that this was a war of urgent national security. Only two serious and competing versions of the war's meaning are left standing—one, that it is a war against tyranny and for democracy; the other, that it is a war of American domination".
The other voice that I wish to quote speaks directly to that second point. Earlier this summer, Senator Joseph Biden said,
"The President must forge with the United Nations, with Europe, with our friends in the Arab world, with Iraq's political leaders … a common plan for Iraq … there are people around the President who will tell him to reject this … that reaching out will make him look weak … an admission of failure … the hour for hubris and arrogance is long past. It's time for leadership."
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, said in this debate that there are few more important things on the international community's agenda than to make a success of the transition to democracy in Iraq. He is absolutely right to say this. And to make a success of this, the international community must be involved—militarily, yes—but also in addressing where we can the very springs of terror.
It is for this reason that the effective abandonment of the Middle East road map is so dangerous. Some may argue that it is simply postponed by the US election, but that is almost certainly wishful thinking.
Here the Prime Minister is the pivotal figure—and his and this country's credibility is at issue. The Prime Minster has sought from the start in his relationship with the United States Administration to trade loyalty for influence. To that end he has taken great risks with our standing in Europe. To that end he has discarded the advice of wise friends of this country such as Nelson Mandela of South Africa. To that end he bent all his persuasive skills to take Parliament and the country with him over the nature and, absolutely critically, the timing of the Iraq war.
For such loyalty what does he have to show? He must surely now demonstrate real influence in persuading the Americans to do two things: firstly, as Senator Biden has advocated, to reach out to the international community—including the transatlantic community and Europe—to build a much wider and deeper involvement in, and commitment to, the challenge of nation-building in Iraq; and, secondly, to use America's power and influence with Israel to reinvigorate the Middle East road map for peace.
In another context the Prime Minister coined a memorable and influential phrase. He proclaimed the need not only to attack crime but to attack the causes of crime. So too with terrorism. We must attack terrorism in Iraq and beyond, seek to capture its leaders, cauterise its effects and defend ourselves and others. But we must also attack its roots, demotivate it by addressing the causes of hatred and prove its ultimate futility by showing that political solutions can achieve what terror can only destroy.
7.34 p.m.
Lord Skidelsky: My Lords, it is not my intention to go over old ground. The war in Iraq was a mistake. The reasons given for it did not stand up at the time and stand up even less well today. Nevertheless, we are there and we have to make the best of it.
To do so it is important that we face up honestly to the challenges and be clear about what we want to do and the resources that we need to do it. I am glad that the Minister admitted mistakes and did not shirk the difficulties ahead.
The fact that dominates the situation is the general insecurity of the non-Kurdish parts of Iraq. This security situation is not being adequately reported because journalists stick close to compounds for fear of being kidnapped or murdered. Thus the general impression that the security situation has improved since the handover of power on 28 June is seriously misleading.
The facts on the ground are that radical Shia militias control most of the cities. Coalition forces have failed to protect public property. Government buildings are routinely seized and their vehicles destroyed. Our forces have failed to protect the Iraqi security forces from violence or intimidation. The main road from Basra to Baghdad is unsafe, with vehicles regularly being hijacked or blown up, with all the consequences of that for the movement of goods. In Nasiriyah, Italian forces rarely leave their barracks and I am told that this is also true of the Poles and Ukrainians: they thought they were being sent as peace-keepers and discover that there is no peace to be kept.
Making up numbers with coalition forces may have been politically necessary, but it creates the illusion that all the coalition forces are available for establishing security when this is palpably not the case.
British forces have also been withdrawing from security operations. In the last seven weeks they have ceded control of the streets in Basra not to the forces of the new government, but to groups led by the Sadr miltia. A few days ago the Daily Telegraph reported that Basra's civilian administration is holed up in one of Saddam's palaces under almost daily mortar fire.
It goes on. The recent bomb explosion in Kirkuk is a symptom of the fact that ethnic tensions are rising in mixed Kurd and Arab cities. With contentious issues of land and representation unresolved, it seems to be only a matter of time before serious violence breaks out there.
The stand-off with the Shia cleric Muqtadr al Sadr in Najaf, brokered by the Ayatollah Sistani, can be deemed a success, but temporary peace was only attained with enormous concessions and after great loss of life. Sadr, who has demanded the expulsion of all foreign forces, is very far from being a broken force.
The consequences of pervasive insecurity are obvious and they were spelled out by the Minister in her opening remarks. Without security there can be no political or economic reconstruction. What does that mean? At present it is too dangerous to hold provincial elections. Have we got any real assurance that it will be

513
possible to hold a general election in January to elect the successor to the interim government'? Iraq's civilian administration cannot be set up because of the level of intimidation. And that means that reconstruction money cannot be spent.
The US Congress has allocated over 18 billion dollars—roughly 750 dollars per person—in additional reconstruction money, but reconstruction projects cannot be started because administrative infrastructure is not in place to develop them.
The oil position is better. Oil production has recovered to about 2 million barrels a day from its low of 1.3 million barrels in 2003. However, Iraq is capable of producing 6 million barrels a day and, under the UN Oil for Food programme of the late 1990s, it averaged about 3 million. So, after 15 months, output is still much lower than it would be in a stable situation. That is the measure of the instability that still exists. Insecurity still dogs the attempt to reconstruct essential services—health, education, electricity, water transport, communications, and so on. Electricity transmission lines have continued to be torn down.
What we have is, quite simply a crisis of legitimacy. The coalition has failed either to establish its own authority or to allow Iraqi authority to be asserted in an appealing and convincing fashion. Many of our troops feel that they are doing nothing useful and want to get out.
In appraising what needs to be done, we have to face a number of important questions. First, do we have enough troops in Iraq to secure the minimum level of security needed for the transition period? Are we willing to give our troops the necessary mandate to keep order? It was reported that the Prime Minister wanted to send more troops to Iraq. What stopped that from happening? Apparently, he was convinced of that need.
This review has to be taken jointly with the Americans, because they are mainly responsible for the security situation in Iraq, where we are very junior partners. I understand that that cannot happen until after the presidential election is over, as no one is prepared to take any major decisions.
Having embarked on this adventure, we must recognise that we cannot restore Iraq on the cheap. If indeed it is true that the majority of Iraqis want to live in freedom and peace—and I have no doubt that they do—then it is our duty to ensure that the security without which nothing solid can be built comes into existence. You cannot go into a country, destroy every structure of its ordered life and then leave before you have put something better, much better, in its place. We have not got there yet. So we have to stay, but we must also think very carefully about what we can do to achieve the fine words that we speak.
7.42 p.m.
Lord Rea: My Lords, my noble friend Lady Symons knows of my long interest in Iraq, and I am sure that she has warned my noble friend Lord Triesman of this dangerous tendency. It arises initially from concern about the humanitarian plight of children suffering
514
from the disastrous economic effects of the sanctions regime and the possible effects of depleted uranium. My noble friend also knows that I strongly opposed the war. I should be grateful if, in her reply, she could give us, as far as she is able, a brief and up-to-date report on the nutritional and health status of the people of Iraq, with the accent on children, including the current state of Iraq's public health infrastructure and health facilities.
Clean water, sewage disposal, reliable electricity supplies and adequate nutrition are the basis of public health, as the Minister knows full well. There have been many reports indicating that progress in reinstating this infrastructure has been agonisingly slow.
In her speech, the Minister gave us a rather more hopeful and upbeat picture than we get from the media of the unnecessary and expensive quagmire that our Prime Minister led us into on the coat tails of President George W Bush and his coterie. Our forces are behaving with much more restraint than the Americans, and making better relations with Iraqis because of this and because of some of the rebuilding activities that my noble friend described. However, it is perfectly clear that, even in the British zone. the coalition forces are resented and opposed. As the noble Lord, Lord Howell, has pointed out, there has recently been a flare-up of resistance in Basra.
In the US zone, the occupying forces are hated more than ours because of their trigger-happy behaviour. The choice of Saddam's infamous Abu Ghraib prison in which to hold detainees was, in itself, an act of extreme insensitivity, let alone the well publicised conditions under which thousands of often entirely innocent people were held there.
A long catalogue of mistakes has been made since the end of full hostilities in May, which many noble Lords have pointed out, starting with the decision to disband Iraq's army and police force instead of retaining and reforming them. Looters were allowed, even encouraged, to ransack government offices and steal or spoil records and equipment, thus destroying the basis of orderly government. Saddam's Iraq was despotic and corrupt, but it was by no means a failed state.
It is a truism to say that the US won the war in a brutal but mercifully short campaign but has fairly conspicuously lost the peace. Far from safeguarding Iraq's oil exports, they are now less than under Saddam, as the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, has pointed out, contributing to a record rise in world oil prices. There is no evidence that international terrorism has decreased since the war—rather the converse, as the recent tragic events indicate. There is no obvious connection with Iraq, but the whole tenor of militant Islam may well have been given a boost as a result of our activities in Iraq.
It was unlikely that there would have been a decrease in terrorism as a result of our attacking Iraq. There was never any evidence of international terrorist acts being organised from within Iraq. In fact,

515
Saddam, with his secular regime, was no friend of Osama bin Laden, who, if he is still alive, could well be applauding Saddam's downfall.
The war has increased anti-American feelings in the Arab world, which may make it easier for A1'Qaeda to recruit followers. In Iraq, there has been a huge escalation of terrorism and crime, including suicide bombing and hostage-taking, resulting in death and misery for thousands of innocent people, let alone those killed in the war itself. This, tragically, included Sergio Vieira de Mello and 27 other UN staff last year, who were in Iraq with the most excellent motives and, more recently, the 12 innocent Nepali workers. They were all tarnished in the eyes of some militants because of their perceived association with the American-led CPA, now the multinational force. Completely innocent passers-by, who have had nothing to do with co-operating with the Americans, have been killed. The situation has been horrific.
It is uncertain how many acts of terror in Iraq have been committed by non-Iraqis, from Iran and elsewhere. In fact, it seems that there is a dearth of intelligence about the insurgents in Iraq and a lack of rapport between the appointed IGC and Iraqis on the street. I suppose that this lack of intelligence is not surprising, considering the quality of the intelligence that was misused and even manipulated by the US Administration and, sadly, by our Prime Minister. I am afraid that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, does not, to my mind, contradict the assertion that this rather imperfect intelligence was used to justify the war.
It is very hard to believe that they did not know, as Robin Cook and many others did, that Iraq posed no military threat, even if it did have a small number of WMDs, as many of us thought it did. We were extremely surprised to find that there were no WMDs; even Hans Blix was—we have just been listening to him speak in another committee room in the House of Commons. In a sense, it is a failure of intelligence.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Judd and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, that it is hard to believe that no official attempt has been made to estimate the total number of Iraqi casualties, civilian or military, during the full-scale war or afterwards. Can my noble friend explain why that is the case? It is, of course, difficult to gather such information, but in previous conflicts in which we have been involved, an estimate of the number of "enemy" casualties has usually been published as well as our own. Now, the job seems to be left to nongovernmental organisations such as Iraq Body Count. It has done a thorough job with its research, but its figures remain unofficial.
I am not alone in suggesting that there will be no peace in Iraq as long as the multinational force remains visibly present. Even many Iraqis who originally welcomed it now despise it and resent its continued presence. In evidence of that, I cite the remarkably courageous report by Sean Langan on BBC4 on 2 September. He managed to make contact with resistance fighters as well as to interview US
516
troops and many ordinary Iraqis. On the strength of that evidence, I feel that, as long as the multinational force remains, Iraqi resistance is likely to continue in some form or other. Iraqis who serve in the police may be regarded as aiding the occupying forces and may also be targeted. In any case, they have difficulty taking part in counter-insurgency operations that involve killing their own countrymen.
Having said all that, I want to end on an optimistic note. I think that sanity will prevail. There are many highly intelligent and able Iraqis of moderate views who wish to see a united Iraq. They are proud of their country and they need a chance to put Iraq's house in order. The sooner the coalition forces withdraw from the front line and take a back seat, the more likely they are to succeed.
I consider that the continued presence of foreign troops is provoking violent disorder. It is hindering Iraq's progress towards independence and economic recovery. The funds that have been allocated for rehabilitation and recovery, which are, as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, told us, still largely unspent, will be much more effective if obvious military presence is reduced. Security enforced by Iraqis is more likely to succeed if coalition forces move out of the limelight and, as soon as possible, out of the country altogether. Iraqis should play a much larger role in brokering and settling disputes.
Economic assistance, which is available, should not be necessary for long, although it should be given generously to begin with. Many other noble Lords have discussed this. Iraq is potentially a very wealthy country, fully capable of successfully standing on its own feet. However, the very large international debt, made worse by the absurdly high reparations claimed by Kuwait, must be faced. Some of it should be written off—the United States has suggested that—and the rest effectively rescheduled. We must all hope that wise counsel permits this to happen.
I believe, along with many other speakers, that Iraq's new Government must be allowed early full independence for which they will need temporary economic assistance. If a foreign military presence continues, the prospect will be for more stormy weather ahead.
7.54 p.m.
Baroness Park of Monmouth: My Lords, if the war in Iraq has proved anything, it has proved that the special contribution that British forces have made, in addition to their high professional competence and courage, has been the human factor and the skills that they have developed in peacemaking, which come of years of working and training together under a strong, self-imposed discipline. However, our defence policy seems to be driven by the need to save money in order to invest in kinetics options and high technology so that we can operate more effectively with the Americans. We should surely play from our strengths and complement their technical war-making, rather than try to match it.

517
The House of Commons Defence Select Committee report 2003 states:
"As the post-conflict stage in Iraq has shown, a great deal more is required to achieve the objectives of an effects-based operation, than advanced military technologies in the hands of numerically small forces … While we note the co-operation between the MoD and the FCO at the policy level".
such as on conflict prevention pools,
"we believe that the future operational demands of effects-based thinking will require even greater collaboration".
The Committee believes that:
"The UK's future security challenges, on the scale of effort envisaged, require the retention of the existing scale of forces, plus the benefits of network enabled capability … as further extensive peace support operational experience has demonstrated, the UK may also be called upon to provide presence and for that there is still no substitute for numbers".
Finally, the Committee believes that:
"Any reduction in the establishment of the Army would be premature".
Let us not be driven by short-sighted Treasury pressure to reduce the existing platforms in advance of acquiring the new capabilities and demonstrating their effectiveness. In the case of the Navy, for instance, are we giving enough weight to the importance so clearly demonstrated in Iraq of sea-based operations independent of host nation support? The asymmetric threat, unlike our long-standing Sovbloc experience, calls for an ability to respond quickly to the unexpected. Who would have thought that such brilliant success as our Armed Forces have had in Iraq and Afghanistan, would lead to cuts, not funding?
We have to recognise the importance of training and what has been called the moral component of fighting power derived from the ethos and cohesion of individual units, putting a premium on unit and service identity. How does that square with the proposed service cuts? Treasury policy under the new resource accounting and budgeting requires the MoD to pay a charge on the assets it holds. That, and political pressure, led to the need to secure equipment at short notice for Operation TELIC because it was not on the shelf, and that highlighted our reliance on other nations for our sources of supply. That risk should not be taken again.
The FCO too—another vital player in Iraq and Afghanistan—is being effectively severely cut. How can a geographical department function as it should if half the desk officers are abolished and there is no money to visit posts? DfID, which is generously funded, is worthy, but DfID workers abroad, often outnumbering by far the embassy staff, by the nature of their work do not meet and form long-term friendships with persons of power, as good diplomats, and indeed members of the intelligence service, do. As countries in Africa and the Far East become ever more vulnerable to the operation of terrorists, whether domestic or with an international agenda, so it becomes more necessary for our representatives to be in place to learn to understand them and to be understood. Far too much of the FCO's budget is going into strengthening embassy buildings against terror attacks at the expense of funding the people who
518
should be in them and who are so vital to our understanding of other cultures. You must live in a country to know it. E-mails will not do the job.
The excellent Butler report, in discussing the machinery of government, has identified a serious threat to the principles of accountability to Parliament and the people through Ministers, and of collective decision-making in the Cabinet. Under the present regime at No. 10, the role of Ministers and their ability to hold the Prime Minister and the intelligence services accountable have all profoundly changed. Since the Secretary to the Cabinet, who attends Cabinet meetings, transferred his intelligence function to the Security and Intelligence Co-ordinator, who does not, Ministers still receive excellent papers from officials, but they are not brought to Cabinet or discussed in Cabinet committees. Instead there are, we are told, frequent unscripted occasions when the Prime Minister and the Foreign and Defence Secretaries brief the Cabinet orally. Ministers will not be prepared. The Secretary to the Cabinet cannot, as he would have done in the past, add anything to the discussion and the man who could is not present.
Add to this the practice of taking decisions in No 10 on major issues on the basis of informal discussions that are not recorded—the Hutton report brought out a flood of e-mails but no formal minutes—and it is difficult to see how Ministers can discharge their duty and their right to take responsibility on the vital matter of war and peace. The Butler report's measured reference to the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures is deeply disturbing.
Later in the report, under "Lessons for the Future", we are warned that the dossier has set a precedent for openness and that there will be demands for Government to put intelligence into the public domain in arguing the case for a particular course of action. I share the reservations and anxieties of the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay of Cartvale.
To do what is being proposed will be fatal to intelligence recruitment and operations, since what our friends learn from this open approach our enemies will also learn. Potential sources in a most dangerous environment will simply not take the risks and we shall lose the HUMINT, which interprets the enemy's intentions and vitally complements the product of GCHQ, satellite imagery and other sources.
It was a mistake to identify relevant intelligence in the dossier instead of allowing JIC reports, as in the past, to form part of the private decision-making process under which the JIC would have contributed to Ministers' thinking and assessment along with policy consideration and much overt knowledge.
Incidentally, the JIC was careful to make it clear that although there were contacts between the Iraqi regime and A1'Qaeda, there was no evidence of co-operation. We must protect the JIC from being made, as the report says, into a tool of government. The ISC works well, and that is enough.

519
I have read much of the voluminous 9/11 report by the commission in the US. The problem was, is and will be, on the one hand, a flood of detail from NSA, GCHQ, the FBI, the CIA, liaison services, the Immigration Service and so forth; and, on the other hand, a lack in the CIA of enough competent linguists and specialists with the field experience to make assessments. The SIS too has had such problems. In the past few years there have been lean times which led to severe reduction after the first Afghan war in, for instance, experienced operational cadres who were Arabic and, it seems, some dangerous cost-cutting on the validation side.
It takes time to transfer field resources, already limited, from one target to another, particularly when the requirement is both for first-hand operational experience of the cultural and geographical area and for some highly technical knowledge of new targets. On both fronts it seems the service was seriously under-resourced. Even so, it has had some remarkable successes, for which the Butler report gives due credit.
Today the requirement is not only to produce intelligence on the undeclared and secret intentions of coherent governments but also to cover an amorphous inchoate octopus: a network of individuals; a shifting target very difficult to penetrate. It is one thing to have a mass of detail from technical and other sources which takes precious time, in a fast-moving scene, to interpret. It is quite another to get inside the mind of a terrorist with whom, unlike a potential Soviet defector or agent in place, there is no common cultural or political ground and no incentive for the target to make any relationship outside a closed circle.
As recent tragic events have shown, these people are not inhibited by any fear of causing international outrage, nor very often by the wish for any quid pro quo. As the Butler report says:
"The targets which the UK intelligence community needs to study most carefully today are those that structurally and culturally look least like the Government and society it serves".
However, we also need to relate to those governments that share our interest in having forewarning of the threats posed.
This is a dangerous world, not least because Russia, for instance, despite significant investment by the UK, the EU and the US, still has nearly 40 tonnes of chemical weapons, has not started the destruction and wants the destruction deadline advanced to 2012. Russian bureaucratic delays are preventing action, already funded, on plutonium disposition, and we can be sure that weapons and knowledge are being sold and that Russia has neither the will nor the effective security resources to prevent this.
I hope with all my heart that my former service will be left to get on with the job it can do so well if it is properly resourced and that John Scarlett, an officer with a distinguished record of high professionalism and courage, will be supported in the excellent job of which he is capable.
520
We are committed to Iraq and nothing should prevent us from using the great skill and dedication of our soldiers, diplomats and the many ordinary, committed men and women, both Iraqi and British, and not least, the courage and farsightedness of the Minister.
8.4 p.m.
Baroness Falkner of Margravine: My Lords, as the Butler report points out, this was a war of choice. The intelligence community saw regime change as an option to achieve Iraqi disarmament. It was for the Government to make the choice for war: there was no necessity to do so in the form of an imminent threat to Britain.
We also know from section 5.4 of the review that the continuation of sanctions was a credible option but was disregarded. The Government sought to align themselves with the United States in the mistaken view that Iraq was part of the more general "war against terrorism".
Looking forward, one of the clearest lessons from Iraq is that sanctions—an option open to the Government at the time—and the related policy of containment were working. The adoption of smart sanctions in 2002 as the method of preventing trade in arms while allowing for civilian trade was the right course in humanitarian terms. It was also the right choice in terms of effectiveness. The policy succeeded, as we know now from our knowledge of Iraqi armaments from the 1990s onwards.
There is a view voiced by the Government that the use of force in Iraq has resulted in compliance with disarmament by Libya and the exposure of and subsequent apology by Dr AQ Khan in Pakistan. That argument obscures the fact that those countries have their own motivations for changing course. In Libya, we know that the Gaddafi regime, under weight of sanctions for some two decades, eventually moved to accept international norms and gave up its support for terrorism in the late 1990s, not after the invasion of Iraq.
In Pakistan, the country of my origin, the tide was turning against supporting the Taliban and change came about through a military takeover and internal regime change rather than in anticipation of a war in Iraq. Those lessons will become increasingly relevant in the coming period when we seek to resolve the North Korean and Iranian proliferation of nuclear weapons.
The other unfinished business that the war in Iraq has obscured is the instability of Afghanistan and its link to terrorism. Those of us who supported the war in Afghanistan expected to see a long-term commitment to the future stability of that country, including a restoration of law and order and the establishment of governance such that it could take its place in the international community. That was the widely held hope of almost all Muslim states and was accepted by the international community as such.
While the forthcoming elections are to be welcomed, it is fair to say that we have not delivered on our promises to Afghanistan. The country is still ungovernable in large

521
parts and is actually deteriorating in others; terrorism and violence are still rampant, poverty is endemic, and drug production on the up. As we know from the events leading up to 11 September 2001, failed states represent a failure for the whole of the international community. We need to concentrate our resources on those states if we are to forestall future threats to international peace and security in terms of chapter 7.
What of stability in Iraq and the wider Middle East? In Iraq, while we can reserve our judgment on the legitimacy or effectiveness of the interim government, what seems clear is that our stated objectives as set out in paragraph 213 of the report are far from met. Whether the territorial integrity of Iraq is guaranteed, is an open question; that was one of the objectives. Whether we succeed in re-establishing Iraq as a stable, functioning democracy, taking its rightful place in the international community in time to avert a wider crisis in the Middle East, is also debatable.
I seek to widen the discussion because I believe that the impact of the war, combined with our wider war on terrorism, has enormous ramifications for the Muslim world, from which I come. We have a situation in Islamic countries in which the perceived injustices against Islamic nations, from Chechnya to Palestine to Kashmir, resonates in the Muslim public mind as never before. While we expect Muslim countries to be our paid-up partners in this supposed war on terrorism, we also have to accept our share of responsibility in righting the wrongs of history.
Many on all sides of the Iraq argument accepted the reassurances given by the US and British Governments that the Israeli-Palestinian road map would be delivered. What we have seen from the US, however—and one wonders what happened to our leverage with the US Government—is a retreat from, or at best a silence on, the assurances given on the lead-up to the war that the wider issues of peace in the Middle East would be addressed as a matter of urgency. We were wrong: the road to Jerusalem never lay through Baghdad; the road map has now ended in the road block of the war.
When politicians declare an international dimension to the war on terrorism, they also have to accept an international role in finding solutions. While everyone in this House is united in offering our deepest sympathies to the people of Beslan, as candid friends we have to say to Mr Putin that he cannot declare that international terrorism is behind atrocities without seeking to allow external mediation of disputes. When there is no scope or political space for moderate political elements or external mediation, and when journalists get fired for their opinions from Moscow to Baghdad, where television stations are closed down, is it any wonder that the Islamic community sees double standards in operation? I say this in some trepidation—at the risk, as the noble Lord, Lord Owen, implied, of indulging in "moral relativism". But it is important for us to put these thoughts on the table, as they are deeply felt.
Another assumption underlying our engagement in Iraq is that we are exporting good governance and democracy to the Islamic world. Good governance cannot be imposed by force in today's world.
522
Democracy and civil society need nurturing, political space and legitimacy. As the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford said, they need to be seen in an Islamic context—be that of Iraq, Afghanistan or other parts of the Middle East—now more than ever.
Our tool of choice should be soft diplomacy rather than hard force. Aid, trade, training, education and all the linkages that build understanding and trust are undoubtedly long-term options, but prove to be far less costly than hastily planned wars. In the battle for heart and minds both at home and abroad, the Government have squandered a fine reputation in those very areas. Our tradition of soft diplomacy, buttressed by our role as a P5 member of the Security Council, has been cast in doubt at a time when these things matter most.
We have found ourselves in a discredited war, aspects of which we could not have foreseen. We must now fulfil our obligations to Iraqis by returning to them a country that is better than we found it. We can start that by accepting that we have some way to go in terms of our own democratic processes and mechanisms, as the failures of the past two years have shown.
8.13 p.m.
The Earl of Sandwich: My Lords, I, too, have expressed concern a bout our decision to go to war in Iraq, and the Government's determination to see areas of the Middle East in the context of an axis of evil. Events have shown that liberation is not the simple concept that it appears and that occupying armies are rarely good at delivering peace.
Our association with this latest version of the American dream has done nothing for our relations with the Arab states as a whole. It will take years, as the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, implied, to rebuild the trust that I believe the Iraqis, Palestinians, Syrians, Jordanians, Egyptians, the Gulf states and many others once placed in our Foreign Office, based on many decades of experience. Our lack of understanding of the region today must be the subject of another debate.
Today I wish to concentrate on the humanitarian situation and on the oil funds which Iraqis require for reconstruction. No one appears to know what has happened to these funds. Under UNSCR 1483, the Development Fund for Iraq was supposed to receive the proceeds of oil export sales, balances from the Oil for Food programme and frozen Iraqi funds, to be disbursed under the direction of the Coalition Provisional Authority in consultation with the interim administration. These disbursements have now been taken over by the Interim Government of Iraq.
As the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, has said, serious questions have arisen not only about oil-for-food during the last years of Saddam Hussein, but about accounting procedures during the time of the coalition. KPMG has recently reported to the International Advisory and Monitoring Board that there have been inadequate controls over oil sales and other aspects of the DFI's operations. Metering

523
contracts to ensure accountability of oil extraction have been delayed. Oil was bartered, smuggled or illegally exported especially in the months immediately after hostilities. Contracts were awarded on a noncompetitive basis. There were inadequate records and accounting procedures.
At the CPA itself, there was a high turnover of staff, inadequate accounting systems and lack of control over spending allocations. My noble and gallant friend Lord Inge and my noble friend Lord Skidelsky have already spoken of a serious planning failure and a crisis of legitimacy. Now that the IGI has taken over these responsibilities it would be tempting for our Government to step back from their obligations or at least to point to the difficult environment in which the CPA was working. No doubt.
The oil-for-food operations are already the subject of an independent inquiry under Paul Volcker which will go on for some time. But we were one of the occupying powers in Iraq for 15 months and the KPMG audits were commissioned by the coalition in which we were a senior partner. The Iraqi people have a right to know what happened to those oil funds which disappeared under their noses, not only under Saddam Hussein, but under the new era of so-called democracy and good governance, presided over by the heralds of the new order in the Middle East.
We are speaking about very large sums of money. Some NGOs have already roughly estimated the sums involved during the time of the coalition. Iraqi Revenue Watch said in June that,
"$20.2 billion has been taken in by DFI, mostly through the Oil-for-Food program and proceeds from oil exports. $9 billion has been spent so far in DFI projects with an additional $4.6 billion in commitments not yet paid … By April 30, 2004, the CPA had disbursed a total of $7.9 billion from the Development Fund for Iraq".
That is taken from the IRW newsletter of June 2004.
I should declare an interest here as a trustee of Christian Aid which also published a report fuelling suspicions, pointing to the discrepancies in the CPA's reporting of the DFI's income and expenditure, suggesting that large sums were open to corruption during the CPA's administration. Huge contracts were awarded at that time, as we have heard, to US firms and a range of subcontractors. We can only assume that while the bulk of this money went into reconstruction, large sums also went astray and/or were not properly accounted for. It is also clear that these contracts benefited the US at least as much as the Iraqi people. I share very much the concern of the noble Lord, Lord King, about balanced reporting.
It is therefore legitimate for interested NGOs and parliamentarians to ask what the UK Government, as the junior coalition partner, propose to do now to bring to account those who failed to explain what happened to up to 20 billion US dollars of Iraq's oil money given that the CPA is a body which no longer exists. What role did the UK Government have, as part of the coalition, in managing those elements of the
524
finances that have been found lacking, such as the failure to meter oil extraction or keep sufficient records of oil sales?
I tabled a Question for Written Answer before the Recess and today I opened my reply from the Lord President, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos. I shall not read it except for one revealing sentence: that no UK personnel or secondees to the CPA served in the controller's office or were an authorised signatory over the DFI account. That says quite a lot about the influence of Her Majesty's Government in a war which was ostensibly shared with the United States.
In my experience of the Third World there is always an excuse for missing funds. During any conflict money disappears, bandits hijack aid vehicles, officials are corrupt and so on. This is true of the poorest countries, and to some extent of every country. But Iraq is not a third-world country: it has had highly trained people, modern technology, well equipped armed forces and an efficient administration in some areas of government for many years. I am afraid that that contrasts with the picture painted by the noble Lord, Lord Tomlinson, just over an hour ago.
I expect that the Iraqi end of the Oil for Food programme will come out quite well from the Volcker inquiry. But unfortunately the coalition chose from the start not to work with professional administrators from the previous Ba'athist regime as a matter of principle, and its successor has not yet found enough trusted Iraqi partners to replace them.
I know that our Government value the work of NGOs which are very active at the moment in a difficult situation and I hope that they are taking note of what the NGOs are saying about the need to move beyond infrastructure projects, to address immediate problems of health and job creation more directly, to work more closely with Iraqi civil society and to find new leadership in the ministries at central and local level. Obviously, there are many regional variations and positive stories, as we have heard from the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, and others.
However, taking health as one example, experienced NGOs like Premiere Urgence, the International Medical Corps and CARE International are saying that in spite of the benefits of large health-related projects, the health sector itself is being ignored. They point to the general lack of security—as everyone does—but also to the shortage of equipment and low level of hygiene and healthcare in hospitals that would otherwise be quite capable of reaching international standards. Much of this can be put down to lack of management as well as to a shortage of police and security staff to prevent looting and the targeting of hospitals by criminals.
The noble Baroness says that the Iraqis are now in charge. I am not so sure. Iraqi people, while grateful for the fall of Saddam and much else, are not yet seeing the benefits of foreign occupation or even the basic standards of accountability required by foreign donors. Community-based non-governmental organisations that are trying to get development projects off the ground are also concerned about the continuing growth of

525
unregulated entrepreneurial NGOs which have mushroomed on lucrative foreign contracts and much else besides.
So can the Minister perhaps give an undertaking that these concerns of NGOs are at least being noted and are receiving due attention?
8.22 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Liverpool: My Lords, as we came to terms with the terrorist attack of 9/11 one of the commentaries on the state of the world was that Islam had now displaced communism as the major ideological threat to the West.
In the popular mind 9/11 evidenced a "new" threat, with commentators widely reporting that with this event "the world had changed". The popular view saw communism as the age-old enemy whose place had now been usurped by a new and powerful religious force.
If that is so, there is something ironic here that communism, which drew so much from a man who dismissed religion as the opiate of the people, should have been replaced in its role as challenger to the capitalist West by a religion.
The truth is that, in the context of history, communism appeared as a relatively recent and short-lived phenomenon; the major tension that has dominated the landscape of the world for more than a thousand years is the relationship between two cultures—one rooted in Christianity, the other in Islam.
What happened on 9/11 was not the eruption of a new threat but a return to and a re-emergence of an historic tension that had lain relatively dormant and in the past century been eclipsed by war with Germany and the threat of communism.
I believe that this lack of historical perspective has added to the errors of judgment in the way that both America and Britain engage with the Arab world.
We have failed to understand the history of the relationship between the two cultures, and how actions will be interpreted and understood by each party in the light of both history and religion—as with, for example, the careless use of the word "crusade". There are major theological and ideological differences between the two cultures of Christianity and Islam; there is also common ground between the two. Speaking from these Benches, and conscious of many friendships with Muslims, never in the history of the planet has it been so important to take religion so seriously. What is required by religious leaders is not just dialogue, but an urgent summit on how we shall live together.
Christianity and Islam are both missionary religions, both given to proselytising. This makes the task of finding a way to live together peacefully one of the great challenges of our time.
On the political front, governments must understand that all actions have an historical and a religious context. Present actions in Iraq and the Middle East will be interpreted in the light of that
526
thousand-year relationship. To ignore this, or to have little regard for it, is to make the world not a safer, but a more dangerous place. That is why, on these Benches, while we have shared the Government's desire to make the world more secure, we have not been persuaded that the Government have fully understood the historical and religious dimensions of their actions. As the noble Lord, Lord Watson, said, a truly safer world cannot be secured by military intervention alone. In support of much of what the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, has said, what is needed is this soft diplomacy, and also a patient understanding of the historic and religious roots of the conflict of cultures and by the conviction that in today's world the well-being of one culture depends not on the destruction but on the well-being of the other.
8.27 p.m.
Lord Truscott: My Lords, I do not propose to repeat here the detailed history of the UK's involvement in Iraq, and I hope to avoid rehearsing the arguments made by other noble Lords in the House today. However, it is important that noble Lords do not fall into the trap of examining the issue of intelligence with the benefit of hindsight. We were, after all, dealing with a regime which had wilfully obstructed the United Nations over 12 years.
Since 1991, the UN had issued 17 resolutions on Iraq. Authority to go to war against Saddam Hussein derived from the combined effect of Security Council Resolutions 678, 687 and 1441 under Chapter VII of the UN Charter, which specifically allows for the use of force to restore international peace and security.
On 7 March 2003, the UN weapons inspectors themselves detailed at least 29 instances of Iraq's failure to provide credible evidence of disarmament, as required by the UN and Resolution 1441, and outlined at least 17 occasions when evidence contradicted the official Iraqi account. This is not intelligence, but the report of the UN inspectors themselves.
In January 2003, UNMOVIC chairman Hans Blix—who is in the Palace of Westminster today—himself reported concerns about the possible existence of chemical and biological weapons including anthrax and VX nerve gas, and the discovery of chemical rocket warheads. Missiles were being developed beyond the permitted range of 150 kilometres. Baghdad was continuing to obstruct UN weapons inspectors' interviews with Iraqi scientists.
Saddam Hussein had no intention of complying with Resolution 1441, which called for Iraq to co-operate "immediately, unconditionally and actively" with UNMOVIC and IAEA. In my mind there is no doubt that Iraq was in breach of 1441, and therefore I take issue with the rhetoric of the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, who said that there is a question of legality of the war. Iraq was warned by the UN that failure to comply would constitute a further material breach of Iraq's obligations, with serious consequences to follow. Resolution 1441 gave Baghdad a final opportunity to comply with

