Sitting of 19 December 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]
MESSAGE FROM THE QUEEN

  QUEEN'S SPEECH (ANSWER TO ADDRESS)
  The VICE-CHAMBERLAIN OF THE HOUSEHOLD reported Her Majesty's Answer to the Address, as follows:
  I have received with great satisfaction the dutiful and loyal expression of your thanks for file Speech with which I opened the present Session of Parliament.

PRIVATE BUSINESS

  KENT COUNTY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the Kent County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  That, if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall he recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments, thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report he Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings in the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Tuesday 9 January.

  MEDWAY COUNCIL BILL [Lords]
  Motion made,
  That the promoters of the Medway County Council Bill [Lords] shall have leave to suspend proceedings thereon in order to proceed with the Bill, if they think fit, in the next Session of Parliament, provided that the Agents for the Bill give notice to the Clerks in the Private Bill Office of their intention to suspend further proceedings not later than the day before the close of the present Session and that all Fees due on the Bill up to that date be paid;
  188
  That if the Bill is brought from the Lords in the next Session, the Agents for the Bill shall deposit in the Private Bill Office a declaration signed by them, stating that the Bill is the same, in every respect, as the Bill which was brought from the Lords in the present Session;
  That, as soon as a certificate by one of the Clerks in the Private Bill Office, that such a declaration has been so deposited, has been laid upon the Table of the House, the Bill shall be read the first and second time and committed (and shall be recorded in the Journal of this House as having been so read and committed) and shall be committed to the Chairman of Ways and Means, who shall make such Amendments, thereto as have been made by the Committee in the present Session, and shall report he Bill as amended to the House forthwith, and the Bill, so amended, shall be ordered to lie upon the Table;
  That no further Fees shall be charged in respect of any proceedings in the Bill in respect of which Fees have already been incurred during the present Session;
  That these Orders be Standing Orders of the House.—[The Chairman of Ways and Means.]
  Hon. Members: Object.
  To be considered on Tuesday 9 January.

Oral Answers to Questions
  SCOTLAND
  The Secretary of State was asked—
  SCOTLAND

    Bicentenary
    Mr. Desmond Swayne: What discussions he has had with the First Minister regarding events to celebrate the bicentenary of the United Kingdom. [141563]
    The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend meets with the First Minister on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of matters. I do not think that I would be breaking confidentiality if I said that this particular issue has not figured in those discussions.
    Mr. Swayne: The Under-Secretary of State for Wales, the hon. Member for Delyn (Mr. Hanson), told me on 13 December that the Government would mark the bicentenary. Will it feature in any future discussions that the Secretary of State may have? How does the Minister plan to celebrate it, and does he agree that it will serve as a useful rehearsal for the real jamboree that will fall due in 2007, when we can jointly celebrate the huge achievements of the union of our nations?
    Mr. Wilson: In the year 2001, I hope that this Labour Government will continue to celebrate by deeds rather than jamborees. We shall do that by continuing the march towards social justice, which the hon. Gentleman will oppose. I have no immediate plans to celebrate the events of 1801. Some people in Ireland will celebrate them, some will not. The less we say to stir that up, the better.
    Mr. Desmond Browne: Is my hon. Friend aware that those of us who have been

    189
    campaigning for the by-election at Falkirk, West on behalf of the excellent candidate Major Eric Joyce have had our commitment to social justice reinforced by the voters of that constituency? Will he reconfirm to the House that it is not events that will make the people of Scotland celebrate their status as members of the United Kingdom, but a UK Government who share their priorities? Chief among those priorities are the eradication of child and pensioner poverty and the attainment of full employment. That is in this country's grasp for the first time in more than a generation.
    Mr. Wilson: Like my hon. Friend, I am especially glad that youth unemployment in Scotland as a whole and in Falkirk in particular is down by 75 per cent. That is a reason not only to rejoice, but to vote Eric Joyce.
    Rev. Martin Smyth: I understand the Minister's reluctance to celebrate 1801, but will not he accept that many people in Ireland have benefited from that Union? Some of them have found their nest here as a result of it. Does not he also accept that the anniversary provides an opportunity to restore the best values of our Christian tradition, as represented in the flag of the Kingdom, which combines the emblems of George, Andrew and Patrick?
    Mr. Wilson: I fully accept what the hon. Gentleman says. Many people throughout these islands have benefited from the Union. Clearly, different views obtain in the island of Ireland about the events of 1801. However, I think that the spirit of Wolfe Tone, as well as that of some of the radicals in the north of Ireland, is something over which any people with liberal and progressive views can unite.
    Mr. Denis MacShane: I am Scots-born but have much Irish and other blood in me, so may I invite my hon. Friend not to celebrate the anschluss of Ireland to England 200 years ago? It opened the way to a century's worth of conflict that in some ways still continues. Instead, will he celebrate the great contribution that Irish people have made to Scotland, England and Wales? We live in a multination, multicultural and multirace Great Britain. It is a great country to belong to, but we should not put one nation above another. That admonition applies especially to members of the Conservative party, who want to reduce us all to little Englanders and who are now waving the race card on police crime.
    Mr. Wilson: That was a characteristically eclectic question from my hon. Friend. I agree: we should not put one nation or race above the others, but we should celebrate the contributions that all people make to the human family. I want to build bridges and connections between Scotland and all parts of Ireland. I have tried to do my own little bit in that respect through something called the Columba initiative, which celebrates the cultural and linguistic connections between all parts of Ireland and Scotland, especially through the Gaelic language and culture. Historically, that language was as strong in northern Ireland, in the province of Ulster, as it was in the other three provinces of the island of Ireland.
    190
    It is tremendously important to build bridges and to prove that all the good social, cultural, educational and historical links are far more important than any divisions based on religion or politics.
    Mr. Dominic Grieve: I noted the article written by the Secretary of State in The Herald this week, celebrating the Labour Government's new constitutional settlement. In that context, does the Minister agree that if the new constitutional settlement is to work, it will require an element of forbearance and understanding between all parties? Does he also agree that it would be most undesirable if, for instance, Scottish Members of Parliament were to vote tomorrow on the Hunting Bill which concerns England and Wales alone?
    Mr. Wilson: I do not agree with that, and I think that we will come to this issue in a later question. It is important to assert that all Members of the House are equal and have equal voting rights. I have no doubt that some of my hon. Friends will be here tomorrow night to vote on hunting, but I suspect that some might also be in Falkirk, hunting foxes of a different variety.
    Mr. Grieve: I find the Minister's answer disappointing. He appears to have missed the point that as a result of the constitutional settlement that we are trying to make work, the equality of Members of Parliament has already been breached through devolution. In those circumstances, is it not right that if that is his attitude, it will in due course be necessary to implement measures in this House to have English and Welsh votes on English and Welsh laws, as people in Scotland well understand when they are asked about it?
    Mr. Wilson: It comes ill from a Tory to seek that sort of absolutist solution to a relative problem. When legislation that was already devolved administratively was carried out in this House, I do not remember the hon. Gentleman or any of his colleagues thinking that it was a great constitutional outrage that the Tories ruthlessly used their majority to drive through Scottish legislation against the will of people in Scotland. There is now, by the will of this Parliament, a devolved responsibility to the Parliament in Scotland over certain areas, but that does not change the constitutional position of this House or Members of this House. As soon as one moves away, for populist political reasons, from the theology of devolution—that this House has given devolution freely and willingly to the Scottish Parliament—there is real constitutional trouble. I advise the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues not to go down that road.

    EU Regional Aid
    Mr. Anthony Steen: If he will make a statement about trends in European Union regional aid for Scotland over the last five years. [141565]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): In the period 1994–99, projects worth £2.4 billion were approved, involving £1 billion of structural funds money. The total funds available for the new round of

    191
    programmes in Scotland will be £960 million—a reduction of approximately 5 per cent., reflecting a relative increase in Scotland's prosperity.
    Mr. Steen: I am sure that the Secretary of State is not aware that over the past six years, for every £200 from the European structural funds that has gone to Scotsmen, only £60 has gone to west countrymen. Does he think it fair that in the next six years the Scotsman will receive 50 per cent. more per year than every west countryman? Bearing in mind that the west country is as deprived and poor as many parts of Scotland, does he not agree that it is wrong that there should be such a loading for Scotland against the west country?
    Dr. Reid: I shall say two things to the hon. Gentleman. As he knows, the funds paid through the structural funds are based on an assessment of need, meeting an agreed criteria. If there is a greater need in Scotland after 20 years of Tory Government, perhaps he should reflect on that.
    As far as the settlement at the United Kingdom and the Scottish level is concerned, I am utterly convinced that Scotland has had a fair allocation, and no more than that. We will have achieved that fair allocation because of the need in Scotland and the partnership in the United Kingdom, which has given us a strength in negotiations with Europe that we would never achieve under an independent or separate Scotland. While it is true that 40 per cent. of Scotland gets objective 2 status, I think that I am correct in saying that the hon. Gentleman's constituency also has that status and I should have thought that that was a reason for both of us to be pleased with a Labour Government.
    Mr. David Stewart: Will my right hon. Friend acknowledge the important role that European structural funds have played in the highlands and islands, not least in the new city of Inverness? On that note, will my right hon. Friend congratulate the students of Cauldeen primary school in my constituency, who fought for that bid? Does he agree that city status will provide a great boon for tourism and inward investment to the highlands and islands?
    Dr. Reid: Yes, I agree on all those points. I think that I speak on behalf of the whole House when I say that we are delighted about the millennium city status that has been conferred on Inverness, which won against stiff competition. Other areas, such as Ayr, Stirling and Paisley, where my hon. Friends also fought hard, will have another opportunity in 2002. My hon. Friend played a widely appreciated role, both before he came into Parliament and outside it. That has been a major contributory factor, along with the presentation work done by the children of Cauldeen primary school—most of whom I met yesterday—in achieving city status for Inverness. We are delighted. That shows what a Member of Parliament can do. Who knows, with Eric Joyce in Falkirk, perhaps it will be in for city status in the not too distant future.
    Mr. Menzies Campbell: Is there any scope for utilising European regional aid to deal with the problems of the beleaguered fishing industry, in particular the fact that the quota reductions that have been announced will affect the whole fleet, not least the
    192
    village-based sector of the industry that is substantially represented in my constituency? Can the Minister say whether European regional aid might, for example, fund a proper decommissioning scheme to ensure that effort is reduced to a level at which it is equivalent to the resources available?
    Dr. Reid: In terms of the general problem that the right hon. and learned Gentleman raised, of course we face some desperate problems with fish stocks in the North sea. I am sure that hon. Members on both sides of the House appreciate that. I am convinced that the fisheries talks in Brussels last Thursday secured the best possible deal for Scotland.
    Mrs. Margaret Ewing: What about the Danes and the whiting?
    Dr. Reid: We achieve more in the fisheries talks and in everything else that we negotiate in Europe from a position of strength in the United Kingdom than we would ever do if the Scottish National party was trundling along there, particularly as the matter is determined under qualified majority voting. We would have a much reduced power and share in that voting if we got a separate Scotland.
    I take the right hon. and learned Gentleman's point about financial provision. That is a matter that Fisheries and Agriculture Ministers will be considering as the implications of the agreement achieved last week are worked through. I appreciate the difficulties that his constituents and many others face.
    Mr. Douglas Alexander: In view of my right hon. Friend's earlier answer, will he confirm that the effect of last week's summit in Nice was to increase considerably the number of votes that Britain enjoys in the European Union? Will he also confirm that the summit will further undermine the credibility of any party that argues that independence in Europe is a credible alternative to the strength of Britain's negotiating position?
    Dr. Reid: Indeed, I happily agree. The vast majority of people in Scotland realise that too. The result of the talks in Nice and their implications are that the United Kingdom will maintain a major role under qualified majority voting and the new figures for an enlarged Europe. We would be much reduced in a separate Scotland—we would be left much less powerful and much more isolated. That leaves the independence strategy of the SNP in shreds.
    That does not surprise me, however, because almost every policy and strategy that the party has tried to devise during the past few years has been left in shreds. Hopefully, by Friday morning we shall see that for yet another one. I pay the SNP one tribute, however: it is on course to do something that the major Scottish teams never managed—to get 10 in a row—but in the case of the SNP that will be 10 by-elections in a row that it is liable to have lost.
    Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): Is the Secretary of State aware that the Finance Committee of the Scottish Parliament has suspended an inquiry into regional aid, because it cannot obtain the information that it requires from the Treasury

    193
    in Westminster? Will the Secretary of State communicate with his right hon. Friend the Chancellor so that the information can be provided, or does he stick to his position that Westminster Ministers should not appear before Committees of the Scottish Parliament?
    Dr. Reid: Not for the first time, the hon. Gentleman starts his question from the wrong premise. It is not my position that Westminster Ministers should never appear at Holyrood; my position—and, incidentally, the position agreed between the two Parliaments and in the concordats that we have all agreed—is that the first responsibility of any Minister is obviously to their own Parliament. Of course, we will provide sufficient information to satisfy the Scottish Parliament and its Committees.
    On the eve of a very important by-election in Scotland, where we have the highest employment since 1960, the lowest unemployment since 1976 and the lowest inflation, where youth unemployment has been slashed by 79 per cent. and there is strong growth in the economy and rising living standards, it is extraordinary that the major question the SNP chooses to ask is on a matter of protocol in one of the Committees of the Scottish Parliament. That speaks volumes for the confidence of the SNP as well as its politics.