527
disarmament obligations. Therefore, there is no doubt that Resolution 1441 was Saddam Hussein's final opportunity to comply with the will of the international community and he failed to take it.
The incisive report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, said the Iraq dictator continued to have,
"the strategic intention of resuming the pursuit of prohibited weapons programmes, including, if possible, its nuclear weapons programme, when United Nations inspection regimes were relaxed and sanctions were eroded or lifted".
In going to war to uphold Resolution 1441, the UK was upholding the authority of the United Nations itself. A dangerous dictator, intent on developing weapons of mass destruction that he had shown no compunction in using against his own people in Halabja in 1988, and a leader who did not shy away from attacking his neighbours had to be stopped. The UN could allow Saddam only so many "last chances". Earlier, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said that the weapons inspectors should have been given more time. But I would respectfully remind the House that the reason why the weapons inspectors were let back into Iraq in the first place was because diplomacy was backed by the real threat of force.
I agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that now is the time to look to the future of Iraq rather than the past. Already we have now spent too many months navel gazing, looking at the genesis of the war and the issues surrounding it. Of course the situation in Iraq remains extremely difficult and our Armed Forces risk their lives every day to bring peace and democracy to the country. But the prize is great indeed. Instead of a dictatorship which persecuted its own people, Iraqis now have a chance to rule themselves, unite their country and serve as a beacon of stability, prosperity and freedom in the Middle East.
That is something that Islamist extremists would hate to see. They prefer, as we saw so tragically in Beslan in North Ossetia, to sow death, hatred and division. We should show the people of Iraq that there is another way; that there is another path that they can follow to true democracy. We hope that the elections pass off peacefully and that we move further down the road to a truly democratic Iraq next year. It is a stance that the overwhelming majority of Muslims reject—the stance taken by terrorists in places such as Beslan and in other countries. In Iraq we should not flinch from being on the side of those of all religions who seek a better life and a brighter future, free from the horrors of conflict.
8.32 p.m.
Lord Selsdon: My Lords, when we went on leave, as I would call it, I never knew that we would be recalled here until I suddenly saw it on that new Government machine called "government.com" or something. I decided to look at my Iraq file, which started some 30 years ago. I examined it and looked at all the debates that I downloaded. I went through all the reports that have been published. I returned to the Scott inquiry. I suddenly realised that while Genesis
528
occupied only seven pages and 50 chapters, the reports on terrorism and Iraq and the debates were equivalent, effectively, to the whole of the Old Testament.
I wondered why, when people wrote those ancient books, they began with a few words which, over time, became more and more. If I recall Isaiah correctly—the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Portsmouth referred to it—it had 66 chapters and 669 pages. Is it a whole lot of waffle, or is it better that we return to original signals such as the Morse signals that I tried to use the other day when I could not use the Internet? One used to be asked to send a PIM. It went, "dit, dah dah, dit; didi, dah dah", and then one said "over" with a "k". A PIM was one's "position and intended movements". I wonder what our position is?
I have spoken in these debates before, and I have not necessarily agreed with the Government. However, one person for whom I have great admiration is the Minister. Like a good lacrosse player, she has defended herself against everything that could have been thrown at her with total and utter integrity, and great charm—often when the ball was on another pitch. She has done it in the right way. We were all behind her, though not necessarily behind the Government. Sometimes people are called PLUs—people like us—meaning that they are patriotic, nonpolitical and believe in supporting the Government. I shall support for ever and a day the right of a Prime Minister to go to war.
When I spoke, I used to say quietly that I did not think that terrorism was the right word. It was the wrong word, as we could not have a war against an "ism". It is not something that we can touch and see. We could have a war only against people or lands. I probably made the mistake of saying that the Government were terrorist-related, as the word "terrorism" means government by fear.
When the September report came out, telling us all that we should be scared stiff of ancient gases, sarins and toxins, I thought, "Never mind. They want a reason". I then watched a programme in central Europe and saw that the message was coming out again. The Home Office had sent another piece of paper saying that people should be frightened of a whole range of gases and that they should go to Marks & Spencer and buy tinned food and duck tape to protect themselves. An actuary told me that that would be like someone living in the north of Scotland worrying about being run over by a car when he was trying to get into a Division in Parliament. The odds are not in favour. I wonder why they have tried to create that fear and nervousness when it is not necessary. What shall we do now? The Government have made a series of mistakes and have been heavily criticised today. The noble Lord, Lord Truscott, talked about resolutions. Given the number of other UN resolutions that have been broken by many other people, would we be at war with the whole world? The question is about the morality of the action, which is down to the subjective view of the individual. It was obviously right for the British to intervene in Iraq because we have an historic relationship and

529
responsibility and probably a greater duty than any other nation. However, we should have played to our own agenda. But we played to someone else's.
The right reverend Prelate talked about a cartoon in a newspaper. I saw a copy of the Sunday Times showing our Prime Minister standing just beside Mr Bush, and then two chimpanzees holding hands together. We are long-standing allies of America, but we must pursue our own foreign policy. We should listen to people who know. I went through the list of speakers in the recent debates and tried to mark out who had been to Iraq. There were very few. Your Lordships may have forgotten a wonderful man, George Brown, for whom I had a lot of time. He was a disciple of Nasser, together with Saddam Hussein. When I chaired the Committee for Middle East Trade, I would occasionally ring up George and he would say, "I was out there recently". We used to have the ability to talk to heads of state no matter who they were, whether they were left-wing, right-wing, or dictators. In some places in the world today it might be better to have a benevolent dictator.
I do not think that the Government listened to the right advice. The noble Baroness will forgive me if I refer to a communication sent in the form of a letter by ex-ambassadors to the Prime Minister. I tabled a Question for Written Answer on whether there would be an answer to the letter. I was told by the noble Baroness the Leader of the House that it was answered by the Prime Minister in a statement he made with the Italian Prime Minister before he kicked his shin at football. The letter states:
"The conduct of the war in Iraq has made it clear that there was no effective plan for the post-Saddam settlement. All those with experience of the area predicted that the occupation of Iraq by the coalition forces would meet serious and stubborn resistance, as has proved to be the case. To describe the resistance as led by terrorists, fanatics and foreigners is neither convincing nor helpful. Policy must take account of the nature and history of Iraq, the most complex country in the region. However much Iraqis may yearn for a democratic society, the belief that one could now be created by the coalition is naive".
We wish them all well.
I am not in charge, but I must refer to what the noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, said: here we have what is potentially one of the richest countries in the world whose people are highly educated and really good engineers. They could put things right if they had security. Their production capacity could be much higher than 6 million barrels a day—it could be 8 million. Your Lordships have only to look at the oil prices to work out the cash flow that the country could generate if there were stability and security. With its population, it could be very significant.
I worry that we are too bureaucratic. I have read all the reports, and I like them. To my surprise, I find that ultimately most of my CDs are used as Frisbees—indeed, like others, the report of the noble and learned Lord, Lord Hutton, went sailing across the lawn. We have a lot of paper and a lot of wisdom. I just wish that the Government would listen more to their own people who know about Iraq.
8.40 p.m.
Lord Garden: My Lords, I shall not dwell on the sorry tale of strategic incompetence that dogged policy making before the intervention in Iraq. We have heard from many noble Lords about that and I hope that we are all able to learn the lessons from it. But as we now look at the litany of errors in the months after major combat ended on 1 May 2003, it is clear that there was equally no strategic vision for the building of the new Iraq. Much of that blame rightly attaches to the US, which was the leading nation in the coalition.
Yet the requirement for a British grand strategy does not disappear because we are the junior members of the coalition. The need for a stable, peaceful and prosperous Iraq was more urgent after the intervention than before it, yet the British Government have accepted a submissive role in the US-led shaping of policy for Iraq.
I draw your Lordships' attention to the current edition of Foreign Affairs. It contains an article entitled "What Went Wrong in Iraq". It was written by Larry Diamond, senior adviser to the Coalition Provisional Authority for the first four months of this year and an academic. He reveals the extent of the mismanagement. Time does not allow me to go through his great long list, but he rehearses the consequences of too few troops on the ground during the post-conflict period and the use of the wrong kind of forces. He describes the coalition handling of the growing al-Sadr problem as,
"impromptu and incomprehensively chaotic".
This seems to be the hallmark of the approaches to most of the problems we have seen over the past 14 months.
Dr Diamond gave an interview about his article in Foreign Affairs in which he made some interesting remarks about Britain's role in all of this. He said that the British were regarded just as warily by the Coalition Provisional Authority as was the State Department. He specifically said that the British Ambassador, Sir Jeremy Greenstock, was systematically shut out. Dr Diamond regrets that, saying:
"I think if the British had been listened to it might have been better".
But we are where we are and the question is: what now is the best approach for the UK Government to take?
Our strategic aim should still be to seek peace and stability in the Middle East, to reduce international terrorism and to ensure the security of energy supplies. We need to know now that none of these is likely to be achieved by accepting that US policy-makers know all the answers.
There is a good starting point for forward planning for the Government. It is the recently published House of Commons Foreign Affairs Select Committee report on foreign policy aspects of the war on terrorism. It contains a section on Iraq which I commend to your Lordships. The committee makes 27 recommendations on Iraq in order to make our policy work. I enjoin the Government to take those recommendations very seriously indeed.

531
The committee warns that if it does not go well, the alternative to a positive outcome in Iraq may be a failed state and regional instability.
As the Minister said, better security is the key enabler. Just because the media loses interest in day-to-day reporting of the continuing unrest and disorder, it does not mean that things are improving. We have heard various illustrations in speeches today. We are approaching the 1,000th US military death in Iraq, and, as many noble Lords have said, we do not know how many Iraqi civilians have died but the number is certainly 10 times that. The wounded of all nations, whether they are UK, US, Iraqi or other contributors to the forces, go largely unreported, but violent events happen everywhere, every day—as we saw with the tragic deaths near Fallujah yesterday. The US deaths were near Fallujah because American forces have not been able to go into Fallujah since the end of April.
All of this means that there is a continuing requirement for UK security support for a long time to come. As the noble Lord, Lord King of Bridgwater, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park of Monmouth, said, this is not really a very good time to be thinking about reducing our defence forces when we have these sorts of tasks ahead of us. This is particularly so when we have other obligations; for example, in Afghanistan.
Trained Iraqi police, border guards, infrastructure protection and some competent Iraqi military are needed quickly. The Minister said that there were 200,000 already, but the question is how much training have those 200,000 had. The training programmes have been unbelievably slow. The very low levels of training were reported by the CPA in its final report. The figure, for example, of Iraqi police was 88,039 but only 5,857 had been trained. Of the 18,248 border guards, only 255 had been trained. That is not good enough. As the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, said, it takes time to train. A largely untrained Iraqi security force will just make problems worse, and risk return to authoritarian rule using repressive means. The police approach to journalists is a worrying sign of that. Democratic accountability is not understood by many of the Iraqi forces at the moment. It also creates increasing pressure to use private military companies instead. We need to have a clear direction on the legal regime under which such companies operate and we also need transparent contract arrangements for them.
On the economic side, reports show that reconstruction targets in most areas are being missed. The lack of reconstruction progress just deepens discontent and that worsens the security situation, which makes it more difficult to do the reconstruction.
We have a deep moral and legal obligation to Iraq after embarking on what was a hasty and unwise intervention. We are investing the lives of our people—both civilian and military—as well as a heavy financial cost. We need to be sure that the British Government have a greater influence on the overall strategy than they have been able to exert so far. It is astonishing to me as it was to the Foreign Affairs Committee that we
532
still appear to have no separate status of forces agreement for our forces with the interim Iraqi Government.
Given the scale of the UK commitment to the future of Iraq, I ask the Minister to tell us what measures the Government are taking to ensure that the UK is now able to have greater influence on the strategy of the interim Iraqi Government—greater I hope than it managed to have when the CPA was in charge.
8.48 p.m.
Lord Armstrong of Ilminster: My Lords, at this late stage in a long and very interesting debate, I intend to confine myself to a few remarks about two aspects of the Butler report. I endorse the gratitude expressed by so many to the Butler committee for what is a very impressive report. I should have expected no less from the committee chaired by my noble friend and successor, the noble Lord, Lord Butler of Brockwell, who has added to our debt to him by his speech here this afternoon.
The report demonstrates that there are occasions—the Franks report after the Falklands war was another such occasion—when an inquiry of this kind is best chaired by someone with relevant experience of the subject matter as well as unquestioned integrity and impartiality, rather than by a learned judge. A judge's integrity and impartiality will of course be beyond question, but, inevitably, a judge cannot bring to the task the sort of experience that the noble Lord, Lord Butler, brought to his.
My first point stems from the Butler committee's view that judgments in the Government's dossier of 24 September 2002,
"went to (though not beyond) the outer limits of the intelligence available".
That is the end of the measured quotation. I do not suggest that there was any information in the dossier that did not have some counterpart in the intelligence reports and assessments on which it was based. But there is no doubt that some of the information in the dossier was presented in a harder and more positive way than the intelligence community's assessments of its reliability warranted. The necessary qualifications and caveats were omitted. What should have been presented with a "maybe" was often presented with an "is" or a "will be".
Each of us will form his own judgment about where responsibility for that lies, based on careful reading of the Butler report. My concern this evening is that we should make sure that it does not happen again. It is understandable that the Government should have wanted to make the best case that they could for what they were doing and expecting to do. I can understand why the Government wanted to buttress the credibility and objectivity of the dossier, by attributing responsibility for it to the Joint Intelligence Committee.
However, with the benefit of hindsight, that decision was mistaken. It put the Joint Intelligence Committee—indeed, the whole intelligence community—in a false position. As the Butler report explains, the collection,

533
assessment and interpretation of intelligence is a skilled and complicated business. It calls not only for skill and experience but for unquestioned integrity and objectivity among all those engaged in it. The process will be put at risk if members of the intelligence community are looking over their shoulders at the possibility that their reports or the material in them will be published with attribution to them but without the qualifications and caveats that, in their view, affect the judgment on their reliability.
The Butler report addresses that problem. Its preferred recommendation is that if the Government want to publish a document using intelligence-derived material, they should themselves draft the document, gain the JIC's endorsement of the intelligence material inside it and then publish it, acknowledging that it draws on intelligence material, but without ascribing it to the JIC. That seems an eminently sensible and necessary recommendation and I hope that the noble Baroness who will reply to the debate will be able to tell us without equivocation that it has been accepted by the Government.
My second point relates to the Butler committee's observations about the machinery of government. Those observations are stated, again in measured terms, in paragraph 611 of the report:
"We do not suggest that there is or should be an ideal or unchangeable system of collective Government … However, we are concerned that the informality and circumscribed character of the Government's procedures which we saw in the context of policy-making towards Iraq risks reducing the scope for informed collective political judgement".
Every one of those last four words is loaded with meaning and implications for government in this country. In the British system, every member of a Cabinet—indeed, of a Government—bears collective responsibility for every policy decision and action taken by the Government, so long as he or she remains a member of it. That is as it should be. It is Ministers who will take and deserve credit for good decisions; and Ministers who will take the blame and pay the political price for bad decisions.
That principle of collective responsibility is not an outmoded, textbook concept; on the contrary, it is a practical necessity. The observance of collective responsibility is indispensable to the coherence and authority of a government. We have all seen times when the breakdown of collective responsibility has undermined that coherence and authority.
Ministers who are required to accept collective responsibility and to answer to Parliament and the electorate for major decisions of government are entitled to expect to have opportunities for collective discussion of those decisions for which they will then be expected to bear collective responsibility. They are also entitled to expect to receive the information necessary for arriving at properly considered decisions.
Those not in government who are affected by government decisions or who are required to carry them out, including members of the Armed Forces, are entitled to expect that the decisions will be taken on the
534
basis of full information and after proper consideration and discussion by Ministers who are answerable to Parliament and the electorate.
We are told that Iraq came up at meetings of the Cabinet no fewer than 24 times. But we are also told that papers prepared for discussion on the subject were never circulated and that the subject was not discussed by the Defence and Overseas Policy Committee of the Cabinet. It really looks as if those references in Cabinet were more for information than discussion. It does not sound much like good Cabinet government.
The Prime Minister seems to prefer what has come to be described as "sofa government"; that is, sitting around and taking decisions with unelected advisers in informal gatherings at 10 Downing Street. The Butler committee's conclusion reminds us that that is in the interests neither of good government nor, as I believe, of political leadership, which wishes to command and deserve the confidence of Parliament and of the electorate.
8.56 p.m.
Lord Gilbert: My Lords, I start by commending the words of my noble friend Lady Ramsay, particularly with respect to intelligence. She, like me, winced at the introduction of intelligence matters into the public domain. I hope very much indeed that we have not seen a precedent in this case. That is one of the things that worries me most, particularly when listening to some of your Lordships' remarks, which drag up issues with respect to the proceedings of the Joint Intelligence Committee that, in my view, should never have been in the public domain.
One of the advantages of speaking late in a debate is that one has the benefit of having heard your Lordships' wisdoms and occasionally, also, your Lordships' follies. In that respect, I think that I have never heard anything quite so remarkable in contrast as the speech made by the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, who I am delighted to see in his place. Although I did not agree with him, he delivered an admirable and well argued, coherent speech. But he ruined it with one of the most infantile summings-up that I have ever heard. He said that it was remarkable that on this side of the House no one who cheered the Government on when at the start was here to make a speech. Well, I am here to say that I cheered the Government on and I still am. My noble friends Lady Ramsay and Lord Tomlinson are in precisely the same category. I suggest that the noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, informs himself a little better before he makes another peroration. In fact, if I were him I would stick to speeches and leave perorations out in future.
Unfortunately, the noble Lord, Lord Howell, is not in his place at the moment. I was intrigued at one or two of the things he said. He was completely wrong when he talked about "new terrorism" and how appalling the happenings in Iraq, the Middle East and north Caucasus were, as though they were totally unprecedented and new forms of horror.

535
We should remind ourselves that what has been going on there has not been the prerogative of Arabs, people who live in the north Caucasus or Muslims. Within the memory of almost everyone in this House, such things were done by Europeans coming from a Christian background on the continent of Europe in the past 60 years. Those of us who are old enough remember what happened at Oradour-sur-Glane where the German troops put an entire village inside a church, locked the doors and burned it down. At least the Muslims have not gone around burning down each other's places of worship. We should remember what the Germans did in Lidice.
A broadsheet article only this week reminded me of what they did in the Ukraine as well. There the Germans killed children, not by accident because they happened to be in the way or were alongside adults. They singled out children in order to massacre them because they did not want people to grow up knowing about the horrors that they had inflicted and who would want to take revenge. These were not terrorists, but members of armed forces subject to discipline and wearing the uniform of their country, acting under orders. So let us be careful before we stigmatise people in the Middle East as being outwith the law and savages unknown to the human race. I will not buy it and I hope that very few noble Lords will do so.
I have one tart word for the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, whom I hold in the highest regard. I thought I heard her say that, in respect of Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo, we could not yet figure out who was responsible for all the terrible things that have happened in those two places. I should point out that the career of General Sanchez is for all practical purposes at an end. He will forgo any future promotion. The American brigadier in charge of Abu Ghraib has been suspended from duty. Legal proceedings have been started against many American servicemen and I would be surprised if we do not see officers of at least the rank of colonel in the dock. It will take some time to do that because the American justice system works slowly, but to suggest that the Americans do not know what is going on and are not trying to do something about it is, I think, a total misrepresentation.
I turn to Iraq itself. We have to recognise that there are two different regimes operating at the moment: a daytime regime and a nighttime regime. During the day, over large parts of the country the writ of the coalition forces still runs. At night, it does not so run. Then the militias and sometimes the bandits monopolise the streets and take complete control, despite the efforts of the extremely brave men who offer themselves up to be members of the police forces of Iraq. It is impossible for me to conceal my admiration for those who join the police forces. They do not have safe barracks to return to. They can be assassinated in their homes, in their cars or in their supermarkets; and their children can be assassinated while at school. We owe them an enormous debt of gratitude and we have to hope that they will be successful. However, I am sure that they will not be
536
successful if we do not stay. As the noble Lord, Lord Owen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Park, pointed out, we have to go the distance.
On Iraq itself and the coalition as a whole, I think that we have made two very serious blunders. We made a great mistake in going after Najaf, and an even greater mistake in not going after Fallujah. I am quite clear in my mind about this, although of course I do not see secret papers any more. There may be things of which I am innocent, but speaking as someone who is informed by the broadsheets and by talking to officers who have returned from the front, I am clear that not going into Fallujah was a very serious mistake.
The people of Fallujah are extremely well organised. It is the home of al-Zarqawi. Such people are trying to foment civil war. Someone, at some time, has got to deal with Fallujah. If we do not, there will never be peace in Iraq. I regret to have to tell the House that I am informed on extremely high authority that the influence of Her Majesty's Government was exercised in the direction of trying to tell the Americans not to go into Fallujah, or to come out as early as possible. I have to say that I think that that was a great error of judgment on the part of Her Majesty's Government.
The Sunnis do not have a Sistani. Fallujah does not have the religious sites that Najaf has. Fallujah is the centre of extremely well organised attacks on coalition forces and Iraqi police forces. It is a centre that is attempting nothing more nor less than the total disintegration of Iraqi society. It has to be dealt with sometime or other. In my view it can be dealt with only by coalition forces. It was a very great mistake that we did not follow through when we went in in the first place.
I am fully aware that there will be casualties and that innocent people will suffer, but that unfortunately is one of the consequences of the situation in which we find ourselves.
I would like to make one last point. I am still—just—an optimist with respect to Iraq. It is easy to construct an extremely pessimistic scenario there. But I detect improvements—even along the lines of the Wolfowitz doctrine—in different parts of the Middle East since we went in and liberated Iraq. I dislike the words "invasion" and "war". There has been no declaration of war; there has been a military activity which led to the liberation of Iraq from a foul dictatorship. Our troops were engaged in an extremely noble cause and they are to be congratulated on the performance of their duties.
We have seen signs in Kuwait, with changes in the franchise for the elected assembly there. We have seen changes in Saudi, where the glimmerings of local democracy are starting to appear. There was an extraordinary conference of business people in Riyadh a few months ago where the top entrepreneurs in Saudi assembled in one large hall. Half of them were men and half were women, with a dividing line down the middle. But the extraordinary thing was that the meeting was chaired by a woman who had no headdress on. That would have been unthinkable a year and a half ago.

537
It takes a long time to change society in that part of the world but I am one of the optimists, unlike the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford, whom I hold in the highest regard and affection. When people get offered the choice of a democratic society against any sort of tyranny they will always vote for the former.
9.7 p.m.
The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, it is late and I will attempt to be short.
I was interested in the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, about the method of cabinet government. I agree with him. When reading the Hutton report I saw some of those e-mails: they were sloppily written, slapdash and an immense contrast to the despatches that my grandfather sent back from Tangier in 1908, which were properly written by an educated man. They had a beginning, a middle and an end. I do not know whether he was right or wrong, but there was definitely that contrast.
The noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, went on a bit too long about the poor wretched Germans. Since the war they have behaved so impeccably in expiating their sins that surely we should give them credit for that and not permanently go on about German atrocities in the war.
My noble friend Lord Lamont made a speech that I wish I had made myself. It does not happen frequently, but on this occasion I agreed with practically everything that he said.
I was pro-war in the beginning for the following four reasons: I assumed that they had weapons of mass destruction, though this claim was probably exaggerated; I knew that they had been in disregard of mandatory United Nations sanctions; I knew that it was a foul tyranny because I had listened to Ann Clwyd and the noble Baroness, Lady Nicholson; and I was fairly certain that he had been involved in some form of nasty terrorism even though I was equally certain that he had nothing to do with A1'Qaeda because he was a Ba'athist Muslim running a secular nationalist regime and hated that sort of Mohammedanism.
When it was exposed by both the Butler and Hutton reports that the weapons of mass destruction were not there, some of the numbers regarding Saddam's tyranny were open to question. The terrorism which may have been undertaken in a minor way is now being undertaken in a major way. It seems that the war should not have been fought because the situation at the moment is worse than it was before, and that is very serious.
With regard to what both the Butler and Hutton reports say, I cannot understand how the Prime Minister could say:
"We know that he [Saddam Hussein] has stockpiles of major amounts of chemical and biological weapons".
The Joint Intelligence Committee said:
"intelligence on Iraq's weapons of mass destruction is sporadic and patchy … from the evidence available to us, we believe that Iraq retains some production equipment, and some small stocks of chemical warfare agent precursors, and may have hidden small quantities of agents and weapons".
538
Either somebody has changed the meaning of what the intelligence committee said, or the Prime Minister is too stupid to understand the difference and thinks that he said the same. I do not think you become Prime Minister of the United Kingdom with that level of intelligence.
In March last year, the Prime Minister moved the Motion that,
"this House … recognises that Iraq's weapons of mass destruction and long range missiles, and its continuing noncompliance with Security Council Resolutions pose a threat to international peace and security".—[Official Report, Commons, 18/3/03; col. 760.]
The Prime Minister also referred to a,
"severe threat to the wider world".
The JIC assessment, however, was:
"Saddam has not succeeded in seriously threatening his neighbours … Saddam has used WMD in the past and could do so again if his regime was under threat".
There is a wealth of difference there. Somebody took the decision to change the meaning. Who was it?
If we had believed so much that there were weapons of mass destruction, why were some units in the Armed Forces allowed to go into Basra without chemical and biological suits? Either they knew that Iraq did not have such weapons, so they did not need the suits, or it was crass incompetence for them to be allowed to go in without having those essential tools of self-defence.
This is a very sorry story. We are left with an Iraq that is in the most ghastly mess. Unfortunately, we do not have a great deal to be proud of. I was informed over dinner only today, and it does not surprise me, that our policy in Iraq in the 1920s changed every time the Government changed, without any consideration of the needs of Iraq itself. The Americans are worse—they do not do empire, which is a great pity. When you occupy a country, you have to know what you are going to do with it. You have to know how to create a police force.
Iraq at the moment is in anarchy. There are now Wahhabi terrorists, A1'Qaeda terrorists and different sets of Sunni and Shia terrorists, chopping off Nepalese cooks' heads, executing innocent Italian lorry drivers, kidnapping French journalists. This is worse than what was going on before, and this is the pickle we have got ourselves into. I have not the faintest idea how we will get out of it, I have not the faintest idea how long we will be, and it depresses me beyond peradventure.
9.15 p.m.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, I have listened to most of the speeches—and to those of my own party, of which there were a great many—and I agreed with two of them. Perhaps I may explain my position a little. I agreed with going to war with the object of removing Saddam Hussein because it was quite obvious that the man was totally irresponsible. In fact, one might describe him as bonkers. He went to war with Iran and lost 800,000 men. He thought that he could get away with taking Kuwait. Anybody who thought that the West would ever allow that was

539
wholly irresponsible and a grave danger to the whole of the Middle East when in charge of a country with great potential wealth. It was quite obvious to me that it was essential to remove him to have any chance of bringing a lasting peace to the Middle East. So I backed the war.
One criticism that should be levelled at the Government, and it has been levelled by one or two noble Lords, is that they accepted American direction far too easily although advice had been given that would have been far better than the way the Americans went about things. The American Secretary of State for Defense was entirely wrong. His chiefs of staff wanted at least twice the number of men as they had some idea of the trouble that would arise after they had won the simple battle. We now have a situation where, mainly because of the lack of any control in the American section round Baghdad, our troops, who did a remarkable job in and around Basra, are now suffering from activity that was inspired by the fact that they got away with it in Baghdad and elsewhere.
We must do something positive. I hope that the Government are saying that we must stick it out. The Government also need to recognise that the history of the regiments of this country—I refer particularly to the regiments of my country, the Black Watch and the Argylls, for example—needs to be perpetuated. Different organisation may be needed but the spirit that led Riddel-Webster to take off his helmet, wave his bonnet and walk through the crowds—a brilliant move, which owed a great deal to his pride in belonging to the Black Watch—must not be destroyed. I hope the Minister will take this strongly to heart and will ensure that the traditions of the old regiments are preserved, even though a great deal of their way of working may alter.
We face quite a long struggle to get the new government in Iraq working. They need backing and will need it for more than a year. We must be prepared to back them. We must be prepared to put more troops into Iraq in order to be able, for example, to protect the roads, which are tremendously dangerous. We have a big job to do. I think that it can be done, but it will take an enormous amount of toil. It will take money and it will take people. Lives will be lost. But we must do it, otherwise we throw away the chance of peace in the Middle East.
9.19 p.m.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, drawing the short straw demands an attempt at brevity and originality. The Arab world and Muslims generally, do not trust the West and particularly the United States. While assistance is not denied, including financial or other aid, the pervasive lack of trust fosters the perception that this help is to pursue exclusively the interests and hidden agendas of donors.
The challenge is how to alter or modify such dangerous views and lay solid foundations for an equitable world of religious and ethnic co-existence, freed of poverty and corruption, with accountable
540
government, freely chosen, for future generations. Iraqis will only realise and enjoy those aspirations once the lack of trust is overcome and a dilution of the US-imposed democratic model is achieved. Until then, internal security will remain elusive and illusory.
Entrenched perceptions and obstacles are not helped by history and long memories. The latter point was made by my noble and gallant friend Lord Inge, who felt it important enough to draw attention to it. The perception throughout the Arab world and elsewhere is that the United States and Britain attacked Iraq because Israel encouraged them to do so.
Further, the obstacle of extremism, flourishing in the aftermath of war, will remain until western attitudes towards Arabs and Muslims undergo positive change. Extremists tend wilfully to misinterpret religious books and derive momentum and new recruits from their tribal communities that believe in and reward revenge. Only enlightened Arabs and Muslims can, and must, be the ones to convince the extremists that what they are doing is wrong, but we in the West must help them to do so.
We should not forget also that today's Arab perspective can be drawn from shared history, most notably with Britain, with events and promises that led through contrary expectations to the Balfour Declaration; revolution in Syria, Lebanon and Algeria that sealed France's exit; and matters Italian in Libya. But it is current affairs that are fertilising extremism and distrust: imbalances between Palestine and Israel; the influence of the Israeli lobby on media control and the American elections; and partisan, expedient and unfair application of international law to the affairs of the Middle East by the United States.
US vetoes against majority votes of the UN General Assembly and Security Council resolutions on Israeli-Palestinian issues serve as a well-rehearsed illustration. And what of the future? Our world is in transition, evolving towards the global certainty of regionalism. Leaders and forward thinkers should be encouraged to reflect on and to work toward the certainty and essential benefits of regionalism; a shared commitment to responsibilities and resources.
A regional solution could accrue easily to such countries as Iraq and Afghanistan that do not have a history of centralised systems and only limited experience of statehood; more realistically resolve the Palestinian/Israeli difference by Israel's contribution to regionalism—recognition that its viable future depends on peaceful, constructive relations with neighbours—and allow ruling regimes more easily to implement a reform agenda, and contend with a newly endorsed conservative Iran. The question that I more increasingly ponder, however, is that if a group of senior players believes that Israel was behind the decision to attack Iraq, where does that leave decision-making on Iran, with its deteriorating relations with the United States and its seemingly pending nuclear weapons capability?
I conclude on an optimistic note: a future based on trust and understanding is a bright one, full of promise and realisable goals.
9.25 p.m.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, this has been an impressive and interesting debate. On a rough count, there were six speeches defending the Government's position; a number that were carefully neutral and balanced; and a substantial majority that were critical. I note in passing that this is a debate in which the largest number of non-Front-Bench speakers have come from the Cross Benches, and there have been some very powerful speeches—in particular the one we heard not long ago from the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster. There have been relatively few speeches from the Government Benches wishing to support the Government.
The noble Lords, Lord Tomlinson and Lord Truscott, suggested that it was time to move on; the question is, can we move on? I would argue strongly that we cannot yet move on, for three reasons. First, as a number of noble Lords said, the issue has told us a number of very worrying things about the structure of government and the absence of checks on executive dominance.
Secondly, we still have the same Prime Minister, who still advances similar reasons for loyalty to American strategy, for pre-emptive intervention and for blurring the war on terror and the containment of the spread of weapons of mass destruction. I read again this morning the speech that he made in Sedgefield in March, when he did his best to justify the war and in which he seemed to start by arguing that we were not concerned with regime change and to end by justifying the war on the ground of regime change. He declared that he was indeed concerned about Islamic extremism and terrorism well before September 2001, and again he blurred the question of Islamic terrorism and extremism, weapons of mass destruction and the intervention in Iraq.
The third reason is, of course, that the game is not over in Iraq, Afghanistan or in the wider Middle East. I read the Butler report carefully, but I have also this summer read the Woodward, Kampfner and Riddell accounts, Robin Cook's memoirs, the Philip Stephens book and Anthony Seldon's book. There is now a great deal of material on what happened and how the Government put it. The references in the books by Bob Woodward, John Kampfner and Peter Riddell are fascinating; all of them interviewed the Prime Minister and all the other major players.
What emerges is the extent to which we now have personal rather than Cabinet government. I never thought that I would look back to Mrs Thatcher's period as Prime Minister as a great period of Cabinet government in comparison with what we have now. We have a foreign policy run from No. 10; we have a disregard for the institutionalised expertise of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office; and we have what has rightly been called "sofa" government.
We have a Prime Minister with a passionate sense of mission, as he set out in his Chicago speech in 1998; a strong sense of the divide between good and evil; a strong commitment to close co-operation with the United States; and an optimistic belief that he could exercise more influence over President Bush than
542
could Vice-President Cheney or the Secretary of Defense, Mr Rumsfeld. One has to remember—this was part of what influenced those of us in my party to become more sceptical about the drift towards war—the extent to which there were doubts in Washington in the spring and summer of 2002 about the direction of American policy, as expressed by James Baker, Brent Scowcroft, and a number of very respectable Americans.
One of my biggest doubts about the Prime Minister is, indeed, his intelligence assessment of the United States—the assumption that Britain could have major influence in Washington and that the United States was not following a very different agenda. That is part of what Peter Riddell and others have called the "self-delusion" that led Britain's Prime Minister to war.
There is strong evidence that our Prime Minister understood that President Bush was determined on war as early as March 2002; that that war was intended to remove Saddam Hussein from power; and that he then committed Britain to go to war alongside the United States. But he had to persuade his party and his public and to justify British participation on different grounds from those in which President Bush and those around him believed, which is to say weapons of mass destruction and on a refusal to accept the resolutions of the UN Security Council.
The scepticism which my party was developing in this period rested partly on our deep doubts about American motivation. As someone has said, this was a war of choice cooked up in Washington think tanks and strongly influenced by the agenda of the current right-wing government in Israel. Ideology was overriding evidence, and there was an extraordinary degree of dependence on Ahmed Chalabi, including the belief that he could explain what was happening inside Iraq and the belief that overthrowing Saddam Hussein would create democracy throughout the Middle East; that the road to Jerusalem lay through Baghdad. All of that should have rung alarm bells not only in my party but also in No.10. We were also doubtful about the quality of the evidence in particular as produced in the September dossier because the later dossiers were worse.
"What we had has been described by one American intelligence official as faith-based intelligence. It was a case of "We have the conclusions, please find us the evidence" or, as Robin Cook put it in his evidence to the Foreign Affairs Committee, "There was a selection of evidence to support the conclusion rather than a conclusion that arose from a full consideration of the evidence".
Cabinet committees should have questioned this. Professional expertise should not have been swept aside. As the noble Lord, Lord Armstrong of Ilminster, rightly said, there was a need for informed, collective judgment and for collective responsibility, which sadly failed in this case.
I say one thing in passing about John Scarlett, who has been mentioned a number of times in this debate. It is clear that, in the run-up to the war, he unwisely stepped across the invisible line that divides the professional official from the political advocate. What the consequences of that should be for his career I leave to others, but I believe that it is extremely

543
important to maintain that line and that the Joint Intelligence Committee should be on the professional side of that line.
One of my puzzles over the past two years has been over the peculiarities of British intelligence. As professionals, I and my colleagues at the London School of Economics have a lot of contacts with US intelligence operatives and have discovered just how unhappy many of them were with the sweeping aside of their professional expertise. After all, analysis matters. It places evidence in context. It seems to me that part of what happened is that the context of the broader Middle East was lost. I particularly treasure the comment of one of the American intelligence officials at one meeting which was,
"Looking back, the thing we neglected most was wisdom. We did not actually think through the broader implications of where we were going".
The Prime Minister deceived his party, his Parliament and his public. In the words of the Economist on its cover, he and President Bush were "sincere deceivers" or as Clare Short put it to the Foreign Affairs Committee, it was an "honourable deception", but deception it very clearly was.
The cost to British foreign policy has been very considerable. Our Prime Minister has rested British foreign policy on the idea of Britain as a transatlantic bridge between Europe and the United States. The European end of that bridge collapsed in this process, and No. 10 sank to active denigration of the position of the French Government. Peter Riddell, Bob Woodward and others make it clear that the attitude to the American position within both Paris and Berlin was sharply affected by their suspicions of Vice-President Cheney and Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld and their growing belief that there was a submerged agenda in the American approach which now turns out, indeed, to have been correct.
What have we lost in this? We have lost the momentum in Britain's European policy. We have lost the potential of a referendum on the euro, to which our Prime Minister said he was deeply committed, and we are now putting at risk perhaps a referendum on the European constitution. It is quite astonishing to me how much of the British press accepts the submerging of British sovereignty under American foreign policy while being astonishingly suspicious about the sharing of sovereignty with our European partners.
A number of noble Lords in this debate have made comparisons with Suez. However, the appropriate comparison seems to me to be more with China in 1949 and Vietnam in the late 1960s and with two Labour Prime Ministers loyal to the United States who recognised that the United States was caught up in irrational, emotional policies and that it was better for Britain to take some distance from it. Correctly in 1949 the British recognised communist China and correctly in the late 1960s Prime Minister Wilson held back from committing British troops to Vietnam. I regret that on this occasion the wisdom of previous Labour Prime Ministers has not been followed.
544
A great deal has been said also about the continuing war on terror in which clearly we are committed for the next generation. There are real dangers of sliding—as I think the Prime Minister's rhetoric in his Sedgefield speech suggested—into a global confrontation. Many on the American right would welcome this, as would President Putin. I have to say to the noble Lord, Lord Howell, that I do not see the war in Chechnya as part of a global war on terror. Having been 10 days ago a great deal closer to a number of soldiers in Russian uniform in South Ossetia than I felt was very comfortable amidst evidence of massive smuggling by the Russian military, I am much more prepared to believe that it is the corruption of the Russian military and the vast mishandling of the whole of the north Caucasus by the Russians that has led to the bitterness from which we are now suffering in Chechnya.
One of the best points that the noble Lord, Lord Gilbert, with whom I rarely agree, made was that we should not overemphasise the novelty of brutality. It is not just German brutality that we have to remember, we should look also at Stalinist brutality. Nearly a million Chechens died during the Second World War. That is part of the background to the current conflict. We should remember how the Internal Macedonian Revolutionary Organisation used to behave at the end of the previous century. If it had had more effective explosives, it would have killed a lot more people in a fairly annihilistic manner. We should remember the 19th century anarchists who did their utmost to blow up as many European heads of government and state as they could.
Terrorism is a continuation of war by other means, just as Clausewitz said that war was a continuation of politics by other means. Terrorism is the action of those who do not have the ability to fight conventional war, of those who are the underdogs, the desperate and the despairing. Sadly, there is a lot of despair. The women terrorists of Chechnya are the widows of men who have been killed and many of whose children have been killed. The politics of despair is something that we have to tackle if we are to tackle the causes of terrorism, which means that we have to deal with the problems of the Arab world and of the Muslim world and of the Middle East as a whole. I say very strongly that it would be a disaster for Britain and for our multiethnic and multi-religious community in Britain to define a war in terms of Islamic terrorism.
However, we still have a commitment to Iraq and to Afghanistan, a complex set of policies towards Iran, a huge set of neglected policies towards Saudi Arabia and a neglected Middle East peace process.
Our Prime Minister said, in his Labour conference speech of 2002,
"By the year's end, we must have revived final status negotiations,"
on the Middle East peace process. In January 2003, he said to British diplomats that the Middle East peace process remained essential. I agree with him. But it has not remained central. So we have to talk about future policy and start from the past. The question we have to ask is "Can we have confidence that the Prime Minister has learned?"