    New Deal
    Mr. Nigel Griffiths: What estimate he has made of the number of young people who have benefited from the new deal since 1997. [141566]
    The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): The new deal has been a tremendous success in Scotland—[HON. MEMBERS: "It says here."] It does not say that here—I can say it off the top of my head: 29,200 young people are off the dole and in work. That is 4,200 more than we pledged, three years ago, that we would get off the dole and into work. We have met that pledge—as well as many others.
    Mr. Griffiths: Does my right hon. Friend remember that, before 1997, a third of a million young people languished on the dole for more than a year? At present, the figure is 6,000. Does he reject decisively the Opposition programme to abolish the new deal? Will he welcome the fact that 400 people in Falkirk, West have gone off the dole and into the new deal?
    Dr. Reid: I agree entirely with my hon. Friend. It will be remarked as one of the major achievements of the Labour Government that we have so attacked the waste of unemployment and the waste of young lives that we have cut by no less than 79 per cent. the number of young people who are unemployed in Scotland. That has been noticed; it is something for which our candidate, Eric Joyce, has been given considerable thanks by the people of Falkirk.
    My hon. Friend is right to point out that the programme would be abolished by the Tories, but he should not forget that not only did the Tories oppose the new deal, but the SNP refused to back the windfall tax to finance it. They would have left those young people sitting on the dole.
    Mrs. Eleanor Laing: We appreciate that the Secretary of State has to go on and on about Falkirk today, but the new deal affects the whole of Scotland and the whole country. Is it not true that the new deal has achieved only what would have been achieved anyway because of the strong economy that the Labour Government inherited from the previous Conservative Government? The new deal is nothing more than an expensive soundbite. A huge amount of taxpayers' money has been spent on glossy brochures and a lot of bureaucrats' time has been wasted. That time, money and energy could have been put to far better use for the young people of Scotland than the new deal—which is only about talk and not about action.
    Dr. Reid: I have only three things to say to the hon. Lady. First, the Tory party should improve its media monitoring because, unfortunately, about two hours ago the National Institute of Economic and Social Research—an independent body—issued a report on the new deal, which shows that long-term youth unemployment would be twice as high without the Government's new deal. So she is wrong on her first point. Secondly, I do not think that her remarks will be taken as anything other than slightly offensive—perhaps unintentionally—by the employment staff who have done so well in reducing unemployment. Thirdly, I wish her and all her relations in Inverurie a very merry Christmas.

  The Advocate-General was asked—
  ADVOCATE-GENERAL

    Starrs Judgment
    Mr. Stephen O'Brien: If she will make a statement on the consequences of the Starrs judgment. [141587]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The judgment of the Court of Session in Starrs and Chalmers in November 1999 indicated that prosecution before a temporary sheriff in Scotland did not constitute a fair hearing under article 6 of the European convention on human rights because a temporary sheriff had insufficient security of tenure. Consequently, the Scottish Executive, who are responsible for the administration of justice in Scotland, stopped using temporary sheriffs and judges and promoted legislation—the Bail, Judicial Appointments etc. (Scotland) Act 2000—to provide for the appointment of part-time sheriffs who would have security of tenure. The first such sheriffs commenced work in October 2000.
    Mr. O'Brien: I thank the Advocate-General for that answer. Is she aware and does she agree that, despite the further ramifications following the findings of the Court of Session, that case could have serious consequences for the administration of justice involving lay members and an irreparable effect in England and Wales? Does her advice extend to advising those in England and Wales, as well as in Scotland, as this is a major issue for justice in the United Kingdom?
    The Advocate-General: I am not sure whether I follow the hon. Gentleman's question. A successful challenge was made under the ECHR in particular circumstances that applied only to Scotland. Of course there may be ramifications. As he will know, the Lord Chancellor took steps to enhance the security of tenure of part-time judges in England. On the long-term consequences, any challenge that is made will be considered in the particular circumstances of the case. I am sure that our jurisprudence is sufficiently flexible to take account of any change that may be made.
    Mr. Ian Davidson: Does the Minister accept that that is an important issue, but far more important to my constituents and the people of Falkirk is the discussion that they are having in the pubs and clubs about how much better they are under the Labour Government? I was speaking to one of my in-laws yesterday, and Joyce said that we at e much better under the Labour Government than we were before. Does the Minister agree?
    The Advocate-General: I am sure that Starrs and Chalmers is the talk of the pubs and clubs throughout Scotland, but I hope that there is at least some understanding in those conversations of the importance of the ECHR to Scotland and, indeed the United Kingdom.

    Human Rights Act 1998
    Mr. John Bercow: What discussions she has had with the Home Secretary about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Scottish law. [141588]
    The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): There is frequent contact between my office and the Home Department, both at official and ministerial level, about matters of common interest, including human rights.
    Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the Advocate-General for that reply. Is the hon. and learned Lady aware that there was widespread disgust in the country at the initial Scottish Appeal Court ruling that an individual accused of drink driving should not be obliged to state whether he or she was the registered keeper or the driver at the material time and that the decision of the Law Lords to overturn that perverse ruling was widely welcomed by my constituents and those of other tight hon. and hon. Members? Will she accept that, in the light of the passage of the pernicious Euro-inspired Hun tan Rights Act 1998, it is essential that she should be able to offer us an assurance that there will be no repetition of such unjust, pernicious and untenable cases in Scotland in future?
    The Advocate-General: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will be delighted to know that, as Advocate-General, I argued that case before the Privy Council with some success. I argued it on the basis not of disgust, perniciousness or any other matters, but of logic and rationality. I am pleased to say that those arguments were upheld.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—
  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

    Lay Magistracy
    Mr. Howard Flight: If she will make a statement about the future of the lay magistracy. [141591]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I refer the hon. Gentleman to my reply to my hon. Friend the Member for North-West Leicestershire (Mr. Taylor) and the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) on 14 November.
    The Government have recently published a report—indeed, on Thursday—on results of research into the role of the lay and professional magistracy. I reiterate that we are committed to a continuing role for both types of judiciary in the criminal courts. Each brings a different approach and a different range of experience to the court. Making effective use of that experience can only be to the benefit of the community. The report is very interesting, Mr. Speaker. If you have a spare moment this Christmas, you might like to get a copy and read it. I commend it to hon. Members on both sides of the House.
    Mr. Flight: The report, "The judiciary in the magistrates' courts", to which the Parliamentary Secretary refers, in many ways contrasts and contradicts the Auld report, which has broadly recommended a professional magistracy. The judicial report finds overwhelmingly in favour of a continuing lay magistracy. Will the Parliamentary Secretary confirm that the Government have already accepted the essence of "Judiciary in the Magistrates Courts", which the Home Office commissioned?
    Jane Kennedy: I hesitate to contradict the hon. Gentleman, but Lord Justice Auld's report and its detailed conclusions have not yet been published. It would be premature to comment on his review before it has been completed. However, we have reached the provisional conclusion that the current jurisdiction of lay magistrates should be preserved for cases carrying a penalty of up to six months' imprisonment. It is important to note the research report's conclusion that to abolish or greatly diminish the role of the lay magistracy would not be widely understood or supported in the community.
    Mr. Barry Jones: Could I persuade my hon. Friend that, if it is working, it should not be fixed? Does she agree that it is not good for the morale of voluntary magistrates, of whom there are many thousands throughout the country, for rumours about switching to stipendiaries constantly to emerge from London? Will she knock those rumours on the head, pay tribute to hard-working magistrates and kindly consider receiving from me in the not too distant future a deputation on those matters?
    Jane Kennedy: I am always willing to receive a deputation and representations from my right hon. Friend. I have sought to do my level best to allay the fears of lay magistrates, which are based on wrong and misleading

    197
    press reports of the Government's intentions. In a recent speech to the Magistrates Association, my right hon. Friend the Lord Chancellor said:
    The promotion of volunteering is an objective of Government policy. Lay magistrates are volunteers par excellence. They represent local community involvement in the justice system.
    We welcome their hard work, and long may it continue.
    Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): The Minister, with her usual approach of sweet reasonableness, suggests that the Government are supporting lay magistrates, but I am sorry to have to put it to her that the facts directly contradict that.
    The Minister talks of coverage in the national press. Thanks to the very hard work of my hon. Friend the Member for North Shropshire (Mr. Paterson), has it not been made clear recently in the national press that her Department is telling magistrates courts that they will have to close because of costs imposed on them as a result of the suggestion under the Human Rights Act 1998 that those wearing handcuffs cannot be seen in public areas because it might be thought to offend against article 3 of the convention, prohibiting inhuman treatment or torture, which of itself is an insult to magistrates courts?
    The costs of converting magistrates courts would be too high, so the Government will be closing rural magistrates courts in Oswestry and elsewhere.
    The Government's sweet, honeyed tones are undermined by the facts of what they are doing. Will she reject what officials are currently saying and make it clear that there is no question of inhuman treatment or torture in magistrates courts and that the costs of conversion do not mean that every rural magistrates court has to close?
    Jane Kennedy: As this is the season of good will, I shall not respond to the tone in which the hon. Gentleman asked his question. I do not seek to sugar a bitter pill. I am genuine when I extol the role that the lay magistracy plays in the administration of criminal justice. I do not expect magistrates courts closures to result directly from the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. Many smaller or remote magistrates courts lack suitable facilities for holding defendants in custody. It is essential that the magistrates courts committees carry out their part in making sure that the courts and services that they provide are modern and that the courts are fit for their purpose.
    Mr. David Taylor: I have this morning tabled an early-day motion signed by 175 hon. Members who represent all parts of the political and geographical spectrum. It celebrates the work, commitment, dedication and expertise of the 30,000 lay magistrates who deliver justice in local communities. Will my hon. Friend reassure the House that she and others will resist any Home Office attempt to subvert and subordinate the role of lay magistrates in a way that would lead to their control and supervision by retitled stipendiary magistrates? Such a move would be most vigorously opposed, not least by members of the Magistrates Association such as myself.
    Jane Kennedy: The role of stipendiary magistrates courts—or district judges (magistrates courts) as we now call them—is important. They play a vital role in
    198
    supporting lay magistrates benches throughout the country. We could not manage without their important contribution to the work of the criminal courts.
    I welcome the early-day motion that my hon. Friend has tabled. In other circumstances, I might have been persuaded to sign it myself.

    Courthouse (Colchester)
    Mr. Bob Russell: What plans he has to finance the building of a new courthouse at Colchester. [141592]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): I recently visited the hon. Gentleman's constituency and saw the magistrates court at the town hall for myself. I accept that present conditions are unsatisfactory and require improvement. A bid has been made to my Department for improvements, and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to support it.
    Thanks to my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer's superb management of the economy, the Lord Chancellor's Department is able to commission £70 million of improvements and new court buildings in each of the next three years. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be able to welcome that as we approach the season of good will.
    Mr. Russell: The closure of many magistrates courts was based on the argument that centralised courts would be provided with the most modern facilities. Although I welcome the Minister's answer, it does not tally with the information that I have received from the north Essex magistrates bench, which has received information from the Essex magistrates courts committee. Will the Minister therefore convene a meeting of the local magistrates, the Essex magistrates courts committee and Colchester borough council, so that we can flush out exactly what is going on? I hope that what the Minister said is correct. If it is, we can get on with building the new courthouse.
    Mr. Lock: I am disappointed that the hon. Gentleman was not able to welcome the very substantial investment that we have made. He asked what was going on, so I inform him that the revenue allocation for magistrates courts in Essex is rising from £7.4 million this year to £8.5 million next year, which is an increase considerably above the rate of inflation. The bid that the magistrates courts committee has put in for new premises in Colchester is being assessed, and I expect that my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Secretary will be able to make an announcement about it before too long. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman will just have to wait a little.
    Mr. Andrew Dismore: Does my hon. Friend agree that an issue that arises from the financing of court cases in Colchester and elsewhere is the recoverability of conditional fee insurance, which urgently needs to be dealt with by the insurance industry?
    Mr. Lock: As always, I admire my hon. Friend's ingenuity for linking issues. He is right. The Government's policy is that the premium paid for cover against the risk of having to pay legal costs should be recoverable from the

    199
    losing opponent. That ensures that the damages paid to claimants are not unreasonably eroded. In our view, that is the effect of the Access to Justice Act 1999. Although the interpretation of individual agreements is a matter for the courts, the Government believe that recoverability includes premiums on policies taken out before proceedings are issued in any particular case.
    Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The Minister has managed to find money to build a new courthouse in Colchester, but does he think that that helps in the administration of justice while we still have cases such as that of Stephen Downing, in which the Crown Prosecution Service last week said that it had not been notified of the case until 4.30 pm the day before? Will the Minister look into that and report back to the House?
    Mr. Lock: I pay tribute to the way in which the hon. Gentleman has raised his constituent's case and has diligently pursued the matter over a considerable period. The case is a matter for the Attorney-General, and I understand that my noble and learned Friend has spoken to the hon. Gentleman and is looking into the serious questions that he raises. I am sure that he will get back to the hon. Gentleman before too long.

    Violent Parents
    Ms Sally Keeble: What measures she is taking to protect children from violent parents. [141593]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The Children Act sub-committee of the Advisory Board on Family Law has produced a report on parental contact in cases in which there is domestic violence. The Lord Chancellor and the president of the family division in the High Court are considering what further action may be necessary.
    Ms Keeble: Is my hon. Friend aware of a serious case in my constituency in which a woman was threatened with prison for contempt of court because she had refused her violent ex-husband access to her child? Will my hon. Friend consider introducing legislation along the lines of the best practice guidelines set out by the Children Act sub-committee, first, so that the whole House can properly debate important issues of access and parents' roles in relation to their children and, secondly, to ensure that children throughout the country are given equal protection? Despite the best practice guidelines, no safety net was immediately available to my constituent.
    Jane Kennedy: I am aware of the representations that my hon. Friend has made and of the case to which she refers. I remind her that my noble and learned Friend the Lord Chancellor is not persuaded at this time that legislation is necessary to protect children from domestic violence during contact with a non-resident parent. Those are extremely difficult matters and the enforcement of contact orders is particularly sensitive. Deliberate refusal to obey any court order is, of course, a contempt of court and can be punished with a fine or imprisonment, but such punishment may not be appropriate, and the courts have to make extremely difficult decisions, taking into account all the circumstances of each case.
    Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: The Government have been widely condemned for refusing to impose legal constraints on child carers who smack children. When the consultation on that matter has been completed, will it be the subject of open debate and a free vote in the House, or will the Government continue simply to be guided by their own opinion polls?
    Jane Kennedy: The hon. Gentleman catches me slightly off guard on a policy issue that is not my responsibility. The consultation period has ended, and the Lord Chancellor is now directly consulting the president of the family division to determine what guidance and best advice to give to the courts for dealing with those difficult and extremely sensitive cases.