545
His arguments are that the end has justified the means. We will only know that if the results in Iraq turn out better than their prospects currently appear, if we manage to contain the problems of Iran and if we are lucky enough that Saudi Arabia does not collapse in the next two years. A great deal is riding on the management of post-war reconstruction in Iraq, a process over which so far Her Majesty's Government have had and sadly continue to have too little influence.
9.41 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, listening to this fascinating debate today serves to remind us of the enormous depth of expertise and experience that noble Lords bring to discussion of subjects of this gravity. These thoughtful contributions add real value and understanding to the public debate at this crucial time. I join other noble Lords in expressing my heartfelt sympathies, and those of these Benches, to the people of Beslan and to the Russian people as a whole. I, too, would like to thank the noble Baroness, Lady Symons of Vernham Dean, for introducing this debate on Iraq with the authority and intellectual rigour that we have come to expect from her.
Before turning to Iraq, I should like to touch on the events in Darfur. The situation is undoubtedly horrific, with murder, hunger and destruction widespread. The scenes are heart-rending and, if the UN's response and this Government's response are half-hearted, another tragedy will be added to the catalogue of calamities afflicting Africa. I hope the Minister can reassure the House that we will have an opportunity to debate it at the length it deserves in the near future.
At this late hour, I ask for your Lordships' understanding if I do not refer to all the excellent speeches, or the big picture so ably set out by my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford and others. I shall seek to address the present situation in Iraq itself.
First, I should like to reinforce totally what the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, so rightly said on the excellent, long-awaited maiden speech of my noble friend Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale. We are all very much aware of the tremendous contribution he has made to our national life outside the House, and very much hope that he will continue to make that contribution within it. I hope that his forensic speech today is but the first of many, and a sign of things to come.
This country and this Parliament, as we have heard today, have engaged in an intense debate on the rights and wrongs of military action in Iraq, as well as the use of intelligence in coming to the decision to engage in conflict and the aftermath of that conflict. Strong views have been expressed by all sides throughout. They are genuinely held views, consistently argued, and, as such, deserve to be listened to and respected, regardless of whether they might or might not accord with our own perspectives.
546
In the post-Cold War world, new threats have emerged. Rather than two organised blocs of states facing each other in conventional ways, we now have WMD proliferation, international terrorist groups and even women suicide bombers, resulting in civilian casualties and tragic events as we have witnessed these last few days in North Ossetia. All these I have mentioned spill across borders to inflame whole regions and threaten regional and international stability.
In the case of weapons of mass destruction proliferation and in tackling terrorists and rogue states, it is not always practical to wait until the threat physically manifests itself. The American Government recognised that new geo-political environment when they developed their foreign doctrine of pre-emption designed to prevent attacks occurring. But such a doctrine is dependent upon reliable intelligence and, in a democracy, upon public faith in the intelligence upon which so many foreign policy decisions must now be based.
Like my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford, I supported the decision to take military action against Iraq to address the threat to both regional and international stability, and to enforce the UN Security Council resolutions that Saddam Hussein had for so long so openly disregarded. Many noble Lords agree that war must always be the last resort, but if we had not acted against Saddam when we did, the threat he represented would still be before us. It would still have to be tackled and possibly with far greater risk.
I, like the Leader of the Opposition and the shadow Foreign Secretary, still believe that the action we took in Iraq was right. As a responsible Opposition, however, our support for the conflict was not unquestioning. The Government still owe the House and the British people an explanation for the failings in the way they presented their case or for their failure adequately to plan for the post-Saddam Iraq.
The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, spoke with great wisdom on the necessity of post-conflict planning, as did the noble Lord, Lord Garden. In the run-up to and during the conflict the shadow Foreign Secretary pressed the Government for a clear post-Saddam reconstruction plan. No such plan appeared and it is true that we could have achieved far more by now if an effective plan had been in place.
Many noble Lords including the noble Lord, Lord Hannay, have discussed the Butler report and highlighted the failures of the Government in the use made of intelligence material in the lead-up to the conflict. It was most interesting to hear the contribution of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, today, especially after reading carefully his fascinating report this summer. There continues to be grave concern over the conduct of this Government and whether proper use was made of the intelligence. As my noble friend Lord Strathclyde said in his response to the Butler report,
"The tragedy is that, although the Government had a good case for war, the way in which it was argued—as exposed, once again, in this outstanding report, which has found serious flaws in

547
intelligence and its uses—has weakened that good case and damaged the credibility of the Prime Minister in the country".—[Official Report, 14/7/04; col. 1260.]
This could be highly damaging should he need to make a similar case in the future.
Turning to Iraq itself, many noble Lords welcomed the impressive and often unsung progress that has been made in rebuilding the country and in the handover of sovereignty to the Iraqi interim Government under the direction of Prime Minister Allawi. Positive steps have been made in sectors such as health and education but, in welcoming that, we should not forget that there is still much to be done. Our Armed Forces deserve much of the credit for helping to create the conditions in which such a handover was possible, as well as in their humanitarian work, policing civilian life in Iraq and rebuilding the country. Their professionalism and bravery in the face of considerable risks is an example to us all.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, and my noble friend Lord Selsdon raised certain questions on the provision of security, which should be the first priority. Without security, the investment and NGO participation that is so vital to rebuilding Iraq will not flow. Recent reports have indicated growing unrest in parts of Iraq, including parts of the British sector, as we heard from my noble friend Lord Howell of Guildford.
I hope that the noble Baroness will be able to explain in her winding-up speech what steps are being taken to remedy those problems, and I look forward to her answer to my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater on the press blackout.
In a centralised authoritarian state such as the Ba'athist state of Iraq, the state, via the armed forces, is often the key employer. A point that was wisely made by the noble Baroness, Lady Ramsay, in her lucid and informed speech, was the decision to abolish the Iraqi security forces, army and police, which instantly undermined both the means to enforce law and order, and created vast unemployment, affecting millions of Iraqi families.
We all hope and pray that, despite setbacks, Iraq will emerge as a functioning and successful democratic state, and that investment can be generated, making Iraq a beacon for the region. The noble Lords, Lord Gilbert and Lord Owen, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, stressed that we should stay, as we were there for a long haul and could not walk away.
Like my noble friend Lord King of Bridgwater, I was encouraged to read that the BBC World Service is now operating well in Iraq.
We cannot be complacent about the huge task ahead in Iraq in tackling other weapons of mass destruction proliferation issues and the omnipresent threat of terrorism. The sad truth is that the Government's handling of the case for conflict with Iraq may have made it far more difficult to persuade the British people in the future to support military action should a future threat emerge.
9.52 p.m.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, as I am sure we all anticipated, this has been a wide-ranging and animated debate. We have covered a great deal of ground, including the legal justification for war, intelligence reports, the prosecution of the conflict, security issues, the future political process, reconstruction, our Armed Forces and the impact of the conflict on the Middle East, Russia, Guantanamo Bay, Afghanistan and Darfur.
I very much appreciated the interesting—indeed fascinating—contribution from the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson of Sunningdale. It was a maiden speech, despite its lengthy incubation period of 15 years. Custom in your Lordships' House rightly dictates that I should not be challenging in my response—perhaps not as challenging as the noble Lord was in his maiden speech. I look forward to the opportunity of making a less inhibited response in the future. I hope that I shall not have to wait for another 15 years to do so.
Some of the arguments are now very familiar, as the noble Lord, Lord Wallace of Saltaire, demonstrated in relation to the role of the United States, the relationship between the United States and the UK Government, and the role of the Prime Minister in particular. There were contentions about Arab views of the conflict in relation to the role of Israel, as demonstrated by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley.
Much of that contrasted sharply with the views of the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings. I agree with her that it was necessary to deal with Saddam when we did or face a far worse situation later.
I shall do my best to answer the issues raised, but I shall concentrate on Iraq. I believe that both the noble Lords, Lord Owen and Garden, were right. Success in Iraq is far from certain, but it is hugely important. I tried very hard to be balanced in my opening presentation of the situation in Iraq and could not help feeling that some of your Lordships concentrated almost exclusively on the negative.
There is a great deal that causes concern and anxiety and a great deal to arouse indignation and frustration. But there is, too, much on which we can congratulate those who are striving hard to achieve a better future for Iraq and its people.
Let me deal with the issues of security raised by so many of your Lordships. I strongly agreed with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, and the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, on global terrorism. The trends towards extreme violence against huge numbers of defenceless people is sickening. We should be under no illusion; if the terrorists could kill thousands rather than hundreds they would. The points made by the noble Lord, Lord Watson of Richmond, were highly apposite in this respect.
While I do not agree with parts of the thesis put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Maclennan of Rogart, I strongly agreed with his point that the international community needs better means than

549
currently available to us to deal with international conflicts, whether generated by fear of terrorism or by the threat of weapons of mass destruction.
I noted the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Falkner, on terrorism, but I have to ask her whether she honestly believed that this was the right time to say what she did about Beslan while so many children remain to be buried and grief is so raw. With respect, I felt that she came perilously close to allowing those responsible for the repellent events of last week to evade responsibility for what they did.
The noble Lord, Lord Howell of Guildford, repeated the points about the links to terrorism. However, I agreed with the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, that the evidence is not there to substantiate that thesis. I know that the noble Lord felt this was a powerful argument for intervention, but it has not been an argument—except in the general sense of regimes which challenge international law giving succour to terrorism—substantiated by the evidence available to us at the time, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, made clear in his powerful intervention.
Perhaps I can turn to some of the broader issues raised by the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Skidelsky, Lord Rea and Lord Mackie of Benshie, the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, and to the points I was specifically asked to answer by the noble Lord, Lord King. Now more than 200,000 Iraqi personnel are on duty as part of the Iraqi security forces. That includes 93,000 police officers, 40,000 Iraqi national guards, 16,000 border police, 74,000 facilities protection services and 35,000 new Iraqi army personnel. However, the latter two are still undergoing training in large numbers. Furthermore, 10 of the 27 planned army battalions are under basic training and another six are operating at full operational capacity.
The noble Lord, Lord Hannay, gave us a characteristically balanced and sensible contribution. He was right to remind us that although the Butler report pointed out mistakes in handling intelligence—some particular and some systemic mistakes—it was not—emphatically not—an indictment of the whole of our intelligence operation. Again, I agreed strongly with the well informed views of the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Inge, and my noble friend Lady Ramsay. The apocalyptic judgments of some of your Lordships in attempting to rewrite the conclusions of the noble Lord, Lord Butler, simply were not borne out by the report itself.
Let me turn to the Butler report and the intelligence issues, matters on which the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, the noble Lords, Lord Howell, Lord Holme, Lord Wolfson, Lord King, Lord Goodhart and Lord Armstrong, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, and my noble friends Lord Gilbert and Lady Ramsay concentrated together with the noble and gallant Lords, Lord Craig and Lord Inge. I thought that the report was very good. It was clear and it was balanced, as the noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, said. However, I did not think it was damning, not even in Civil-Service speak, as the noble Lord, Lord Holme, suggested, or, perhaps
550
even more fancifully, in Mandarin, as the noble Lord, Lord Wolfson, said. Many of your Lordships have tried to say that what the Butler report states is not what the report really means. It was described as "brilliant" by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and as "excellent" by the noble Lord, Lord Lamont. But then, together with the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, they seemed to think that they knew better what the noble Lord, Lord Butler, really meant to say in the conclusions of his report.
The report is clear. The JIC process is robust; the assessments that result are respected (paragraph 43). Broad conclusions of the UK intelligence community, although perhaps not all details, were widely shared by other countries (paragraph 457). The point has been put that the Government were over-enthusiastic or perhaps deliberately selective in making the intelligence fit the policy. Policy decisions were taken on the basis of Iraq flouting the will of the UN, as the noble Lord, Lord Butler, concludes clearly in conclusion 9 of his report. The noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, went as far as to say that the assertion that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction was demonstrably wrong. That simply is not borne out by what the committee said at paragraph 474, where it states:
"Even now it would be premature to reach conclusions about Iraq's prohibited weapons … it would be a rash person who asserted at this stage that evidence of Iraqi possession of stocks of biological or chemical agents, or even banned missiles, does not exist or will never be found".
I dread to think that the noble Lord would really embrace the epithet of being rash.
The noble Lord, Lord Butler, stated his case over Mr Scarlett and his post as head of the SIS. The noble Baroness, Lady Williams, sadly demanded that someone should pay the price for intelligence shortcomings. The noble Lord, Lord Butler, answered her far better and certainly far more authoritatively than I can. Just because public opinion would like to see an individual take the blame, it does not mean that it is fair or right to apportion blame to an individual where it is not merited.
Several of your Lordships expressed high regard for John Scarlett. The Government share that regard, as articulated by my noble friend Lady Ramsay in her characteristically clear-sighted contribution. There were specific points raised by the noble Lord, Lord King, in relation to the ISG report. John Scarlett wrote to Mr Duelfer in March following a request from Mr Duelfer to set out items from the earlier classified ISG report which we believed could usefully be included in the ISG report then under consideration. That was Mr Duelfer's suggestion. Mr Duelfer himself made it absolutely clear that the decision to publish a shorter interim report was entirely his and not the result of pressure from the British Government or any other government. The noble Lord—
Lord King of Bridgwater: My Lords, could the Minister clarify whether that information was available to the Butler committee when Mr Scarlett gave evidence?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: No, my Lords, I cannot at the moment but I will try to clarify that point and write to the noble Lord accordingly. I shall place a copy of my letter in the Library of the House.

551
The noble Lord, Lord Armstrong, asked for assurances that the Government accepted the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler. My right honourable friend the Prime Minister has made it clear that we do. He has laid out four ways in which we are moving forward on the report. The one which involves Mr Ehrman as chair of the Joint Intelligence Committee has attracted some criticism today. I stress that this is a temporary appointment. The Cabinet Office will make a permanent appointment to take effect during 2005 and that will be done fully in accordance with the criteria of the noble Lord, Lord Butler.
The other points raised by the noble Lord in relation to the operation of important committees discussing such matters as Iraq operating as ad hoc committees of the Cabinet in future, the points about the SIS appointing a senior officer to work through the findings and recommendations of the Butler review, focusing on resourcing and organisation of SIS validation process and the relationship of the intelligence services and the future presentation of the intelligence reports have all been accepted. But I point out to the noble Baroness, Lady Park, in response to her thoughtful contribution, and to the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, in his spirited contribution, that in respect of machinery of government the noble Lord, Lord Butler, says at paragraph 611:
"We do not suggest that there is or should be an ideal or unchangeable system of collective Government, still less—
"Still less"—my emphasis—
"that procedures are in aggregate any less effective now than in earlier times".
I turn to the contributions of the right reverend Prelates. I join the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Oxford in his praise of the work of Canon Andrew White and the Iraqi Institute of Peace. Canon White is safe. We have raised the incident with the Interior Ministry in Iraq. I agree with the right reverend Prelate that the work of the institute is a force for unity and healing. I note his point, powerfully expressed, that the future Government of Iraq has to be seen through an Islamic prism, and not solely in western secular terms.
I agree very strongly with the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Owen, that democracy is not a western luxury. Ask any Iraqi; ask Iraqi women: they want representative and inclusive government. I agreed very strongly with the very strong points made by my noble friend Lord Gilbert in that respect. The right reverend Prelates the Bishops of Portsmouth and of Liverpool were right to remind us in their thoughtful contributions about the overarching nature of Abrahamic faith and the importance of dialogue between faith groups.
I was grateful for the points raised by the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, in relation to the Kurds. I am struck that the Kurdish leaders often express support for our efforts to promote a political process that will ensure free and fair elections for a representative government. I doubt that the noble Lord was able to share all his views on what has
552
happened in Iraq with his Kurdish interlocutors. But I point out to him that Kurdish members of the Iraqi Cabinet include six individuals, including the deputy Prime Minister, the Foreign Minister and, of course, a vice-president.
Many of your Lordships raised questions on reconstruction, including the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, and the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley. In relation to the point raised by the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, which was echoed by the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, KPMG is currently auditing the development fund for Iraq for the period from 30 January to 28 June 2004. The International Advisory and Monitoring Board is carrying out a special audit of the development fund for Iraq on sole-sourced contracts. The results of those audits will be available shortly, which I hope will answer some of the very important points raised by the noble Baroness.
The main use of the development fund for Iraq money has been to meet recurrent costs under the Iraqi budget, including the running of health and education programmes and paying public sector employees. The noble Lords, Lord Selsdon and Lord Garden, thought that post-war planning had been a failure. The noble Lord, Lord King, asked about achievement in terms of Iraq's future. My noble friend Lord Tomlinson also concentrated his helpful remarks on economic issues.
As regards the economy, sanctions have been lifted and the foundations of a market economy have been laid. There has been a successful country-wide currency exchange from the two currencies under Saddam Hussein to the new Iraqi dinar, which has been a remarkable success. The Central Bank has become independent of government with the task of controlling inflation. The tax system is simplified. The IMF expects growth of 33 per cent this year.
The noble Lord, Lord Skidelsky, was concerned about oil. Crude oil production remains at more than 2 million barrels per day and, security permitting, is on track for reaching 3 million barrels per day by early 2005. Revenues total more than 7.5 billion dollars so far this year, which are primarily used to finance ministry operating budgets. Unemployment is still high but there is a great effort to put money in to create some 500,000 jobs. DfID is providing a further £50 million for a UN job creation programme currently under way in southern Iraq.
Long-term rehabilitation of the energy sector continues. Power generation now exceeds pre-war levels of 4,400 megawatts. Water and sanitation have been improved—I am sure that my noble friend Lord Rea will be pleased to hear that. My noble friend also raised the issue of healthcare. All 240 hospitals are now functioning and the Iraqi Ministry of Health has established 24-hour operation centres to co-ordinate health issues.
Turning to schools, there are 6 million students and 300,000 teachers in more than 20,000 schools. There are 70 million new text books. Transport is improving; the media is flourishing; and, of course, there has been a great deal of work on justice. I have extensive details

553
on all those points. I propose to write to all your Lordships who have taken part in today's debate to give further details on those points.
My noble friend Lord Bach, who is in his place beside me, has noted the points made by the noble Lord, Lord King, on pay and tax of the Armed Forces and the points made by the noble Baroness, Lady Park, on service cuts. He will write to them in respect of those issues.
The noble Lord, Lord King, referred to the news blackout. In fact, there was widespread media coverage of the difficulties to which he referred. I regret that the Iraqi Government decided that they wanted to close down Al-Jazeera's Baghdad office for 30 days, which they arc reopening tomorrow. We have made clear to the interim government that we think it is very important that there is an open and free press operating in Iraq.
My noble friend Lord Judd raised points in relation to casualties. It is only fair to say to my noble friend that I hope he was not ascribing to the Government any lack of compassion on those issues. We seek at all times to minimise the impact of military action on civilians and of course to avoid civilian casualties, but there are no reliable figures for Iraqi civilian casualties not because we do not care, but because so far it has proved impossible to collect them. I shall be frank and say that I regret that enormously. I believe that it is a shortcoming that needs urgently to be remedied.
The noble Lord, Lord Owen, raised a number of points about the FCO's United Nations department. I shall write to him on those, but I do assure him that things are not quite as dreadful as perhaps he has been led to believe.
The noble Lord, Lord Thomas of Gresford, the noble and gallant Lord, Lord Craig of Radley, the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and, I am pleased to say, the noble and learned Lord, Lord Mayhew, all spoke about the legal basis for war. The noble Lords, Lord Thomas of Gresford and Lord Goodhart, know that we have discussed these issues over and over again. I was grateful to my noble friend Lord Truscott for his lucid and accurate account of this issue. However, let us be clear. Nothing I found in the Butler report calls into question the legality of the war. The view of the Attorney-General that the military action taken in Iraq was lawful remains his view, as it was then. The Government have acted in accordance with his advice at all times.
On the question of the publication of legal advice raised by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I hope that he will agree that the Government have put more into the public domain than has ever been done before on an issue of this nature. Equally as unprecedented is our openness over publishing intelligence, much as my noble friend Lord Gilbert may regret that, and as unprecedented as the vote in the Commons before we committed our troops.
The noble Lord, Lord Wright of Richmond, was concerned that the conflict in Iraq diverts attention from the Middle East. I recognise that concern, but I can assure him that it has not diverted my attention,
554
although I suspect that that is not quite enough to satisfy the noble Lord. I look forward to his tabling a debate on these issues so that I can bring the House up to date on the Middle East peace process. I look forward also to pursuing the points made by the noble Viscount, Lord Waverley, and the noble Lord, Lord Selsdon.
To be frank with the noble Earl, Lord Sandwich, there are many in the Middle East who are really delighted to see the back of Saddam Hussein. They believe that the coalition was right to ensure his demise. It is the Middle East conflict that remains the principal source of anger and frustration in the region—or at least that is what I have found during my recent very extensive travels in the area.
What I find remarkable about many of the contributions to the debate has been the way in which so few noble Lords have mentioned the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. In asking us to consider the alternatives to military action, some noble Lords have asked us to believe that more time would have made a difference. However, do noble Lords really believe that? We know already about 259 mass graves, and the 300,000 bodies in those graves.
Lord Watson of Richmond: My Lords, I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. She has raised a very important point. When on 18 March 2003 the Prime Minister rose in another place to move the Motion in favour of the commitment of British troops, he did so very clearly to,
"support the decision of Her Majesty's Government that the United Kingdom should use all means necessary to ensure the disarmament of Iraq's weapons of mass destruction".
That was the core of the case made by the Prime Minister and that is what this debate is about.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, this debate is not solely about weapons of mass destruction. The Opposition parties asked for a debate about matters relating to Iraq. That is why it has been a broad-based debate. If the noble Lord wants to have a debate about specific issues, he knows that he is at liberty to table such a debate.
Again, we have gone back to blaming the Government for the decision and have moved away from the issues surrounding the atrocities of Saddam Hussein. I ask noble Lords this: do they really believe that waiting another year would have made a difference? Would Saddam have backed down from developing weapons of mass destruction? Such a supposition is not just fanciful; at worst, it is irresponsible.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords—
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I am not going to give way because, as noble Lords have pointed out, I have been a fairly lonely voice on some of these issues. Many noble Lords have had the opportunity to speak and very soon we shall run out of energy, let alone anything else.

555
As always, the debate has been stimulating and interesting but at times, I am bound to say, in the enthusiasm to express a clear view about the genesis of this conflict, the evidence of four reports examining what happened has been reinterpreted. The plain and simple findings of those reports have been set on one side, which is worrying.
But what is more worrying is the refusal to acknowledge any improvements for the Iraqi people in facing a future without Saddam Hussein and his vicious regime.
I acknowledge today—as I have consistently acknowledged in the past—the shortcomings in the way in which the coalition governments have operated in relation to Iraq. But it strikes me that no such desire for a balanced approach afflicts some commentators, including some in your Lordships' House.
We knew before today that we would not agree on the legal basis for war. Now it seems that, although we all agree that the report of the noble Lord, Lord Butler,
556
was "brilliant", as the noble Baroness, Lady Williams, said, or "excellent" as the noble Lord, Lord Lamont, said, or just plain balanced and sensible, we still do not agree with his conclusions.
But surely we can agree on some points. Iraq's future without Saddam Hussein is a better prospect than Iraq's future with Saddam Hussein. Surely we can agree with my noble friend Lord Tomlinson that we want the best possible future for Iraq—a peaceful and prosperous future.
I cannot, nor would I wish to, spin away the military action of last year. But I look forward to a time when we can discuss a way forward for Iraq, as well as understanding why we continue to disagree about the past.
I hope that at some stage soon your Lordships' passion about the past will be equalled with a passion about the future, for what has been achieved and what can be achieved. Iraqi people deserve no less.
House adjourned at seventeen minutes past ten o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Pensions Bill
(Sixth Day)
Tuesday, 7 September 2004.
The Committee met at half past three of the clock.
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Baroness Gould of Potternewton): I welcome you all back after—I hope—a very happy and restful break, ready for day six on the Pensions Bill.
Clause 126 [Directions]:
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham)The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Work and Pensions (Baroness Hollis of Heigham) moved Amendment No. 194D:
Page 87, line 8, at end insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 126 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I was going to begin by saying, "Here we are again". Unfortunately, that is not true, strictly speaking. Instead of being in the rather congenial atmosphere upstairs, with fresh air and so on, we find ourselves back in the Moses Room. I find the arrangement for sitting in the middle of the Recess signally inconvenient. It is one thing if World War III is about to break out or something—we would come back and understand the problems—but it is another to come back on a planned basis when the Library is cut off from many sections. The Government really ought to decide whether, in the summer, this place is a building site or a legislative chamber. It is not helpful at all.
A number of current developments are not without interest. There is, of course, a very large rumour going around that the Bill is to be dropped in favour of a Bill on fox hunting. It should be clear that we are not wasting our time. I hope that the Minister can give us a clear assurance that there is absolutely no question whatever of that happening.
A large number of government amendments have also been tabled. As often in the past, I pay tribute to the Minister for the very helpful way in which she has provided notes on the different amendments. There are hundreds and hundreds on which debate could have taken place in the Commons. We are also short of a Secretary of State. As all the legislative process seems to be moving to this end of the building rather than taking place in the other, perhaps the sensible thing to do is to make the noble Baroness Secretary of
GC 130
State. She knows infinitely more about the subject than any other possible candidate and that would enable us to proceed smoothly in scrutinising the Bill.
I ought to mention a couple of other developments. I suggested to the noble Baroness during the Recess that it would be helpful if we had some sort of matrix showing which groups of pensioners whose company schemes are in difficulty are likely to qualify for no help at all, help under the financial assistance scheme or help under the PPF. As always, she courteously replied. The difficulty is that many of us are receiving letters from companies that ask, "What's happening so far as we are concerned?". I find it difficult to give any authoritative answer lest I have misunderstood the situation. In addition to the very helpful note sent by the noble Baroness, it would be of great value to the public outside—who obviously have considerable expectations about the Bill—if she could give a more specific answer on that.
Worryingly, the noble Baroness's note referred to the financial assistance scheme. We are still in a situation where only one clause in the Bill effectively says that everything will be done by statutory instrument. We have no idea what the content is. It is clear from her note that the Government do not seem to have very much idea at the moment either. The idea was introduced in something of a panic in the other place at a late stage of the Bill, but we really need to know the Government's intentions so far as that is concerned. When we come to the clause, I hope that we have amendments so that, instead of leaving the whole thing to unamendable regulations, we know exactly what the Government have in mind. It would be unacceptable for the clause to go on the statute book in its present form.
The noble Baroness—this is a rather retrospective comment—has sent many of us a note on the progress of consultation on the moral hazard problems that we raised earlier. We are very grateful to her for that. We must hope that more progress on those crucial issues can be made. All of us are concerned with improving the Bill as it stands, particularly in regard to the dangers that the earlier clauses present on a wide range of issues.
I turn briefly to Clause 126. I am a little puzzled by it in that it enables directions to be given during an assessment period in relation to an "eligible" scheme. I am slightly puzzled by that expression because I am not clear in my own mind when a scheme becomes an "eligible" scheme. I should have thought it would not become an eligible scheme during a period of assessment because, presumably, the assessment may be such that it is decided that it is not an eligible scheme. Perhaps the noble Baroness will clarify that point.
I am not clear why the assessment period should take place when the assets appear to exceed the scheme's protected liabilities. I should have thought that only if it was increasingly apparent that that was not the case would it become an assessment period. But the whole issue of assessment periods and what happens in them is something to which we shall come a little later and I shall raise it then.