    Magistrates Court Closures
    Mr. David Heath: What guidelines have been issued to newly constituted magistrates courts committees on local magistrates court closures. [141594]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): I have personally endorsed the revised good practice guide on courthouse closure issued by the Central Council of Magistrates Courts Committees. That should be issued to all magistrates courts committees shortly. The Government encourage courts committees to follow the practices and advice in that document.
    Mr. Heath: I hope that the guidance will include a reference to the importance of local magistrates courts in rural areas. The effect of consolidating magistrates courts committees into large areas to conform with police authority areas is that those committees are now very remote from many of the rural areas that they serve. Will the Minister guarantee, for instance, that Frome magistrates court will still be open in five years?
    Jane Kennedy: It would be wrong of me to give any such guarantee. I may not be in my current position in five years' time—who knows? The guidance to which I referred includes the factors to be taken into consideration when reviewing accommodation needs. I can reassure the hon. Gentleman that the Government continue to believe that it is for local magistrates courts committees, which are drawn from magistrates who are local, who know the area and who are able to determine what is best for that area, to organise their resources and their courts.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Electronic Voting
    Fiona Mactaggart: What plans she has to bring forward proposals on electronic voting in the House. [141605]
    Mr. John Bercow: If she will make a statement on her proposals for electronic voting in the House. [141610]
    The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): It will, of course, be for the House to decide whether it wishes to adopt electronic voting, but the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons has received representations on the matter, and has decided to stage an exhibition on the means of electronic voting. [Laughter.] This will take place in the Upper Waiting Hall in the week beginning Monday 19 March.
    Fiona Mactaggart: I thank my right hon. Friend for that reply. Despite the raucous laughter of Opposition Members, I think that an exhibition might be a good means by which Members can educate themselves about the ways in which electronic voting could enable us to waste less time in this place. May I urge my right hon. Friend to do more than stage an exhibition and to ascertain whether she can take action?
    Mrs. Beckett: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. She is right to say that there are different means by which votes could be recorded electronically. As it was fairly clear from the reaction to the initial report from the Modernisation Committee that members had some doubts and reservations about the different possibilities available, I think that it is important for hon. Members to have the opportunity to take a look and to judge for themselves.
    Mr. Bercow: The exhibition sounds a truly ghastly prospect. Notwithstanding what was said by the hon. Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), does the right hon. Lady accept that the traditional method of voting in the Division Lobbies provides Members with invaluable opportunities informally to approach Ministers and shadow Ministers, to confer with their parliamentary colleagues, to rally support for their chosen causes and, on the extraordinarily rare occasions when he turns up in the House, perhaps even to buttonhole the Prime Minister? Does the right hon. Lady agree that, for those four reasons, she should stand for tradition and resist the Maoist revolutionaries on the Government Back Benches?
    Mrs. Beckett: Let me gently remind the hon. Gentleman that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister is here for Prime Minister's Question Time more often than his predecessor as a result of the way in which it is now arranged. I have some sympathy with the basic point that the hon. Gentleman makes about the benefits of Members being able to mix in the Lobby when a Division is called. It is my understanding—I was not a member of the Modernisation Committee at the time—that one of the things that caused problems when the House considered electronic voting initially was that some hon. Members were under the impression that it would not be possible to combine electronic means of registering votes with the opportunity to mix that takes place in the Lobby. That is not the case, and that is the premise on which the
    202
    Committee has discussed the matter. None of that is affected by a study of the means of recording votes, which is what is proposed in the exhibition.
    Mr. Dale Campbell-Savours: May I from the Labour Benches agree with every word uttered by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)?
    Mrs. Beckett: It is always open to one hon. Member to agree with another.
    Dr. Julian Lewis: Do Labour Back Benchers not realise that by proposing electronic voting they are cutting their own throats? If they want to have so little contact with other parliamentarians that they do not even wish to go into the Division Lobbies to vote in person, why do they not do us all a favour and stop standing for election, to make way for people who want to do a job of work in the House?
    Mrs. Beckett: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, who is, of course, a serious parliamentarian, doing hits job does not seem to include having the capacity to listen. As I pointed out to the House, it is perfectly possible to introduce electronic means of recording votes, without losing the principle. I have some sympathy with the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) and with my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours). There is no reason why the two should not be combined. It was not the Government but the all-party Modernisation Committee that made the proposal in the first place, before I was a member of the Committee.
    Mr. David Winnick: Although one should be very careful who one's allies are in this place, may I ask my right hon. Friend what is wrong with our present system of voting? Is she aware that although opinion on the Labour Benches is bound to be divided, many of us take the view that we should continue with the system that has been used for many years?
    Mrs. Beckett: It is interesting to hear my hon. Friend's views. If a proposal to introduce an electronic method of voting is introduced, it will be for the House as a whole to take a view. It will be a House matter and there will be a free vote.
    Mr. Edward Leigh: It is good to hear from old lags occasionally on such subjects.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: Here is another.
    Mr. Leigh: And here is another. The disadvantage of electronic voting is that Ministers will be able to nip in, tap a button and nip out again. The advantage of the present system is that they have to shuffle through the Lobby for 10 or 15 minutes. I know that it is an awful bore for Ministers to have to listen to the peasantry—that is, Back Benchers—but occasionally the mandarins get it wrong and the peasants get it right.
    Mrs. Beckett: I remind the hon. Gentleman that, as I said a few moments ago, the proposal did not come from Ministers or from the Government. It came from the peasantry.

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

    Baithwaite Report
    Mrs. Lorna Fitzsimons: To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what progress the Commission has made on the implementation of the Braithwaite report. [141606]
    Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Considerable progress has been made since the debate in the House on 20 January 2000. The Commission thereafter appointed an implementation manager to carry forward the implementation of the report's principal recommendations on an agreed timetable. Two reports detailing the steps taken have been made to the Commission and both are posted on the parliamentary intranet.
    Mrs. Fitzsimons: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that answer. Is he aware of the frustration felt by many hon. Members who speak to him privately about the progress being made by the Commission, post-Braithwaite? Will he consider alternative mechanisms that would facilitate the greater efficiency, transparency and accountability that Braithwaite was meant to bring to the work of the commissioners?
    Mr. Kirkwood: I am genuinely grateful to the hon. Lady for her interest in the matter. I share her frustration and I understand that hon. Members in all parts of the House are perplexed about the way in which the place works. The Braithwaite Commission dealt more with strategic planning, effective management and financial control than anything else, but I detect a view in all parts of the House that some of the issues should be taken forward as soon as possible. Once we see the report of the Senior Salaries Review Body, which is expected in February, I shall be willing to meet informally—possibly it would be best to do so in concert with my hon. Friend the Member for Middlesbrough (Mr. Bell), who is the Chairman of the Finance And Services Committee—with some of the hon. Lady's colleagues to find out the views of Back-Bench Members and help them to achieve their own ends.
    Mr. Ian Bruce: Has the hon. Gentleman had a chance to read the Information Committee report on computerisation for hon. Members? Has he noted that the rules of the House, which bind the Commission as well, prevent us from using efficiently the tens of millions of pounds that are being wasted on information technology in this place?
    Mr. Kirkwood: The issue is before the Commission, particularly the way in which the departments of the House are acquiring their own IT equipment. We shall consider that as part of the Audit Committee process in the near future. The Senior Salaries Review Body is
    204
    examining Members' services. I counsel hon. Members to wait for the report in February before we take any further steps.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—
  HOUSE OF COMMONS

    Modernisation Committee
    Gillian Merron: If she will make a statement on the proposals she plans to bring forward to the Modernisation Committee. [141607]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee has proposed radical changes in relation to programming and deferred Divisions, which it will want to evaluate in due course. I understand that the Committee is likely to consider matters such as the use of laptops in Committee Rooms in the near future.
    Gillian Merron: I welcome the steps that have been taken so far towards the more efficient running of Parliament, which many of my constituents are looking to us to achieve.
    I emphasise the importance of pre-legislative scrutiny. Can we look forward to more Bills coming to the House in better shape before we debate them?
    Mr. Tipping: One of the more important recommendations of the Modernisation Committee acknowledges that pre-legislative scrutiny can be helpful. It enables us to obtain responses from outside the House, and provides the opportunity for Select Committees to examine draft legislation. The Queen's Speech contained a number of draft Bills. I hope that we can all benefit from such scrutiny and become more efficient as a result of it.
    Mr. Paul Tyler: I wish to follow up the answer that the Minister has just given on the scope of the work of the Select Committees. Can the Modernisation Committee look again at the remit of the Select Committees? Several are not linked to Departments, which means that they can be very effective in crossing the boundaries between departmental interests. We should not have to wait until Whitehall sorts itself out. Pre-legislative scrutiny, in a general sense, was carried out in the preparation of the rural White Paper. A holistic approach was taken in that case, and there should be a holistic Select Committee to scrutinise it.
    Mr. Tipping: The hon. Gentleman is a member of the Modernisation Committee, and pursues several of these matters vigorously. I make two points to him. The Select Committees have many powers, and are in a position to use them more widely. The hon. Gentleman is right to say that on some occasions Select Committees can meet jointly to examine issues, such as the rural and urban White Papers, that cross departmental boundaries.
    Mr. John Maxton: Given the answer that my hon. Friend the Minister has just given

    205
    about the use of laptops in Committee Rooms, would it be beneficial if the House set up one electronic Committee Room, with links to the parliamentary intranet? Such a Committee Room could also provide the means for electronic voting, which would allow us to see how it could operate on a wider basis.
    Mr. Tipping: My hon. Friend is an influential member of the Chairmen's Panel and has great knowledge of these matters. The Modernisation Committee has considered that issue, and I shall draw its attention to his remarks.
    Mrs. Angela Browning: Can the hon. Gentleman understand what an affront it is that a Select Committee of the House dealing with matters relating to the Standing Orders and procedures of the House is chaired by—and questions such as those that we have heard this afternoon are answered by—a member of the Executive? Is it not an affront that last Session's sessional report on the Minutes of Proceedings of the Modernisation Committee—a riveting and very quick read for those looking for last-minute stocking fillers, at only £3.40—gives the dates of the Committee's sittings, the names of those who attended and then simply says, "The Committee deliberated"? The following month's minutes also state, "The Committee deliberated", as do the minutes for all the sittings.
    Is it not an affront not only to the House but to our democracy that such a Committee is run by the Executive and that the Executive answers for it and produces this kind of a report? Should such a Committee not be in the hands of Back-Bench Members?
    Mr. Tipping: I must say that I had hoped for something a little more exciting in my Christmas stocking.
    The Modernisation Committee introduces proposals, and consists of hon. Members from both sides of the House. We have had vigorous, stimulating and—dare I say it—lengthy debates about the Committee's report. At the end of the day, these are matters for the House to decide.

  The President of the Council was asked—
  PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

    British Indian Ocean Territories
    Mr. Tam Dalyell: If she will propose the establishment of a Select Committee to consider Britain's relationship with the British Indian Ocean Territories. [141608]
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The matter is already within the remit of the Select Committee on Foreign Affairs.
    Mr. Dalyell: Given the documents that were revealed under the 30 years rule at Kew—which I brought to the attention of my hon. Friend—as well as the court documents, is my hon. Friend at all shocked by the cynical lying to the House of Commons by the Governments of Harold Wilson and of the right hon. Member for Old Bexley and Sidcup (Sir E. Heath)? Are we simply to shrug our shoulders and say that that does not matter very much? If there is not to be a Select Committee, how should the matter be pursued? Or should the House of Commons just accept cynical lying?
    Mr. Tipping: Of course it matters. My hon. Friend has pursued these matters vigorously since 1967; I believe that he was the first Member to bring them before the House. He mentioned the documents that were disclosed under the 30 years rule. The only factual and accurate sentence in those documents is the one that states:
    Mr. Dalyell is not, however, giving up.—[Official Report, 12 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 478.]
    My hon. Friend did not give up then and he has not given up now. The way forward is for the Foreign Affairs Committee to look at the matter, which is in its remit, and I hope that it will do that.

Speaker's Statement
3.31 pm
Mr. Speaker: I undertook last Thursday to respond to the point of order raised by the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) about "spoiled ballot papers", as he put it, in deferred Divisions. The paper for deferred Divisions is quite simple to fill in. Members are highly experienced in matters of voting and there is no reason why any voting papers should be inadequately filled in or spoiled.
I have given instructions that any voting paper that is not clearly marked with a voting intention should be disregarded. The Chair has, in the past, deprecated the practice of voting in both Division Lobbies as a method of demonstrating a third position. On the other hand, deliberately voting in both Lobbies has long been an accepted way of cancelling out the effect of voting by mistake in the wrong Lobby. I am sure that the almost 80 right hon. and hon. Members who voted both "Aye" and "No" in the first deferred Division last Wednesday were not seeking to correct a mistake.
The circumstances last week may have been novel and exceptional, but the Speaker has a duty, where possible, to ensure that the House's reputation is not damaged. The House has empowered me by its order of 7 November to make the arrangements for recording deferred Divisions. I have therefore instructed the Clerks that, in future, the name of any Member who marks both boxes in a particular question in a deferred Division should not be recorded as voting on that particular question.
Mr. Eric Forth: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I am most grateful for your advising the House of your thoughts on the matter. However, may I press you a little further, as it strikes me that in a vote, especially of the kind that we are having today—although that is properly in the Division Lobby, and is not a deferred Division—the result may be very close indeed? If, in a free vote in a deterred Division, any ballot papers were disregarded or set aside, presumably by the Clerks, and there was a discrepancy between those who had voted and the number of votes counted, would there be any appeal that Members could make beyond the Clerks—say, to you, Mr. Speaker? A close result could be affected one way or the other by the disregarding of papers held by the Clerks, with all their expertise and integrity, to have been spoiled. That issue could cause some difficulty.
Mr. Speaker: As the right hon. Gentleman knows, hon. Members can always appeal to the Speaker, which is why we have so many points of order at this time of day.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. In view of the armed action involving KFOR
208
forces and British troops in Kosovo, have you received any indication from the Secretary of State for Defence that he might like to make a statement about military action and the involvement in shooting by KFOR and British troops?
Mr. Speaker: I can inform the hon. Gentleman that the answer is no.
Mrs. Theresa May: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I should like to ask for your guidance on how to use the procedures of the House to obtain information from Ministers. I have recently tabled a number of questions asking for the unit of student funding in higher education for each of the next three years. I have received a reply to each of my questions, but I have yet to receive an answer. We may sing at this time of year about three ships that come sailing by, but all that I want to see sailing by are three figures. How can I get around the Government's stonewalling?
Mr. Speaker: The hon. Lady was good enough to give me notice of that point of order. I can only tell her that I expect Ministers to provide full and accurate information in response to specific questions. If she is dissatisfied with an answer that she has received, she must use other means of pursuing her concerns.
Mr. Douglas Hogg: Further to your ruling on deferred votes, Mr. Speaker. When you referred to the fact that hon. Members sometimes vote twice in the Lobby, you said that they usually did so to cancel out a mistaken vote. In fact, hon. Members often vote in that way because they want to register plainly that they are abstaining. Would you be good enough to keep that in mind if you review your ruling on deferred voting? Your previous remarks suggested that it would not be possible to indicate in deferred Divisions that one is making a deliberate abstention.
Mr. Speaker: I refer to Speaker Thomas, who said in a similar ruling that he deprecated the practice of voting twice if it was used to record abstention. I share his view on that matter.
Does the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) have a point of order?
Dr. Howard Stoate: It was the same point of order, Mr. Speaker, on whether it is possible to register positively an abstention. The practice enables constituents to see that hon. Members have made a positive abstention and have not merely failed to turn up to vote.
Mr. Speaker: That is something that the Modernisation Committee would have to look into.

Orders of the Day

  Business of the House
  3.37 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
  That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn relating to Human Fertilisation and Embryology not later than Seven o'clock.
  I shall speak briefly on the motion, as I do not want to take up the House's time, which should be targeted at the extremely important debate on the regulations.
  The regulations are made under section 45 of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. That section provides for the regulations to be made under the affirmative procedures, which usually ensure automatic referral to Standing Committee for consideration. Debate in Committee is usually time limited to one and a half hours before the Question is put.
  The Government were concerned to ensure that regulations such as these had proper time for debate and consideration. We have already made available 10 hours for debate in the Chamber both before and after the regulations were laid. We have also revoked the automatic referral of the regulations to a Standing Committee and have made prime time available in the main Chamber, as we have listened to the points made by hon. Members who are concerned about the issues. We feel that it is extremely important for Parliament thoroughly to debate those issues.
  The motion provides for the debate to extend beyond the standard one and a half hours. If it is accepted, therefore, we will have a further three and a half hours of debate before the vote occurs at seven o'clock. I am not aware of any other statutory instrument that has received so much detailed scrutiny and debate on the Floor of the House. Indeed, the staff of the Journal Office do not know of any statutory instrument in their memory that has been accorded so much consideration.
  Given the issues at stake and the strong views held across the House, I hope that hon. Members will accept a further extension of consideration of the issues on the Floor of the House. I commend the motion to the House.
  Mr. David Wilshire rose—
  Mr. Speaker: Does the hon. Gentleman have a point of order?
  Mr. Wilshire: No. I want to follow the Minister.
  3.39 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: Many hon. Members and many people outside will think that the debate is being curtailed too greatly—that we have had too little time between the publication of the final draft regulations and the move to legislate tonight. Many will also feel that it should have been a matter for primary legislation, rather than a statutory instrument which is unamendable. However, there is a great desire for us to continue with the substantive debate. I shall therefore take up the House's time on the issue of process later. We need to move to the issues, which are extremely important, not to take up time on the timetable motion.
  3.40 pm
  Mr. Wilshire: I apologise for rising earlier, although the point could perhaps have been made in a point of order.
  I do not want to take up the House's time, but the difficulty on these occasions is that these are emotive issues where there are no official spokesmen for Back Benchers. Over the years I have been here, the tradition seems to have been that every hon. Member who wishes to speak—it is always a relatively small number of hon. Members who wish to speak—has been able to do so and the House has allowed that to happen. On occasions, such as the first capital punishment debate that I was involved in, the Speaker of the day, Speaker Weatherill, allowed the debate to run beyond 10 o'clock.
  I am not quarrelling with the Government. I am just expressing regret that there is to be a time limit for those hon. Members who wish to speak. I therefore hope that you, Mr. Speaker could give some guidance on the number of hon. Members who want to speak, so that those who feel strongly can fit their speeches in within the three and a half hours.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Ordered,
  That, at this day's sitting, notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union Documents) the Speaker shall put the Question on the Motion in the name of Mr. Secretary Milburn relating to Human Fertilisation and Embryology not later than Seven o'clock.

  Human Fertilisation and Embryology
  3.41 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Health (Yvette Cooper): I beg to move,
  That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.
  We have held two Friday debates on the regulations. I think that all hon. Members who participated in or listened to those discussions would agree that they have been very good debates. Although passions run high and emotions run strong on both sides of the argument, our debates in the House so far have been thoughtful and reflective. Perhaps most important of all, they have in most part been deeply respectful of the divides that remain between us. I hope that today's debate will continue in that vein of respect and reflection.
  It has been clear from our debates so far that it is not a party political issue. We have heard strong speeches for and against the regulations from hon. Members on both sides of the House. Indeed, the principle of embryo research was established in the Hun tan Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, which was steered through the House by a Conservative Government. For Labour Members, it is a free vote. I hope that Opposition Members will have a free vote, too.
  It is not a party political issue, but it is not an easy issue either. Some hon. Members will strongly oppose the regulations on principle. Some are opposed to all forms of embryo research in all circumstances, no matter what the regulatory framework or what the benefits at stake are. They oppose the current law on the same basis. Some oppose in vitro fertilisation treatment on the same basis, too.
  I have deep respect for those views. I have heard them argued in the House, often very eloquently. I will listen with care to those points today, but ultimately I disagree with them.
  For those who do not take an absolutist position on embryo research, I believe that there are strong reasons to go ahead with the regulations. I want to set out five clear reasons why the regulations should go ahead.
  First, there are immense potential benefits from allowing the research to go ahead, particularly for those suffering from dreadful chronic diseases. Secondly, given that those immense potential benefits exist, the regulations are a sensible extension of the current law. Those who support the current law and who support IVF should logically support the regulations, too.
  Thirdly, I want to make it clear that adult stem cells are not yet an alterative to embryonic stein cell research. Fourthly, I shall set out the strict regulatory framework and why that will prevent any unnecessary embryonic research if it is no longer needed. Fifthly, I want to make it clear that this has nothing to do with human reproductive cloning.
  I want to set out all the five points in turn, but before I do so I shall deal with the suggestion that the measure is being rushed through Parliament. The Donaldson report was published in August; it received a lot of media attention at that time. The Government's response was also set out at that time. We clearly aid that we would introduce regulations to extend the purposes for which
  212
  embryos were used in research. We have given people many months' notice of our intention. On 10 November, Lord Hunt and I wrote to all members and peers setting out our intentions and summarising the key issues in the Donaldson report. We have also invited hon. Members to three detailed medical briefings from the chief medical officer over the past two months. We gave the House the opportunity of a five-hour debate on Friday 17 November and a further five-hour debate on Friday 15 December. Never before, in the memory of those working in the Journal Office, has a statutory instrument had so much debate before a vote.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant: The hon. Lady knows from Friday's debate that I support these regulations and believe that they should be passed today. However, she has not explained satisfactorily to the House why this is not primary legislation. Why is it being taken as secondary legislation?
  Yvette Cooper: This is secondary legislation because Parliament considered the issue in detail in 1990, and set out a power in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 to extend the purposes of research in this way. I shall deal in detail later with the restrictions that apply under the 1990 Act, but Parliament clearly decided at that time to give power to its successors to extend the purposes of research through regulations.
  We set out the regulations on 27 November and we revised the wording slightly in response to concerns last Tuesday—a full week ago. There has been plenty of opportunity for hon. Members to debate and discuss the issues. I understand that many hon. Members will not have concentrated on the detail of the issues until the vote was looming because we are all extremely busy. I understand that many hon. Members may feel taken aback at the complexity of the issues, but that would have happened whenever the vote took place.
  Many of those who claim that this is rushed are those who would be opposed to the regulations whenever they were put before the House. The idea that this is rushed is not true. We have had plenty of time for debate and it is now time for the House to make up its mind.
  I want to set out why the Government believe that this research is so worth while and why the regulations are so important. The purpose of the regulations is to permit embryonic stem cell research. In such cells may lie the key to healing within the human body. Stem cells are cells at an early stage of development. They can differentiate into any number of different kinds of cells or tissues. They are extracted from embryos when they are but five to six days old, when the embryos are clusters of 100 cells that would fit on a pinhead. They are still before the implantation stage and before any sign of neural development. Embryonic stem cells in particular are regarded as pluripotent. They have the potential to become anything—brain cells, nervous tissue or heart tissue—and therein lies their power.
  The human body heals and regenerates all the time, but some tissue does not regenerate—no matter what the drugs or the treatment, there is nothing that doctors can do. For the Parkinson's sufferer whose neural cells are destroyed by disease, drugs can alleviate the symptoms for a time, but they cannot put the cells back. For the woman who endures a dreadful stroke, therapy may help

  213
  other parts of her body cope with the disability, but nothing can repair that tissue. For the child who falls from a horse or a bike and breaks his neck, no amount of medicine or physiotherapy can repair the broken spinal cord. The tissue simply will not grow and the paralysis cannot be cured.
  In stem cells may lie the key to turning all that around. Those injuries, illnesses and diseases that have so far proved beyond the power of medical knowledge could come within our grasp, given the right kind of research. Because stem cells have the potential to become brain tissue, nervous tissue or heart muscle or any of the many tissues that will not regenerate in the body on their own, scientists believe that they hold the key to understanding how to regenerate tissue and how to heal. For those diseases where the tissues will not repair on their own, stem cells may be the only thing on the horizon that holds out any hope. Drugs for those diseases are mere palliatives.
  It is little wonder that the Parkinson's Disease Society, Diabetes UK, the Alzheimer's Disease Society, the Huntington's Disease Association, the Royal Society and the British Medical Association back the regulations too.
  The potential of stem cells goes far wider, however, as the big killers—cancer and heart disease—could be affected too. Stem cells could be a route to repairing heart muscle or the tissues destroyed by cancer treatment. That is why the British Heart Foundation, the Cancer Research Campaign and Breakthrough Breast Cancer are all supporting the regulations.
  The human stories behind those patient groups and organisations make an even more persuasive case. The issue is about a boy paralysed in an accident in a rugby match who will never walk again. It is about a woman with Parkinson's disease who struggles with speech, so that she cannot sing nursery rhymes to her children. It is about a grandfather who cannot enjoy his grandchildren growing up because of a devastating stroke. It is about patients waiting for heart or liver transplants that will never come. For all those family tragedies, stem cell research may provide them with hope.
  The regulations are an extension of the 1990 Act. Some people will feel that, no matter how great the benefits that stem cell research could bring, embryo research is always wrong. I respect that view, but I disagree with it; nor does current law embody that view. The chief medical officer's expert group, which drew up the Donaldson report, concluded that the regulations do not raise any new moral issues beyond those that have already been debated and discussed in passing the current law.
  Parliament is not being asked to cross the Rubicon today. Given the benefits that such research could bring, I believe that those who support the current law and IVF should also support the regulations.
  Mr. Edward Leigh: No one doubts for a moment the enormous advances that have been made in medical science or the enormous advances that may be made to relieve suffering. Everyone accepts those advances. However, is not the hon. Lady concerned that, to advance medical science, we shall be creating a new, cloned genetic blueprint of a human being—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State shakes his head.
  214
  However, if we allow it, we shall be creating a genetic blueprint that will result in a new human being that will then be destroyed. We shall be creating the blueprint simply to destroy it. Is that wise? Is it the right and ethical thing to do?
  Yvette Cooper: I shall return to the issue of fears about cloning and the discussion on cell nuclear replacement later in my speech. As the arguments are complicated, I shall deal with them later. I shall also happily take another intervention from the hon. Gentleman then.
  Now, I should like to address the issues raised by the current law, which already provides that embryo research is legal. However, it is permitted only under strict controls and in certain circumstances. Nevertheless, it is legal already. The fundamental principle of whether and in what circumstances embryonic research might be acceptable has already been debated and was enshrined in law 10 years ago.
  Under current law, research can be conducted with a maximum 14 days' embryo development. Additionally, each research project must be individually licensed by the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, and the HFEA must satisfy it self that there is no other way of doing the research, avoiding embryo use. The embryos must also be donated through informed consent.
  Research can only be done for one of five purposes: advances in the treatment of infertility, increasing knowledge about congenital diseases, increasing knowledge about the causes of miscarriage, developing more effective contraception techniques or developing methods for detecting gene and chromosome abnormalities before implantation.
  In 1990, Parliament saw fit to allow research to proceed under those circumstances and that strict regulation. However, Parliament also provided a power to extend those purposes should the development of medicine and science make doing so worth while in future. That is exactly what the regulations do. They extend the purposes for which embryos can be used in research. They do not change the regulatory framework, the strict limits, the 14-day limit or the need for an individual licence from the HFEA. They also do not permit research if there is any other way of doing the research without embryos. They also still require embryos to be donated with informed consent.
  All the regulations do is to change the purposes of permitted research to include basic research into stem cells and research into the understanding and treatment of serious disease. The strict regulatory framework that exists for embryo research right now will apply also to the new research, and so it should.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: Before the Minister leaves the legal aspect of the matter, is it her understanding that the cell nuclear replacement technique is legal at present, even though it has not been attempted yet?
  Yvette Cooper: Yes, our understanding of the current law is that the cell nuclear replacement technique is legal, but only under the strict regulations that apply, and only for purposes that are legitimate under the current law. I shall return to the matter later.