GC 131
I should be grateful if the noble Baroness could clarify those points. Once again I express our appreciation. We are all trying to get the Bill right and we are grateful to her.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: We on these Benches associate ourselves with the thanks given to the noble Baroness and her hard-working team for the information we have received since we last met. But clearly the clock is ticking very fast—even faster than the clock which, people will notice, is slow by five minutes. We have all had many letters and communications from people whose pensions are at risk and we are very keen to have further details of the financial assistance scheme. Frankly, it is long overdue.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: Before the noble Baroness responds to these opening remarks, I join in the tributes for the way in which she has approached this legislation, with particular reference to consultation on the so-called "moral hazard" clauses. I recall that the Minister said that she was,
"genuinely open-minded as to whether this is the right way forward",
and,
"perfectly willing to be persuaded".—[Official Report. 8/7/04; col. GC213.]
I believe that all Members of the Committee went into the Recess with the sense that while we had undoubtedly discussed the problems of moral hazard at some length, we had certainly not resolved them.
Since then, the Minister has worked exceedingly hard with her officials, issuing a discussion paper on the topic which went to a number of interested parties. Yesterday we received a fascinating letter from the noble Baroness to colleagues setting out an immensely helpful summary of what the key players in the worlds of business, venture capital, accountancy and pensions have been saying in response to the consultation paper.
At some stage, I hope to make the Minister aware of the consultations that I have been able to have with the professionals in this area. I mentioned to her the need to consult with the Society of Turnaround Professionals, which I instanced before we rose. It is not mentioned in the Minister's letter but its voice is both authoritative and indispensable. Right across the board the message is the same, particularly as a consequence of what the Minister refers to in one word—namely, "retrospection". Because of the approach to retrospection, everyone to whom I have talked has been able to give instances of companies that have been saved but which would not have been saved had the new regime proposed in the Bill been in force.
I do not want to take up the Committee's time now, but I ask the Minister to respond to the letter I have put on the board for her, which sets out the concerns of this sector.
GC 132
Finally, the appointment of a new Secretary of State provides the Government with a timely opportunity dispassionately to reassess this Pensions Bill from top to bottom.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Like other noble Lords, I am delighted to be back and to see everyone—I was going to say "fighting fit", but I am not sure I want "fighting fit"—fit and happy, bronzed, sun-tanned and rearing to go.
I also should like to express my appreciation—already expressed by your Lordships—for the work done by the officials over the summer while many of us were able to take a vacation. I know that many of them have postponed holiday breaks until the Bill has achieved—we hope—consent in both Houses. They have been working both on this and on the regulations. I endorse the remarks made by your Lordships this afternoon about the work that has gone on during the summer.
I agree entirely with the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, that the officials have tried, with the support of Ministers, to enter into those discussions with as constructive an attitude as possible. It is obviously true that not all expertise resides within the department. It is unusual for the DWP to work with experts outside the department because—unlike, say, education and health—it tends to work mostly with lobbies such as the poverty or children's lobbies and so on. So it is valuable for all sides concerned.
I shall address a couple of the more specific points before turning very quickly to Clause 126. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, invited me to say where we are and whether we could do a matrix on PPF and the financial assistance scheme. When we can, we will. The trouble is that we are not there yet. I think that Members of the Committee are aware of the situation with the Pension Protection Fund. It will cover schemes required to pay the levy from April 2005 which begin winding up from April 2005 and where the sponsoring employer experiences a qualifying insolvency event from April 2005 onwards. Those three conditions have to be in place for a scheme to enter the PPF.
The noble Lord was particularly concerned about the financial assistance scheme. I have to say that the detail of who will qualify has yet to be finalised. We are still having extensive consultations with the bodies involved. I would be delighted to be able to bring more information to the Committee than I currently can. However, it is difficult and complex. The act of trying to collect robust data of those affected is a much more extensive and elongated process than certainly I had expected when we went into this. Even the apportionment of deferred members and active members to existing pensioners on some of the schemes that may be at risk is not always available.
One issue we need to consider is whether we have an initial cut-off date for support and the financial assistance scheme. We are likely to need a cut-off point, both to make it administratively feasible and to have some certainty about the funding arrangements. One option we are considering, which obviously is the

GC 133
front-runner at the moment but which is not necessarily going to be the last word, is April 1997, since that was the starting point for the Pensions Act 1995 corning into force. However, we shall take into account the position of schemes which started to wind up shortly before April 1997 before reaching a final conclusion.
3.45 p.m.
Schemes that start to wind up after 10 April 2004, when the Secretary of State made his announcement in the other place, benefit from the change in priority order. That change means that non-pensioned members will be less likely to suffer the scale of losses to their pensions as were experienced under the old priority order. We hope that that may reduce the problem for them and for deferred members.
However, I repeat that we do not yet have details of the financial assistance scheme that I can bring before the Committee. We have not yet ruled out help in respect of schemes that start to wind up between May 2004 and the introduction of the PPF—what I call the sandwich year. We are still making final decisions on requirements for the financial assistance scheme once further research and consultation have been concluded. We need better data; we need to make a decision on the start date; we need to make a decision on the transitional, interim year between May 2004 and, we hope, the effective running of the PPF from April 2005; and we need further decisions relating to the sponsoring employer not being insolvent. I understand that all those schemes will be eligible for assistance. Solvent employers should support their schemes and provide the benefits that members expect. Nevertheless, issues of employer solvency remain under consideration.
There are obvious issues about patterns of payment and to whom, about the degree of concentration that there may be and so on. We still have to resolve many issues through consultation. More data need to be collected on this matter. I hope that, by the end of the year, I shall have conveyed adequate information to the House, with appropriate regulations and so on in the spring, so that this can take effect shortly thereafter. I can assure the Committee that as soon as I have more precise information I shall certainly put it before the House. At the moment I regret that I cannot go beyond that.
On another point mentioned by the noble Lord, a number of government amendments will come through in Committee stage and in all cases I shall do my best to ensure that Members have adequate information in good time so that they can seek external advice if they wish. To the best of my knowledge, only one substantive bundle of amendments, or possibly one amendment—I do not know how many there will be—will come forward de novo on Report. We had hoped to do that at Committee stage. That concerns the survivors' benefit or the widows' benefit and what the rate would be in the PPF.
The reason for withdrawing it for reconsideration is because of the read across to the Civil Partnership Bill. Civil partners must be treated in the same way as
GC 134
spouses. When we started work on this Bill, we did not consider that. That is one item that I shall have to bring forward on Report and which I am sure will be good news to everyone. Apart from that, my best advice is that all the substantive items will have been explored in Committee with your Lordships' help.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has been pressing me about the state of the regulations associated with this matter. Again, I am not able, as I had hoped to be, to bring any or a few to your Lordships' House before the Bill completes its passage through the House. My latest information is that there are likely to be at least 100 sets of statutory instruments on which officials have been working over the summer. As and when I can bring your Lordships information about that, I shall be happy to do so.
Finally, on the moral hazard point, I shall check on the position of the turnaround professionals. If they have been overlooked I shall ensure that discussions include them. I shall seek to bring details to the Committee, certainly on issues such as whether the current scheme is a constructed one, as opposed to an informal telephone call. I think we are making very good headway on that and it seems to be moving in the right direction. I thank your Lordships for your contributions on that. I believe that we have made more progress on that issue. All parties, including the officials, are to be congratulated on that.
Those were the broad remarks made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. He then turned to Clause 126 and asked why we needed directions during the assessment period. Perhaps I can explain. Clause 126 enables the Bill to issue directions to scheme trustees or managers or other relevant persons during the assessment period. The assessment period is designed precisely to find out and to obtain the valuation of the balance between protected liabilities and assets, and so on, on matters relating to the investment of the scheme's assets, the incurring of expenditure, the instigation or conduct of legal proceedings and any other matters prescribed in the regulations.
It is important that the board is able to monitor the activities of scheme trustees and managers at that critical stage and to ensure that they are consistent with the overall aim of achieving the best possible outcome for scheme members.
Moreover, in order to protect the funding position of the PPF, and thus the burden on levy payers, the board must aim to ensure that, where a scheme's assets exceed its liabilities, that position is maintained—in other words, that manipulation, whether in good faith or in less than good faith, does not occur—or if the liabilities exceed the assets, that any excess is kept to a minimum.
Therefore, Clause 126 gives the board the power to revoke or vary any decision made by any relevant person—for example, the trustees or managers or the sponsoring employer—if the need should arise. That is the purpose of the clause and I hope your Lordships will agree that it should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: I am most grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Perhaps I may respond briefly.

GC 135
I say again that there is a very strong rumour that the Bill is, or may be, dropped in favour of a hunting Bill. I hope that the noble Baroness can make it absolutely clear that that is not the case.
Her remarks about amendments at the Report stage are certainly very welcome. But I find her remarks on the financial assistance scheme extremely worrying. She is saying, "Well, perhaps we may know where we are by Christmas or November or whatever". That means that we shall let the clause go through in its present state with the whole process being carried out effectively by statutory instrument. The noble Baroness outlined many things about which the Government have still not made up their mind and that means that this House will not be able to amend any of the decisions which the Government take. In those circumstances, we can return to the matter when we reach Clause 274. However, I begin to wonder seriously whether it should be in a separate Bill which can be properly debated; otherwise, the whole matter will be a total blank cheque and that is very worrying.
I shall not pursue the matter further now. But I think that the situation that the noble Baroness outlined with regard to the lack of decisions being taken and the present inability to provide any information within the timescale envisaged in the Bill raises very serious questions and we shall need to return to that point.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: On the subject of the financial assistance scheme, which I also raised, were the noble Baroness back in her role as a student rather than a university lecturer, I should award her an alpha for her prescription of the problem and a delta for progress or action in dealing with it. I share the views of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins: we really must have more facts and more information before the Bill goes through.
Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 127 [Restrictions on winding up, discharge of liabilities etc]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 195:
Page 87, line 24, leave out from "up" to end of line 25.
The noble Lord said: The last words that the Minister uttered were that the two are connected. In this case, the three are connected because one has to look forward in order to understand Clauses 127 to 210, the last subsection of which states firmly:
"This section is to be read subject to section 127 (which restricts the winding up of an eligible scheme during an assessment period)",
which, indeed, it does.
But there is great confusion in my mind because this whole section of the Bill—not the later clauses to which I have just referred but this whole part of the Bill—refers to the activities of the board. As I view the Bill, the winding up of an eligible scheme is normally the prerogative of the board. However, subsection (3) states that that prerogative can be overridden by the regulator in certain circumstances—not least under Section 11(3A) of the Pensions Act 1995. It seems to me that if my interpretation is correct, that is a recipe
GC 136
for endless rows and possibly ultimate disasters. Why should these two distinct bodies operate what is basically the same scheme? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I may be able to help the noble Lord by setting what we are trying to do in context.
The noble Lord's amendment would remove a reference to Clause 210—the backdating of winding-up—from Clause 127(3). That would remove some essential clarity from an otherwise complicated section of the Bill. Clause 127 restricts the winding-up of pension schemes and the discharging of liabilities during the assessment period because, for example, otherwise trustees could make decisions that might not necessarily be in the best interests of all members. Subsection (3) states that this restriction does not apply when a winding-up order is made by the,
"Regulator under section 11(3A) of the Pensions Act 1995"
when an order is made by the regulator to the trustees to wind up the scheme even though the scheme is in the assessment period, and at that point the trustees must comply.
At the end of the subsection, reference is made to Clause 210. Clause 210 provides that when such a winding-up order is given by the regulator, the winding-up must be backdated to the time immediately before the start of the assessment period. That means that the winding-up must be implemented as if the order had been given immediately before the assessment period. The winding-up order is backdated to ensure that the level of benefits that members receive after wind-up are in line with the winding-up provisions on scheme rules and not the PPF level of benefits, which ensures a higher level of benefits for members than would otherwise be the case.
In summary, the reference to Clause 210 in Clause 127(3) helps to clarify that when an order to wind up a scheme is made during the assessment period, the winding-up must be implemented as if the order had been made prior to the start of the assessment period—as if it were outside the assessment period. I hope that that explains why the provision is needed.
Lord Skelmersdale: Not quite. I should have thought that it would be quite obvious to the Minister that the wording of the amendment was a hook on which to hang my question. The Minister has not answered my question, which is, "What is the logic of having two bodies independently operating—one able to over-ride the actions of another—these windings up, or whatever the plural is?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: First, I am confident that things would not happen in that way. Such a situation would occur only when the Pensions Regulator and the PPF are in complete accord. As it stands, no winding-up notice can take place during the assessment period, but occasionally it may be in the interests of scheme members for that winding-up to occur. For example, when there is some issue of crystallising debt, a winding-up scheme may enable the debt owed from the employer to be recovered earlier

GC 137
by the PPF. When it is in the interests of members, the Pension Regulator and the Pension Protection Fund can agree that there should be an intervention that should not wait until the end of the assessment period but should occur during the 12 months or so that the assessment period is running.
For the most part, it would be best for the winding-up to await the determination of the assessment period, but there may be an occasion when, for example, there may be concerns that, given the issues of debt, creditors and so forth, it is sensible to have an earlier rather than a later winding-up. The provision allows that to take place.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am sorry, but that still does not help. Since the board started this process, why cannot the board re-determine it, if it feels it is necessary? Why does the regulator have to come into the equation?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The PPF does not have the power to give winding-up orders until the assessment period is completed. In other words, the winding-up powers of the PPF kick in after the assessment period, which will run for up to a year. The Pensions Regulator's powers run up to the point at which the powers of the PPF take over. It is simply a question of timing and which body has the power. However, the power will be exercised only after close consultation and I suspect that there will be no dispute. One could, I suppose, reconstruct the Bill so that the powers of the Pension Protection Fund were brought back to the beginning of the assessment period, but one would then have to rewrite what we mean by the assessment period. It is simply a perfectly sensible division of labour, given the way that the clock ticks over the assessment period. I do not envisage any problem at all.
Lord Skelmersdale: The noble Baroness, not unusually, gives the impression that I am making a bit of a mountain out of a molehill. I will have to consider what she said because at this precise moment I remain unconvinced. We may well come back to the issue at the next stage. Meanwhile, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
4 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 195A:
Page 87, line 26, leave out from "period" to "no" in line 28 and insert ", except in prescribed circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions—
(a) "
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195A I shall speak also to the amendments grouped with it. This group of government amendments provides specific compensation for members who have been a scheme member for only a very short period; who have rights that have accrued under the scheme but would not be entitled to full benefits. These benefits will be payable to a member who stays in the scheme until normal pension age and are known as long service benefits.
A new paragraph 19A, which will be introduced later in Committee, has been inserted into Schedule 7. It applies to members whose pensionable service terminates on commencement of the assessment period and who do not have a right under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act (protection for early leavers) or rights under the scheme which give them the same level of benefits as those who stay until the scheme's normal pension age. In these cases, if a member has a right under the admissible rules to either, or a choice of, a transfer payment or refund of their contributions, then compensation will be payable at a level of 90 per cent of the transfer payment sum or refund of contributions, whichever is the greater. In other words, we are protecting those who may not have been in the scheme for two years or more.
New paragraph 30A of Schedule 7 provides that where a member's pensionable service is terminated on the commencement of the assessment period and, as a result, the member has a right to elect a cash transfer sum or contribution refund under Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993, then the member will receive compensation in the same way as other active members of the scheme as if they had rights to long service benefit. Regulations will enable modifications to Schedule 7 to ensure that the member is not entitled to double compensation in respect of the same rights under the scheme.
Amendment No. 234AJA will be formally introduced later in Committee and provides regulations under subsection (2C) of Clause 157 to provide which liabilities of the trustees the board are to discharge; that is, the liabilities that would have existed but for the discharge under Clause 152. The regulations will include provision for the trustees to discharge their liability in relation to a refund of contributions or transfer payment sum in respect of a member, where the right arose before commencement of the assessment period.
Amendment No. 199D provides that where a scheme is being wound up then the benefits payable during the assessment period should not be the reduced level payable on winding up but the full scheme benefits capped at the PPF level of compensation.
Amendment No. 195A amends Clause 12, which is headed "Restrictions on winding up, discharge of liabilities etc", to provide that discharges of liabilities can occur during the assessment period in prescribed circumstances and subject to prescribed conditions; for example, payment of a contribution refund where the right arose before commencement of the assessment period.
Amendment No. 199E provides a recognition that it may not be practicable to expect trustees to be able to reduce benefits paid to PPF levels immediately and that there will, therefore, be some risk of overpayment. In these circumstances we are concerned that scheme rules may not always provide trustees with the power to recover overpayments and this amendment ensures the trustees will have this power.
Finally, a number of consequential amendments have been made—Amendments Nos. 199F, 220D, 220B, 224A, 224B, 224C, 232A, and 232B—which make appropriate references to paragraphs 19A and subsections (2) and (2A) of Clause 157.
I hope that noble Lords will agree to these amendments. They are vital to ensure that the members referred to by these amendments do not lose out because the board of the PPF has assumed responsibility for their scheme. I therefore ask that, as they are entirely benevolent, these amendments be accepted by your Lordships. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: It is difficult to work out precisely what this group of amendments is doing, except for the Minister's very clear statement that it is to prevent anyone being treated unfairly. We can all agree to that and we must hope that the amendments achieve the objective. However, this group of amendments, if I have understood it correctly, seems to deal with a very small percentage of people. Am I right in thinking that it is only those who either join or leave in the assessment period?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I realise that this is very technical. It is perhaps my fault that I did not circulate the briefing on it in advance, as that may have been helpful to noble Lords.
Perhaps I can give an example of where rights arose before the assessment period. The member has worked for six months but leaves employment two weeks before the assessment period begins. The member will eventually have a Chapter 5 right to either a contribution refund or a cash transfer sum. In other words, if he has worked there for only six months, only a modest sum will be involved. It does not usually make sense to try to turn such people into a full-scale deferred pensioner.
Although the member has elected his right to a cash transfer sum, the trustees have not completed the work before the assessment period began. The trustees will be able to discharge their liability during the assessment period in respect of the member's right to a cash transfer sum through regulations to be made under Clause 127 allowing that to be protected. If the trustees are unable to complete this discharge before the board of the PPF assumes responsibility for the scheme, then regulations made under Clause 157(2C) will allow the board to pay the cash transfer sum instead.
That is the sort of situation we are talking about. I could give the Committee other examples and would be happy to do so if noble Lords wished to press me on Report. I realise that the subject is semi-technical and I am speaking to many amendments at once. I shall try to ensure in future that such information is circulated in advance. However, that is the intent of the provision. Where people do not have vested rights but the assessment period cuts across the trustees' ability to address non-vested rights, the board will have that ability. That is why the provision is entirely
GC 140
benevolent. Otherwise, those with modest sums who effectively became deferred pensioners would not gain deferred rights but lose out.
Lord Higgins: Generally speaking, the noble Baroness has been very kind in letting us see in advance the arguments that the Government may address in particular groups of government amendments. Therefore, we need discovery of the points she has covered this afternoon.
What worries me more and more about all of this is the position of the poor trustees in moving from their normal role and responsibilities to a situation where all their responsibilities are eventually taken from them. They will have to understand in the mean time the types of points that the noble Baroness made about an individual who happens to join on one side or another of a deadline. Having long been the chairman of trustees of a pension fund, I must say that the idea that they will be aware of all that, or that steps will be taken adequately to inform them during the assessment period, is worrying.
If we are going to go through all of this, it has to be very clear that the board will have to tell the trustees what their responsibilities are. It is going to be a nightmare. Some boards of trustees are extremely confident and expert, but very often there are boards of trustees where some members are not the least bit clear about what their liabilities would be if they got it wrong. I hope that that can be taken into account when the provision comes into effect.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that that is entirely right. This is only one of several instances where an almost parallel authority will run simultaneously between trustees and the board during the assessment period. The noble Lord is right that that will inevitably be complex. Guidance will be given to trustees when a scheme enters the assessment period. So we will be taking belt-and-braces action to ensure that trustees know where their responsibilities begin and end and what the PPF's proper purview is.
On the substance of the noble Lord's point, we are talking about those who usually have less than two years' service and are therefore not vested. He is absolutely right to suggest that it will be a small number. We are just anxious to ensure that, by going into the assessment period, there is no risk that those people will lose their money due to an ambiguity or a gap between the trustees' responsibility ending and the PPF taking over. As I said, the provision is entirely benevolent. Basically, we are protecting small savers.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 195B:
Page 87, line 29, after first "scheme" insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 195C:
Page 87, line 32, after third "or insert "—
(i) "
The noble Baroness said: In moving Amendment No. 195C. I shall speak also to the other amendments grouped with it. I believe that I have circulated to the Committee, in advance, an extended speaking note of what each amendment does so that your Lordships are not in the same position as regards the previous set of amendments. I shall make a shortened introduction and any Member of the Committee will be free to raise points on any of the amendments.
These amendments effectively do two things. They enable some additional liabilities to transfer to the board when it assumes responsibility for a scheme and they provide a regulation-making power to modify contracts of insurance in certain circumstances. Let me explain those in turn.
First, Clause 152 provides for all the property, rights and liabilities of the scheme to transfer to the board once the board issues a transfer notice and assumes responsibility for a scheme. The trustees or managers of the scheme are then discharged from their pension obligations and the board is required to pay compensation on an ongoing basis.
As the Bill currently stands, subsection (3) of this clause provides that the liabilities transferred to the board do not include any liability to, or in respect of, any member of the scheme, other than liabilities in respect of money purchase benefits. These amendments change the subsection to enable the liabilities in respect of a member, which can transfer to the board, to include other liabilities as may be prescribed. It is intended to use this power to ensure that those liabilities in respect of members, such as a contract of insurance (to which we shall come later) or a contributions equivalent premium—as your Lordships know, that is the repayment of NI rebates—can and will transfer to the board.
Let me now explain the second part of these amendments—the power to modify certain insurance contracts. Trustees may take out insurance contracts to discharge their liabilities in respect of a particular scheme member's entitlements to a pension or other benefit. In some cases, trustees may have done that without discharging their liabilities. For example, the insurance company pays them a set sum and they then pass that on to the member, as opposed to the sum coming directly from the insurance company to the member. The amendments ensure that such contracts will transfer to the board.
However, there could be an additional problem if the contracts contain provisions which impose a duty on the trustee—now the board—to pay a particular amount to a particular member. Although in most cases we expect that the specified amount will be less than the amount the member will receive under PPF compensation, that may not always be the case. We are concerned that the board may be required to pay an individual more than his or her compensation entitlement. To prevent that occurring, the
GC 142
amendments provide for regulations to modify such contracts of insurance. However, that will be only in very limited circumstances where the contracts cannot be surrendered or where the surrender value is lower than the liabilities protected and the "specified amount" is greater than the PPF level of compensation to which the member may be entitled. That is to ensure equity within the PPF.
I believe it is extremely important that we enable the transfer of liabilities to occur as smoothly as possible when the board assumes responsibility for a scheme. For that reason, I urge the Committee to accept these government amendments.
I believe that we have provided information on the background of each of these individual amendments. If I can help further, I shall be happy to do so. I hope that, with the information provided in advance, the Committee will be content to accept the amendments. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: Is the noble Baroness saying that the clause, once amended by these amendments, may create a situation where a particular individual receives less than he would if the insurance company had paid in the normal way?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There could be a situation in which the individual could receive either less or more outside the PPF than he would receive if he went into the PPF. We are trying to ensure that he will receive the same level of PPF compensation.
Lord Higgins: At the same level as he would have had before the board became involved?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, the same level as other members in similar situations within the PPF.
Lord Higgins: That would mean that an individual would have an arrangement whereby an insurance policy was taken out and he would receive certain benefits, but if it so happened that the scheme became an eligible scheme in the assessment period, he might receive less. This amendment achieves that. In that case, I believe it is somewhat objectionable.
4.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As I understand it, there are relatively few insurance contracts: most people come within the ordinary scheme. Some employees may have an insurance contract because the benefits are extremely expensive and an insurance contract has been taken out to protect them. If the scheme as a whole came into the PPF, existing pensioners would have 100 per cent of their benefits protected through compensation. Others would have 90 per cent protected. It would be unreasonable for some people, because they had a special arrangement through an insurance contract, to be able to come into the PPF and for the PPF to be expected to honour compensation. Had those people been within the ordinary range of members, they would be receiving 90 per cent, but they would now get 100 per cent or even more. That is why we are ensuring that the

GC 143
compensation scheme treats all people in the same way. There is therefore a power to override the insurance contract in such situations.
Lord Higgins: The compensation scheme overrides the existing arrangement, which has nothing to do with the fact that it has gone into the control of the PPF. I understand what the Minister is saying—I think—and no doubt other Committee Members also do, but it is slightly worrying. To restate the case, as I understand it, there is a scheme that insures a particular individual's rights. That is a direct arrangement through the scheme for paying out benefits for which an insurance premium has been paid. The Minister is saying that once one is into the clutches of the board everyone must be treated equally, even though some have made that particular arrangement. In such circumstances, I am not sure who gains, although I am clear who loses. The insurance benefit goes into the general pool. That is an extraordinarily odd arrangement and we shall need to think about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The arrangement is with the scheme and not the individual. We are seeking to ensure that everyone is treated in the same way, regardless of how the trustees have arranged for them to be paid. In a DB scheme, the trustees may have decided that the majority of members of that scheme can expect to receive their pension through the normal pattern of payment. However, they may have decided that some members should lay off the liability through an insurance contract, which would still come out of the scheme assets that the trustees are handling. If the scheme then goes over into the PPF, it would be unreasonable in all fairness artificially to continue to protect what may well be rates of payment well above the compensation rate to other members of the same scheme for which the trustees are responsible.
In practice, we expect that the opposite will be the case. In most insurance cases it will not be possible to reach the PPF level of funding. We are trying to ensure that, once the scheme goes into the PPF, however the pension promise was to have been delivered—whether through an insurance contract or not—all the members of the PPF are treated in a similar and equitable way in terms of compensation.
Lord Higgins: Even though they were not party to this particular insurance? Only some of the employees would be insured under the scheme and not the great mass. Therefore, surely it is not worth their while to be insured.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That may or may not be the case. However, we are seeking to ensure that the individuals within a scheme whose pension promise by the scheme has been met in a different way are none the less treated in the same way when they come into the PPF. Otherwise, it would be unfair and the extra cost would have to be picked up either by the pension levy or in some other way.
Viscount Trenchard: I believe that the noble Baroness is confusing fairness. In this case, I find her definition of fairness quite hard. I understand well that the aim of the Pension Protection Fund is to protect people whose schemes have fallen into difficulty. However, to treat them fairly means that they should all be treated in the same way. That seems to me to be wrong when not everyone who is in any scheme that goes into the PPF has the same level of pension benefits. In addition, some people in one scheme may have their benefits insured and others may not. On the assumption that those differentials were considered to be fair prior to the scheme falling into difficulty, to eliminate those differentials is not fair, as the noble Baroness suggests, but is patently unfair.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I really disagree with the noble Lord on this matter. I shall give an example. Mr Y has an entitlement—a contract of insurance for £30,000—and Mr Z is also entitled to £30,000 through the normal DB scheme. Under the PPF rules, without this clause Mr Z would come into the PPF and receive only 90 per cent compensation. If we did not have the right to override the contract of insurance, Mr Y would continue to receive the £30,000 protected by the insurance contract. In my view, that would be unfair.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I have a factual question. Is the effect of this overriding of the insurance contract to reduce the amount of money that insurance companies would pay?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not believe so. The trustees have taken out the insurance contract to protect the assets of the scheme. Essentially the contract is an asset of the scheme which should transfer to the board. Once within the board, the payments to individuals are made at the same compensation rate for everyone in that same category.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Effectively there will be no loss of payment by the insurance company into the pension fund. The important point is that we do not want to let the insurance companies off the hook, do we?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Absolutely not. We are trying to ensure that two people, who expect the same outcome, come into the scheme where both are exposed to a 90 per cent compensation rate. We do not want one of them to be protected artificially at 100 per cent when the other is protected at 90 per cent simply by virtue of the way the matter is laid off.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: That is a different question.
Lord Higgins: Leaving aside the question of whether the insurance company pays up in those circumstances, it would appear that we are legislating to override a series of individual insurance contracts and allocating the proceeds from someone for whom the policy was designed to a quite separate group of people. I can think of no precedent for doing that. I

GC 145
doubt that we can get any further this afternoon. We are becoming bogged down on this matter. It raises some very difficult issues that we should consider.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 195D to 195G:
Page 87, line 33, at end insert ", or
(ii) such other liabilities as may be prescribed."
Page 87, line 34, leave out "This subsection applies" and insert—
"(4A) Subsection (4)—

(a) is subject to section 130, and

(b) applies"

Page 87, line 36, at end insert—
"(4B) Subsection (4C) applies where, on the commencement of the assessment period—

(a) a member's pensionable service terminates, and

(b) he becomes a person to whom Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c. 48) (early leavers: cash transfer sums and contribution refunds) applies.

Section 141(2) (retrospective accrual of benefits in certain circumstances) is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a member falls within paragraph (a) or (b).
(4C) Where this subsection applies, during the assessment period—

(a) no right or power conferred by that Chapter may be exercised, and

(b) no duty imposed by that Chapter may be discharged."

Page 87, line 36, at end insert—
"( ) Where a person is entitled to a pension credit derived from another person's shareable rights (within the meaning of Chapter 1 of Part 4 under of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30) (sharing of rights under pension arrangements)) under the scheme, nothing in subsection (4) prevents the trustees or managers of the scheme discharging their liability in respect of the credit in accordance with that Chapter."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: Before calling Amendment No. 196, I must inform your Lordships that if Amendment No. 196 is carried I cannot call Amendment No. 197 for reasons of pre-emption.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 196:
Page 87, line 43, leave out subsection (7).
The noble Lord said: Amendment No. 197 will not be moved as we have already discussed it at some length. However, I am most certainly moving Amendment No. 196. The Minister will not like me for it because this is a drafting amendment.
Subsection (7) states:
"The Regulator may not make a freezing order (see section 20) in relation to the scheme during the assessment period".
We already know that because it is there in black and white in Clause 22, which we discussed a couple of months ago and to which we may return in a month's time. Why on earth is it necessary to repeat it? After all, if one is on the staff of the regulator or one is the regulator himself, one would expect to find one's powers and duties encapsulated in the provisions relating to the regulator rather than in those relating to the board. Indeed, to be perfectly fair to the draftsman,
GC 146
that is exactly what he has done under Clause 22. However, I do not understand why it is necessary to repeat it. I beg to move.
Lord Borrie: I have felt in the last short while that we have been discussing a range of amendments in this part that there is a certain difficulty about the assessment period. When the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, asked questions about it earlier, I wondered precisely what the assessment period was and how long it lasted. I raise this point in order to obtain further clarity from the Minister.
My understanding is that, during the period and before a transfer notice is given under Clause 151 transferring responsibility for the scheme to the Pension Protection Fund board, both the regulator and the board—somewhat inconveniently perhaps—have certain roles. There is an overlap of roles. For example, as we know from Clause 127(3), the regulator may make a winding-up order during the assessment period. However, I am not surprised at Clause 127(7), which we are debating now, because during the assessment period one has a similar impact as a freezing order by virtue of Clause 125(5), which states:
"No benefits may accrue under the scheme to, or in respect of, members of the scheme during the assessment period".
That is more or less exactly what is said in relation to a freezing order under Clause 20 and there are various other similarities.
The noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, quite correctly said that the point is made in Clause 20 that no freezing order may be made in relation to a scheme during an assessment period. If we have that in Clause 20, why also have it here? Normally, I would agree with that type of point because the Bill is long enough as it is without mentioning things twice. However, on the other hand, given that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and myself are unlikely to be the only people to be confused about who does what and who has what role during the assessment period, I am not worried if something is mentioned in subsection (7) that repeats something mentioned earlier if it adds to the clarity of what is and is not allowable.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful to the noble Lord. The short answer is that the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, is correct. In a sense, this provision repeats what has already been established. In the past, your Lordships have often urged me to extend clarity to the Bill by adding other words. If Committee Members think that this provision is redundant, I shall re-examine the matter. However, it makes clear the differing functions of the regulator and the Pension Protection Fund board.
I shall take my response from Committee Members, but it may be worth describing the difference between a freezing order under the regulator and an assessment period under the board. The effect of a freezing order during this time is like pressing the pause button on the video recorder. During this time, a scheme will not be able to wind up unless the regulator itself makes a winding-up order and no further benefits will accrue in respect of members. That is the crucial element of a freezing order.

GC 147
In addition, and when the regulator deems it appropriate in the particular case, a freezing order may also determine that no transfers are allowed in or out of the scheme; no more contributions can be paid in; no other payments in may be made; no members can be admitted to the scheme; benefits are reduced to no less than the level payable if the scheme had commenced winding up; and/or the trustees or managers are compelled to obtain an actuarial valuation which will include an assessment of the assets and liabilities of the scheme.
My noble friend and the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale, are exactly right that the assessment period has almost the same effect on the scheme as the freezing period. The freezing period allows the regulator to ensure that any situation does not worsen and to see whether a scheme needs to go through to the PPF.
During the assessment period, a scheme will not be able to be wound up unless, as we saw in relation to the previous amendment, the regulator itself makes a winding-up order and no further benefits will accrue in respect of members. No transfers are allowed in or out of the scheme, no contributions can be paid in, no other payments can be made and no members can be admitted. Benefits are reduced to the level payable as if the PPF board had assumed responsibility for the scheme, and the auditor is compelled to obtain an actuarial valuation, which will include an assessment of the assets and liabilities of the scheme.
In essence, the assessment period is a freezing period but it is imposed by the involvement of the board with an eligible scheme on the occurrence of a qualifying insolvency event in relation to the sponsoring employer of the scheme and not by the regulator. For that reason, I do not believe it could add any benefit for the regulator to be able to issue a freezing order during an assessment period or, indeed, as the noble Lord made clear, to remove these words. I think that it is helpful to keep them in. I do not feel very strongly about the matter but it seems to me that it is probably wiser to keep the words and to make it clear that the two schemes, although parallel in their powers, will probably be distinct in terms of the times at which they are introduced and implemented—one by the regulator; the next by the board. With that, I hope that the noble Lord will not wish to press the amendment.
4.30 p.m.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am not in a position to press any amendment in a Grand Committee. I would if I were and, in other circumstances, this might well be one of those cases. I very much take on board the words of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, who, after all, has been something to which I can never aspire—namely, a regulator. That was in a totally different context but he was a regulator none the less.
However, the very fact that this clause has nothing to do with the regulator—it is to do with the powers of the board—sometimes, as we discussed and as the noble Baroness said in relation to my earlier
GC 148
amendment regarding subsection (3), gives me grounds to think that it is unhelpful rather than helpful to include subsection (7) in this clause. But I shall consider further and we shall see whether we return to the matter. In the mean time, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
[Amendment No. 197 not moved.]
Clause 127, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 128 [Power to validate contraventions of section 127]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 198:
Page 88, line 14, at end insert—
"( ) The Board may not validate anything not done by reason of section 11(3A) of the Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26) (powers to wind up schemes)."
The noble Lord said: Again. I am somewhat confused by the issue of validation under this clause. Therefore, in order to tease out exactly what "validation" means. I tabled this amendment, which states:
"The Board may not validate anything not done by reason of section 11(3A)",
to which we have already referred,
"of the Pensions Act 1995".
It seems to me that that is a prerogative of the regulator and therefore the board should not become involved. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am grateful for that introduction because I was mystified by the amendment. As the Bill currently stands, Clause 127 restricts trustees from winding up a scheme during the assessment period. That is why it is a matter for the PPF and not the regulator. Clause 128—the clause addressed by the amendment—provides for the PPF board to validate any actions of trustees in contravention of Clause 127 only in circumstances where it is satisfied that to allow the winding up of the scheme during the assessment period would be consistent with the objective of ensuring that the scheme's protected liabilities do not exceed its assets and so on.
Therefore, Clause 127 restricts the trustees. Under Clause 128, if the trustees none the less contravene Clause 127, that can be validated by the board if the board judges that it is in the best interests of the members. It is the board in this case because it is in the assessment period as opposed to a freezing period or pre-assessment period. I hope that that clarifies the situation.
Lord Skelmersdale: To an extent, it does, but the board should not be allowed to override the regulator, although there may well be circumstances in which the regulator should be allowed to override—perhaps I should say, "make forcible suggestions to"—the board. That is what the amendment would achieve; I may be coming from the wrong angle, but that is what I believe.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I do not believe so; I shall check the noble Lord's understanding, but mine

GC 149
is very clear. Once something enters into an assessment period, it is the responsibility of the board, not the regulator. Clause 128 gives a power to the board to validate an action that, without the power, would be illegal given Clause 127. It may be in the best interests of the scheme that the trustees be supported in that action. That is what the provision is about; I am a little puzzled that the noble Lord thinks that it could apply back to the regulator, but I will have a re-read on that and see whether his apprehensions are well founded.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am very grateful, and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 198A:
Page 88, line 28, at end insert—
"( ) In subsection (1) the reference to the assets of the scheme is a reference to those assets excluding any assets representing the value of any rights in respect of money purchase benefits under the scheme rules."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Viscount Trenchard: I beg the Committee's indulgence to make some comment on the amendment. Like my noble friend Lord Higgins, I find that the Bill is becoming increasingly complicated and difficult to read. Has the noble Baroness wondered whether it might not be easier to exclude references to money purchase benefits by making it clear that such benefits do not apply in many parts of the Bill, rather than repeatedly excluding them time and again, which makes the Bill terribly difficult to read? So much of what one comes to is simply repetition.
I ask the Committee's forgiveness for my being pedantic but, in that connection, I notice that an attempt has been made to change benefits "under the scheme" to "under the scheme rules" throughout the Bill. I have thought about that, and think that benefits derive from the scheme itself rather than from its rules, which are simply a method whereby it operates. If we are to have "under the scheme rules" throughout, perhaps we should be consistent; "rules" is clearly missing from the fourth line of Amendment No. 195G, which we have already debated.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We had a debate during a previous Committee sitting—I shudder to think which one it was—on the difference between rules of a scheme and scheme rules. The rules of the scheme are the rules of the particular scheme, but scheme rules are the rules of the particular scheme as modified by the overriding social security legislation—the WRP Act and all the rest of it. I shall check to see whether the noble Viscount is correct in his assertion, but it is quite appropriate that on some occasions the Bill refers to rules of a scheme and on other occasions to scheme rules. I too wish that we had sharper descriptive language so that the ambiguity could be resolved, but that is the reason for it.
As for the repetition, we are in a dilemma. If we do not say something like, "Money purchase schemes are excluded" or "Money purchase benefits are excluded",
GC 150
I suspect—I shall have to take advice on it—that we would have to refer to the matter being understood in the content of Clause x(y)(z). I doubt whether it is clearer to have two items and four cross-references, as opposed to six items, but my hunch is that if we were to follow the noble Viscount's suggestion we would multiply the cross-references and reduce the shopping list. I suspect that people will find the shopping list easier to understand.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 128, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 129 [Board to act as creditor of the employer]:
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 199:
Page 89, line 4, leave out paragraph (b).
The noble Lord said: We move on to Clause 129. I have become aware that many leading players in the world of accountancy are concerned about a lack of a clear procedure in the Bill for binding the board of the Pension Protection Fund clearly and explicitly into a collective creditor procedure. On that basis, I feel strongly that the clause needs to be strengthened and clarified.
The fact that the PPF board is not bound into company voluntary arrangements—CVAs—or Section 425 schemes of arrangement was referred to in a previous debate, as the Minister may recall. The concern on the point is that it in effect gives the PPE board a form of super-priority over other creditors. That would mean that it would be able to negotiate its own terms—terms that might be very much better than those available to other, unsecured creditors. In fact, it would be able to hold other creditors and the insolvency practitioner involved to ransom.
In turn, that detracts from the established principle in insolvency of equal treatment of creditors in the same class, and is likely to influence exit routes towards liquidation, in which the PPF board of course does not have a priority. I am troubled that that again appears to be an instance of where the Bill is in direct conflict with the Government's stated aim of encouraging enterprise and the rescue of viable businesses in trouble.
The noble Baroness may remember, although it was the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, who took the then Bill through, that to that end the Enterprise Act, among other things, abolished the Crown preference in insolvencies. That was a balancing exercise, but it was seen as a step in the right direction. It improved returns to unsecured creditors. However, an apparent super-priority of the PPF board would establish the Crown preference in another form, which would ultimately be to the detriment of unsecured creditors.
The amendment would delete, on page 89, subsection (6)(b), which concentrates on arrangements that have effect under Section 425 of the Companies Act 1985. I am sure that the Committee will recall Section 425, which gives a company power to compromise with creditors and members. It provides for a company to enter into an arrangement with its creditors or any class of creditors. The compromise