  215
  I do not believe that there are fundamentally new moral issues at stake that were not raised in the debate on the 1990 Act. If embryo research on infertility is acceptable, surely research for Parkinson's disease should be too? If embryo research for contraception is acceptable, surely research for muscular dystrophy should be too? That is especially true when the potential for sufferers from Parkinson's disease or muscular dystrophy might be so great.
  We are not talking, either, about huge changes in the number of embryos that might be used. Between 1991 and 1998, 48,000 embryos were used in research after being donated by couples going through IVF treatment. A further 250,000 embryos created through IVF were simply destroyed. Given the nature of stem cells, scientists believe that very few embryos would actually be needed to extract the stem cells and generate the stem cell lines that could be used for many, many research projects.
  Mr. Fabricant: I believe that there may be some confusion in the House on this matter. Will the Minister confirm that the blastocyst—the group of some 100 cells that is undifferentiated, with no neuron or muscular tissue—will not be grown into a fully formed foetus? Will she confirm that the technique is not cloning, but that individual types of cell will be developed from the blastocyst simply for the cure of disease?
  Yvette Cooper: I can certainly confirm that embryos are not permitted to develop beyond 14 days. That is very clear under the law. Moreover, the stem cells, once extracted, cannot possibly develop into human embryos or babies.
  As long as IVF continues, hundreds of thousands of spare embryos will be created. Most are destroyed. If Parliament votes against these regulations, hon. Members will deny couples the choice to donate their spare embryos to stem cell research for spinal injury or stroke. Those embryos will be destroyed instead.
  Of course embryo research should not be permitted for just any old thing. That is why the regulations specify serious disease. We are talking not about the common cold but about spinal injuries, burns, osteoporosis, stroke, cancer, heart disease—about serious disease and disability.
  I believe that those who support IVF, and those who support the current law, should support these new regulations too.
  Ms Ruth Kelly: Does my hon. Friend agree that, although cell nuclear replacement, or cloning, may technically be legal under the existing regulations, that technique will become desirable only when the regulations are extended? In addition, does she agree with the Donaldson report, which stated that the prospect opened up by the technique may go further than was contemplated by the Warnock committee, or by Parliament when it debated these issues?
  Yvette Cooper: It is true that Parliament in 1990 did not envisage the possibility of cell nuclear replacement. That technique has been developed since that time, and could not have been anticipated in the debates. However,
  216
  it was anticipated in those debates that science and medicine would move on rapidly. That is why provisions for regulations were put in place in the 1990 Act.
  Dr. Ian Gibson: Does my hon. Friend agree that in the early and late 1960s people were replacing cell nuclei from frogs, mice and other animals, with very positive results? Bob Briggs in Indiana and John Gurdon at Oxford did marvellous things with cell nuclear replacement at that time. We have waited 30 years to consider the question of whether the technique should be used on human beings. That is how science works: it takes a long time to move from work on lower organisms to work on higher organisms.
  Yvette Cooper: It is true that the pace of science moves on. It is because of our position in the scientific debate and, more importantly, in the medical and health debate, that Parliament is now being asked to consider these regulations and to allow the research to go ahead.
  Over the past few weeks and months, some people have argued, in the House and outside, that adult stem cells provide an alternative. I agree that where alternatives exist, embryos should not be used in research. That is the position under the 1990 Act. However, adult stem cells are not yet a substitute for embryonic stem cells in research.
  Some people have argued that adult stem cells are better, or at least as good, or at worst merely a year behind, and that embryonic stem cell research is unnecessary. However, the best scientific and medical advice we have is that that is fundamentally not the case. If it were, we would not need to put these regulations before Parliament. We would not need to spend time debating these issues today. The patient groups which have bust a gut lobbying Members of Parliament to support the regulations would not be bothered whether the regulations got through or not. But they are. They are very bothered—and for good reason.
  At the current point in our knowledge, adult stem cells are not the easy alternative that some have suggested. Adult derived stem cells are few in number and hard to find. We do not know whether there are stem cells for every part of the body. Those that we can find take longer to grow and develop, and their potential to turn into a wide variety of different cells appears more limited.
  Embryonic stem cells are a different story. They can renew themselves and develop into many kinds of cells and tissues. They could hold the key to learning how to turn the clock back on adult cells, and turn them into other cells instead.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: For many of us, the issue is one of principle. The hon. Lady has said that were there a choice, adult cells should be preferred. What is the principle that gives rise to that distinction, which she herself has drawn?
  Yvette Cooper: I endorse the principle embodied in the 1990 Act and set out in the Warnock report—that a measure of respect should be accorded to the human embryo. However, the 1990 Act also provides that embryo research, under strict conditions and in certain

  217
  circumstances where there are benefits to be had, is justified. I support those principles, which are embodied in the 1990 Act.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: We have already heard how science has moved on in the past 30 years, and adult stem cell science could progress similarly. The hon. Lady prayed in aid the British Medical Association's report to parliamentarians, which chimed with our views that adult stem cell research was preferable, but that embryo stem cell research had to be done in order to get to that stage. How will the regulations ensure that further adult stem cell research will not be neglected because of the ease of embryology research?
  Yvette Cooper: If the hon. Gentleman will allow me to make a couple of other points first, I will turn to exactly that point.
  Many researchers and scientists agree with the hon. Gentleman's point that the eventual aim is to use adult cells. Perhaps that will mean adult stem cells, perhaps ordinary adult cells in which the clock can be turned back to make them stem cells again. However, we are not there yet. Many people believe that we will never get there until and unless embryonic stem cell research is carried out first. Those embryonic stem cells, with their power and potency, could teach scientists how cells grow and develop, and how to use adult cells as well. Until we make those breakthroughs—either from embryonic stem cells or from adult stem cells—the case for embryonic stem cell research is extremely strong.
  Dr. Brian Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is essential to understand the process of cell differentiation from the embryo to the adult? By not studying embryonic stem cell research, we might miss some vital chemical triggers that cause the important cell differentiation in the early stages of life. Does she also agree that learning the secrets of cell differentiation at that level may give us a clue about cell differentiation going wrong in conditions such as cancer?
  Yvette Cooper: I agree with my hon. Friend's points, which are extremely important. Those were also the conclusions of the Donaldson committee. We have asked it to consider whether adult stem cells could provide an alternative. It has looked into all the new research on adult stem cells and it has kept looking—and we have kept asking the Committee, even since the report was finished, and it still maintains that that cannot replace embryo research.
  Mr. Jon Owen Jones: On the difference in principle between research on adult and embryonic cells, is it not true that an individual could be cloned using a somatic cell—an adult cell? It may not be as easy, but we could still create new cloned individuals from adult cells, so there is not as great a difference in principle between embryonic and adult cell research as some people believe.
  Yvette Cooper: Some people will argue that there is a difference in principle, but in practice scientists feel that
  218
  the embryonic cells are more important than adult stem cells. My hon. Friend mentioned the somatic nuclear replacement technique, to which I will return later.
  Mr. Tony McWalter: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that her response to my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) is exactly what alarms many of us? He said that one must follow the process of cell differentiation all the way through. A considerable amount of differentiation goes on after an embryo has developed its primitive streak. Will the Minister, at the very least, withdraw her agreement with my hon. Friend and establish firmly that that is not what she has in mind?
  Yvette Cooper: I will certainly clear up any misunderstanding that has arisen. There is a difference between tracing the cell development and what happens to cells as they develop and tracing the embryonic development. Under the 1990 Act, no research can take place beyond 14 days. The Government do not advocate any research beyond that point, as it is not appropriate. The safeguards in the Act are clear. A separate issue is understanding the development of cells—cells not embryos—extracted from embryos. It is important to understand how they develop, but it is important that any research does not involve embryos beyond 14 days. That is clear in the Act and the regulations.
  Dr. Michael Clark: The Minister has been generous in giving way. Her speech is a model of clarity and I am thoroughly enjoying it. Does anything in the regulations indicate whether, if work on adult stem cells progresses and could take over from work on embryonic stem cells, the use of the latter would automatically be reduced, or would new regulations or legislation be required?
  Yvette Cooper: New regulations would not be necessary because the principle is embodied in the 1990 Act. I will deal with that in a minute.
  Ms Jenny Jones: Can my hon. Friend confirm that scientists who have successfully converted adult stem cells and differentiated cells into other types of adult cells have confirmed that it is premature to suggest that adult cells can replace embryonic cells in that research?
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is right. Many of those in the vanguard of adult stem cell research do not believe that it can yet replace embryonic research. In previous debates, I quoted Professor Richard Hynes, the president of the American Society for Cell Biology. Also, Angelo Vescovi, who leads the Italian team, which has done pioneering work on adult stem cells and neural cells, says that he "completely disagrees" with the view that his research means that there is no need for embryonic stem cell research.
  Professor Julia Polak, who is at the forefront of adult stem cell research in this country, told us:
  Like others we have conducted research using human bone marrow cells as a source of adult stem cells. We too have succeeded in differentiating these cells into bone and cartilage lines. But what is clear by the scientific evidence is that adult stem cells are scattered and hence difficult to find. While some research on bone

  219
  marrow has shown its capacity to develop into liver cells, research has shown that adult cells are likely to be much more limited in terms of development potential than embryonic derived stem cells which are truly pluripotent. Without research on embryonic derived stem cells it is very unlikely indeed that adult stem cell research will ever realise its true potential.
  But let us suppose that the breakthroughs come thick and fast and that, as hon. Members have pointed out, there are new breakthroughs—perhaps in adult stem cell research. Perhaps early embryonic research will tell us all we need to know so that we can move on to adult cell research. Suppose that there are amazing, unpredicted breakthroughs in adult stem cell research.
  Let us suppose that happens and that embryo research is not needed. That is no reason to vote against these regulations. If embryo research is no longer needed, under the 1990 Act it will not be licensed. That is the law.
  The 1990 Act states that the HFEA must satisfy itself for each and every research proposal that the embryos are necessary for the research, if another way to do the research exists—through adult stem cells—the research cannot be licensed under the law. The checks are already built into the law, and so they should be.
  Right now, the best scientific advice in this country and on the international stage is that adult stem cells do not have the potential that embryonic cells have. However, should that change over time, checks are already in place—in the Act—to ensure that adult stem cells rather than embryos are used in future research.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: One point that the Minister has not covered in her excellent and clear speech is how the safeguards will be enforced. Can she absolutely assure the House that there will be independent checks and audits when there is permission to use those embryos?
  Yvette Cooper: Clear provisos are set out in the 1990 Act for checks on the embryo research that is carried out at present. The HFEA has responsibility for licensing and regulating all the research that takes place. It has to report yearly on its work. Those regulations are already in place; they will continue under these regulations—it is right that they should do so.
  Dr. Howard Stoate: My hon. Friend is extremely generous in giving way. Will she clarify a fundamental point on the difference between embryo and stem cell research? At the six-day stage, when the stem cells have been removed from the embryo, that embryo no longer exists, so the stem cells taken from it have no potential whatever to become a human being; they can differentiate only into different cell lines.
  Yvette Cooper: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. I shall clarify the matter for the House so that there is no misunderstanding. The stem cells extracted from embryos for research cannot develop into human beings; they are stem cells. They are in isolation and cannot possibly become human beings. Embryos cannot possibly be used in research after 14 days. The stem cells can be extracted—usually at about five to six days—and are then separate from the embryos; those stem cells can then be used in research.
  220
  Many Members have asked questions and expressed concerns about cloning. Opponents of the regulations have raised another important concern, and claimed that this is the slippery slope to human reproductive cloning. I could not disagree more strongly.
  Let me make very clear the Government's position on this matter. Human reproductive cloning is illegal. It must stay illegal. Under these regulations it will stay illegal. These regulations have nothing to do with human reproductive cloning. I know of no one in the House who advocates human reproductive cloning. The idea of cloning babies is completely unacceptable to the House and to public opinion.
  Some people have argued that cell nuclear replacement is the first step on the slippery slope to reproductive cloning. Cell nuclear replacement is a technique for creating stem cells that are genetically compatible with the donor. The nucleus is removed from an egg, and the nucleus from a donor adult cell is put in its place. By triggering the growth of an embryo, it is possible to develop and extract stem cells that are genetically compatible with the person donating the adult cell. The Donaldson report concluded that cell nuclear replacement could hold the key to growing stem cells that the diseased body will not reject—stem cells that are genetically compatible with the patient in need.
  To answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Cotswold (Mr. Clifton-Brown), the 1990 Act does not distinguish between research on embryos created through IVF and those created through cell nuclear replacement. That technique is legal under the current law, but only under the strict conditions of the current law. In other words, it is legal to carry out that technique for the purposes of research into infertility, contraception and so on, but it is only legal up to 14 days, only under licence from the HFEA, and only if there is no other way to do the research.
  Like the 1990 Act, the regulations do not—and cannot—distinguish between one technique and another. They do not make cell nuclear replacement research legal because, strictly speaking, it is already legal. All they do is change the purposes for which cell nuclear replacement research can be carried out.
  Mr. Laurence Robertson: I am grateful to the Minister for explaining that matter very clearly, but may I take her back one step? She said that cloning is illegal, but am I not correct in saying that that is dependent on the authority; it is not enshrined in primary legislation? If I am correct, when does she intend to introduce a Bill to enshrine in primary legislation the fact that cloning is illegal?
  Yvette Cooper: The hon. Gentleman is right to say that cloning is illegal. We have made clear our commitment, and our intention, to embed the ban on human reproductive cloning in primary legislation. We will do so as parliamentary time allows and obviously subject to discussion with business managers.
  Some have argued that such research is the slippery slope to cloning human beings. I argue that that is absolutely not the case. It is illegal to develop embryos created through cell nuclear replacement beyond 14 days.

  221
  It is a criminal offence to implant embryos created through cell nuclear replacement in the womb. Human reproductive cloning is illegal.
  Dr. Gibson: We should be aware that the public think that scientists are a bit arrogant and tend to disobey rules or to go beyond them. Some will try something with an embryo of 15 or 16 days that is beyond the pale. How do we control that? The Minister will understand how science behaves, so how can ensure that scientists obey the rules?
  Yvette Cooper: It is the responsibility of Parliament to set the ethical framework in which science must operate. The 1990 Act sets out not only a clear ethical framework, but a structure for ensuring that that framework is enforced through the HFEA. Clearly, we shall expect all such issues to be monitored and enforced through the HFEA.
  Claims that the regulations will lead to human reproductive cloning are based in science fiction, not in law. It would be dreadful if the fear of science fiction were to prevent research that promises to save lives.
  Mr. Andy King: Does my hon. Friend share my concern that the HFEA has behaved—[Interruption.] I am sorry; I want to respond to that aside. My question has not been planted by anyone; it comes from within me, not from some vested interest, unlike some others.
  Does my hon. Friend agree that the HFEA has gone beyond its remit and, instead of being the safeguard that we want it to be on such sensitive matters, it is behaving like a lobby group and adding its name to memorandums, with other vested interests, to push through the regulations?
  Yvette Cooper: No, I do not agree. The HFEA has a clear role to play, which is set out in the 1990 Act. It also has huge expertise, on which we rely to ensure that the 1990 Act is properly enforced.
  So it is clear there are potentially huge benefits from such research. It does not involve a fundamental shift in principle from the current law. There are strict safeguards to prevent both unnecessary research and reproductive cloning.
  Of course no one can guarantee when and whether there will be breakthroughs. No one can say how many lives will be saved. No one can say to how many people the power to speak, walk or run will be restored. No one knows how far stem cells will hold the power of healing in the human body. We do not know whether the process will take a year or 10 or 20 years. No one can guarantee where research will take us; if they could, we would not need the research at all.
  We cannot say to the child who has been paralysed in an accident that we can find her a cure in her lifetime; we cannot guarantee her the chance to walk and run again. But we can say that we will try. We can look her in the eye and say that we will do everything in our power to promote research that gives her a fighting chance of walking again.
  222
  We cannot guarantee a cure for the man who is suffering from Parkinson's disease, who struggles to his constituency surgery and wrestles with his words just to plead with his Member of Parliament to support the regulations. But we can look him in the eye and tell him that we will do everything in our power to give him a fighting chance of receiving treatment that will help him to dress himself again. If such a breakthrough does not come in time for him, we can tell him that we have done all in our power to help the next generation and to prevent them from suffering as he does today.
  Normally, such power lies in the hands of scientists. Normally, it lies in the hands of research funding bodies or experts who are in pursuit of a cure. Today, the power lies in the hands of Parliament. It lies in the hands of those who are considering their vote.
  I believe that there are strong moral arguments for supporting the regulations. I recognise that some feel, as a matter of conscience, that they cannot support any extension of research involving embryos. However, I also believe that many in the House, such as me, do not feel that they can, as a matter of conscience, turn their backs on research that could relieve the suffering of so many. I commend the regulations to the House.
  4.22 pm
  Dr. Liam Fox: I am grateful to the Minister for once again setting out her case so objectively and precisely. It is helpful to the House, although I cannot help thinking that, since we had this debate just last Friday, this is a parliamentary version of "Groundhog Day". I state yet again that the motion will be subject to a free vote among Conservative Members.
  The issues fall into the categories of process and substance. I shall be gin by saying a word about process. The decision to be taken is a major one. It will have profound consequences for both the science base and the ethics within which research occurs. Many outside the House will not understand why such a profound decision is before the House in a statutory instrument, which is not amendable, rather than in primary legislation. That may be due to the way in which we do business in the House, but we might need to think again about whether it satisfies those on both sides of the argument who would rather have more detail.
  For example, let us consider the definition in the draft regulations of serious disease. On Friday, the Minister admitted that interpretation of that definition would very often be left to the courts. There is a strong feeling in the House that there is already too much interpretation by the courts and that we in Parliament should be giving greater direction on the exact meaning of terms in any legislation that we pass. Many will find the process rather unsatisfactory.
  Debates such as today's lead all parliamentarians into difficult territory. We must make decisions about the future of our science base and set the moral and ethical parameters of our society. Too many believe that too many powers have been taken from the House. It is good to see a fine attendance in the House for a debate of great moral importance to the country.
  We must beware the relativist's argument that, because different moral and ethical perspectives lead us to draw lines in the sand in different places, no lines can or should be drawn. The fact that different people make different

  223
  judgments cannot justify the making of no judgment whatever. It is impossible to remain morally neutral on the issue irrespective of whether it would be politically expedient for us to do so. If we fail to consider where the ethical boundaries lie and we shy away from setting them in a legislative framework, we are, in effect, saying that there are none at all.
  There is genuine and deep-rooted political unease in the House about many of the medical techniques that are employed. We have had debates on euthanasia and genetic research, and we are now debating cloning. They have all raised public concern, and we need to respond to that. The questions that the medical revolution asks are too important to be left to scientists and doctors alone. We must tackle them on behalf of the society that we represent. I hope that that can be done this afternoon in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect for the different and strongly held views.
  We also need to remember that human knowledge is always developing and that it is far from infallible. There is always the danger of the unpredicted outcome or the unforeseen consequence. What might be regarded as a certain medical truth at one point can be discredited within only a few years. Examples such as thalidomide illustrate that point.
  Dr. Gibson: And BSE.
  Dr. Fox: As he did last week, the hon. Gentleman will get his own chance to contribute to the debate. As I said, I hope that the debate will be held in an atmosphere of tolerance and respect. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman might find that funny, but it is normally the basis on which we do business in the House of Commons.
  The benefits of the medical revolution are immense—transplantation, limb grafts and the elimination of infectious diseases. That revolution has changed not only the way in which we live, but the way in which we think about living. With genetic research, we are dealing literally with the building blocks of life, and our perception of what it is to be a human being is literally being put under the microscope.
  However, the medical revolution carries with it moral, ethical and philosophical consequences that we need to confront, but I am sure that I am not the only Member who often feels that our ability to deal with the moral issues sometimes lags behind our technical abilities and what science is capable of achieving. We all accept that just because we can do something does not mean that we should do something. Similarly, just because science is capable of doing something does not mean that it should be allowed to do it. We need to establish a clear framework within which to operate and we should be confident enough, as a society, to grasp the agenda back from the scientific community alone.
  We must follow certain principles, and the Minister outlined some of them. We must avoid being alarmist; nothing scares people like ignorance and the fear of the unknown. Transparency, accountability and honesty are all essential. Our debate can be mature and considered only if it is also informed. Therefore, information must be freely available and explained in a way that makes its complicated concepts acceptable to the greatest number of people. It must be free from the crass distortions that, for a variety of motives, are all too common.
  Dr. Stoate: The hon. Gentleman has raised an important point, and I wish to debate the issue in the
  224
  spirit of mutual respect. An enormous amount of misinformation circulates, particularly outside the House, about the proposal. It is upsetting to read reports in the newspapers about human clones and monsters being created. Such reports are far from the truth. Does he agree that it is important that, instead of scaremongering, we should debate the real science and the real proposals?
  Dr. Fox: I have never believed that scare tactics on either side of an important argument are a substitute for proper, objective debate on the properly defined issues. I am grateful to the Minister for defining the terms of the debate.
  Mr. Leigh: Does my hon. Friend agree that the cell nuclear replacement process will create an embryo that is identically similar to the patient? That is the point of it. [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we create a new cloned embryo identical to the patient, and it is then destroyed. Much as I respect my hon. Friend, if he were ill, we would be talking about creating a dozen new little Liam Foxes—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, we would create embryos in order to destroy them. There is no other way of carrying out the process.
  Mr. Speaker: Order. The debate has been very good natured so far, but I do not want shouting across the Chamber.
  Dr. Fox: I shall shortly come to the difference between therapeutic and reproductive cloning. It is an important distinction, which the House needs to understand. I shall also outline my personal view.
  To return to the point made by the hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate), there is a need not only to deal with information but to respect public sensitivities, and that is particularly true for the scientific and medical communities. Legitimate concern should not be dismissed or sneered at, although, I am afraid, that all too often happens. Experts should not hide behind technical jargon and scientific gobbledegook. Public anxiety needs to be dealt with openly and sympathetically because recent high-profile cases have eroded public confidence in the judgment shown by the medical and scientific communities. It is important to restore that confidence; to achieve that, the public must be shown to their satisfaction that rigorous ethical guidelines have been put in place and are being policed.
  Perhaps above all in this debate we must ensure that human privacy and dignity are protected. In our desire to eliminate disease and suffering we must, in particular, be careful to respect those who are already disabled or suffering from incurable diseases. They should not be made in any way to feel that their lives are inferior or valueless. When, as reported recently, a leading embryologist says that it will soon be a sin for parents to carry children with genetic diseases, alarm bells should start to ring. For "sin" in that context, we should read "crime" in 1930s Germany, and we soon get the picture. I am sure that every Member would utterly deprecate such sentiments.
  There has been a great deal of consensus on one point—that reproductive cloning is utterly morally unacceptable and should remain illegal. The Minister was clear on that point, and I doubt that there would be a

  225
  single dissenting voice in the House. However, we must be aware that some people have a different agenda from those who only seek new medical therapies, and we must be very vigilant.
  In America last year, doctors succeeded in creating one human egg using cells from two different lovers and a father. The press dubbed that the three-parent family. The director of one of the clinics involved was reported as saying that she started in that line of work because she was
  interested in redefining the family.
  Those who consider the traditional family to be the basic building block on which a civilised society is based can only react to such sentiments with complete horror.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is not within Parliament's purview to limit or control behaviour in another country such as the United States? Does he accept that our equivalents in that country must answer for the fact that they rate freedom of action so highly that they seek to limit such work only by not paying for it from public funds, rather than through effective legislation? Does he accept that we in this country have never taken that route, so extrapolation from the United States is wholly inappropriate?
  Dr. Fox: I did not intend to extrapolate directly from the United States. My point is that some people's agenda is different from that outlined by the Minister, so it is all the more important that we have strict regulation that is rigorously enforced. That is the best way to ensure that the Minister's arguments—which I do not personally agree with, but which she outlined clearly—are effective and that legislation is properly policed.
  Mr. Andrew Miller: Is the hon. Gentleman satisfied that the 1990 Act provides a sufficiently strong framework for existing work, or is he suggesting that we strengthen the Act, irrespective of the regulations before us?
  Dr. Fox: I am not suggesting that there has been a failure to police the operation of the 1990 Act, if that is what the hon. Gentleman is asking. Logically, however, if the Act is to be extended, or if the criteria according to which it operates are to be changed, we shall need to extend that policing.
  Dr. Peter Brand: If the hon. Gentleman accepts, rightly, that we need to regulate and police the work, will he dissociate himself from the comments of the hon. Member for Runnymede and Weybridge (Mr. Hammond) on 17 November who, when, speaking from the Front Bench, suggested that we could rely on the fruits of overseas embryo research being imported to this country? Is not that a complete failure to take a moral attitude?
  Dr. Fox: That is an argument about the maintenance of the science base. The hon. Gentleman confuses a practical argument about scientific development with the moral case. That does not necessarily help.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I know that many Members want to speak. That being so, I shall move on to my next point.
  226
  The substance of the debate falls into two parts: first, medical technology, its control and its application; and, secondly, the origin of the cell lines involved. There are those who argue that the application of genetic technology is so immense that we should not allow it to develop. Leaving aside the fact that it will develop elsewhere and that it is an unrealistic argument, I do not believe that knowledge has any inherent moral value. Only the application of knowledge can be right or wrong. There is an argument for strong policing and strong legislation, and it would have been better to lay out those factors in primary legislation.
  On the argument about the origin of cells, there are clearly three groups in the House. There are those who believe that embryonic cells should not be used for experimentation or treatment. They believe that it is a moral issue purely about respecting the right to life. That is the group into which I would fall, which is why I would vote against the regulations, as I have voted against similar proposals in the past. I am open about that.
  Another group argues that the aims justify the means, and that we should therefore allow even more liberal experimentation than that proposed in the regulations. The largest group in the House probably finds the use of embryonic cells undesirable to an extent, but understands the potential medical benefits and wants to know whether there is a legitimate alternative route to them. That is where the House will ultimately make its decision.
  Medical science is divided. There is much to commend adult stem cell research, not least the potential avoidance of rejection. It may be true, as medical science seems to indicate, that adult stem cells would not be as flexible as embryonic cells in this research, but they have a good deal more to offer than many have been led to believe by some distracting propaganda.
  There is a strong case, therefore, for maximising our research, development and investment, but we must try to keep the debate in context. The Minister, in an impressively emotive passage in her speech, talked about the expectations and the hopes of being able to provide treatment for Parkinson's disease, diabetes, strokes and other illnesses that are all too common. No hon. Member would not like to achieve those benefits—to see cures and to see people made well. However, many people would regard the price of getting there by using embryonic cells as too high.
  We must try to limit expectations and not have people believe that we are further ahead with research than we are. We are at an early stage in all programmes, and to pretend that cures are round the corner would be dishonest and, to a large degree, cruel.
  Several hon. Members rose—
  Dr. Fox: I will not give way again. I must let others speak.
  We must accept that research will continue elsewhere. We are talking about what happens in terms of research in the United Kingdom. All too often, globalisation is confused with powerlessness, and we must not be afraid if the ethical and moral implications of what we are discussing make us want to slow down this area of scientific development. It is our job to do what we think is right in a United Kingdom context, and not to be swayed by what is happening elsewhere.