GC 151
has to be agreed by creditors representing three-quarters in value of the debt, and is then sanctioned by the court. We are not dealing with some ad hoc arrangement, but with a scheme of arrangement that has to be approved and sanctioned by the court. The company does not have to be insolvent to enter into a Section 425 scheme of arrangement, of course.
If the board is unhappy with a proposed arrangement, which may well be in the minds of those who drafted the clause, it would have the opportunity to oppose it and have its views heard in court. The amendment should maintain the viability of Section 425 schemes and give the PPF board a full opportunity to have its views considered. I beg to move.
4.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The issue is difficult; a lot of the issues that we are discussing are, but there is a genuine and honourable dilemma on this matter. I shall set the background. Amendment No. 199 seeks to remove the provision for the board not to be bound by any terms of a scheme of arrangement as defined, as the noble Lord said, by Section 425 of the Companies Act 1985 previously entered into by the trustees or managers of a scheme where that scheme compromises a claim for the contingent debt owed to the pension scheme—in other words, to which the PPF is not a party. That is why I say that we have a genuine and honourable dilemma.
This area of the Bill is designed to protect the PPF from being duty bound to take on increasing liabilities with a reduced claim against the assets of the employer. If the employer enters into a scheme of arrangement—commonly called a compromise agreement—during the assessment period which results in the rescue of the employer, that would end the assessment period and the PPF involvement with the scheme, as there is now a solvent sponsoring employer and a scheme rescue has occurred. If there is a subsequent insolvency event in relation to the sponsoring employer, another assessment period would begin.
If the scheme compromised the contingent debt to the scheme, the PPF should not be bound by that compromise unless it has consented to it because, first, the compromise agreement may considerably reduce the money which is recoverable from the sponsoring employer, therefore reducing the payment to the PPF if the PPF were to assume responsibility for the scheme. Secondly, if the board were to be bound by any agreement entered into by the trustees of a pension scheme to compromise the contingent debt to the pension scheme before the assessment period begins, that could raise moral hazard issues. For example, the trustees could enter into a scheme of arrangement with the sponsoring employer which would absolve the employer from ever having to pay the full Section 75 debt. The trustees could essentially take any steps necessary to try to keep the sponsoring employer in operation, in the knowledge that the scheme was ultimately protected by the PPF. The Committee can see what depth of issue lies behind that situation.
GC 152
The dilemma is genuinely honourable, and I am not persuaded that to say that the PPF can revisit the issue by going to the courts, given the cost, the length of time and so on, is a satisfactory way of allowing it to destabilise a compromise arrangement that has been made without it being party to it, and which appears to be at the expense of the assets that come into the PPF or increases the liabilities that come into it. That said, we are aware that—thanks to the efforts of the noble Lord, I think—the Institute of Accountants in England and Wales has raised concerns about the approach; he echoed them today. We are involved in discussions with it, the DTI and the Insolvency Service.
Further, we would like to complete our consultations after our initial discussions, because we may well need to return on Report with an amendment. I do not yet know whether that would be one along the lines suggested by the noble Lord or some alternative. I agree that this is not the last word on the issue. In the light of our consultations, it is clear that we need to go further. I suspect that we will come back with an amendment, and I shall try to make sure that the noble Lord and others are given plenty of notice about what that might look like, to see whether it meets his concerns. I hope that he will recognise where we are coming from as a department, which is to ensure that—if I can put it crudely—the PPF does not end up being stitched up. We do not wish to see that happen. I hope that the way I have suggested that we go forward in seeking to balance perfectly honourable but possible conflicting responsibilities and obligations may be a way to progress the issue.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: The issue is inevitably one of shades of grey, but we are persuaded that the noble Baroness's shade of grey is rather more persuasive than that in the amendment. We welcome the fact that she will consider the matter further.
Lord Higgins: I want to ask a simple-minded question. Does the clause as drafted give more priority to the board than the trustees would anyway have?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I should write to the noble Lord or address the issue in a later point. I want to ensure that my words on the subject are entirely correct.
Lord Higgins: Okay, we will let it go at that. However, surely it is the central issue. Perhaps the trustees did not previously have the power in relation to the scheme of arrangement and so on. However, we will listen with interest to the noble Baroness's reflections on the matter.
Lord Borrie: In the course of his response to the debate, I should like the noble Lord, Lord Hunt of Wirral, to amplify a point that somewhat puzzles me. He said in so many words that the Pension Protection Fund ought to be treated along with other creditors and take due cognisance of arrangements that have been made and so on. In the context of the Bill and the

GC 153
public interest purposes of the Bill and the Pension Protection Fund, why should the fund be treated as if it were just one other creditor?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is right that the provision allows the board completely to scrap the scheme of arrangement. So the answer is yes, it would have more power than the trustees. One of the problems may have been that the trustees were dominated by the employers' representatives and so on and they produced a compromise that perhaps secured other company debts at the expense of the fund. However, we believe that they would and could do that only very rarely.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: If I may, I should like to respond to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, in the debate on clause stand part. I think that his point goes much wider than just a Section 425 scheme of arrangement. For now, I merely want to say that in view of the Minister's comments I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 129 shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I have listened very carefully to the points that have been made. I say to the noble Lord. Lord Borrie, that he could make an even better case for Crown preference, the point about public money and why should the public be deprived and other creditors given an advantage. But his feet are firmly rooted in the pre-Enterprise Act environment, in relation to which, as a result of a government move that found support on all sides of the House, it was decided to abolish Crown preference. As the noble Lord knows exceedingly well in view of all the public offices he has held, particularly Director-General of Fair Trading, Crown preference has always been right at the bedrock of insolvency.
The Government, however, took what I thought was a very courageous step. As a result of Mr Gordon Brown, the Chancellor of the Exchequer, having been impressed by the American system, it was said that Crown and public money should not step in to reduce the rights of unsecured creditors and thereby perhaps jeopardise the survival of a potentially viable business. It has been implicit in a number of our debates that we have to find a way through this Pensions Bill that does not destroy jobs. I know that the trade union movement is very concerned that jobs are at risk if the Bill's retrospective elements mean that potentially viable businesses do not survive.
So it is not just a case of looking at Crown preference in its justification and it is not just a case of looking at the rights of the PPF. There is a case for looking at the whole realm of businesses in trouble and finding a way through that is consistent with the Enterprise Act.
The noble Lord, Lord Oakeshott, mentioned a shade of grey. I thought that the Minister's shade of grey could only have been from a speaking note that was not cleared with her colleagues in the Department of Trade and Industry. I have heard her colleagues in
GC 154
that department argue forcibly for removing this sort of preference. I therefore hope that she will give the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, the time of day, sit down with him and hear from him why he embarked on the route that he did. That Act is now on the statute book. It is being imperilled by this and other clauses.
It really is time for the Government to have a new look at how the Bill jeopardises jobs and to sit down with a number of interest groups which are very concerned about this issue. This is all part of what I hope will be a continuing dialogue within the Government that will result in a joined-up policy, so that at least we know where we are, particularly in relation to enterprise.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: There are two points. First, the noble Lord refers to the provision somehow being Crown preference. The PPF is funded by either members' assets or a levy on industry. The money is not Crown money but industry money. I am not persuaded of an argument that basically says that other businesses, through their levy, should pick up the bill for employers to be able to forego some of their responsibility to their pension fund in order to meet other debts. I am not saying that there is right or wrong in this—there is an honourable dilemma between the jobs, the viability of the company, the rescue efforts and sustaining the pension funds—but there is no free money.
Let us take an example. The trustees may know that the scheme is sufficiently underfunded to go into the PPF. There is therefore no incentive to keep it afloat. They might just as well run it down and send the money across—particularly if the employees were represented by the trustees—deal with other debts and instead of allowing the PPF to pick up a deficit or shortfall of 25 per cent to pick up one of 75 per cent. Who is that 75 per cent to be made good by? It is not by the Crown or the by taxpayer but by levy payers and others in the industry.
The worry that has been expressed to me by some of the major financial players in the industry is that, if we are not careful, good companies will be cross-subsidising bad. At the end of the line, that seems to be where the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, would take us.
My second point is that the noble Lord talked about preference. Although it is clear that the PPE' would have more powers than a trustee, it will not have a higher priority; the assets would still be shared equally between all creditors. We are trying to prevent the PPF being excluded from the compromise because it has come late into the game. It would have equal status with other creditors and a compromise would have to be satisfactorily reached. The option of subsequently unstitching matters through court procedures is, of course, available, but it would be lengthy.
As I say, we have not come to the last word on the matter. However, I do not want it thought that we are somehow reneging on a commitment to overcome Crown guarantees, preference, liability or immunity from prosecution in all areas. We are not. A shortfall has to be made good by someone and it is not always clear that the noble Lord's position is the equitable

GC 155
one. I hope that we will come back to the matter on Report as we may be able to find a better way of squaring this rather complicated and wobbly circle.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I hear what the Minister says. I did not evoke a direct comparison with Crown preference; I merely said that she and the noble Lord, Lord Borrie, could make a stronger case for Crown preference, as Ministers have successively done over a range of Bills. We have a real prospect that viable businesses in trouble will lose their fight for survival. That means jobs being destroyed. I take the point that we have to talk the matter through to get the balance right and that good businesses may support bad businesses.
Perhaps the issue reflects on our court system; perhaps we need a super-highway for such applications. Where an arrangement has already been entered into, surely recourse to the court is all that is necessary in the kind of case referred to by the noble Baroness. That is why I hope that she will spend a little time looking at the policy words of the DTI and try to reconcile the difficult balance. I accept that there are shades of grey and of right and wrong, but we could be destroying jobs. That is why I am particularly concerned about the clause.
Clause 129 agreed to.
5 p.m.
Clause 130 [Payment of scheme benefits]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 199A to 199F:
Page 89, line 11, leave out "Subsection (2) applies" and insert "Subsections (2) and (2A) apply"
Page 89, line 13, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 89, line 20, at end insert—
"(2A) But where, on the commencement of the assessment period—

(a) a member's pensionable service terminates, and

(b) he becomes a person to whom Chapter 5 of Part 4 of the Pension Schemes Act 1993 (c.48) (early leavers: cash transfer sums and contribution refunds) applies,

no benefits are payable to or in respect of him under the scheme during the assessment period.
(2B) Section 141(2) (retrospective accrual of benefits in certain circumstances) is to be disregarded for the purposes of determining whether a member falls within paragraph (a) or (b) of subsection (2A).
(2C) Nothing in subsection (2A) prevents the payment of benefits attributable (directly or indirectly) to a pension credit during the assessment period in accordance with subsection (2)."
Page 89, line 20, at end insert—
"(2D) Where at any time during the assessment period the scheme is being wound up, subject to any reduction required under subsection (2) and to subsection (2A), the benefits payable to or in respect of any member under the scheme rules during that period are the benefits that would have been so payable in the absence of the winding up of the scheme.
(2E) Subsections (2), (2A) and (2D) are subject to sections 141(1) to (1B) and l45(9A) (which provide for the adjustment of amounts paid during an assessment period when that period ends other than as a result of the Board assuming responsibility for the scheme)."
Page 89, line 20, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsections (2) and (2A) the trustees or managers of the scheme may take such steps as they consider appropriate (including steps adjusting future payments under the scheme rules) to recover any overpayment or pay any shortfall."
Page 89, line 23, leave out "subsection (2)" and insert "subsections (2) and (2A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 200 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 200A to 200D:
Page 89, line 25, after "scheme" insert "—

(a) in such circumstances as may be prescribed subsection (2) does not operate to require the reduction of benefits payable to or in respect of any member;

(b)"

Page 89, line 44, leave out subsection (6).
Page 89, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may provide that, in prescribed circumstances, where—

(a) a member of the scheme died before the commencement of the assessment period, and

(b) during the assessment period, a person becomes entitled under the scheme rules to a benefit of a prescribed description in respect of the member,

the benefit, or any part of it, is, for the purposes of subsection (2), to be treated as having become payable before the commencement of the assessment period."
Page 89, line 45, after "(2)" insert "or (2A)"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 130, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: Clause 130 concerns the payment of benefits in the assessment period. There are one or two points about which I am not quite clear. Subsection (2) states:
"The benefits payable to or in respect of any member under the scheme during the assessment period must be reduced to the extent necessary to ensure that they do not exceed the compensation which would be payable to or in respect of the member in accordance with this Chapter".
I am not quite clear who will be paying these benefits at that stage in the assessment period. Will it be the trustees or the board? If it is the trustees, how are they to know what compensation will be payable in respect of the member in the circumstances set out?
I am somewhat concerned about subsection (3), which relates to civil penalties under Section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 and applies to,
"a trustee or manager who fails to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance with subsection (2)".
I do not understand how the trustee is to know. In fact, I am not clear why it should be "a trustee or manager". Perhaps the noble Baroness will also clarify that point.
Baroness Barker: Perhaps I may ask a question in addition to those posed by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. It relates to subsection (4) and to those people on benefits who carry on working after retirement age. The Bill refers to the payment of pensions, lump sums and other benefits being postponed but, unlike the equivalent situation under state pension legislation,

GC 157
there seems to be no provision for those payments to be put somewhere—into a deferred pot, for example—and to be paid at a later stage.
As the Bill stands at the moment, a person who continues to work derives no benefit at all. My concern is that this will cut across the steps the Government are trying to take to enable people to continue to work after pension age. I realise that it refers to the assessment period, but it is silent on the matter of benefits being accrued in any way. I should like the noble Baroness to clarify that matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The trustees will pay benefits during the assessment period to pensioners. The payments that the pensioners receive will be exactly the same under the PPF as in the scheme—that is, 100 per cent. There is no particular complexity about that.
However, if people become deferred members—because, for example, the scheme is in the process of being wound up and so on—the situation will become complex and the PPF will provide technical support to the trustees to deal with those difficult issues. I fully accept that.
As to those who are due to work after retirement age, the benefits of deferment will be set out in regulations. We hope that they will match those in scheme rules. There should be no deleterious effect.
Lord Higgins: I may have misunderstood an important point. Is the assessment period always followed by the board taking the matter over? If not, what happens if the assessment takes place and it is decided that the scheme is not eligible? Have people been out of pocket in the mean time because they have not received the full amount?
I still do not understand how the trustees will know what would be payable under the PPF. I am not clear why they should be subject to penalties if they do not know.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The penalties are associated with not taking reasonable steps—in other words, if there has been some inappropriate or bad-faith behaviour, which is not unheard of in the pension world. However, the noble Lord is right about the technical difficulties for trustees. That is why we will be producing technical support to deal with such issues.
Basically, our expectation—if that is the right word—is that, of the schemes that go into the assessment period, some 75 per cent or 85 per cent may end up in the PPF. That is a working assumption. I hope that we are wrong—I hope that more will stay outside the PPF—but that is the assumption we make.
At the point at which schemes go into the PPF, obviously the level of benefits determined by the priority order will apply. That is 100 per cent for existing pensioners—exactly the same as they currently receive—and 90 per cent for deferred pensioners who are not yet drawing their pensions. If, however, a scheme is among the 10, 15 or 20 per cent that do not go into the PPF, the benefits that have accrued to the working member, but which have not
GC 158
been paid to him because he is not yet a pensioner, will be wound back to the point before the assessment period. So any theoretical or notional shortfall will be made good and the individual will continue as though the assessment period had never happened in terms of his level of benefits.
Lord Higgins: I am still not clear about the penalties. What we are saying is that there will be trustees who, instead of paying out the amount of payment to beneficiaries which should have been, might have been or would have been payable under the PPF, pay out the wrong amount—probably more than the PPF would like them to. However, if it is a genuine mistake, to clobber them with civil penalties would be rather worrying.
I am concerned that fewer and fewer people will take on the job of trustee as a result of the Bill. I am seriously concerned about the situation. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, I am not in favour of professional trustees; we need as many volunteers as possible. But they are incurring bigger and bigger risks. They may inadvertently pay out too much in an assessment period—even when they may not end up with the PPF at all—and suddenly find themselves clobbered.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am not saying that the role of trustees will not be made more complex as a result of these provisions. Part of the problem is that in some cases trustees have not been sufficiently trained and supported in exercising their role. However, in terms of civil penalties, we go back to the debate opened up by the noble Baroness, Lady Barker, about "knowingly" and "recklessly".
I am not talking about a situation where trustees, in good faith, accidentally make an overpayment which may or may not be recoverable. I am talking about a situation where trustees knowingly and deliberately arrange payment in such a way as to increase the deficit falling on the PPF. We do not believe that that should be allowed to happen, and that is why the civil penalties are attached, otherwise it would be an offence without a punishment.
Baroness Turner of Camden: As my noble friend knows, I am very keen on employee trustees. In fact, I have tabled an amendment—to be debated later—to increase the number of employee trustees. This would mean that people would have to be adequately trained to cope with the situation, which is much more complex. Organisations exist which are concerned with the training of trustees and I know that unions are involved in the process.
However, a number of us have a real fear that quite well motivated people, and people who would be quite qualified in a general way, may feel reluctant to put themselves forward as trustees because of the complexities of this legislation. One has to be careful about that because it is very important that people who well know their own schemes become trustees. Employee trustees get to know the workings of their own companies and their own schemes and often

GC 159
become experts in that context. However, they will be very concerned if they feel they could be in difficulty with the complexities.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In a way, we are touching on some of the issues on the security difficulties that arose on earlier amendments in regard to the role of trustees and the board during the assessment period. If it will help the Committee, I shall be pleased to circulate a descriptive note of what will happen and the steps to be taken during the assessment period, the degree of trustees' responsibilities and how they taper out, and the overriding powers of the pension protection board. I am very happy to ask officials to circulate a descriptive note of how we expect the assessment period to work and the parallel and ultimate responsibilities of the trustees and the board. I am in the Committee's hands.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I would welcome that. Could it be written in a simple form outlining the instructions that will be given to trustees of what they should do?
Baroness Barker: Perhaps I may add that it is not only the responsibilities but the flow of information that is important. I work with trustees on a daily basis in a slightly different context. We can support and train trustees as much as we like, but they cannot possibly deal with liabilities which they cannot estimate. The key part of what the noble Baroness has said is not who has responsibility at a particular time but who is in possession of the material information. If that can be included, it would go a long way towards solving some the problems that have been quite rightly raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We shall take all those proposals on board. My officials have been here to listen to them and they will be drafting the note. I shall check it to see that it meets the requests of the Committee and send it on its happy way.
Clause 130, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 131 [Loans to pay scheme benefits]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 200E:
Page 90, line 5, after "scheme" insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 201:
Page 90, line 20, leave out "that time" and insert "such time or times as the Board may direct"
The noble Lord said: If one refers to subsection (3) of Clause 131 and omits paragraphs (a) and (b), the Bill states:
"Where an amount lent to the trustees or managers of a scheme under subsection (2) is outstanding … that amount, together with the appropriate interest on it, falls to be repaid by the trustees or managers of the scheme to the Board at that time".
However, paragraphs (a) and (b) refer to three separate times. Can the noble Baroness explain? I beg to move.
5.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that the noble Lord's amendment is rather attractive. If he agrees, I should like to take the matter away and consider whether we should come back with a change of wording.
Lord Skelmersdale: Day six and I am finally delighted. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Clause 131, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 132 [Reviewable ill health pensions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 201A to 201D:
Page 90, line 35, leave out "under the scheme"
Page 90, line 41, leave out "under the scheme or another scheme"
Page 91, line 1, leave out "under the scheme"
Page 91, line 3, after "scheme" insert "rules"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 202:
Page 91, line 30, leave out subsection (6).
The noble Lord said: I tabled the amendment to obtain some appreciation of the draft regulations which might be made under the clause. However, having listened to the opening statement of the Minister, I realise I shall get precisely nowhere. I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 202 not moved.]
On Question, Whether Clause 132, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: The clause is concerned with reviewable ill-health provisions, as indeed are Clauses 133 and 134. I am somewhat surprised at the complexity of' the three pages of the Bill which deal with ill-health provisions during the assessment period. The noble Lord, Lord Borrie, and several others have been worried about the whole idea of an assessment period. Can the Minister give some indication of how long she envisages these assessment periods will last? A whole chunk of the Bill is concerned with them and the fact that the board needs to review ill-health provisions in the course of the assessment period seems to be legislating in immense detail for something which is of a temporary nature and is never likely to be material so far as the assets of a scheme are concerned. Do we really need this clause and the following two clauses?
Clause 134 interprets Clauses 132 and 133. The assessment period, it is to be hoped, will not be for very long, and having an ill-health provision which can be dealt with immediately after the assessment period—even taking into account the fact that a decision may be delayed—would seem to be rather sensible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Clause 132 sets out the provisions relating to reviewable ill-health pensions. My understanding is that between 10 and 20 per cent of early retirements are through ill health. Clearly,

GC 161
given that ill-health pensioners in the PPF receive 100 per cent compensation rather than the 90 per cent compensation for deferred members, we are anxious to ensure that, in the three years or so preceding the scheme coming into the assessment period, ill-health pensions have not been used as a way to appropriate and protect some pensions for some people at the expense of the PPF.
That means that the board has a right to review such pensions to ensure that they are well founded. On the presumption that they are, people will continue to receive their pensions. If the board feels that ill health has been used as a device—and there have been cases of people recovering from Alzheimer's disease, for which they have been given a pension, and so on—it will consider what to do.
The purpose of the clause is to protect the PPF from potential abuse and inappropriate awards of health pensions, which is the only way in which a scheme member under normal pension age could receive a 100 per cent level of uncapped compensation from the PPF. As I say, a member without an ill-health award would have his 90 per cent compensation capped at £25,000. We think the numbers will be very small. However, we have seen in today's press the generosity of some of the current pension settlements.
Where there is evidence to suggest that an ill-health pension awarded in the couple of years preceding the scheme going into the assessment period—which allows a person to retire with not only a 100 per cent pension but an uncapped pension—is ill-founded, we believe that the board, having reviewed the situation, should have the power to revoke and reconsider the matter.
As the Committee knows, the three-year rule is designed to prevent any manipulation of a scheme, either between DB and DC schemes or ill-health pensions, in the years preceding the insolvency event, where the directors and trustees are likely to know that a company scheme is at risk and may seek to take protective action by going for an ill-health pension under pensionable age to attract its more favourable terms. The board needs the right to review such pensions to ensure that they have been appropriately awarded. That is the purpose of the clauses.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: Can the Minister help on the question of how long assessment periods are likely to last?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I apologise. This will be a part of the circulating note but, basically, we expect the assessment period to last at least 12 months. Let me run through what we expect to happen in the briefest of terms. The assessment period begins with the occurrence of a qualifying insolvency event. During the assessment period, the board must determine whether a scheme rescue is possible and obtain a valuation in order to determine whether a scheme has sufficient assets to buy out the PPF level of liabilities. Of course, these things can happen in parallel.
The length of time it may take to determine whether a scheme rescue is possible will depend entirely on the circumstances surrounding the solvency of the
GC 162
employer. However, the Insolvency Service has advised us that in almost all cases it will take 12 months for the fate of the employer to be known.
Then, before work can continue on valuation, there has to be a data cleansing exercise, data reconciliation with the national insurance scheme and so on, all leading to determining and valuing assets and liabilities. Once the board has approved the valuation and issued it to the regulator and the trustees or managers of the scheme and the employer, we expect and intend that the trustees will forward to individual members a summary of the valuation, in particular where the assets exceed the liabilities and vice versa; whether or not the scheme is likely to be taken into the PPF; and the relevant data about individual members' PPF compensation rate.
The valuation can be challenged not only by the trustees but also by the members. For example, if the valuation indicates that a member has 20 years' rights in the scheme but he believes that he has 25, he can request a review to correct that. So the approved valuation is reviewable. We do not yet know the time period in which a review could be raised—it will be set out in regulations—but we have to allow time for that.
So given that the Insolvency Service believes that it will take 12 months to establish the insolvency event and scheme rescue, and given that—although it may happen in parallel—there will be quite an elaborate valuation of both assets and liabilities in which we have to establish a right of appeal for individual members, it seems to us that 12 months is the minimum time—it may well be longer—for the assessment period to run for any particular scheme.
I am very happy to include this in the piece of paper I offered to circulate earlier. I am able to do so because I have already seen in my own briefing a version of it. I do not know whether that answers the noble Lord's question but, when I raised the same question, it persuaded me that 12 months was probably a minimum rather than a maximum time in these circumstances.
Baroness Turner of Camden: I have listened carefully to my noble friend the Minister and I am grateful for the assurances that she gave towards the end of her statement. However, I am unhappy about the possibility of reductions in ill-health pensions. In my experience, ill-health pensions are usually awarded after a fairly rigorous medical examination. A fairly rigorous report emerges to the effect that the person concerned has to be awarded a pension because he or she is no longer able to work properly.
In those circumstances, I am really unhappy about a situation in which that pension can be reduced for a period as long as 12 months. I welcome the kinds of assurances that my noble friend has given us. She mentioned appeals, for example, and that there would be an appropriate appeal mechanism for people in that situation, but I am not terribly happy about it.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In direct response to my noble friend, obviously there will be appeals. There will be a two-stage process. A person may not only go

GC 163
through the PPF review process but can go to the PPF ombudsman. His determination could then be referred to the High Court or the Court of Session in Scotland on a point of law. I do not expect it to happen very often, but it is one of the reasons for the elongated period of assessment. The two-stage appeal process is required by the ECHR.
I shall be surprised if there is more than a tiny number of revocations of ill-health pensions. However, given that what will really bite on some people going into the PPF is not so much the 90 per cent level of compensation but the cap on compensation—particularly for senior, more highly-paid individuals—I can see how attractive it would be for those individuals to arrange an ill-health pension on the grounds of stress and so on.
I believe that the schemes and the PPF need protection. My noble friend is right about people who have left work for what Members of the Committee would call a genuine reason, and there should be no problem for them. But, looking at the situation from a disability benefits point of view, I am well aware that, unfortunately, on occasions, there can be some manipulation. I am not suggesting that this applies to people receiving disability benefits in particular, but the situation can be manipulated and we have to have some protection. Where directors and highly-paid individuals know that a scheme may come into PPF and know that they can organise a more advantageous pension outside it, they might seek to follow that route. All we are doing is providing insurance—a check, if you like—for the PPF to ensure that a pension is valid and appropriate. However, as I have said, for the vast majority there should be no problem whatever.
Lord Higgins: I share the disquiet of the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, about all this. We are not only talking about an assessment period of 12 months—and we are now getting a clearer picture of what that will involve—but apparently it can be retrospective for three years. So a particular pension scheme can decide that various members should retire on ill-health grounds and then, three years later, after they have retired, the scheme runs into trouble and the board states that it will review the situation and that if they do not like it they can go to the High Court or the ombudsman or whatever.
I wonder whether the noble Baroness's view as to the extent of this is valid. Directors and so on are frequently not in the main scheme anyway. My own experience is that when most pension trustees consider ill-health problems, they set up a committee, which goes into the matter in considerable depth and carries out appropriate examinations and so on. Trustees are as concerned to protect the assets of their funds as the board will be. That is normally carried out, and obviously it depends on one scheme as against another. However, I do not think that there is any great incentive for the trustees to pay out, unless, as the noble Baroness says, they are directors or so on, which I do not think is relevant. I am concerned that people who retired three years ago will suddenly find that
GC 164
their ill-health pension is reviewed and eventually, presumably, reduced as a result of the Bill, whereas otherwise payment would continue in the normal way and at the rate originally agreed.
I do not like the feel of this provision at all. It feels very odd. I am not at all sure that the provisions in these three clauses are justified.
5.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The provision is in the Bill because of the issue of manipulation in the years preceding the scheme possibly going into the assessment period, which was raised by the Conservatives in the other House. Therefore, these clauses are in the Bill partly in response to concerns raised, as I understand it, by the Official Opposition in the other place, that there could be manipulation of the scheme and changes of the rules at the point that insiders knew that the scheme was in trouble, in order to maximise the advantage to individuals. These proposals are therefore in response to the concern raised by the Official Opposition in the other place.
I want to give an assurance that this is not about trying to take pensions away from people who have legitimately retired. We are trying to protect the scheme, the PPF and the levy payers from artificial manipulation of the rules of the scheme in the preceding three years of the scheme's introduction.
I think the same is true in the States. If changes are made to alter the benefits, increase the liabilities and reduce the assets that come into the PPF and which appear to the board, the Ombudsman, the courts and so on as an artificial manipulation of the situation, the PPF must have some power to protect itself. If it did not have such a power outside organisations paying the levy could rightly be worried that there was a potential for exploitation at their expense.
However, I have no reason to think that this provision will ever be exercised in any circumstances where the PPF board believes that manipulation has occurred. More to the point, once the knowledge of these arrangements is more widespread—and clearly this is going to occur over the next two to three years—it will actually act as a discouragement to such artificial arrangements being established. I hope that as a result the number of such cases will be reduced.
The reason for using three years is that we think that this is a period when trustees or directors could be aware that the employer may be going bust. Therefore, in the rare cases when they possibly could think about manipulating funds and even abusing the PPF, we seek to protect the levy payers and the PPF on their behalf against such manipulation. It is not so very different in some ways from the issue of the balance on compromising debt. Where ill health is genuine, there should be no problem. If it is not and it is manipulation, then, in response to the concern of the Official Opposition at the other end of the building,

GC 165
these and similar issues were addressed by the Government before the Bill came to your Lordship's House.
Lord Higgins: I am obviously somewhat surprised by the point made by the noble Baroness. Is she saying that these three clauses were introduced at a late stage of the Bill as a result of representations made by the Opposition?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am informed that these three clauses were introduced on Report by the Government in response to pressure raised by the Opposition in Committee. That is my understanding. I apologise to the Committee if I have misrepresented the matter.
Lord Higgins: All I can say to that is that the draftsman has worked rapidly on this when he seems remarkably slow on some other things.
I still have concerns about the matter, on the grounds of cost among other things. Apparently, we shall now have the PPF board employing people, who are no doubt expert in medical matters, to review the pensions of everyone who took out an ill-health pension in the previous three years whenever a scheme enters into the assessment period. I find the matter very odd. I know not what views my colleagues in another place may have had—although I obviously should. None the less, the whole procedure seems extraordinarily odd.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord a question. If the PPF was up and running, such powers did not exist and it became clear years down the line—in 2007 or 2008—that an artificial manipulation was going on, and if there was an exposé in the press, the noble Lord might well ask, "Why did we not put a backstop into the Bill?" But that is what we are doing.
Lord Higgins: On the overall position of the fund, it seems unlikely that that is material. Anyway, let us leave the matter there. I am not happy about it.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: My instinct is that this could be a sledgehammer to crack a nut. We do not know, and it is very difficult to know. However, I am rather sympathetic to the suggestion made by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, that the problem is probably not widespread. I must say that I also am very concerned. The Minister clearly said what the minimum period for assessment will be. It sounded to me as though it might be years and years. I worry that so many companies and pension schemes are going to be in a position of uncertainty and indeed how the PPF will work. Practically, the timescale fills me with foreboding.
Clause 132, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 133 [Effect of a review]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 202A:
Page 91, line 35, leave out "under the scheme"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 134 [Sections 132 and 133: interpretation]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 202B and 202C:
Page 93, line 4, at end insert—
""pensionable service" is to be construed in accordance with Schedule 7;"
Page 93, leave out line 5.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 135 [Board's obligation to obtain valuation of assets and protected liabilities]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 203:
Page 93, line 34, leave out "a person with prescribed qualifications" and insert "—

(i) a person with prescribed qualifications or experience, or

(ii) a person approved by the Secretary of State"

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved, as an amendment to Amendment No. 203, Amendment No. 203ZA:
Line 2, leave out from "experience," to end of line 3.
The noble Lord said: I understand that government Amendment No. 203 is intended to be helpful. On page 93, line 34, it leaves out the words,
"a person with prescribed qualifications",
and inserts,
"a person with prescribed qualifications or experience".
So far, so good. The hackles of any Member of a responsible Opposition would immediately rise when he saw the continuation of this particular formation—
"or … a person approved by the Secretary of State".
That could happen to anybody. He or she need not necessarily have the prescribed qualifications or experience. I would readily understand and accept the words, "and approved by the Secretary of State", but as it stands I am, to say the least, unhappy. I await the Minister's explanation thereof. I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We debated, and I had hoped that I had explained to the Committee, exactly the same issue in relation to Clause 103. We have already gone over this. The noble Lord may not have been present at that debate, and I fully accept that the Bill is complicated.
The noble Lord is absolutely right that in most cases an actuary will fall under the "prescribed qualifications or experience" category. That will include members of the Faculty of Actuaries and the Institute of Actuaries. The faculty and institute have signed mutual recognition agreements with several actuarial organisations throughout the world. However, where there is no mutual recognition agreement between the Faculty of Actuaries, the Institute of Actuaries and bodies in other countries, a person may apply to the Secretary of State for approval to undertake actuarial work.

GC 167
Although we expect the Secretary of State to approve very few individuals in this manner, the provision is necessary to ensure appropriately competent individuals are not inadvertently excluded.
As I have mentioned, it is intended that the regulations will cover the vast majority of actuaries, and that approval by the Secretary of State would be sought only in exceptional circumstances. We intend to prescribe that an actuary must be a member of either the Faculty of Actuaries or the Institute of Actuaries, although we hope to be able to consult with the faculty and the institute in the near future on the exact wording of the regulations.
The procedure is absolutely standard. It follows the Occupational Pension Schemes (Scheme Administration) Regulations 1996, which allow schemes to appoint actuaries who have suitable qualifications from abroad but who are not currently a fellow of either the faculty or the institute or do not have reciprocal arrangements.
We will fully consult with the profession. That has been the standard practice in previous pension Bills and we have of course debated the issue earlier. With that explanation, I hope that the noble Lord's hackles will be smoothed down again.
Lord Skelmersdale: They have descended somewhat. I take the point that if unnecessary and inappropriate intentions are revealed by the regulations prescribing such things, we can have another go at the issue. So, for the moment I am happy to let the matter rest. However, the noble Baroness talked about Clause 103, which is a paving clause for Schedule 5.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have the amendment numbers that we referred to on the matter. They are government Amendments Nos. 183, 203, 212, 213, 263 and 311. I can assure the noble Lord that we had this debate. I remember saying exactly this because similar alarms were quite properly addressed at the time. I believe that I was able to assure the Committee that the power recognised qualifications where there was no reciprocal agreement; that we would do it in consultation with the Faculty of Actuaries and Institute of Actuaries; and that, for example, we were following conventional practice already established under the Pensions Act 1995.
Lord Skelmersdale: I can assure the noble Baroness that I was not disbelieving her. I must have misheard her. I thought she said that the debates were under Clause 103. Clause 103 is a non-clause because it is a paving clause for Schedule 5. I do not think that there is any point in pursuing this.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I would just quote from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. On Amendment No. 183 to page 260, line 18, he said:
"I am not clear why the provision was not in the Bill originally. What the noble Baroness says seems eminently reasonable, but we will need to think about it and consult outside, as actuarial bodies may have a view on the matter".—[Official Report, 15/7/04; col. 343.]
GC 168
So it is entirely appropriate. As I say, I had hoped that I persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and I hope that I have now persuaded the noble Lord, Lord Skelmersdale.
Lord Skelmersdale: I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment No. 203ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 203, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Amendment No. 203 agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 203A to 203C:
Page 94, line 5, leave out "which limits the amount of its" and insert "rules which limits the amount of the scheme's"
Page 94, line 10, leave out "under the scheme"
Page 94, line 15, at end insert "rules"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 135, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I have only one or two brief questions on the clause. It refers to cases within subsection (1) of Section 119 and 120, so I am not clear why it appears at this point in the Bill. At all events, the procedure seems to be rather strange. Pension trustees in the normal course of their duties ask for valuations, usually triennially and sometimes more frequently. But they leave that valuation to the actuaries. I am therefore rather puzzled why Clause 135(4) states that the,
"regulations may prescribe how—

(a) the assets and the protected liabilities of eligible schemes, and

(b) their amount or value,

are to be determined, calculated and verified".
I should have thought that the valuation would take place on the normal basis employed by an actuary. Why will the regulations prescribe the way that it has to be done as regards the board's obligation? The board is surely in the same position as normal trustees.
I am also a little puzzled by subsection (6). It states:
"In calculating the amount of any liabilities … a provision of the scheme which limits the amount of its liabilities by reference to the value of its assets is to be disregarded".
I do not understand what that subsection means. There are further subsections regarding ill-health provisions. I think we have probably gone over that sufficiently to express doubts about it. But it seems to me that if the board wants a valuation, it would simply ask for the actuary to do it in exactly the same way as a normal trustee board would. I am not clear why it does not.
5.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Regulations will set out the methodology and key principles relating to the valuation. The detailed assumptions and actual discount rates to be applied were set out in guidance issued by the board. The obvious point is that the valuation will be done by actuaries, but it will be specifically for the purpose of deciding whether a scheme requires PPF assistance. It will compare the

GC 169
assets of the scheme with liabilities assessed on the basis of the PPF level of compensation for the defined benefit members of the scheme.
A scheme, for example, might not be sufficient to meet 100 per cent of all its promises, but it might still be able to offer a level of benefit higher than that which an individual would enjoy within the PPF. That would be the kind of consideration that the PPF would wish to know. I am not sure whether we are making unnecessarily heavy weather on this. Obviously, any such guidance will be given as appropriate in consultation with the bodies concerned. But the PPF valuation has a specific function, which is to see how the protected liabilities and assets correlate with the compensation that would be offered by the PPF. I am not really sure why the noble Lord thinks there may be a problem here.
Lord Higgins: Clearly, the board will need to make assumptions. Any board of trustees, or presumably the PPF board, will have to make certain assumptions. That is normally crucial. I simply do not understand why regulations have to specify how the actuary will take on the job. That is not so as regards ordinary trustees. The board is a trustee to all intents and purposes. In the sense that a valuation is required, one asks an actuary for a valuation on specific assumptions for which the board is responsible.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am thinking back to the Pension Act 1995. The Bill was introduced by Lord Mackay. I am fairly sure he introduced a similar methodology for the minimum funding requirement, which is in regulations, and for carrying out those valuations. I do not see that this provision is any different from that. I do not really understand what the noble Lord is concerned about.
Obviously, any such regulations are introduced in consultation with the industry. We are usually pressed by the industry for clarity and so on regarding the intention. To the best of my memory similar procedures were followed when we dealt with the 1995 Act to establish the MFR, in which the methodology was in regulations. When Lord Mackay proposed this no one said that actuaries did not want, need or welcome that description in regulations. So I do not understand where the noble Lord is coming from on this.
Lord Higgins: I simply do not understand why the regulations need to prescribe the way in which the actuary will carry out his normal duties. However, I will consider the matter in relation to various actuarial bodies and whether they think that the provision is appropriate.
Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 136 agreed to.
Clause 137 [Binding valuations]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 203D to 203F:
Page 95, line 4, after "as" insert "reasonably"
Page 95, line 5, at end insert—
GC 170
"( ) the Regulator,"
Page 95, line 6, at end insert "and"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 204 not moved.]
Clause 137, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 138 [Schemes which become eligible schemes]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 204A and Amendment No. 204B:
Page 95, line 19, leave out "withdrawal notice" and insert "notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice")"
Page 95, line 25, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) For the purposes of this Part a withdrawal notice issued by virtue of this section is not binding until—

(a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

(b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

(i) the review and any reconsideration,

(ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

(iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
(4) Where a withdrawal notice issued by virtue of this section becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

(a) the Regulator,

(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

(c) any insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer or, if there is no such insolvency practitioner, the employer.

(5) Notices under this section must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed.
(6) A notice given under subsection (4) must state the time from which the Board ceases to be involved with the scheme (see section 140)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 138, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 139 [New schemes created to replace existing schemes]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 204C and Amendment No. 204D:
Page 96, line 7, leave out "withdrawal notice" and insert "notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice")"
Page 96, line 13, leave out subsection (3) and insert—
"(3) For the purposes of this Part a withdrawal notice issued under this section is not binding until—

(a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

(b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

(i) the review and any reconsideration,

(ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

(iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
(4) Where a withdrawal notice issued under this section becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

(a) the Regulator,

(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

(c) any insolvency practitioner in relation to the employer or, if there is no such insolvency practitioner, the employer.

(5) Notices under this section must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed.
(6) A notice given under subsection (4) must state the time from which the Board ceases to be involved with the scheme (see section 140)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 139, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps the Minister can give us a brief explanation of what is envisaged with regard to the board's attitude to new schemes that are created to replace existing schemes. Is there simply a provision that is designed to prevent employers avoiding their responsibilities in changing from one scheme to another? The Nikko Bank case may be an example of when that has happened.
Baroness Barker: I should like to take the opportunity of this stand part debate to ask a question that applies to Clause 139 as well as to many of the other clauses that relate to the board, which relates to our earlier discussion about time limits. I happened to spend my summer break learning about insolvency in a direct fashion—not personally, but on behalf of another organisation. I have had a crash course in the importance of time in insolvency matters. There appears to be no time limit to suggest when the board has to do things in almost all of these clauses. Crucially, neither is there any indication of when the board must notify other players, whether it assumes liability for a scheme or not.
For example, in Clause 139(2) there is a duty on the board to issue a withdrawal notice. There is no duty for it to do so within even the vaguest of terms such as "at the earliest opportunity". Given that the importance of when the board acts can be crucial to people trying to resolve the affairs of a pension fund, that is an oversight. The Minister rightly explained to us the importance of getting the wording right when we debated the difference between the rules of a scheme and scheme rules. Having no time limits or sense of urgency on the part of the board is an omission. Therefore, when the board is obliged to take certain action, an indication that it is under a duty to do so at the earliest opportunity is crucial. I hope that the Minister will take that into consideration in this clause.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It may make sense to spend a second stating the purpose of Clause 139. It enables the PPF to refuse to assume responsibility for new schemes that have been created to replace existing schemes for the purpose of enabling the members to become entitled to PPF compensation.
GC 172
For example, rather than manipulating a current scheme—we were talking about the three-year backdating rule earlier—a new scheme may be set up to replace an existing scheme in order to obtain PPF compensation. That may occur, for instance, when a current scheme has one member and is therefore not an eligible scheme, so the PPF board cannot assume responsibility for it. A new scheme could be created which is an eligible scheme, and the existing member of that old scheme transferred to it with additional members—perhaps the son-in-law of the garage owner or whoever. As a result, that scheme would then be eligible to PPF compensation should the board assume responsibility for it.
So, in a sense, this is a further version of seeking to avoid the manipulation of the rules, in order for the scheme that could be funded but which could arrange to be underfunded to come within the PPF. It is one such device by which we seek to ensure that that will not happen.
One of the conditions for the board refusing to assume responsibility for a scheme under this clause is that the new scheme must have been established during a certain period, which will be set out in regulations. Again, we expect the period to be three years in order to be consistent with the other moral hazard—a trip line, if you like—within the Bill. We just think that that is a reasonable point to follow.
Perhaps the noble Baroness could help me further on precisely what she wants some steer on in terms of the time line. It is clear that we are producing the three-year rule to try to block manipulation of any form or other. The States has a version of that which ensures that there is no artificial manipulation to take the assets somewhere else and dump the liabilities on the PPF, which is always the risk. We must have powers to thwart that, even if there are only five cases as opposed to 50 or 500. One of the problems is often that the number of words—whether they relate to ill health or whatever—may not reflect the number of people who come in. Perhaps the noble Baroness can help me on her particular query about the time period, in that the provision applies for three years and seeks to stop the creation of an artificial new scheme out of the bones of an old one to bring it within the eligibility of a PPF fund.
Baroness Barker: I shall try to help the noble Baroness. My point is that, throughout this clause, duties are placed on the board to take certain actions. Most of those actions are based on the board having arrived at a conclusion, having made a judgment about the eligibility of the scheme or about whether an action has occurred from an intention to avoid or ameliorate liability.
The point I seek to make is that, given that most of the board's actions will be based on judgments at which it has arrived, the board should be under a general and explicit duty to explain and take its action at the earliest opportunity. Most of those actions are to inform other bodies—the regulator, the trustees and so on. There should be an urgency about its doing so. Any delay on the part of the board in communicating

GC 173
that can have a material effect on the actions of all the other players in the process of determining the viability or otherwise of a scheme. That is so important that it merits being explicit and repeated throughout the legislation. That is the point that I am seeking to get across.
6 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I shall respond appropriately to the noble Baroness. Amendment No. 204D states:
"Where a withdrawal notice issued under this section becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable".
The noble Baroness has picked up two issues. One is the length of time of the assessment period and how that may be elongated with the uncertainty involved for the members. Equally, we have to accept that it is a very complicated process to try to see whether there has been any manipulation of the scheme. The second issue is the amount of information available to all the players in the scenario to ensure that they are in a position to expedite proceedings, so that we can reduce the timetable to as brief a period as possible. I take it that that is one of the concerns of the noble Baroness.
At this point, all I shall say is that we shall be discussing the position of information that goes out—I hope this latest point is addressed—under Clause 194, which will give us the chance to go into the detail. In this case, notice will be issued as soon as reasonably practicable, as referred to in Amendment No. 204D. Perhaps I can invite the noble Baroness to re-address the issue under Clause 194. If she feels that the quest for disseminating information and the need to expedite the time scale can be achieved coherently together, and not in ways that subvert each other, perhaps we can re-enter that debate when we come to Clause 194, which may be a more appropriate time. If I can give the noble Baroness any information before we come to that clause, perhaps she will write to me so that she has a better sense of where the regulations may go on this, and I will be happy to respond.
Baroness Barker: I am happy with that response and I shall talk to the noble Baroness further.
Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 204E:
After Clause 139, insert the following new clause—
"WITHDRAWAL FOLLOWING ISSUE OF SECTION 116(4) NOTICE
(1) This section applies where—

(a) a notice under section 116(4) (inability to confirm status of scheme) is issued in relation to an eligible scheme and becomes binding, and

(b) a withdrawal event has not occurred in relation to the scheme in respect of a withdrawal notice which has been issued during the period—

(i) beginning with the occurrence of the last insolvency event in relation to the employer, and

GC 174

(ii) ending immediately before the notice under section 116(4) becomes binding,

and the occurrence of such a withdrawal event in respect of a withdrawal notice issued during that period is not a possibility (see section 140).
(2) The Board must determine whether any insolvency event—

(a) has occurred in relation to the employer since the issue of the notice under section 116(4), or

(b) is likely to so occur before the end of the period of six months beginning with the date on which this section applies.

(3) If the Board determines under subsection (2) that no insolvency event has occurred or is likely to occur as mentioned in that subsection, it must issue a notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice").
(4) Where—

(a) no withdrawal notice is issued under subsection (3) before the end of the period mentioned in subsection (2)(b), and

(b) no further insolvency event occurs in relation to the employer during that period,

the Board must issue a notice to that effect (a "withdrawal notice").
(5) Where the Board is required to issue a withdrawal notice under this section, it must give a copy of the notice to—

(a) the Regulator,

(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

(c) the employer.

(6) For the purposes of this Part, a withdrawal notice issued under this section is not binding until—

(a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

(b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

(i) the review and any reconsideration,

(ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

(iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
(7) Where a withdrawal notice issued under this section becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

(a) the Regulator,

(b) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

(c) the employer.

(8) Notices under this section must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed.
(9) A notice given under subsection (7) must state the time from which the Board ceases to be involved with the scheme (see section 140)."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 140 [Circumstances in which Board ceases to be involved with an eligible scheme]:
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Hogg of Cumbernauld): If Amendment No. 204F is agreed to, I cannot call Amendment No. 205 due to pre-emption.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 204F:
Page 96, line 23, leave out subsections (2) to (7) and insert—
"(2) For this purpose the following are withdrawal events in relation to a scheme—

(a) a withdrawal notice issued under section 116(2)(b) (scheme rescue has occurred) becoming binding;

(b) a withdrawal notice issued under section 122(3) (scheme rescue has occurred) becoming binding;

(c) a withdrawal notice issued under or by virtue of section 138 or 139 (refusal to assume responsibility) becoming binding;

(d) a withdrawal notice issued under section (Withdrawal following issue of section 116(4) notice) (no insolvency event has occurred or is likely to occur) becoming binding,

and references in this Chapter to a "withdrawal event" are to be construed accordingly.
(3) Subsection (4) applies where a withdrawal notice mentioned in subsection (2) is issued in relation to a scheme and becomes binding and—

(a) an insolvency event in relation to the employer occurs during the interim period and, if subsection (4) did not apply, the event would not be a qualifying insolvency event within the meaning given by subsection (3) of section 119 solely because the condition in subparagraph (ii) of paragraph (b) of that subsection would not be satisfied, or

(b) an application under section 121(1) is made, or a notification under section 121(5)(a) is given, in relation to the scheme during the interim period and, if subsection (4) did not apply, the application or notification would be disregarded for the purposes of—

(i) subsection (1) of section 120 by virtue of subsection (4) of that section, and

(ii) subsection (4) of section 124 by virtue of subsection (5) of that section.

(4) In such a case, the withdrawal notice is to be treated for the purposes of subsections (1) and (2), as if the time when it became binding was the time immediately before—

(a) in a case falling within subsection (3)(a), the occurrence of the insolvency event, and

(b) in a case falling within subsection (3)(b), the making of the application under section 121(1) or, as the case may be, the giving of the notification under section 121(5)(a).

(5) For the purposes of subsection (3), the "interim period" in relation to a scheme means the period beginning with the issuing of the withdrawal notice in relation to the scheme and ending with that notice becoming binding.
(6) For the purposes of this Chapter—

(a) the occurrence of a withdrawal event in relation to a scheme in respect of a withdrawal notice issued during a particular period ("the specified period") is a possibility until each of the following are no longer reviewable—

(i) any withdrawal notice which has been issued in relation to the scheme during the specified period;

(ii) any failure to issue such a withdrawal notice during the specified period;

(iii) any notice which has been issued by the Board under Chapter 2 or this Chapter which is relevant to the issue of a withdrawal notice in relation to the scheme during the specified period or to such a withdrawal notice which has been issued during that period becoming binding;

GC 176

(iv) any failure to issue such a notice as is mentioned in sub-paragraph (iii), and

(b) the issue of, or failure to issue, a notice is to be regarded as reviewable—

(i) during the period within which it may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6, and

(ii) if the matter is so reviewed, until—

(a) the review and any reconsideration.

(b) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the matter, and

(c) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of."
The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
Lord Skelmersdale: I had not appreciated that preemption would occur. I learnt only this afternoon of the possible length of the assessment period or the early closure of the assessment period in certain circumstances; namely, in subsection (2)(a), (b), (c) and (d).
My problem is that one of these matters is an actuarial re-visitation during the assessment period which says that the assessment period is no longer needed because the scheme has now become fully funded due to outside activities. That is fine and super; that is what we all want. However, the valuation of a scheme surely takes place at a particular time—almost on a particular day and certainly within 24 hours. Rather like advertisements that one sees in the financial pages of newspapers, valuations can go down as well as up.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is like the advertisements that say, "Take the waiting out of wanting", although the noble Lord may not want to.
Lord Skelmersdale: Not just at this moment. All that thinking led me to wonder why the six months was required and whether it is the correct period. As actuarial valuations will have to be made under the Bill at regular intervals, I would have thought that the regular interval should be the right time for the withdrawal of the assessment period rather than the six months which is dictated under this clause. I would be grateful for an answer to that.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: This concerns not whether the insolvency practitioner has determined that the scheme has been rescued or that it cannot be rescued; it is whether he is in a position not to make that order. In other words, we expect it to be fairly rare. It concerns the situation where an insolvency practitioner has issued a notice confirming that it is not possible to determine whether or not a scheme rescue has occurred; and where no further insolvency event has occurred within six months, that is to be considered a withdrawal event.
We would expect that it is not possible to determine situations in which that applies. They happen very rarely and only in instances where the insolvency practitioner has been appointed to resolve one insolvency issue for

GC 177
one creditor and has no overall view of the solvency of the company as a whole. This could occur, for example, under an administrative receivership. With such an insolvency procedure, which triggers an assessment period, the administrative receiver who represents an individual lender, for example, with a security for a loan, has the power to deal only with a claim of the relevant security creditors. If the company continues in whole or in part once the administrative receiver has recovered a specific debt, the administrative receiver will not necessarily be aware of the outcome of the pension scheme or indeed the business and would issue a notice saying that he was unable to issue either a "scheme rescue" or a "scheme rescue not possible" notice.
In practice, it is likely that the position of the company and the scheme will be reasonably clear, but not within the remit of the specific administrative receiver; and, of course, the PPF will be closely involved in understanding the wider picture. In many cases, it is likely that the company will continue to exist—perhaps in a rationalised form—or a separate insolvency trigger may occur with a separate liquidator appointed to deal with the rights of all the other non-secured creditors. In either case, we understand that a period of six months should be adequate both to clarify the insolvency position and to complete any further steps in the scheme valuation process. We do not want to continue that indefinitely as members' benefits are reduced.
I have checked to see whether any concern was raised by insolvency practitioners about the timetable, as that would be the key. I understand that none was raised. Should any doubt be raised I would reconsider the matter. Currently, I have no reason to think that going from six to eight months would have any particular benefit to insolvency practitioners, but it could have some detriment to members of a scheme.
Lord Skelmersdale: Again, I am very grateful to the noble Baroness for acquiescing to my slight bending of the Committee's rules of order and explaining that she is not entirely sure that six months is correct.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have every reason to believe that six months is fine. All I am saying is that I am not aware of any support anywhere for the amendment of the noble Lord. Were there to be any, I would be open-minded about it and I would see whether that evidence was substantial. However, none has been made. I believe that that is an argument for saying that the six months is appropriate and acceptable.
Lord Skelmersdale: Very well. The noble Baroness is entirely sure as of this precise moment. However, at the next moment she may not be. We shall see. I am extremely grateful to her for replying to me. Should it turn out after the Bill is enacted that six months is wrong, what procedure is there for changing it?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: We do not have power through regulations to change the period. It would have to be done by primary legislation. But I would have reason to think it is wrong only if those who are at
GC 178
the coal face—the insolvency practitioners—expressed concerns to us that it is an inadequate period of time and showed to us such evidence as exists. Otherwise, it is in the same position as any other requirement in any other Bill which is not carried through by regulations. That shows the advantage of having framework Bills and doing everything by regulations.
Lord Skelmersdale: I agree. There are arguments on both sides. I am reminded of a recent e-mail that I received about the Civil Contingencies Bill, which does not concern either the noble Baroness or myself. That is entirely a framework Bill.
Returning to the point, the noble Baroness assumes that the insolvency practitioners are able to confirm or to deny her belief or my suspicions in advance of this Bill becoming law. I suspect that we shall find that experience will be a great educator, as we have agreed on earlier points in the Bill. For the moment, I have no alternative but to leave the matter unless the noble Baroness wishes to saying anything else. I see that she does not.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 205 not moved.]
Clause 140, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 141 [Consequences of the Board ceasing to be involved with a scheme]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 205A:
Page 97, line 29, after "scheme" insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 205B:
Page 97, line 33, at end insert—
"(1A) Where the winding up of the scheme began before the end of the assessment period (whether by virtue of section 210 (backdating the winding up of eligible schemes) or otherwise), the reference in subsection (1)(b) to the amount of any benefit payable to a member, or to a person in respect of a member, under the scheme rules is a reference to the amount so payable taking account of any reduction required by virtue of sections 73 to 73B of the Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26) (provisions relating to the winding up of certain schemes).
(1B) Where—

(a) an assessment period comes to an end by virtue of the Board ceasing to be involved with an eligible scheme, and

(b) during the assessment period the amount of benefit paid to a member, or to a person in respect of a member, under the scheme rules exceeded the amount that would have been payable in the absence of section 130(2A) (requirement to disregard winding up when paying benefits during assessment period),

the trustees or managers of the scheme must, at the end of that period, take such steps as they consider appropriate (including steps to adjust future payments under the scheme rules) to recover an amount equal to the excess from the person to whom it was paid.
(1C) Subsections (1) to (1B) are without prejudice to section 73A(2)(b) of the Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26) (requirement to adjust benefits paid to reflect liabilities which can be met on winding up)."
The noble Baroness said: This is another set of government amendments on which we circulated background information in advance specifying the details of the regulations. Otherwise it would have taken 20 minutes to spell them out in Committee.
This group of amendments provides for the replacement of the current statutory priority order on wind-up with a new one when the pension protection fund starts up for business. It also contains consequential amendments to PPF provisions within the Bill, which is why they are being debated at Clause 141 as consequential amendments to other legislation.
These amendments will ensure that, broadly speaking, individual scheme members will be no worse off if their scheme winds up than they would be if their scheme entered the PPF. That underlines the Government's commitment to the package of measures being introduced through the Bill to ensure that members of all defined benefit schemes receive meaningful levels of compensation on pension. In other words, the priority order for solvent employers with wind-ups, the priority order for insolvent employers with sufficient assets—which I suspect may not be a frequent occurrence—the priority for the large scheme closures, which we still have to address in future sessions of the Committee, and the priority for the PPF should all broadly be aligned. This is the first of the amendments that seeks to do that.
6.15 p.m.
That is the proposal. This is for the winding up. These amendments introduce a new priority order to take effect when the PPF opens its doors. It is set out as follows. I shall go through this to get it into Hansard.
The first category of the priority order is liabilities for pensions or benefits paid by certain insurance contracts purchased before 6 April 1997 that cannot be surrendered or where the surrender value is less than the liability secured by the contract. They will have been bought in the name of the trustees to pay a specific pension.
The terms of these contracts mean that they either cannot be surrendered or can be, but only at a disproportionate cost to the scheme. The priority order does not treat insurance contracts bought in this way after 6 April 1997 separately as the trustees should have brought them in the light of the current legislation so that they could be surrendered at a reasonable cost.
The main purpose of the revised priority order is to ensure that members of schemes which have been assessed by the PPF board, but the board has not assumed responsibility for the scheme, receive broadly what they would have done if the board had assumed responsibility for the scheme. We are trying to ensure that different categories of potential or actual benefit recipients would not be disadvantaged if the scheme wound up outside the PPF as opposed to coming within the PPF. There is a similar alignment of the priority order, whether it is the wind up of a solvent
GC 180
company or the wind up of an insolvent one and whether it should be bought out, closed, or put into the PPF.
The second and substantial category of the priority order is, therefore, the liability for benefits which does not exceed the corresponding PPF liability. That is 100 per cent of the original pension promise for people who have reached the scheme pension age and 90 per cent for people below that age, subject to an overall benefit cap which is calculated using a mixture of the scheme's individual rates and standardised rules linked to earnings. That includes 90 per cent of voluntary contributions up to the level of the cap for non-pensioners and 100 per cent of voluntary contributions for pensioners.
The second category does not include liabilities for benefits which fall in the first category. Regulations will provide that, when determining the corresponding PPF liability, the pension compensation provisions apply with certain modifications.
The third category is voluntary contributions—that is AVCs. Currently, those are a separate category in the priority order. That ensures that individuals who take out voluntary contributions which they fully fund themselves are treated as fairly as possible. However, with the introduction of the PPF, which bases compensation on all contributions paid including voluntary ones, and in the light of the moral hazard problems that schemes could be manipulated to make it appear that benefits were derived from voluntary contributions, the amendments provide for a separate third category to cover the liabilities for voluntary contributions to the extent that these are not included in the first two paragraphs of the priority order; in other words, where the voluntary contributions have not been turned into added years.
The fourth and final category covers any remaining liabilities for benefits not already met under the preceding categories.
This bundle of amendments does that. The amendments set out a priority order. We are trying to ensure that the priority order under winding up, under the PPF and under closed schemes is broadly similar so that the individual categories of members do not find themselves disadvantaged whether a scheme remains outside the PPF or within it. Without going into the detail of the amendments, I hope that the Committee will support them.
Lord Higgins: Which categories will receive less priority under these amendments?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Two things are taking place. First, existing pensioners will receive 100 per cent under the PPF compensation fund and others will receive 90 per cent, but the crucial difference is the issue of indexation. Under the old system the indexation for pensioners took precedence over the payment of benefit for active and deferred members. That will no longer be the case. Indexation follows the meeting of the obligation to pensioners and to active and deferred members.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 205C to 205E:
Page 97, line 35, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 97, line 39, at end insert "rules"
Page 98, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) modifying section 31 of the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999 (c. 30) (reduction of benefit where a person's shareable rights are subject to a pension debit), in its application in relation to cases where benefits accrue under the scheme by virtue of regulations under subsection (2)."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 141, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 142 [Application for reconsideration]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 205F to 205Q:
Page 98, line 14, leave out paragraph (a) and insert—
"(a) a scheme failure notice has been issued under section 116(2)(a) in relation to the scheme, that notice has become binding and the trustees or managers have received a copy of the binding notice under section (Binding notices confirming status of scheme)(3),"
Page 98, line 25, leave out from "a" to end of line 28 and insert
"scheme failure notice under subsection (2) of section 122 in relation to the scheme, that notice has become binding and the trustees or managers have received a copy of the binding notice under subsection (7) of that section,"
Page 98, line 44, at end insert "of the binding"
Page 99, line 1, leave out "were notified" and insert "received a copy"
Page 99, line 4, at end insert "of the binding"
Page 99, line 6, leave out "were notified" and insert "received a copy"
Page 99, line 7, at end insert—
"( ) Where the Board receives an application under subsection (1), it must give a copy of the application to the Regulator."
Page 99, line 11, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 99, line 19, leave out first "to" and insert "for".
Page 99, leave out lines 31 to 48.
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 206 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 206A and 206B:
Page 100, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of this section—

(a) regulations may prescribe how the cost of securing the benefits mentioned in paragraph (a) of the definition of "protected benefits quotation" is to be determined, calculated and verified, and

(b) subject to any provision made under paragraph (a), that cost is to be determined, calculated and verified in accordance with guidance issued by the Board."

Page 100, line 9, at end insert—
"( ) Where the scheme is being wound up, for the purposes of determining the benefits which fall within paragraph (b) of the definition of "protected benefits quotation" in subsection (7) no account is to be taken of the winding up of the scheme."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 142, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 143 [Duty to assume responsibility following reconsideration]:
[Amendment No. 207 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 207A and 207B:
Page 100, line 27, at end insert—
"(4A) But where the Board is satisfied of the matters mentioned in subsection (2), it is not required to assume responsibility for the scheme under subsection (2) until the determination notice issued under subsection (3) becomes binding.
(4B) For the purposes of subsection (4A) a determination notice is not binding until—

(a) the period within which the issue of the notice may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

(b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

(i) the review and any reconsideration,

(ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

(iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted.
(4C) Where a determination notice issued under subsection (3) becomes binding, the Board must as soon as reasonably practicable give a notice to that effect together with a copy of the binding notice to—

(a) the trustees or managers of the scheme, and

(b) the Regulator.

(4D) A notice under subsection (4C) must be in the prescribed form and contain such information as may be prescribed."
Page 100, line 29, after "date" insert "(within the meaning of section 142(4))"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Lord Hunt of Wirral Lord Hunt of Wirral moved Amendment No. 208:
Page 100, line 36, leave out paragraph (b) and insert—
"(b) audited accounts covering the period from the date of the latest statutory annual accounts of the scheme to a date no later than three months prior to the day the application is made."
The noble Lord said: I would like to refer to the situations within which trustees apply to the Pension Protection Fund for it to assume responsibility for a scheme. It is stated that an application under the clause must be in the prescribed form and contain,
"an auditor's valuation of the scheme as at a date ('the reconsideration date') within the prescribed period ending with the day on which the application is made".
I was a little confused at the wording of the clause, because auditors do not undertake valuations of the scheme. Their responsibility is to audit scheme accounts. I hope that the noble Baroness will agree that there is a powerful case for arguing that the correct procedure should be to require the scheme trustees to obtain audited accounts to submit to the PPF. I am not at all clear, however, about what is meant by,
"as at a date … within the prescribed period ending with the day on which the application is made".

GC 183
It would surely be better to state a clearly specified period for the preparation of such audited accounts.
I therefore ask the Committee to change the wording so that the application should contain,
"audited accounts covering the period from the date of the latest statutory annual accounts of the scheme to a date no later than three months prior to the day the application is made".
That will allow a three-month period for preparing the accounts and also for having them audited. I stress that such accounts should contain the accounting information required by the regulations in respect of the annual accounts for the scheme. I beg to move.
Lord Lucas: My name is attached to this amendment. I am happy to support it. If I had thought, I would have attacked it through Clause 142(4)(b). My basic concern, as my noble friend has said, is that auditors do not carry out valuations. If one requires them to do a valuation they will resign rather than do it. It is not part of being an auditor. There is a misconception as to what an auditor does, is capable of doing and can do within the remit of an audit. I understand what is required, but it is not asking for the right thing.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am a little surprised because I thought, in light of the wording of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, that he was about trying to ensure up-to-date valuation, whereas it is about who provides the accounts. I am in a little difficulty because the noble Lord has not spoken to his amendment at all but to something that is not in his amendment.
Given that I am dealing with the amendment on the Marshalled List and given his point, I accept any linguistic correction relating to an auditor or an accountant. We are certainly in consultation with the ICAEW about the role of an auditor in undertaking valuations and we are currently considering the matter. We may return to the issue on Report, so in terms of the language we shall be happy to return to the matter.
In terms of the substance of the point that I expected him to make had he spoken to his amendment, and given what the noble Lord, Lord Hunt, has said, in terms of ensuring that we do not restrict ourselves to not having an up-to-date valuation, I am perfectly happy to take the matter away and see whether we should include some version so that we have a series of options, an (a) or a (b) or a (c), whichever is more up to date and, therefore, appropriate to the situation under review. I am happy to move some way towards the amendment that is down in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, but to which he did not speak. I hope that the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw the amendment that he did not move.
Lord Hunt of Wirral: I am a little confused. I sent my speaking note, which I have just read out, to the Minister in July. I explained very carefully what I was to say on this occasion. It is a little bit of a set back to this noble Lord that the Minister has not understood
GC 184
the point that I made or has believed that I was speaking to another amendment. Perhaps she has confused the two of us, although I cannot understand how one could merge the youthful countenance of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, with my rather aged one. I am about to attend a party to celebrate a Labour MP obtaining his freedom pass—I already have one—so I cannot understand how the Minister could confuse the two of us. It may be that her commitment to look at the matter again is so all-consuming that I should merely thank her very much indeed. We shall return to this matter on Report. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 208A:
Page 100, line 46, at end insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 143, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 144 [Closed schemes]:
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay moved Amendment No. 209:
Page 101, line 22, after "quotation" insert "on reasonable competitive terms"
The noble Lord said: This may appear to be a somewhat esoteric amendment but I believe that it illustrates a point about the shortage of capacity in the buy-out market, which is why I seek to raise the matter and welcome what assurances the Minister can give me.
What I am seeking to do with this amendment is to put trustees who are unable to obtain a full buy-out quotation on "reasonable terms", as I put it, in the same position as if they could not obtain a full buy-out quotation at all. When I say unreasonable commercial terms, I am talking about penal or prohibitive rates of five or 10 times the normal quote.
The serious point here is that there are only two providers of full buy-out annuities for winding up schemes in this market and they are finding it harder and harder to operate. There is a shortage of capacity and they could be swamped. We could then be in a position where they are giving rather nominal quotes. That is why I am seeking to provide that it should be done only if one can achieve a quote on reasonable commercial terms. I beg to move.
6.30 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that the spirit of the noble Lord's comments is already embedded in the Government's position. Although it is useful and helpful to clarify it, my understanding is the same as that of the noble Lord. The UK insurance market presently does not appear to have sufficient capacity to absorb large-scale pension liabilities of, say, £500 million-plus on a buy-out basis that would be sufficiently competitive. The test is that such a buy-out would be competitive. If it were not, the proposition is that it would be run as a closed scheme, on the value-for-money grounds that, as the noble Lord suggested, the costs would be disproportionate.
If that addresses the noble Lord's concerns and re-emphasises the nature of the issue, perhaps he will indicate that he is content with it. If he wishes to press me on any further issues, I would be happy to try to respond to them. We are not seeking to tie trustees into accepting a buy-out that is not competitive given the state of the market. That is why closure is the realistic alternative in this situation.
Lord Lucas: I must admit that I do not see where in the wording we have any recognition of the fact that a quote might be uncompetitive. It says, "If you cannot obtain a quote". If I offer to buy your car for a pound, that is a quote, but it is probably not a competitive quote. I think that there has to be some recognition of the fact that if there are many false sellers in this market, people will offer quotes at silly prices.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Perhaps the noble Lord will allow me to take legal advice on this. There is no intention in the Bill to tie the trustees into taking any quote, however uncompetitive, just because it does not say that it has to be competitive. I should have thought that the fiduciary duty of trustees would not allow them to accept an uncompetitive quote where the alternative is a closed scheme. However, if that is not the case and we need further clarification, I am very happy to come back to it.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: It may be technically competitive in the sense that there are two quotes and that is the best one. As my son has reached the age of 25 and I promised him that I would include him in the insurance on his mother's sports car, I am very well aware of the range of quotations that one can get from insurance companies. I am happy to accept what the Minister said as a principle, but I still think that adding wording like mine—not necessarily these exact words—would help to make the position clearer.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I am perfectly happy to have a look at it and take advice on this. One such situation would be where the quote, for example, was so expensive that the benefits to members would fall below the PPF level of compensation. That would be an obvious case. If I may, I shall take the draftsman's advice to see whether we need additional words to ensure that trustees do not feel themselves bound to accept an inappropriate course for their scheme members.
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I may ask one question. As I understand it, there are effectively only two providers. So no quote will be competitive in the normal sense; it is a duopoly, and that is the situation. Given that, are the trustees bound to take a quote from the UK, or can they go overseas?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The advice that I have been given is that they can go anywhere.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: In the light of those assurances, I am happy to beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 209A:
Page 101, line 39, after "scheme" insert "rules"
On Question, amendment agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 144, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: I wish to make one or two points. I am not absolutely clear that I understand the terminology correctly so far as concerns closed schemes. Of course, in the context of pensions one frequently talks of a final salary scheme which is closed to new members. Is that the definition that we are using in the present context of Clause 144?
Secondly, the clause constantly refers to "trustees or managers of the scheme". I am not at all clear what the managers have to do with this. I should have thought that only the trustees would be involved. But are we to assume that they must try to obtain a buy-out before they apply for the scheme to be closed or, within the context of this clause, can they say straight away, "We would like to become a closed scheme"? Perhaps the noble Baroness would clarify that point.
I want to make only one other point. Clauses 146 and 147 are concerned with the treatment of closed schemes. I am not sure why Clause 145 comes where it does. I should have thought that it would come after Clause 150 but perhaps we can consider that point later.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: In response to the noble Lord's direct question, the trustees and managers of a scheme may apply to the board for the authority to continue as a closed scheme only if they have been unable to obtain a full buy-out quotation. If the board is satisfied that the trustees or managers have taken all reasonable steps—and taking into account all that the noble Lords, Lord Higgins and Lord Oakeshott, said about duopolies—but have been unsuccessful, the board must authorise the scheme to continue as a closed scheme.
Any application to the board to continue as a closed scheme must be accompanied by evidence that the trustees or managers have taken all reasonable steps to obtain a full buy-out quotation. The form of the evidence will be prescribed in regulations. If the PPF board is satisfied with that evidence, it must issue a determination notice to the trustees and managers and to the regulator. The determination notice will set out the decision of the board as to whether a scheme may continue as a closed scheme. That is the procedural point that the noble Lord raised. Does he have any other concerns?
Lord Higgins: Is it a closed scheme in the sense that it is closed to new members?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Higgins: I am now clear about the situation. We have a scheme where the trustees have been unable to secure a full buy-out but can they secure a partial