  227
  We are faced with a difficult decision, especially for Members who do not take an absolute position on the issue. Much is at stake. I will vote at against—
  Dr. Lynne Jones rose—
  Dr. Fox: I can explain my position to the hon. Lady, but I cannot understand it for her.
  Much is at stake and I will vote against the regulations for the reasons that I have outlined. I have tried to put myself in the position of those who find themselves with a difficult dilemma. There has been too little time fully to consider the detail of what is proposed. There is too little definition in an unamendable statutory instrument, and too little analysis of the ethical consequences.
  Most of all, before we are willing to use embryonic cells, we must be convinced that there is no alternative, and I could not be convinced of that. I recognise the magnitude and the importance of the decision. As hon. Members make the decision tonight, I hope that we will all understand fully the technical, moral and ethical considerations, and in all respects the costs of the decision that we are about to make.
  4.40 pm
  Miss Anne Begg: I was eager to speak in the debate today to explain to the House why so many groups representing people with serious diseases want scientists to be allowed to use stem cells from embryos in their research, so that they may discover treatments and cures for a range of conditions.
  Hon. Members will have received communications from groups such the Parkinson's Disease Society, the Huntington's Disease Association, the Cancer Research Campaign, the British Heart Foundation and the Genetic Interest Group, which is an umbrella organisation of more than 100 charities and groups, such as the Gaucher's Association, and which represents people with my condition. All of them are saying the same thing: please allow the research to be undertaken, as it has such enormous potential.
  Almost all scientific opinion is in favour of the research and wants it to take place. Almost all medical opinion is in favour of the research and wants it to go ahead. Almost everyone who suffers from a degenerative disease is desperate for the research to go ahead, including many for whom the results of the research will come too late because their condition is too far advanced.
  Indeed, people who have one of the degenerative diseases are, perhaps, most vocal in their support for stem cell research. They know at first hand what it is like to live with Parkinson's disease or multiple sclerosis, and they do not want future generations to suffer what they are going through, which is often described as a living hell. They think that scientists should be allowed to explore whether they can unlock the technology to provide a treatment or even a cure for some of the big diseases of our time. It is not for ourselves but for those who come after us that people like me are speaking out in favour of embryonic stem cell research being allowed.
  As I said in the debate on Friday, I realise that I will not persuade hon. Members who have strong moral objections to the use of embryo cells in any research and for any reason, no matter how noble or critical that
  228
  research may be. I can make the best case in the world for the research to be allowed, as I hope that I am doing, but those hon. Members will never agree that embryo cells of any kind should be used, and are against the existing legislation. They have an honourable and consistent position.
  However, the hon. Members whom I want to persuade to join me in the Aye Lobby are those who support the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and agree that in some cases, and under the right and tight regulation, embryos can be used in research, but perhaps, for one reason or another, are uneasy about the regulations. I address myself to those in the House who fall into that category—those who accept that adult stem cells cannot be used, because the technology has not reached the point where such cells can be substituted.
  I see the use of stem cells from in vitro fertilised embryos for research into the treatment and cure of serious diseases as a logical extension of the existing categories that are allowed under the 1990 Act. I am convinced that had the potential for such research been known about in 1990, it would have been included in the existing legislation.
  I appreciate that the use of fertilised embryos in the conventional sense is not the sticking point for many people; it is the use of embryos created by cell nuclear transfer—the so-called therapeutic cloning—that causes concern. Because the words "cloning" and "embryo" are so emotive, there has been much misinformation about what is proposed and the uses to which such knowledge could be put by unscrupulous scientists. I assure hon. Members that this is not the start of some slippery slope.
  The embryos created by nuclear replacement are not fertilised. They will never grow into a human life because it is illegal for anyone to try to do that. In fact, we do not know whether such embryos have the potential to grow into a human foetus and no one is going to find out, because to implant such an embryo into a womb would also be illegal. Human reproductive cloning is a criminal offence, and quite rightly so. The Minister has gone even further today, in promising to introduce primary legislation to enshrine that principle in law and to make doubly sure that such practices remain illegal.
  The embryos created by nuclear transfer will not be experimented on; it is the stem cells from them that will be used in the research. It is, therefore, wrong to say that these cells have the potential for human life. The embryo may have, but the cells do not. They are individual cells or clusters of cells.
  Why can the in vitro embryo stem cells not be used? Why bother with all the debate about the stem cells from embryos produced by nuclear replacement? The answer is simple: it is these stem cells, which use the genetic material contained in the nucleus of the adult cell taken from the potential recipient of the treatment, that hold the most potential. If scientists are able to work out how to turn these stem cells into tissue cells, nerve cells or skin cells, they can be used to replace damaged cells without fear of rejection, as they contain the person's own genetic material. There could come a time when the nucleus from one of my cells could be used to begin the process of growing new bone cells to replace my damaged bone. Just think of it—my own cells being used to help my body to heal itself.

  229
  If the vote is lost today, I and other hon. Members will have to go back to our constituents who have Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis or Huntington's disease and say, "Sony, embryo cells can be used for research into improvements in contraception but cannot be used to find a treatment for what is wrong with you." We shall have to say, "Sorry, a group of unfertilised stem cells can be created with your permission, using your own genetic material, but these cells cannot be used to find a treatment for what is wrong with you." We shall have to tell them, "Sorry, a group of cells in a laboratory dish, which will die because they have no means of sustaining themselves, has the same status as you. These cells are so important that they cannot be used to help alleviate your suffering." That will be the position in the United Kingdom if the House votes to reject the regulations. I would find it impossible to explain the logic of that position to my constituents who have lobbied me to support the extension of the use of stem cells.
  Many claims have been made for medical science over the years. How often have we heard announcements of miracle cures, which turned out to be no such thing? I am very sceptical about many of those claims, especially those made by drug companies. However, there have also been occasions when what appeared to be a small advance for medical science became the impetus for enormous improvements in the human condition: the discovery of the cowpox vaccine, which led to immunisation, the discovery of penicillin, and the first organ transplant.
  Today, we stand at such a threshold. Stem cell research has the potential to act as the key that will open the door to many advances in our knowledge and ability to treat some of the most heart-rending conditions, which are presently untreatable. I ask the House please not to step back from that threshold. The only slippery slope is the one that leads to making many people's lives so much better. I urge the House to vote to allow this vital research to proceed.
  4.48 pm
  Mr. Nick Harvey: This is the third and, for the foreseeable future, final opportunity for the House to consider these matters. Hon. Members have now had several hours of parliamentary time in which to do so.
  I have become familiar with the arguments only over the past few months and have—like hon. Members in all parts of the House—received many representations from people on both sides of the argument. They include those who want this research to be given the go-ahead, namely, patient groups who see the potential to alleviate suffering, and those with great misgivings—often, although not exclusively, coming from a religious standpoint—who point out the ethical difficulties and complications involved. I take seriously both sets of representations. I consider that the burden of proof is on those who want to go ahead and change the regulations, so I took seriously the objections of my constituents and others. In each case, I attempted to see whether or not there was a satisfactory answer—or at least an answer that would satisfy me—to the points that were made.
  Members will all see the great potential of this area of research. Members on both sides of the House will have some experience, within their families or social circle,
  230
  of people who are suffering from long-term degenerative diseases. They will have seen them suffering and witnessed the gradual removal of their powers. They will also have seen the slow death which, frankly, those conditions involve. I do not think that anyone would want to thwart any area of research that could help victims of Parkinson's disease, Alzheimer's disease, multiple sclerosis and other conditions which cause untold misery both to those who suffer from them and their families and friends, who have to provide care and support.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) was right to say that we must be wary of giving any impression that immediate remedies or solutions for those conditions are just around the corner. Were we to do so, we would raise an awful lot of hope that would not be fulfilled.
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there is no certainty about the outcome of that kind of research. However, does he agree that it is the only hope for people suffering from those degenerative diseases?
  Mr. Harvey: The hon. Lady makes a good point. In many cases, that is the only hope, although in some cases it may not be. For those who have recently been diagnosed with conditions that take a long time to develop fully, there will be huge anxiety—as well as hope—that some of the science will perhaps develop quickly enough to help them. As the Minister rightly said, we do not know where any of the research will get to and at what pace. However, if we were to prevent it from going ahead, we would have to have good reasons for doing so.
  I accept that some of the representations that I have received and some of the speeches in the House derive from the viewpoint of not accepting the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. I fully respect the fact that some people do not accept the basis on which that legislation was made. However, if one has accepted that basis and the fact that it is acceptable to use embryo research—and, indeed, embryos—in fertility treatment, logically one must accept the extension to the potential treatment of all those serious diseases. I am therefore coming to the conclusion that we must allow that research to proceed.
  I accept the 1990 Act, which is well founded and well considered, and believe that it is right to allow the extension of the areas of research for which it provided. That Act sets down the mechanism by which we can do that. I have had concerns about the argument about the slippery slope, which I raised in the debate on Friday. The Minister gave a clear response then, and did so again today, when she said that the Government's intention, as far as time allows, is explicitly to legislate to clarify and to embed—she has been using that verb—a ban in law. I and others depend on that reassurance in arriving at the conclusion that the regulations should be supported.
  People have expressed other concerns, especially about the use of adult stem cells. I imagine that virtually everyone would, instinctively, be more comfortable with the use of adult cells, rather than cells from embryos, when that is an option. As the Minister pointed out in response to an earlier intervention, the existing legislation already provides for that situation. I cannot make scientific judgments, but I find persuasive the range of scientific opinion suggesting that the use of adult cells

  231
  will not be perfected as a technique unless and until research is conducted using cells from embryos. I have no way of judging that.
  Dr. Gibson: Does the hon. Gentleman concede that adult cells might have progressed too far as, with age, mutations can develop that might not be adaptable for some cures? Does he agree that more research might be needed on adult cells than on embryonic cells?
  Mr. Harvey: I have read that argument, which seems convincing and has been advanced to me before. I hesitate to pontificate on matters scientific as I cannot boast even a science O-level, but I am reassured that it is not down to the likes of me to make the judgments. The Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, with all its expertise, will grant licences only where it is satisfied that there are no alternative.
  Dr. Gibson: Would the hon. Gentleman leave it to the European Commission to make those decisions? It seems that it has already made decisions on the matter and that it will conduct research with funding from the framework programme.
  Mr. Harvey: I would prefer to leave those decisions to the HFEA, but I have no doubt that even the European Commission has much greater expertise than I can possibly boast—at least, I dearly hope that it does.
  I have heard logical responses to most of the concerns expressed to me, both from people in the sciences and from the Under-Secretary in Friday's debate. On the basis of arriving at a balance between the benefits that could accrue—I accept that we do not know how quickly or on how wide a front—and many people's misgivings about the use of embryos and cells derived from them, I am satisfied that we should proceed. I worry about the vocabulary that is sometimes used about the research and about the assumptions that underlie some of the letters sent to me. The latter are so mistaken that we must accept that, for a time, some people will not understand what we have agreed or why we have agreed to it. It is incumbent on everybody to try to make the information clear.
  Today's debate was clear and hon. Members on both sides of the argument have acknowledged the points made by those with different opinions. We have a duty to try to allay fears and anxieties outside the House and to make clear what has been agreed. It is with some trepidation that I make my comments. I know that some of my hon. Friends have arrived at other conclusions, but we, like other parties, will have a free vote. However, having weighed up both sides of the argument and considered the warnings that have been sounded, I am persuaded that we must agree to the regulations. We do so in the light of the Under-Secretary's reassurances, which, I have no doubt, will be the backdrop against which the science will progress in future.
  4.58 pm
  Dr. Howard Stoate: This is proving to be an excellent debate. I am pleased that all sides of the argument are being put responsibly and in a considered manner. I am especially pleased that no hon. Members sought to use the motion on the business of the House to try to stifle an excellent debate. That allowed us the maximum possible time in which to set out the arguments.
  232
  I am one of only a small number of medically qualified hon. Members so I am especially pleased to speak in this debate. As a doctor, I see the whole spectrum of human misery, from the infertile couple to the aged person suffering from Alzheimer's. I see at first hand the misery and suffering that is caused by many of the long-term conditions to which hon. Members have referred. However, I also have the opportunity to see the enormous sense of joy, pride and achievement that is felt when patients can benefit from a breakthrough in medical science that completely transforms their lives in circumstances that might otherwise have seemed irredeemable. That is why the research is so important. As other hon. Members have pointed out, although it may be a long shot for some patients, it is often the only chance that they have. That is why allowing the research to proceed and enabling scientists to consider its viability must be the way forward.
  I do not want to take up too much of the House's time because I know that many hon. Members on both sides of the House want to speak and the Minister made an excellent speech which covered many of the issues that I wished to raise, but four issues need to be aired. They are: do we need the research? Can the research be done only with foetal stem cells? Should the research be allowed; and, if so, in what way can we ensure that it is properly regulated so that it is carried out correctly?
  Hon. Members have mentioned many chronic long-term conditions, but I do not know how many of them realise the scale of the problem. I have worked with the Long-term Medical Conditions Alliance, and it seems that one in three adults in this country suffer from a long-term chronic illness of one sort or another. The numbers are staggering. The general household survey of 1996–97 showed that the previous figure of one in four of the population was probably an underestimate; there are more than that. The Office for National Statistics stated:
  Two in five of both men and women in Great Britain reported having a long-standing illness or disability in 1996–97.
  Therefore, the number of people who suffer from long-term medical conditions of one sort or another is truly staggering. A vast number of people suffer from conditions that could potentially, with the right research and the right breaks, enjoy enormous benefits.
  We have already discussed alternatives. I do not wish to dwell on the fact that we need to research adult stem cells. Of course hon. Members would feel happier and more secure if it were possible to achieve the same level of research with adult stem cells. Currently, the scientists tell us, it is not possible. As hon. Members have already said, a period of foetal stem cell research may be what is needed to achieve the necessary breakthroughs in adult stem cell research, which could go on to achieve the benefits that we are hoping for.
  Other sources of stem cells exist. Cells from umbilical cords of new-born babies are a source of stem cells, but, as far as we know, they are not of the same quality or of the same potential and so cannot be used as a substitute. Therefore, it seems that it is necessary to carry out that research. There are enough people who suffer from long-term medical conditions and it seems that embryonic stem cells are probably the way forward, so those two conditions are satisfied, but the next and overriding question is whether it is right.
  That puts me in a great dilemma as a doctor. Doctors are under a dual duty. On the one hand, we have Paré's dictum, which states that we should cure sometimes,