GC 187
buy-out? The clause specifically refers to a full buy-out—the implication being that they could possibly go for a partial buy-out. But I am not clear whether they could secure a partial buy-out and a closed scheme for the rest, so to speak.
My other question is whether this is wholly outside the PPF; that is, is it simply the case that the board is saying, "You must try for a full or partial buy-out and, if you cannot, it becomes a closed scheme"? But does the matter come outside the PPF at that point? Most of the Bill is concerned with the PPF or the financial assistance scheme or whatever. But here the board suddenly seems to be setting up a quite different animal which does not come under the PPF. It becomes a closed scheme but the trustees and so on remain in operation for the members who are already in it. It is really at that point nothing to do with the board. Does the board wash its hands of the scheme at that point? Does it then have no further influence on it at all?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The situation is that the scheme is being wound up but the assets are greater than the protected liabilities that will come under the PPF. Therefore, in principle, it should be able to buy out its liabilities through an insurance contract. It cannot do so because of the size of the fund, so it becomes appropriate for it to be a closed scheme. It is not closed in the sense of a conventional DB or DC scheme closing to new members, but it effectively becomes frozen. It is a scheme in wind-up that cannot actually wind up.
If, for whatever reason, the scheme could not pay its members or dependants the level of protection offered by the PPF, the PPF would gain. That scheme would come into the PPF. The size of the default is not an obstacle to coming into the PPF but the scheme would normally stay outside the PPF because its assets meet its protected liabilities. It can offer pension benefits to members greater than would be obtained by those members within the PPF, but it cannot meet that obligation by buying annuities because of the size of the scheme. Should it not be able to offer levels of benefit of at least as good quality as the PPF and the PPF has certainly not washed its hands of it, the PPF is in play.
We are talking about large schemes with sufficient assets such that it is in the members' interests to stay outside the PPF, but that cannot discharge those obligations by buying insurance contracts. Therefore, they continue as closed schemes—effectively frozen schemes.
Lord Higgins: That is very helpful. I now understand the matter rather more clearly, but it means that we are using "closed scheme" in two different contexts.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is certainly true.
Lord Higgins: That seems highly undesirable, and we should have thought of some other terminology. I was certainly confused originally by what was meant by a closed scheme. I am also not entirely clear why the
GC 188
PPF is involved. If I understand correctly, there cannot be a full buy-out. A scheme becomes a closed scheme in the sense that we now understand to be intended, but the PPF then has no more to do with it. That is the end of the matter.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: No, not quite. The scheme stays outside the PPF but the PPF still has a role in terms of issuing or ensuring financial directions of the scheme in order to protect the assets so that the scheme does not later enter the PPF. There is that continued responsibility on the PPF. For whatever reason—through the stock market or whatever—one could conceive of such a closed scheme in due course coming into the PPF if it could not meet its obligations, but the PPF will continue to make sure that the scheme is not accidentally or artificially manipulated in such a way that the assets are not run down, given the health of the sponsoring company and employer, which will of course be extremely dubious. That is why it would be in such a situation.
Baroness Turner of Camden: This is a rather important point, and it is really rather confusing. I regret to say that it is very common nowadays for firms to take a policy decision that they will not provide a final salary scheme to new staff. Therefore, so far as concerns the existing scheme, we may use the terminology "closed", but in fact the scheme is still there; it is quite viable. New staff are usually given—if anything at all—a scheme based on a money purchase arrangement. That is very common, so we need to be absolutely clear about the differences. I am very glad that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, has raised the matter as it is important.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The confusion arises because—my noble friend is entirely right, as is the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—"closed" is used in two different senses. Some ongoing companies close a DB scheme and open a DC scheme or they create a hybrid between the two. That is one use of "closure", but we are talking about an entirely different sense of it in which a scheme that is being wound up and would have gone into wind-up by buying out the liabilities or responsibilities through insurance contracts cannot do so, given the size of the scheme and the state of the market. Therefore, it is continuing as, so to speak, a frozen scheme. The PPF continues to have a responsibility to ensure that the assets which by definition surpass the liabilities—that is why the scheme remains outside the PPF in the first place—continue so that the scheme does not subsequently fall into the PPF. Should it have to do so in due course, it will do so.
6.45 p.m.
Lord Borrie: My noble friend Lady Turner of Camden and the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, have commonly said, several times, that what people outside talk about as "closed schemes" is quite different. The heading in italics above Clause 144 uses the phrase "Closed schemes" but nowhere is it clearly defined. Moreover, rather like a door, schemes can be

GC 189
closed one minute and opened again the next. They can be looked at from time to time by the Pension Protection Fund board. Under later clauses—they are only a few clauses later—schemes can be reconsidered and brought into the fund if circumstances change. From the point of view of wording and understanding, there really could be improvements but, having thought about the matter only as others were speaking, I certainly do not have any positive way of putting things.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I entirely accept that, within pensions terminology, "closure" and "closed schemes" are used in two different senses. Let me see whether there is any way of differently describing what is happening. What we are dealing with in the clause is very clear—large schemes that should be winding up because they have assets that out-price their liabilities. In the normal course of events, if they were modest-sized schemes with liabilities of £50 million or whatever, they should be able to buy those out by securing annuities from members that they would draw down then or in future. They cannot do so given the state of the market, which, as has been explained, is a duopoly. Therefore, they need some different form of outcome. It is not appropriate for it to go into the PPF: nor should it, because the assets surpass the liabilities, which would mean that members would as a result have artificially depressed benefits that they do not need to have. That is what would happen if they went into the PPF, given the cap and the 90 per cent funding.
All that said, it is clear that if the wording adds not exactly to the confusion but to a certain degree of difficulty for Members of the Committee, we should look at it. I can make no promises but I am open to suggestions. I do not promise half a bottle of champagne for the best redefinition, but perhaps we should come up with a clearer or different label so that "closed scheme" does not apply to two different beasts, which is what it does at the moment.
Baroness Barker: Perhaps I might seize the opportunity of this spirit of clarification to ask one question. The noble Baroness explained that she was talking about a scheme that did not come within the terms of the PPF because it had the assets to meet its protected liabilities. Why should the scheme then be dealt with by the PPF rather than the regulator? I understood from previous discussions—I am going back a few months before the Recess—that a vast swathe of the regulator's activities was to look at schemes in danger of coming within the remit and the clutches of the PPF. Why should the schemes be different, whatever their terms? They appear to be "frozen at a moment in time" schemes. Why should they be treated by a different body?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Basically, if the scheme had been sufficiently modestly sized, there would have been bought-out insurance contracts and that would have been the end of the matter. Those pensions would have been secured ad infinitum. Because of the size of a scheme, it is not in that position. It therefore depends,
GC 190
based on its regular valuations, on ensuring that there is an adequate match between its assets and liabilities. The PPF is concerned to ensure that that adequate match is not reduced in any way and it seeks to ensure that the scheme does not come within the PPF. That is why the PPF has the responsibility.
In a way, we are talking about a method of continuing to keep a shadow of an assessment period, as opposed to a regulator. With a regulator, one is dealing with a solvent company and pension scheme over the solvency of which there is a question mark. On this matter, we have an insolvent employer but an apparently solvent pension scheme which would normally have met its obligations through insurance contracts, in which case all would have been secure, but which cannot do so. Therefore, the PPF must continue to have a watchdog role in order to ensure that there is no artificial or inappropriate adjustment of the ratio between assets and liabilities such that that scheme, which would be substantial, would subsequently come into the PPF. If it did so, it would be to the disadvantage of not only possibly the PPF but of members, who would then receive a lower rate of benefit.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I want to ask about the difference between the two types of closed schemes. If I understand aright, we have one form of scheme that is closed to new entrants, as the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, said. Is the essence of the other form that it is closed to contributions? Have I got that right? Perhaps a bottle of House of Lords' spring water is all I shall win on that, but that is basically right, is it not?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes—it is essentially frozen without being able to be frozen.
Lord Higgins: I think that we are clear that we need to change the terminology, and "frozen" is the obvious expression to use, I suppose. Those behind the Minister seem a little doubtful about that but, at all events, we need to think about whether something can be done. The amendments to change the drafting would not take very long on Report.
I regret to say that I am still a little confused. We agree that the scheme does not receive new contributions. It may be that, although it is a closed scheme, the situation deteriorates and it becomes part of the PPF. I am not clear on the second definition of the word "closed"—perhaps it is the primary definition—and whether the scheme cannot in any way take on new members. The other matter on which I am now doubtful is whether a frozen scheme—
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A big scheme closure.
Lord Higgins: Is a frozen scheme bound to be closed in the traditional sense? I am unclear about whether it can become unfrozen or thawed. What happens if the stock market goes up? Does the scheme then float itself happily away from all concern with the PPF?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: A scheme is frozen and is not able to take on new members because, by

GC 191
definition, the employer has become insolvent. Therefore, the company is not trading. That is very clear and it was my original answer on why it cannot take on new members. The company is not solvent.
I do not see what the problem is if the stock market goes up. If it does, the issue is not whether the scheme comes into the PPF but whether the trustees can discharge their responsibilities by buying insurance contracts. If the stock market has gone up, it is not clear to me that they can necessarily thereby discharge their responsibilities by buying insurance contracts. If they cannot, they will still therefore need to operate as closed schemes; there will simply be more assets to cover liabilities than might otherwise have been the case.
Lord Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay: I suggest, from my personal experience, that what is probably needed is for the stock market to go up so that there is more money to buy the annuities and for the gilt market to go down so that annuities are cheaper. One could be lucky, but that is what one is hoping for.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that it is the first time in history in which both the gilt and stock markets have gone down simultaneously.
Lord Higgins: Optimism pervades the Committee. At this stage, that may be rather remarkable. I think that we are a little clearer than we were half an hour ago.
I have one final question. Is such a scheme technically wound up?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: Yes.
Lord Higgins: Fine—I am clear about that. I am grateful for the Minister's explanation.
Clause 144, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 145 [Requirement to wind up schemes with sufficient assets to meet protected liabilities]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 209B to 209E:
Page 102, line 37, leave out "determination" and insert "issue of the notice"
Page 103, line 9, after "section 126," insert "but subject to any order made under subsection (7A),"
Page 103, line 12, at end insert—
"(7A) The Regulator may by order direct any person specified in the order—

(a) to take such steps as are so specified as it considers are necessary as a result of—

(i) the winding up of the scheme beginning, by virtue of subsection (6), immediately before the assessment period, or

(ii) the winding up of the scheme being continued under subsection (1)(b), and

(b) to take those steps within a period specified in the order.

(7B) If the trustees or managers of a scheme fail to comply with a direction to them under subsection (7), or contained in an order under subsection (7A), section 10 of the Pensions Act 1995 (c. 26) (civil penalties) applies to any trustee or manager who has failed to take all reasonable steps to secure compliance.
(7C) That section also applies to any other person who, without reasonable excuse, fails to comply with a direction to him contained in an order under subsection (7A)."
Page 103, line 21, at end insert—
"(9A) Where an assessment period in relation to an eligible scheme comes to an end by virtue of the conditions in subsection (2) or (5) being satisfied, subsections (1) to (1C) of section 141 apply as they apply where an assessment period comes to an end by virtue of the Board ceasing to be involved with the scheme, except that in subsection (1A) of that section the reference to section 210 is to be read as a reference to subsection (6) of this section."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
[Amendment No. 210 had been withdrawn from the Marshalled List.]
Clause 145, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 146 [Treatment of closed schemes]:
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale had given notice of his intention to move Amendment No. 211:
Page 103, line 42, leave out paragraph (e).
The noble Lord said: I tabled this amendment in order to tease out exactly what was meant by "closed scheme". However, after the debate on Clause 144, I think that I am a little clearer, although I shall have to read it. Therefore, I shall not move the amendment.
[Amendment No. 211 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 211A:
Page 103, line 44, at end insert—
"( ) Regulations may require the trustees or managers of a closed scheme in relation to which the provisions mentioned in subsection (3) apply to comply with such requirements as may be prescribed when providing for the discharge of any liability to, or in respect of, a member of the scheme for pensions or other benefits."
The noble Baroness said: Amendment No. 211A amends Clause 146, which sets out the rules for the operation of closed schemes. The amendment provides a regulation-making power that will be used to place restrictions on the ability of closed schemes partially to discharge their liabilities. To some degree, we are returning to the debate that we had earlier. If the schemes were allowed to do so without restriction, they could, for example, use their assets to buy out all their liabilities to members in excess of the PPF compensation cap. Doing so might reduce their assets to such a level that either immediately or at a later stage they would have to be taken into the PPF.
However, it would not be appropriate to put on the face of the Bill a blanket ban on all discharges as there are a number of instances in which it may be necessary or acceptable for discharges of liabilities to be made. Those will, for example, include regular payments of pension to scheme members and situations in which the trustees completely discharge all their liabilities in respect of an individual. Such discharges will have to be in accordance with the winding-up requirements. I hope that the Committee will accept the amendment.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 211B:
Page 104, line 1, leave out subsection (4).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 146, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 147 [Valuations of closed schemes]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 211C to 212:
Page 104, line 8, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 104, line 19, leave out "which limits the amount of its" and insert "rules which limits the amount of the scheme's"
Page 104, line 21, at end insert—
"( ) Nothing in regulations under this section may require the trustees or managers of a closed scheme to obtain an actuarial valuation of the scheme until—

(a) the period within which the issue of the determination notice, under section 144(6), in respect of the Board's determination to authorise the scheme to continue as a closed scheme, may be reviewed by virtue of Chapter 6 has expired, and

(b) if the issue of the notice is so reviewed—

(i) the review and any reconsideration,

(ii) any reference to the PPF Ombudsman in respect of the issue of the notice, and

(iii) any appeal against his determination or directions,

has been finally disposed of and the notice has not been revoked, varied or substituted."
Page 104, line 26, at end insert—
"prepared and signed by the actuary"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 213:
Page 104, line 30, leave out ", a person with prescribed qualifications" and insert "—

(i) a person with prescribed qualifications or experience, or

(ii) a person approved by the Secretary of State"

The noble Baroness said: I beg to move.
[Amendment No. 213ZA, as an amendment to Amendment No. 213, not moved.]
On Question, Amendment No. 213 agreed to.
7 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 213A to 213C:
Page 104, line 33, at end insert "rules"
Page 104, line 36, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 104, line 41, at end insert "rules"
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 147, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 148 [Applications and notifications where closed schemes have insufficient assets]:
[Amendment No. 214 not moved.]
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 214A to 214D:
Page 105, line 16, leave out "an eligible" and insert "a closed"
Page 105, line 20, leave out "eligible" and insert "closed"
Page 105, line 24, leave out "an eligible" and insert "a closed"
Page 105, line 28, leave out "closed scheme" and insert "—
"assets", in relation to a scheme, do not include assets representing the value of any rights in respect of money purchase benefits under the scheme rules;
"closed scheme""
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 149 [Duty to assume responsibility for closed schemes]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 214E and Amendment No. 214F:
Page 105, line 38, after "scheme" insert "rules"
Page 106, line 12, at end insert—
"( ) An application under subsection (1) of section 148, or notification under subsection (4) of that section, is to be disregarded for the purposes of subsection (1) if it is made or given during an assessment period (see sections 124 and 150) in relation to the scheme which began before the application was made or notification was given."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 149, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 150 [closed schemes: further assessment periods]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 214G and Amendment No. 214H:
Page 106, line 20, leave out "This section" and insert "Subsection (2)"
Page 106, line 24, at end insert—
"( ) For the purposes of subsection (1) an application under subsection (1) of section 148, or notification under subsection (4) of that section, is to be disregarded if it is made or given during an assessment period (see section 124 and this section) in relation to the scheme which began before the application was made or notification was given."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 151 [Transfer notice]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 214J:
Page 107, line 2, at end insert—
"( ) A transfer notice may not be given in relation to a scheme during any period when the issue of, or failure to issue, a withdrawal notice under or by virtue of section 138 or 139 (refusal to assume responsibility) is reviewable (see section 140(6)(b))."
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Skelmersdale Lord Skelmersdale moved Amendment No. 215:
Page 107, line 7, leave out "12" and insert "6"
The noble Lord said: This amendment pre-empts what one might have discussed on Clause 163, because it is a forerunner of that clause. Having learned earlier this afternoon that the assessment period is likely to be

GC 195
a minimum of 12 months, one is bound to ask a different question from the one I originally intended when I tabled the amendment—without having the information so nobly imparted by the Minister. Is 12 months long enough in this case? I beg to move.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: As a direct response to the noble Lord, we think that we have got it right based on the experience of the Pensions Compensation Board. The board has followed through three cases of fraud; two took eight months and the third took 11 months, so it seems to be about the right time. We do not want to artificially elongate the time if there is no fraud and thereby leave things in an insecure state. From our experience the time period seems appropriate.
I was expecting the noble Lord to argue the opposite and I was going to explain to him why six months would not be enough given the experience of the Pensions Compensation Board. The three cases that we have seem to fit this time scale, but who knows.
Lord Skelmersdale: There is a problem because the subsection talks not only about the fraud compensation application, but also about the assessment period. Are we again using "assessment period" in two entirely different senses? We have spent much time this afternoon talking about the length of assessment periods. In this case are we talking about the assessment period for fraud or the general assessment period that we have been discussing all afternoon?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: It is just the same. Given what I have described, we expect the assessment period to last for a minimum of 12 months. One thing that we expect to be checked in that period is fraud. That is why I was going to argue that reducing the period to six months would be inappropriate. Obviously that forms part and parcel of the assessment period, along with looking at the manipulation of schemes, changing the scheme rules in the preceding three years, cleansing the data, and so on. Therefore, I do not think that there is any problem here.
Whether a more substantive issue arises—that is, that 12 months will not be long enough—then, as I said, all we can do is to work on the evidence thus far that such cases of fraud are fairly rare. Cases of serious fraud, in particular, end up in court procedures involving the recovery of assets and so on, and that may take it out of the PPF's realm altogether.
Lord Skelmersdale: I am afraid that I have been a little naughty because the advantage of having a hook on which to hang a question—a hook in terms of an amendment—is that the barb can go both ways. In this case, it has gone the least obvious way according to the words in the amendment.
That said, I think that I am pleased with the answer but I am still slightly confused about the reference to the assessment period as well as to the fraud compensation application pending. Clause 163 is entirely about fraud and therefore perhaps it would be
GC 196
sensible to use another word instead of "assessment period" if it is an assessment period covering a fraud rather than an assessment period by the board, which is very different.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I have never been involved in a Bill with so many linguistic difficulties concerning the rules of a scheme and scheme rules and closed schemes. I shall check the language. At this point I can say only that clearly my difficulty in relation to the choice of language is that not only has it come through parliamentary counsel, who are very careful to ensure that words are consistent with previous usage, but it has also gone through the other place. If it makes sense to change the words and if the concerns expressed today by the Committee have any reverberations outside—that is, that we have introduced ambiguity with the use of these words—we shall be happy to help. But basically we are keeping the scheme in the assessment period until the fraud is investigated. That is why we went for a 12-month period.
Lord Skelmersdale: I thank the noble Baroness and beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
On Question, Whether Clause 151, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Higgins: Perhaps I could say a word or two about this as it relates to the moment of transfer of a scheme from the existing trustees to the PPF. In the light of the discussion that we had earlier about the length of the assessment period, I am worried about the position of the scheme's trustees whose responsibilities finally terminate with the transfer notice. It seems that there may be some considerable danger that, given that an assessment is being carried out, there will be very little incentive for the trustees to remain in post. They may as well say, "Well, this is the situation. It could stagger on. We may manage to do a buy-out and so on, but otherwise we see no future and therefore we shall all resign en masse". I am not clear how one prevents that happening.
I am trying to be realistic about this. A transfer notice is made at the end of the assessment period if the assessment is found to be unfavourable, but I am not clear how one keeps the thing going meanwhile and I suspect that some practical danger may arise here. I do not know whether one has any thoughts on that point.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I think that the noble Lord is pressing me on whether there may be a risk of the trustees taking their bat and walking away when the transfer notice is issued—which is what the clause is about. However, is that so very different from a wind-up of the scheme? What is happening here is that the scheme is going across to the PPF. However, if it were being wound up and if the annuities or whatever were bought—the trustees role would the taper out in that situation—would there theoretically be any difference? In both cases the trustees would be presiding over the endgame of a particular scheme.

GC 197
I do not see why the trustees would be more likely to walk away, precisely because the scheme is coming into the PPF. Members' benefits would therefore be lower than they would if the wind-up was taking place outside the scheme, where by definition there are more assets. I should have thought that the trustees would expect to continue their role to the end.
It is a technical point, but there should still be provision in the scheme rules in terms of the resignation or replacement of the trustees, so that if they were to go they could be replaced. If they ultimately wished to walk away from their duties, there is no doubt but that it might have to be tested in court. However, I am not sure that that situation is different from any other wind-up, where as I say the trustees are watching the scheme taper out.
Perhaps I can invite the noble Lord to come back to the responsibilities of trustees when we reach the chunk of provisions relating to trustees. I think there is a real set of issues about the education, support, training and long-term commitment of trustees in this situation. It may be better to look at it in that context rather than in this clause.
Lord Higgins: By all means, let us do that. However, I think that there is a distinction. If the thing is being wound up, the trustees will feel that they are winding it up and that it is their responsibility; they are not handing it over to someone else. I think that there is a slight difference of approach here—that if the PPF is going to take it anyway, let it get on with it. However, let us come back to that later.
Clause 151, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 152 [Effect of Board assuming responsibility for a scheme]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 215A:
Page 107, line 21, after "is" insert "(and has been)"
The noble Baroness said: I assure the Committee that Amendments Nos. 215A, 215E and 215F are all minor drafting or technical changes. If the Committee is happy for me to circulate my speaking notes to save the Committee's time, I would simply ask the Committee to agree the amendments. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 215B to 215D:
Page 107, line 25, after "than" insert "—
(a) "
Page 107, line 26, at end insert ", and
(b) such other liabilities as may be prescribed"
Page 107, line 37, at end insert—
"(7) Without prejudice to the generality of subsection (6), regulations may authorise the Board to modify a term of a relevant contract of insurance if—

(a) any rights or liabilities under the contract arc transferred to the Board by virtue of subsection (2)(a), and

(b) as a result of the transfer, the Board is required, by reason of that term, to pay a specified amount or specified amounts to a specified person who, immediately before
GC 198
the time mentioned in subsection (2)(a), was a member of the scheme or a person entitled to benefits in respect of such a member.

(8) In subsection (7)—
"relevant contract of insurance" means a contract of insurance which—

(a) is entered with a view to securing the whole or part of the scheme's liability for—

(i) any pension or other benefit payable to or in respect of one particular person whose entitlement to payment of a pension or other benefit has arisen, and

(ii) any benefit which will be payable in respect of that person on his death, and

(b) is a contract—

(i) which may not be surrendered, or

(ii) in respect of which the amount payable on surrender does not exceed the liability secured;

"specified" means specified in, or determined in accordance with, the contract of insurance."
On Question, amendments agreed to.
On Question, Whether Clause 152, as amended, shall stand part of the Bill?
Lord Borrie: I follow what my noble friend the Minister said about her amendments to Clause 152. I have felt, in relation to Clauses 151 and 152, a certain sense of relief—not really the light at the end of the tunnel, but that we have arrived at the point where, after the assessment period, the transfer notice will put things into the hands of the PPF.
I should simply like to ask a question about Clause 152(2)(a). We have, fairly naturally, the scheme's property rights and liabilities being transferred with effect from the time when the trustees and managers receive the transfer notice. But there are three words in the middle, "without further assurance", and I just do not know what that means.
7.15 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: The words mean that it takes effect immediately.
Lord Borrie: I see. I still do not know quite why they are there. Assurance from whom? It is a very odd phrase.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: All I can say is that this is the parliamentary draftsman's way of expressing that this is without delay; it takes effect immediately. Why that form of words? I would have to revisit my Latin, I suspect.
Lord Borrie: I thank the Minister.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Viscount Allenby of Megiddo): The Question is whether Clause 153, as amended, should stand part of the Bill.
Lord Higgins: This is a very important clause indeed as it is concerned with the pension compensation

GC 199
provisions that are to be made by the PPF. But in fact I think that nearly all the important points arise on Schedule 7, as this is really a paving provision for Schedule 7. In particular, there is an important series of debates on the percentage of protection that should be made available. I think that it is probably better to defer our discussion until we come to those amendments rather than to debate it in general terms on Clause 153.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: I understand that the noble Lord is accepting that Clause 153 should stand part, that we will be coming on to the amendments to Schedule 7, and that we will begin the next Committee sitting with opposition Amendment No. 216 onwards. Is that the noble Lord's intent, and that we will not have a substantive debate on the clause?
Lord Higgins: That seems the best way of proceeding. Amendment No. 216 and so forth are extremely important. If we were able to vote, that might well be involved. I cannot give a commitment,
GC 200
but many of the seemingly great number of amendments on page 2 of the selection list are government amendments. Perhaps we can therefore make reasonable progress if we proceed as the noble Baroness has suggested.
Clause 152, as amended, agreed to.
Schedule 6 agreed to.
Clause 153 [The pension compensation provisions]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 215E and 215F:
Page 107, line 39, leave out "pension"
Page 108, line 6, after "section" insert "155 or".
On Question, amendments agreed to.
Baroness Andrews: This may be a convenient moment to adjourn until Thursday at 3.15 p.m.
The Deputy Chairman of Committees: The Committee stands adjourned until Thursday 9 September at 3.15 p.m.
The Committee adjourned at nineteen minutes past seven o'clock.

  Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence Review Committee
  Weapons of Mass Destruction: Intelligence Review Committee
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Ulster Scots Academy
  Southern Sudan
  Southern Sudan
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Agency
  Ulster-Scots Language and Culture
  Ulster-Scots Language and Culture
  Northern Ireland: Sport Funding
  Northern Ireland: Sport Funding
  Tourism Ireland: Funding
  Tourism Ireland: Funding
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  North/South Implementation Bodies
  Northern Ireland: Loyal Order Parades
  Northern Ireland: Loyal Order Parades
  North/South Language Body
  North/South Language Body
  Northern Ireland Civic Forum
  Northern Ireland Civic Forum
  Northern Ireland Legislation: Definitions
  Northern Ireland Legislation: Definitions
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Northern Ireland Policing Board
  Belfast—London: Air Transport Services
  Belfast—London: Air Transport Services
  Northern Ireland Departments: Expenditure on Consultants
  Northern Ireland Departments: Expenditure on Consultants
  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
  Northern Ireland Association for the Care and Resettlement of Offenders
  Northern Ireland: Teachers
  Northern Ireland: Teachers
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland Film and Television Commission
  Northern Ireland: Primary School Funding
  Northern Ireland: Primary School Funding
  Ulster Political Research Group
  Ulster Political Research Group
  Northern Ireland: Civil Servants' Functions
  Northern Ireland: Civil Servants' Functions
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Chief Commissioner
  Northern Ireland Human Rights Commission: Chief Commissioner
  Congo Forests
  Congo Forests
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  Development Fund for Iraq
  Development Fund for Iraq
  Skills Training
  Skills Training
  Dyslexia
  Dyslexia
  Special Educational Needs
  Special Educational Needs
  Defence Procurement
  Defence Procurement
  Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force
  Afghanistan: International Security Assistance Force
  Army: Regimental Strength
  Army: Regimental Strength
  Iraq: Maritime Patrol Force
  Iraq: Maritime Patrol Force
  Iraq: Martial Law and UK Armed Forces
  Iraq: Martial Law and UK Armed Forces
  Gulf War 1990–91: Illnesses
  Gulf War 1990–91: Illnesses
  Northern Ireland: Military Reductions
  Northern Ireland: Military Reductions
  Civil Servants: Company Directorships
  Civil Servants: Company Directorships
  NHS Wales: Temporary Nursing Staff
  NHS Wales: Temporary Nursing Staff
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Freedom of Information Act 2000
  Postal Voting
  Postal Voting
  Mr Quayym Raja
  Mr Quayym Raja
  United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  United Nations International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights
  Interdepartmental Review of International Human Rights Instruments
  Interdepartmental Review of International Human Rights Instruments
  Immigration Appellate Authority: Gloucester House
  Immigration Appellate Authority: Gloucester House
  Department for Work and Pensions: Staffing Reductions
  Department for Work and Pensions: Staffing Reductions
  Child Support
  Child Support
  Civil Service: Use of Outside Consultants
  Civil Service: Use of Outside Consultants
  Death Certificates
  Death Certificates
  Visit Britain: Funding
  Visit Britain: Funding
  Sport and Physical Activity
  Sport and Physical Activity
  National Sports Foundation
  National Sports Foundation
  Local Government Reorganisation: North-east
  Local Government Reorganisation: North-east
  Gypsies and Travellers
  Gypsies and Travellers
  Depleted Uranium: Aircraft Industry
  Depleted Uranium: Aircraft Industry
  Wind Farms
  Wind Farms
  Incitement to Religious Hatred
  Incitement to Religious Hatred
  Immigration
  Immigration
  National Asylum Support Service
  National Asylum Support Service
  Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre
  Harmondsworth Immigration Removal Centre
  Beggars: Prosecution
  Beggars: Prosecution
  Asylum Applications
  Asylum Applications
  Ethnic Monitoring: Fixed Penalty Notices
  Ethnic Monitoring: Fixed Penalty Notices
  Penal Policy
  Penal Policy
  Police: Telephone Response Times
  Police: Telephone Response Times
  Spitting
  Spitting
  Refugees: Gateway Protection Programme
  Refugees: Gateway Protection Programme
  Sound Insulation: Government Properties
  Sound Insulation: Government Properties
  Kenya
  Kenya
  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Ethiopia and Eritrea
  Afghanistan
  Afghanistan
  European Economic Area
  European Economic Area
  Iran: Political Dissidents
  Iran: Political Dissidents
  Smallpox Vaccination: Medical Staff
  Smallpox Vaccination: Medical Staff
  NHS: Treatment Overseas
  NHS: Treatment Overseas
  Water Fluoridation
  Water Fluoridation
  MRSA
  MRSA
  Blood Tests
  Blood Tests
  Midwives
  Midwives
  Eye Tests: Pensioners
  Eye Tests: Pensioners
  Healthcare Associated Infections
  Healthcare Associated Infections
  NHS: Public/Private Partnership Schemes
  NHS: Public/Private Partnership Schemes
  NHS Professionals Special Health Authority
  NHS Professionals Special Health Authority
  Food Supplements: Regulation
  Food Supplements: Regulation
  Low Carbohydrate Diets
  Low Carbohydrate Diets
  Warrington Primary Care Trust: Dental Treatment
  Warrington Primary Care Trust: Dental Treatment
  Smoking-related Diseases
  Smoking-related Diseases
  Alcohol Abuse: Costs
  Alcohol Abuse: Costs
  Actinic Keratosis
  Actinic Keratosis
  NHS Dental Services
  NHS Dental Services
  Osteoporosis
  Osteoporosis
  Acrylamide
  Acrylamide
  Rural Ambulance Trusts: Response Times
  Rural Ambulance Trusts: Response Times
  Oxygen: Home Treatment Service
  Oxygen: Home Treatment Service
  Skin Cancer
  Skin Cancer
  General Practitioner Training
  General Practitioner Training
  Postgraduate Medical Training
  Postgraduate Medical Training
  Draft Animal Welfare Bill
  Draft Animal Welfare Bill
  Bovine TB
  Bovine TB
  Hazardous Waste Disposal
  Hazardous Waste Disposal
  Badger and Deer Carcasses
  Badger and Deer Carcasses
  Wild Animals: Enzootic Diseases
  Wild Animals: Enzootic Diseases
  Marine Conservation in UK
  Marine Conservation in UK
  Household Waste
  Household Waste
  Horse Passports
  Horse Passports
  Rural Diversification
  Rural Diversification
  Pigswill Local Feeding Ban
  Pigswill Local Feeding Ban

  Pitcairn Island: Infrastructure
  The Lord President of the Council (Baroness Amos)
  My honourable friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for International Development (Mr Gareth Thomas) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Following detailed engineering assessment and design work over the past 12 months or so, I have set aside a total of £1.9 million from DfID funds to repair and refurbish the Hill of Difficulty Road and the jetty/slipway in Pitcairn Island. Preparations are now in hand, with a view to expected commencement of the work in November of this year. In addition to this assistance, we will continue to provide medical and social welfare support for the island community.

  DfID: Reducing Maternal Deaths Strategy
  Baroness Amos
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development has made the following statement:

  Last week I published a strategy paper, Reducing Maternal Deaths, setting out the evidence on what is needed to reduce maternal deaths in developing countries. The paper complements our recent position paper on Sexual and Reproductive Health and Rights, and DfID's target strategy papers on Better Health for Poor People and Realising Human Rights for Poor People.

  There is an urgent need to make faster progress towards the fifth Millennium Development Goal of improving maternal health. Every year worldwide, more than 529,000 women die from complications in pregnancy and childbirth, all but 2,500 of them in developing countries. The UK is firmly committed to the target of reducing the maternal mortality ratio (the number of deaths per 100,000 live births) by three-quarters by 2015, from a 1990 baseline. The health of the mother is inextricably linked to the health of her newborn child.

  The paper sets out four priorities for DfID: increasing awareness and commitment to action, supporting partner countries to improve access to services, addressing wider barriers to maternal health, especially improving the status and rights of women, and generating and using new knowledge.

  DfID is already supporting work in all these areas but will increase those efforts and encourage partners to do likewise. The strategy includes a commitment to increase year-on-year investment in maternal health.

  I am placing a copy of the paper in the Library of the House. It is also available on DfID's website at www.dfid.gov.uk.

  Peers' Subsistence and Office Cost Allowances
  The Chairman of Committees (Lord Brabazon of Tara)
  The resolution of the House of 20 July 1994 provided for the limits of the subsistence and office cost allowances to be uprated annually on 1 August in line with the increase in the retail prices index over the previous 12 months to July.

  Accordingly, the limits within which Lords may be reimbursed expenses incurred were increased with effect from 1 August 2004. The new limits are now as follows (the limits previously applicable are shown in brackets):

  Overnight subsistence

  £132 (£128)

  Day subsistence

  £66 (£64)

  Office costs

  £55 (£53.50)

  Office costs for non-sitting periods

  £2,200 per year (£2,140 per year)

  Iraq: Prosecution of Trooper Williams
  The Attorney-General (Lord Goldsmith)
  As I indicated in my Written Statement to the House on 14 June(Official Report: cols. WS 22–24) this case, which involves an alleged unlawful killing by shooting of an Iraqi citizen during the course of an arrest, was brought to my attention after charges were dismissed by the soldier's commanding officer. This meant the case could not be tried by court martial. I referred it to the CPS who asked the Metropolitan Police for assistance in collecting further evidence.

  I can confirm that today the Metropolitan Police, on the advice of the CPS, charged Trooper Williams with the murder of Hassan Said on 3 August 2003 in Ad Dayr Iraq. Trooper Williams has been kept in custody to appear at Bow Street magistrates' court this afternoon.

  Trooper Williams is a member of 2nd Royal Tank Regiment.

  Middle East Peace Process: Civilian Deaths
  The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Europe (Mr Denis MacShane) answered PQs 180074 and 180090 on 28 June (Official Report, Commons, cols. 129 W and 131 W respectively). Both PQs related to the Middle East peace process. The Questions and Answers given were as follows:

  PQ 180074:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his department has made of the number of Israeli civilians killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000; and how many were under the age of 18.
  Mr. MacShane: We estimate that 944 Israeli civilians have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. This estimate is based on a variety of sources, including the UN, NGOs and the media. We do not hold figures for those killed under the age of 18 years.
  WS 71
  PQ 180090:
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what estimate his department has made of the number of Palestinian civilians killed since September 2000; and how many were under 18.
  Mr. MacShane: We estimate that 3,242 Palestinian civilians have been killed since the beginning of the intifada in September 2000. This estimate is based on a variety of sources, including the UN, NGOs and the media. We do not hold figures for those killed under the age of 18 years.

  Since answering PQs 180074 and 180090 however, it has been brought to our attention by the British Embassy in Tel Aviv that the figures provided in these answers on 28 June were inaccurate. The figures given were for total deaths on each side rather than civilian deaths, so these figures would also include Israeli Defence Force soldiers, militants and suicide bombers as well as civilians.

  I apologise for this error and would like to clarify that the figures initially given in the Answer of 28 June were for the total numbers of Israeli and Palestinian deaths rather than just civilian deaths. Figures for civilian deaths are not held centrally and could only be provided at disproportionate cost.

  Sanctions: Current UK Implementation
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  Currently the United Kingdom implements mandatory UN sanctions, imposed by the UN Security Council acting under Chapter VII of the Charter of the United Nations, in relation to Al'Qaeda and the Taliban, the Democratic Republic of the Congo, Iraq, Liberia, Rwanda, Sierra Leone, Sudan and Somalia. In addition, the UK implements sanctions imposed by the European Union in relation to Bosnia and Herzegovina, Burma, China, the DRC, the former Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, Libya, Moldova, Sudan and Zimbabwe. In accordance with a decision of the OSCE, the United Kingdom implements arms embargoes on Armenia and Azerbaijan. A full list of sanctions regimes and restrictive measures implemented by the UK has been placed in the Library of the House. Annexed to this is a summary of additional UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. These documents are also available on the FCO website at www.fco.gov.uk/sanctions and are updated each time there are changes to sanctions regimes implemented by the UK, or to UK restrictions on the export of strategic goods. Restrictive measures implemented in the UK are also implemented in the Overseas Territories and Crown Dependencies.

  Sanctions: Recent Changes
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  On 11 June the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2004/510/CFSP. The Council adopted EC Regulation 1353/2004 on 27 July. These amend Common Position 2004/31/CFSP of 10 January and EC Regulation 131/2004 of 28 January, which renewed the arms embargo against Sudan and added an exemption for the supply of de-mining equipment. The new measures broaden the exemptions to the prohibition on the supply of arms, technical assistance WS 72
  and financial assistance to include crisis management operations of the African Union. This allows EU member states to offer full practical and financial support to the deployment of the African Union's Ceasefire Commission to Darfur. With the support of her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 30 July unanimously adopted Resolution 1556 (2004), which, inter alia imposes an arms embargo against non-governmental entities and individuals, including the Janjaweed, operating in the states of North Darfur, South Darfur and West Darfur in Sudan.

  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 27 July 2004 unanimously adopted Resolution 1552 (2004) on the situation concerning the Democratic Republic of the Congo. This renewed the arms embargo imposed by UNSCR 1493 (2003) for one year and extended the mandate of the UN Expert Group established by UNSCR 1533 (2004) to monitor the embargo for a further six months.

  With the support of Her Majesty's Government, the United Nations Security Council on 8 June unanimously adopted UN Security Council Resolution 1546 (2004). Among other measures, the resolution leaves the arms embargo in place, with new exemptions for arms and related materiel required by the Government of Iraq or the multinational force to serve the purposes of the resolution. The resolution passes all outstanding rights, responsibilities and obligations relating to the Oil for Food Programme to the Government of Iraq, including ensuring independently authenticated confirmation that goods have been delivered, and it leaves in place the financial sanctions upon former Government of Iraq funds and any funds belonging to Saddam Hussein, senior members of his regime and their immediate family members.

  On 26 April, the Council of the European Union adopted Common Position 2004/423/CFSP and EC Regulation 798/2004, concerning Burma. These renewed the restrictive measures imposed by Common Position 2003/297/CFSP from 30 April 2004 for a further 12 months, in view of the current political situation in Burma, notably the failure of the regime to pursue the process of national reconciliation, respect for human rights and democracy. The restrictive measures comprise an assets freeze and travel ban against members of the regime and others, an arms embargo, a prohibition on the attachment and hosting of military personnel to diplomatic missions, restrictions on development programmes and a suspension of high-level bilateral governmental visits to Burma.

  European Union: Update on Prospects for 2004
  Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean
  My right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary (Mr Jack Straw) will today lay before Parliament the latest White Paper on Prospects for the EU (Cm 6310). Copies will be placed in the Library of the House and will be available from the Vote Office in the House of
  WS 73
  Commons and the Printed Paper Office in the House of Lords. A copy will also be available on the Foreign and Commonwealth Office website (www.fco.gov.uk).

  This White Paper is a supplement to the one published in April on Prospects for the EU in 2004 (Cm 6174). As well as setting out the issues we expect the Union to address in the rest of the year, it updates readers on developments since April and provides a short breakdown of the achievements of Ireland's EU Presidency, which ran from January to June. It covers the full gamut of EU business, from enlargement—and whether we should start negotiations with Turkey on membership of the Union—to the Lisbon Agenda for economic and social reform—which includes developing the single market, simplifying new and outdated regulation, and increasing employment.

  The purpose of this White Paper, and April's, is to keep Parliament and the public informed about developments in the EU, the Government's approach to them and the benefits they will bring to the UK and its citizens.

  The next White Paper on prospects for the EU will be published in January 2005, to be followed by a shorter update—along the lines of the one published today—in July 2005.

  These White Papers are part of the Government's commitment to make EU business more accessible and interesting for Parliament, the media and members of the public alike by providing an appropriate amount of detail and depth on significant progress that might have an impact on our daily lives. I hope they will play a vital role in involving Parliament more closely in EU affairs, and trust that Members of both Houses will read them. I commend this White Paper to the House.

  National Grid Company: Confirmation of Appointment as GB System Operator
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville)
  My honourable friend the Minister for Energy, E-commerce and Postal Services (Stephen Timms) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 17 December 2002, the then Minister for Energy and Construction, my right honourable friend the Member for Cunninghame North made a Statement to Parliament (Official Report, Commons, col. 45 WS) saying that Ministers were minded to accept the recommendation of the GB System Operator Selection Panel that National Grid Company's application for the role of GB system operator should be accepted. Licensing of the GB system operator could not take place until the Energy Bill had received Royal Assent. The necessary legislation is now in place and I have confirmed the appointment of the National Grid Company as the GB system operator under the British Electricity Trading and Transmission Arrangements (BETTA), with effect from 1 September 2004.

  WTO Framework Agreement
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Ms Hewitt) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  On 1 August the General Council of the World Trade Organisation agreed a framework text for further negotiations on the Doha Development Agenda. Commissioners Lamy and Fischler negotiated on behalf of the European Union. I warmly welcome this Framework Agreement, which is a crucial step on the road to delivering a trade round that will benefit developed and developing countries alike.

  On 17 September last year I made an oral Statement to the House (Official Report, Commons, cols. 861–63), about the WTO ministerial conference in Cancun, where WTO members had been unable to reach an agreement. In that Statement I said that in order to get the Doha Development Agenda back on track, the WTO community would need to lift its sights to the prize on offer. I believe that WTO Members have done just that. The period since Cancun has been marked by a much more positive and business-like atmosphere and the Framework Agreement has now cemented the progress made.

  For the most part the purpose of the Framework Agreement is to set out guiding principles for future negotiations rather than to provide specific proposals. However, it contains sufficient detail to allow technical discussions to continue during the rest of this year, when the US presidential elections and the appointment of a new College of Commissioners are likely to limit political engagement in the round.

  The Framework Agreement gives greater detail on the direction of the negotiations on agriculture, industrial tariffs, commits WTO members to negotiate on a trade facilitation agreement and sets a revised target date for more requests in the ongoing services negotiations. Agriculture is generally acknowledged to be the key to progress in the round and the agriculture section contains a welcome level of detail. The agreement provides for extensive special and differential treatment for developing countries across all the sectors covered. Three of the four so-called Singapore Issues (competition, investment and transparency in government procurement), divergent views on which did much to derail talks at Cancun, have been dropped from the Doha Development Agenda. The fourth—trade facilitation—will now be the subject of negotiations.

  The text of the agreement reflects the increasing influence of developing countries within the WTO. This is a development that I have previously welcomed. India and Brazil in particular played an influential role in the lead up to the agreement. Both the G20 group (larger developing country agricultural exporters) and G90 (some 62 smaller developing countries) engaged in the negotiations in a flexible and constructive manner. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for International Development, my

  WS 75
  right honourable friend the secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, my honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I were in regular contact with a number of influential members of both of these groupings, as well as our EU colleagues, to underline the importance of reaching an agreement. My honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I between us attended the two General Affairs and External Relations Council meetings held in the last week of July to agree the EU's position for this stage of the negotiations.

  The Government have been strongly supportive of the Commission's approach to negotiations in the period since Cancun. We consider that the Commission has shown leadership and flexibility to move talks forward, capitalising on the stronger negotiating position that the EU enjoys after the CAP reforms of June 2003 and March 2004, which will cut significantly the level both of trade-distorting domestic support and export subsidies. In particular, the conditional offer to eliminate of export subsidies in the letter of 9 May from Commissioners Lamy and Fischler to WTO trade Ministers helped to breathe new life into the talks and encouraged other developed countries to match the EU's level of ambition. My honourable friend the Minister for Trade, Investment and Foreign Affairs and I attended meetings of the General Affairs and External Relations Council in the week leading up to the Framework Agreement where we strongly supported the European Commission.

  There is much still to be done. The challenge now for the whole WTO membership of 148 countries is to build on this success and to ensure that the momentum that has been built up is maintained in the detailed negotiations that will now follow. Success in the Round has the potential to deliver huge benefits, including for developing countries as their opportunities for trade increase, so adding to their prosperity, aiding development and contributing towards the achievement of the Millennium Development Gaols.

  The Government will continue do all we can, both inside the EU and within the broader WTO community, to help to deliver an ambitious development-focused Round. In particular, we will press hard for substantial progress before the sixth WTO Ministerial meeting in Hong Kong scheduled for December 2005.

  Director and Auditor Liability
  Lord Sainsbury of Turville
  The House will be aware that, between December 2003 and March 2004, the Government consulted widely on the case for reform of the law on director and auditor liability. Over 120 responses to the consultation were received from investors; companies, both large and small; auditors; legal advisers; industry bodies; academia; and the general public. I am grateful to all those who took the time and trouble to contribute.
  WS 76
  In the light of the consultation responses the Office of Fair Trading was asked to undertake a study of the potential impact on competition in the audit market of a cap on auditor liability. I am grateful to it for completing and publishing this so quickly.

  Directors

  It is essential for British competitiveness that we have a diverse pool of high-quality individuals willing to become directors, and that directors are willing to take informed and rational risks. But it is also important that directors act in accordance with their duties, and that negligent directors can be held to account by their companies. The courts have in recent years imposed a much more demanding standard of care, skill and diligence on directors. This has been a very welcome development.

  The consultation built on the recommendations both of the Company Law Review and of Sir Derek Higgs's study on non-executive directors. It identified two particular concerns:

  exposure to liabilities arising from legal action against directors by third parties. The sharp rise in the number of class actions by groups of shareholders in the US has made this a particular concern for directors of British companies with a US listing;

  the cost of lengthy court proceedings. Companies are currently permitted to indemnify a director against the cost of defending legal proceedings, but only when judgment has been given in the director's favour or he has been acquitted. For many directors, such indemnification comes too late and the prospect provides cold comfort.

  The consultation indicated these issues are affecting the recruitment and behaviour of directors. I therefore intend to introduce a balanced and proportionate package of reforms, by tabling amendments to the Companies (Audit, Investigations and Community Enterprise) Bill at its Commons Committee stage. The proposals will in particular introduce two important relaxations of the current prohibition on companies exempting their directors from, or indemnifying them against, liability:

  they will permit, but not require, companies to indemnify directors in respect of proceedings brought by third parties (covering both legal costs and the financial costs of any adverse judgment, except for the legal costs of unsuccessful defence of criminal proceedings, fines imposed in criminal proceedings and penalties imposed by regulatory bodies such as the Financial Services Authority);

  they will permit, but not require, companies to pay directors' defence costs as they are incurred, even if the action is brought by the company itself. The director would still be liable to pay any damages awarded to the company and to repay his defence costs to the company if his defence were unsuccessful (except where the company chooses to indemnify the director in respect of his legal costs in civil proceedings brought by third parties).
  WS 77
  The government amendments will also remove an arguable loophole under which a company in the same group may currently provide an indemnity to a director that would be unlawful if it was provided directly by the company of which the individual was a director.

  The amendments will also require disclosure in the directors' report by companies that indemnify directors. Shareholders will also have the right to inspect any indemnification agreement. Companies that do not indemnify directors will not have to make any disclosure.

  Auditors

  The consultation also covered the position of auditors.

  The Government wish to see a competitive and high-quality market for audit services, shareholders using high quality and reliable information, and an adequate system of redress for when things go wrong. There must also be an appropriate degree of transparency and accountability for the audit process.

  The Government are actively pursuing this agenda. The Bill already extends the powers of auditors to obtain information, and contains new provisions for each director to confirm that there is no relevant audit information of which he is aware but the company's auditors are unaware.

  There are also a number of initiatives to improve the quality of the audit and other information provided to shareholders. For example:

  the recommendations of the review chaired by Sir Robert Smith mean that in listed companies there will shortly be enhanced audit committee reporting to shareholders, including better information on key audit judgements;

  the Auditing Practices Board, a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council, has published for comment draft new ethical standards relating to the independence of auditors which are expected to be finalised this autumn;

  the Financial Reporting Council has established an Audit Inspection Unit which has begun independent reviews of the effectiveness of the audit procedures of the four largest audit firms;

  the audit regulatory activities of the professional accountancy bodies are now subject to independent oversight by the Professional Oversight Board for Accountancy, a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council;

  a new Accountancy Investigation and Discipline Board has been established, as a subsidiary of the Financial Reporting Council, in order to investigate public interest cases of alleged breaches of professional standards by auditors and it has commenced its first investigation;

  the Financial Reporting Council has recently set up a group under Douglas Flint to review the current guidance on internal risk control;
  WS 78
  we are also considering carefully the responses to our recent consultation on the Operating and Financial Review.

  In line with the Company Law Review's recommendations, and as supported in the consultation, I have decided not to bring forward amendments to the current Bill to extend an auditor's duty of care.

  The consultation showed a wide variety of views both as to whether reform of the law on liability of auditors was needed, and if so what form it should take. Some investors also had concerns about whether the audit process was serving them sufficiently well. It was also a matter of concern that the leaders of some of our largest companies were worried their choice of auditor was limited.

  I have considered carefully whether there is a case for a change in the law on auditor liability. I am grateful to the Office of Fair Trading for looking at the competition implications of enabling shareholders to agree in advance a maximum amount for which the auditor would be liable. In the light of the consultation responses, and the OFT's advice that introducing a cap would not significantly enhance competition, I have concluded against proposing changes to the law on this.

  The Government remain committed to improving the operation of the audit market and will continue to consider any proposals, including the possibility of limiting liability on a proportionate basis by contract, which can be demonstrated significantly to enhance competition, and to improve quality, in the audit market. The Government intends to look closely at this option and actively calls upon auditors, business, and investors to work together to examine whether proposals for a system of proportionate liability via contract are practical and/or desirable.

  However no change to the law on financial liability could protect one of an auditor's greatest assets—its reputation. That responsibility rests with the professionalism of auditors themselves.

  Retail Pharmacy Services: OFT Report
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Health (Lord Warner)
  My honourable friend the Minister of State, Department of Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  On 17 January 2003, the Office of Fair Trading (OFT) published its report The control of entry regulations and retail pharmacy services in the UK. It recommended abolition of the current restrictions on National Health Service pharmacy applications known as "control of entry".

  On 17 July 2003 the Government published their response to the report for England, in which we announced our intention to move cautiously in the direction recommended by the OFT.

  In summary, the package of measures proposed first the introduction of new criteria of "competition and choice" to the current regulatory test. Secondly, they would exempt completely four types of pharmacy

  WS 79
  applications from that test. These four exemptions would apply to applications in respect of large shopping developments over 15,000 square metres (though we will not now include town centre developments); to pharmacies intending to open more than 100 hours per week; to pharmacies which are part of consortia developing new one-stop primary care centres; and to pharmacies which would be wholly Internet or mail-order based. Finally, we would further reform and modernise the current regulatory system.

  We issued a consultation document on 29 August 2003, Proposals to reform and modernise the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992, which explained these proposals in more detail and sought views on how best to implement the package of measures. 270 responses were received. A summary of those responses is available on the department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/mpi.

  We also set up an expert advisory group (the advisory group on the reform of the NHS (Pharmaceutical Services) Regulations 1992) under the chairmanship of Mrs Anne Galbraith, Chair of the Prescription Pricing Authority. Its role was to advise how best to implement the proposals, taking account of the OFT report and responses subsequently received, and to offer further advice. We received the group's report in January this year. We published the executive summary of the report in March. This is available on the department's website at http://www.advisorybodies.doh.gov.uk/pharmacyrequlationconsultation/Execum.htm. We will publish the group's full report later this year when we bring forward the necessary regulatory changes.

  We took careful account of the advisory group's report and recommendations and the responses to the consultation in drawing up our plans for implementation. Stakeholders from a wide range of key interests were represented on the group. These included patients and consumers, the NHS, pharmacists and health professions as well as those with experience of competition and regulatory reform. The group provided constructive and valuable advice. In order to end any uncertainty for patients, for the NHS and for community pharmacies, I announced on 18 August that the Government had accepted the great majority of their recommendations in relation to the proposals set out in the consultation document and would now proceed to implement them, but with some amendments.

  We will work to introduce the new criteria of competition and choice to the current regulatory test through secondary rather than primary legislation. We also intend to develop criteria for primary care trusts (PCTs) to reject administratively any application which does not undertake to provide the required "essential" pharmaceutical services under the proposed new contractual framework for community pharmacy. Similar arrangements will be made for appliance contractors. We intend these criteria to be rolled out to all PCTs later this year subject to our ongoing discussions with the Pharmaceutical Services
  WS 80
  Negotiating Committee (PSNC) and NHS Confederation to finalise the details of that framework.

  We will proceed with our plans to exempt four types of pharmacy application from the "control of entry" test.

  However, we will not exempt pharmacy applications for town centre shopping developments over 15,000 square metres. The exemption would still apply to out-of-centre and out-of-town developments as we originally proposed. Such exempted developments will be included in a published list and a provisional list is now available on the department's website at www.dh.gov.uk/mpi. We are considering further how the list is to be updated and will provide more information when we bring forward the draft changes to the regulations. Pharmacies, which have hitherto found difficulty in gaining an NHS pharmacy contract in shopping developments in town centres, will none the less be able to apply to their local PCT for admission to the pharmaceutical list under the reformed regulatory test, when it is introduced, or to make use of the exemption to open more than 100 hours per week.

  For pharmacies which intend to open for more than 100 hours per week, we will include a requirement for PCTs to remove from their pharmaceutical list any pharmacy that consistently fails to meet the terms of the exemption unless there is good cause—for example, a fire causing temporary closure.

  Applications from members of a consortium establishing a new one-stop primary care centre will also be exempted, provided the centre provides a regular, comprehensive range of services and serves a substantial population of 18,000 to 20,000 patients. The exemption will apply only to centres which are part of the local PCT's strategic service development plan or equivalent written service development strategy. Such centres will, in addition to usual general practitioner services, offer a wide range of primary and community-based services, such as dentistry, optometry, podiatry, or other social or community services. The regulations will define a "consortium" and specify governance arrangements. Guidance for PCTs will cover situations where a service provider withdraws from a centre so that this does not require the closure of the exempted pharmacy.

  Applications for wholly mail order or Internet-based pharmacy services will similarly be exempted and we will apply a number of measures to ensure such pharmacies provide a fully professional service within the provisions of the new contractual framework. Internet pharmacies, as with all retail pharmacies in England, Wales and Scotland, must be registered with the Royal Pharmaceutical Society of Great Britain (RPSGB). All pharmacies, whether or not they provide online services, are subject to the same statutory requirements and to the RPSGB's requirements, including standards, inspection arrangements and code of professional ethics.

  We will also introduce regulatory safeguards to protect against manipulation or abuse of the new

  WS 81
  freedoms. For example, the four exemptions will require applicants to provide a full and prescribed range of services. These would be for local determination by the PCT in relation to the first three exemptions, or nationally determined by the department in discussion with the NHS in relation to the exemption for wholly Internet or mail order-based pharmacies. Apart from dispensing prescriptions, such services might include managing a patient's repeat medication, helping patients to get the best from the medicines they are taking and promoting healthier lifestyles. For example, pharmacies are well placed to provide support for people at risk of coronary heart disease, giving advice on stopping smoking, or how to improve nutrition or physical activity.

  Key elements of our proposals, including the four exemptions, are either implicitly or explicitly linked to the delivery of pharmaceutical services under the new contractual framework. Our plan is to implement these reforms in tandem with that framework. The department has held tripartite negotiations on the framework with the PSNC and the NHS Confederation for the past 18 months. On 24 August, the PSNC accepted our offer of funding subject to final agreement on a number of detailed issues which we are discussing with it and the NHS Confederation. We aim to conclude these as soon as possible. We will prepare and consult on the necessary regulatory changes and aim to implement the reformed regime as soon as is practicable thereafter.

  Guidance for the NHS on how to implement the regulations was last drawn up in 1992. An overhaul is long overdue. So we will amend this information to bring it fully up to date to assist PCTs in implementation. This would include developing supplementary questions to inform PCT assessments of pharmacy applications. We will also propose enhanced data collection from PCTs, subject to approval by the body overseeing NHS data requirements, to inform assessment of progress on our package of reforms and evaluate the impact of these exemptions in 2006.

  We will also take additional steps as proposed to further modernise and reform the current system through a combination of regulatory and administrative changes.

  PCTs will be able to invite applications from contractors. We will revise the application forms to reflect the criteria that PCTs use in assessing applications. We will require PCTs to reach a decision on an application within four months of the due date for receipt, unless there is good cause. We will also require them to consult widely with patient, consumer and local community groups that have a direct interest in local pharmaceutical provision, and set an administrative minimum consultation period of 45 days.

  We will introduce an automatic exemption for all minor relocations under 500 metres, but retain the discretion for PCTs, to override this where there is good cause. An example of this would be where geographical obstacles or transport difficulties would
  WS 82
  affect continued access to pharmaceutical services. Similarly there will be a minimum 12-month trading period requirement before a further application for a minor relocation can be accepted, unless, again, the applicant shows there is good cause.

  We will remove the current restriction, which prevents cross-PCT boundary minor relocations, but ensure there are means to remove the contractor from the list of the PCT he is leaving and the receiving PCT agrees to the relocation.

  We will retain the concept of preliminary consent for a pharmacy application, but will limit the maximum period for grant of such consent to six months.

  Similarly, we will provide for a maximum period of grant of full consent of nine months. We will also enable PCTs to have the discretion to require an applicant to commence pharmaceutical services within a given period not exceeding three months unless there is good cause.

  In addition, we will introduce two measures proposed to us by the advisory group. We will allow PCTs to set a fixed date every month for the receipt of applications. And we will require PCTs to deal with applications that do not require local consultation within a maximum of 30 days. However, we will retain in guidance the long-stop discretion which enables PCTs to decide competing applications of equal merit on the basis of "the first past the post". We will also reform the appeals system. We will allow appeals for change of ownership to be combined with appeals concerning minor relocations.

  Certain of our proposals would require primary legislation. When parliamentary time permits, we will consider introducing new legislation to enable reasonable charges, but not full cost recovery, for pharmacy applications to be introduced. We will also consider enabling PCTs to take into account, when assessing applications, the improvements they would bring to the provision of, or access to, over the counter medicines and other healthcare products. We do not intend, however, to introduce legislation to enable charges to be levied for appeals. We would consult further on such legislation.

  We also plan to introduce, subject to further discussions, measures developed by the Pharmaceutical Services Negotiating Committee and the General Practitioners Committee of the British Medical Association and the Dispensing Doctors' Association to reform the rules governing NHS rural dispensing. These bodies reviewed their proposals in the light of the government response to the OFT report and presented their findings to the advisory group, which in turn recommended that they should proceed. Officials from the department have met these organisations recently to hold further discussions on how best the reforms should be introduced to the current legislation. We aim to implement these in tandem with the other reforms I am announcing today.

  The measures I have announced represent an important step forward for community pharmacy services and our ambition to deliver a balanced

  WS 83
  package of reform measures. They will raise standards for patients and encourage innovation and excellence in service provision while at the same time supporting community pharmacies, many of which are small businesses. Community pharmacies provide a highly valued service and we are committed to their ongoing development and integration in the NHS. We also want to ensure that our reforms do not mean that services to more vulnerable groups of patients or those in deprived or rural areas suffer.

  We are determined to improve access to, and the choice of, pharmacy services so that community pharmacy is recognised as a key player in the provision of NHS services. These reforms will provide an environment in which community pharmacy services can thrive.

  NHS Foundation Trust Status
  Lord Warner
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Health has made the following Written Ministerial Statement today.

  I announced on 26 July that I would support 20 National Health Service trusts in their bids to become NHS foundation trusts as part of wave 1A.

  These trusts have made an application to Monitor (whose statutory name is the Independent Regulator of NHS foundation trusts) for authorisation as NHS foundation trusts, and are setting up their new governance arrangements including recruiting members to hold elections to the board of governors. On 2 August, Monitor announced that wave 1A applicants would be handled as two groups, with target dates for authorisation being 1 November 2004 and 1 February 2005. Details of the two groups are as follows:

  1 November 2004

  Barnsley District General Hospital NHS Trust

  Burton Hospitals NHS Trust

  Chesterfield and North Derbyshire Royal Hospitals NHS Trust

  Gateshead Health NHS Trust

  Harrogate Healthcare NHS Trust

  Nottingham City Hospital NHS Trust

  Southend Hospital NHS Trust

  South Tyneside Healthcare NHS Trust

  West Suffolk Hospitals NHS Trust

  1 February 2005

  Aintree Hospitals NHS Trust

  Birmingham Heartlands and Solihull NHS Trust

  Birmingham Women's Healthcare NHS Trust

  East Somerset NHS Trust

  Frimley Park Hospitals NHS Trust

  Lancaster Teaching Hospitals NHS Trust

  WS 84

  Liverpool Women's Hospital NHS Trust

  Newcastle Upon Tyne Hospitals NHS Trust

  Royal Bournemouth and Christchurch NHS Trust

  Royal National Hospital for Rheumatic Diseases NHS Trust

  Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh NHS Trust

  On 26 July, I indicated that in addition to three-star rated acute and specialist trusts, mental health trusts would for the first time be invited to apply for NHS foundation trust status. We will formally invite applications for wave 2 later this autumn and outline the timetable for authorisation, which will be subject to the outcome of the review into NHS foundation trusts being undertaken by the Healthcare Commission (whose statutory name is the Commission for Healthcare Audit and Inspection).

  Coins
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Culture, Media and Sport (Lord McIntosh of Haringey)
  My right honourable friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer (Mr Gordon Brown) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  Her Majesty the Queen has been graciously pleased to approve my recommendation that the following coins should be issued in 2005 and 2006:

  A gold half-sovereign, sovereign, double-sovereign and £5 in 2005 bearing a new reverse design;

  a crown piece to celebrate the 80th birthday of Her Majesty the Queen in 2006;

  a pair of £2 coins to mark the 200th anniversary in 2006 of the birth of Isambard Kingdom Brunel; and

  a series of three 50p pieces to commemorate the 150th anniversary in 2006 of the institution of the Victoria Cross.

  Collector versions of all these coins will be released at a premium above face value. In the case of the crown, the £2 coins and the 50p pieces, during the course of 2006 versions will also become available at face value from banks and post offices.

  Examinations Results: Summer 2004
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department for Education and Skills (Baroness Ashton of Upholland)
  My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Education and Skills (Mr Charles Clarke) has made the following Written Ministerial Statement.

  I would like to report on this summer's results for key stages 1, 2 and 3, GCSE and A-level, which show that we are making steady progress in raising standards at every level.
  WS 85
  At age 7, key stage 1, 85 per cent of pupils achieved the expected level in reading (an increase of 1 percentage point over 2003) and 90 per cent of pupils did so in maths (unchanged from 2003).1

  At age 11, key stage 2, a record 77 per cent of pupils achieved the expected level in English, an increase of 2 percentage points from last year (up 12 percentage points compared to 1998), and 74 per cent of pupils achieved the expected level in Maths, a 1 percentage point increase from last year (up 15 percentage points from six years ago). These are good results and show that standards achieved by pupils in our primary schools are continuing to improve. Pupils and parents can be confident that their primary schools are still getting better and better.

  Standards at key stage 2 are improving in all areas but some of the biggest strides are in some of the poorest areas, such as Hackney, where English improved by 7 percentage points and maths by 6 percentage points compared to 2003, and Sunderland, where there was a 5 percentage point improvement in English and a 4 percentage point improvement in maths. Among other LEAs Hartlepool and Southampton recorded the highest improvements in both English and maths results. It shows that poverty is not a barrier to success. It is a tribute to the hard work of teachers who have made this possible. We will continue to offer them targeted help and support.

  At 14, I am pleased to see progress made in maths. At key stage 3, there has been a 2 percentage point increase in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in maths and over 50 per cent of 14 year-olds are now reaching level 6 in maths, which is a tremendous achievement. There has been a 2 percentage point fall in the number of pupils achieving level 5 in science compared to last year, although there has been a 10 percentage point increase since 1998.

  Publication of key stage 3 English results has been deferred until the outcome, in terms of scale and nature, of the extended marking process for schools is known. Under the national statistics code of practice, it is the statistics head of profession in the department who decides on the content and timing of the release of national statistics, and provides advice to Ministers.

  At GCSE, I welcome the rise in the number of entries achieving top grades for all candidates in England and Wales—the biggest rise in A* to C grades since 1999. The provisional results show that:

  Grades at A*—C for all candidates in England and Wales have increased by 1.1 percentage points to 59.2 per cent (compared to a 0.2 percentage point rise last summer);

  97.6 per cent of GCSE entrants achieved a grade A*—G—the same rate as last year;

  Grades A*—C at maths have increased by 1.6 percentage points to 51.7 per cent. English is up by 0.2 percentage point to 59.9 per cent;
  WS 86
  An increase of entries in chemistry of 5 per cent, in physics of 5.1 per cent and in biology of 4.4 per cent;

  Boys' improvement at grades A*—C has increased by 1.3 percentage points compared to 0.9 for girls.

  These results are excellent and reflect the hard work of pupils and teachers. I am encouraged that more pupils are taking maths and gaining good grades, mirroring the rise for 14 year-olds. It is also good to see more pupils taking science.

  As with the primary schools, some of the biggest improvements this year have been in schools in some of our poorer and lowest attaining areas. In North Tyneside early indications are that the GCSE results have increased from 48 per cent of pupils gaining five or more good GCSEs to 54 per cent this year. At school level the International School in Birmingham increased from 9 per cent of its pupils gaining five A* to C grades last year to 32 per cent this year—still a long way to go but huge improvement and a tribute to the leadership of these schools.

  A further example of this improvement can be seen in London. For the first time all London boroughs are now achieving above 40 per cent of pupils gaining five A* to C grades at GCSE. The provisional results also indicate that some of the fastest-improving areas are among the most deprived boroughs: Islington is up by 7 percentage points; Tower Hamlets is up 5.3 percentage points; Haringey is up by 5.6 percentage points; Hackney is up by 5.8 percentage points; Lewisham is up by 6.3 percentage points and Newham is up by 3.9 percentage points.

  These results build on very fast improvement from last year's results when Hackney was up by 8 percentage points and Islington up by 5 points. So the trend is clearly upwards.

  At A-level, the overall pass rate rose to 96 per cent from 95.4 per cent last year. A grades at A-level increased by 0.8 percentage points to 22.4 per cent and the overall AS pass rate has increased by 0.2 percentage points to 86.9 per cent. Excluding general studies, English and mathematics attracted he highest number of entries at A-level and are two of the three most popular subjects at AS.

  These results are built on the hard work of students, schools and colleges and will open up more opportunities for our young people to achieve success. I congratulate the students and thank our teachers for their commitment.

  At a time when Ofsted says the standard of teaching has never been higher, we should expect to have rising levels of achievement in our schools and colleges. We are getting better as a country at getting the best out of our young people. We should applaud them and applaud their teachers, schools and colleges.

  I am determined that we should move forward to improve performance further. We will continue to progress with some important developments from the start of the new school term.

  506 specialist schools will begin operating as specialist for the first time this September. This means that 2.1 million pupils will be educated in one of the

  WS 87
  1,954 specialist schools—62 per cent of all English secondary schools, up from just 257 in 1997. The evidence shows that specialist schools help pupils to gain better grades.

  Five new academies open in Barnet, Hackney, Hillingdon, Lambeth and Northampton. They will build on the success of the existing 12, where I was pleased to see some excellent GCSE results this summer—for example The King's Academy in Middlesbrough where 34 per cent of pupils achieved five or more A*-C GCSEs, an increase of around 12 percentage points on the joint results of the predecessor schools in 2003.

  Workforce Reform is in the next phase and the radical enhancement of the role of teachers continues. There are not just more teachers than at any time since the early 1980s, but teachers are being given professional support in class with more assistants. Teachers will increasingly have more time to prepare better lessons.

  Education maintenance allowance will be available nationally to help young people to stay on in education, at school or college.
  WS 88
  On ICT, current activity focuses on supporting the personalised learning and transforming school workforce agendas. Over 99 per cent of schools in England are now connected to the Internet, of which, at June 2004, 61 per cent of primary and 98 per cent of secondary had a connection at broadband speeds appropriate to their needs.

  Schools continue to invest in the new technologies that support enhanced teaching and learning. By March 2004, 63 per cent of primary schools had an electronic interactive whiteboard (average 1.9 a school) and 92 per cent of secondary schools (average 7.5 a school).

  In the longer term I am looking forward to receiving later in the autumn the final report from Mike Tomlinson's working group on 14–19 reform. He will be coming forward with proposals looking at how we stretch the most able, boost participation, improve the vocational offer and reduce the burden of assessment.

  1Figures for 2004 and 2003 are not strictly comparable because of the trial involving 34 LEAs and a quarter of seven year-olds which reported only teacher assessment. The independent assessment of the trial is expected later this month and we shall comment further on these results then.