  233
  relieve often and comfort always. There is always the imperative on doctors to do what they can with whatever technology exists to try to alleviate the patient's suffering and, if possible, to cure them. On the other hand, we have the dictum of non-maleficence, the primum non nocere dictum—above all, do no harm. Therefore, we must ensure that we do the minimum harm not just to the patient but to society, and preferably no harm at all. That gives rise to a difficult moral dilemma because it raises issues as to whether it is morally right to carry out research on foetal cells to benefit other people.
  That debate will flow backwards and forwards. Many hon. Members have made excellent points already, but I dwell on the difference between reproductive and therapeutic cloning because that is fundamental. People have said to me that they do not want me to support the regulations because they mean experimenting on human beings—on embryonic cells. The question is whether the research actually involves experimenting on human beings. Obviously, hon. Members will have to arrive at an answer for themselves, but I do not believe that the research that I am particularly interested in—the nuclear replacement technology—cuts across that issue too closely.
  The reason for that is that the technique involves taking an unfertilised human egg. That egg in itself has no potential for being a human being. Women produce, on average, 12 eggs a year in their reproductive life, which is perhaps 25 or 30 years long. The vast majority of those eggs never achieve the status of being a human being. It would be impossible for them to do so. In the same way, men produce many millions of sperm every day, which again do not go on to produce human beings, so the human egg, in itself, is not a person.
  If we take out the nucleus from that cell so that it has no nucleus at all, but introduce a nucleus from an adult cell from someone suffering from Parkinson's disease for example, that also, in my opinion, does not create a human being. It creates a nucleus from an adult in an empty egg. That is a fundamental point. That is not a human being, either.
  If we develop those cells for six days into a blastocyst of perhaps 100 cells, that also is not a human being. If we take out the stem cells from that blastocyst and develop them into a stem cell line, those stem cells are not a human being, either. Those stem cells can be differentiated by a number of chemical techniques into any tissue in the body and can be reimplanted in the patient to replace cells that have been damaged or lost. Therefore, we have a great moral duty to ensure that we are as transparent, open and honest as possible. It is important to have these moral debates in the public eye so that our constituents and those who are interested can watch what we are doing.
  I have studied medical ethics in some detail and have been the chair of an ethics committee. Over many years, I was involved in these issues and debates and often had to make decisions about whether research was ethical and viable. When we talk about the cell nuclear replacement technique, we are not talking about research on human beings as such, and I do not believe that we are even talking about research on potential human beings. The caveats that my hon. Friend the Minister has already laid out mean that a cell whose nucleus has been replaced
  234
  would not have the potential to be a human being because it would be illegal to experiment beyond 14 days or to implant it into a womb where it could potentially give rise to life.
  Dr. Gibson: I am interested in what my hon. Friend is saying about what we can do now. Can he tell me why we should not produce 15 David Beckhams that I could use in the parliamentary football team and 659 Betty Boothroyds to service this place and the public? What is philosophically wrong with that?
  Dr. Stoate: The only answer to that is, "Perish the thought", but I do not want to make light of this because it is extremely serious. We must try to stick to the moral and ethical arguments.
  Mr. Frank Roy: On the serious question of what is or is not life, does my hon. Friend agree that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 treats embryos as entities, whereas the Donaldson report would break up the embryos for use as, for want of a better term, spare parts? Does my hon. Friend believe that, under the Donaldson report, the special status of the embryo is under threat?
  Dr. Stoate: I respect my hon. Friend's opinion. He has a deeply held view to which he is fully entitled, and I am listening carefully to views of that sort. We need to be careful about the moral issues. However, for the reasons that I have given, the nuclear cell replacement technique does not create a human being and so we do not have the same difficulties.
  Mr. Simon Thomas: For the benefit of those of us who are following his argument and trying to find our way in the middle ground, will the hon. Gentleman explain that the nuclear cell replacement technique, which he says does not give rise to a human being, is the same putative technique that could be used in cloning if it was allowed, although I accept that it is not? The fact that it is the same technique is what has given rise to so many difficulties for the public and it is why we must approach the issue with caution and concern.
  Dr. Stoate: That is an extremely valid point. It is important to air all these issues. It is right that Dolly the sheep was produced using this technique and it is theoretically possible for such work to be done. That is why it is important to ensure that the law, the framework and the policing mechanisms are watertight so that nobody will ever find out whether it is possible for the technique to produce a human being because nobody will be allowed to try. That is a matter of policing.
  Once the House has deliberated and reached a decision, it is up to the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority to ensure that the regulations are implemented in a watertight way. I am pleased that my hon. Friend the Minister has already laid out the framework under which a licence will be granted, with plenty of opportunity for policing. Each individual research project has to be justified and properly regulated and inspected.
  Dr. Iddon: Does my hon. Friend agree that cell nuclear transfer is the only hope for people suffering from any of the up to 50 mitochondrial diseases that have developed in society?
  Dr. Stoate: Exactly. My hon. Friend is a scientist and has made an excellent point. There are unusual

  235
  mitochondrial diseases of which we understand very little. This technique seems to be the only logical way forward if we are to make breakthroughs. For the reasons I have given, the many people suffering from chronic diseases with limited hope, will potentially benefit from this.
  The human body has an enormous capacity to regenerate and to replenish damaged cells. With degenerative disease, however, the disease process overwhelms the body's capacity to regenerate and to replace cells, leading to destruction. Therefore, the only hope for patients affected by such disease is a method of replacing those damaged cells. That is why we have to take this very difficult decision in a positive way, to ensure that research is made possible. Such research would benefit not necessarily the current generation of sufferers but the future generation of sufferers.
  For those reasons, I shall support the change. Although I have looked extremely hard at the issues and taken full account of the moral and ethical dimensions of the issue that have been expressed by hon. Members and members of the public, I as a scientist and a doctor believe that the potential benefit to humanity of such research far outweighs the many difficulties facing us in ensuring that the moral argument is not forgotten.
  5.10 pm
  Mr. Robert Key: I salute the Under-Secretary of State for Health, the hon. Member for Pontefract and Castleford (Yvette Cooper), who has shown unfailing courtesy, the patience of Job, accuracy and sensitivity in her speeches, and great clarity of purpose. That is more than can be said for the Government's business managers, who have shown all the forensic skill and delicate footwork that we have come to expect from a Whips Office struggling to get the business through with a majority of only a few hundred.
  The Minister has, no doubt without being aware of it, been fighting her own Whips on the issue. I cannot recall another occasion in my time in the House when at least one senior Government Whip, who is personally opposed to the measure, has been drumming up opposition and was heard to say in the presence of Opposition Members,
  "We can defeat this business."
  That is a novel line for a Government Whip.
  As Labour Members are at least as divided as Conservative Members and other Members on the issue, the prospect of inflicting the first defeat of this Parliament on the Government will, I suspect, be too great an opportunity to miss for many of my hon. Friends. I dare say, however, that, as usual, hon. Members who are in the Chamber taking a serious part in the debate are not those who fall into that category at all. Nevertheless, it is true that one of my hon. Friends recently said that he voted for the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990, but would not support the regulations until there had been more time for debate.
  Another hon. Friend said that she would not support the legislation because
  I do so hate all this stuff.
  Has the business been rushed through? No, I do not believe that it has. I believe, however, that it was a misjudgment to have two Friday debates. I also believe that there is no substitute for a mid-week, prime-time debate on this type of issue. I sympathise with the
  236
  Minister on that. It is also questionable, given opposition among Labour Members, that the Leader of the House and the Government Chief Whip have relied on the statutory instrument procedure.
  The business has not been rushed through. We have had the chief medical officer's report for five months. We should also not complain that the Government amended the regulations very swiftly in response to consultation. There have been masses of discussion about the subject in the national press and other media. I particularly single out for praise BBC News Online, which, since 16 August, has been carrying a debate and argument from all sides of the issue.
  Mr. Robert Jackson: Would my hon. Friend like also to draw attention to the very valuable briefs that hon. Members have received particularly from medical charities on the issue? We have received very extensive and full information from many concerned people.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is quite right. I would simply extend his comments to say that I am grateful for the many briefs that I have received from many quarters and from all types of people with whom I do not necessarily agree. It has been very helpful to have the views of particular denominations of the Christian faith, for example. It has been very helpful to me, as a fully paid-up member of the Church of England, to understand how other Christians think about the issue.
  Mr. Swayne: Do Church of England members believe in God?
  Mr. Key: Perhaps we can debate that on another occasion.
  There has also been a rewriting of history in relation to the issue. I admired very much the speech made last Friday by the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). It is wrong to think that there was no discussion or debate on human cloning 10 years ago, in the run-up to the passage of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990. There was a great deal of debate, as was noted a few moments ago. It was precisely because of the debate at the time, especially in the scientific community, that the Government of the day thought it wise to bring in the 1990 Act in the first place.
  Others have argued that we did not discuss the moral or ethical dimensions properly. We did, and at very great length. The hon. Member for Bolton, West said on 15 December:
  it is clear from reading these debates that no one envisaged that the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 would also allow human cloning to take place—[Official Report, 15 December 2000; Vol. 359, c. 899.]
  In fact, we did discuss that, as it was perfectly clear that things were moving in the direction of cloning, even though the matter was not covered in the 1990 Act.
  I served on the Standing Committee considering the 1990 Act as it passed through the House, and I can confirm that many of the moral and ethical dimensions were considered.
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: Does my hon. Friend recall, from the debates on the 1980 Act, that my

  237
  right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) ruled out human cloning? He said that the legislation was not about human cloning and would not include it. At the time, human cloning was the equivalent of science fiction.
  Mr. Key: My hon. Friend is wrong to suggest that human cloning was science fiction at that time. It was not. I was the lay member of the Medical Research Council at the time, and human cloning was far from being science fiction. Indeed, the scientific community in 1990—I am sure that my hon. Friend made a slip when she referred to the 1980 Act—was asking Parliament to help it get to grips with the issue.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) merely reinforces what I was saying, because my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Rushcliffe (Mr. Clarke) made the positive decision not to include cloning in the 1990 Act, because it was judged that no one—not scientists, Parliament or the country—was yet ready. That is why we have had to return to the matter now, and why the 1990 Act was designed in such a way that it contained a mechanism that would allow the House to go straight back to the matter. That is what we are doing now.
  I return to the point about the debate held 10 years ago. I found the minutes of the meeting of the public affairs unit of the centre of medical law and ethics at King's College, London. The meeting was chaired by Professor I.M. Kennedy, who was assisted by Dr. Sophie Botros, a lecturer in medical ethics. For month after month, Members of both this House and of the other place met to discuss the issues surrounding the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. The agenda for the meeting of 31 January 1990 contained three items:

  1. The 14 day limit on embryo research: what is its moral justification, what are its legal implications? How does it relate to the person/chattel distinction in law?

  2. How do we define infertility and genetic abnormality? What are the moral implications?

  3. Should children be allowed to know of their genetic origins (the moral and legal perspective)?

  We had debates and briefings on research on
  "specially created" or only "spare" pre-embryos,
  and on the
  moral Status of the Embryo.
  In the run-up to the 1990 legislation, those hon. Members who so chose could be fully appraised of the issues.
  This morning, I received an e-mail. It contained no address, so I do not yet know whether it came from a constituent, but it sums up the problems that many constituents raise. It states:
  I am very concerned about the unrelenting pressure that a few scientists and pharmaceutical companies are putting on legislators, like yourself, to approve Embryonic Stem Cell Cloning (also called cell nuclear replacement). They are using carefully selected statements rather than the whole truth to convince Parliament that their vested interests are for the common good. This is a terrible abuse of democracy.
  My correspondent went on to say that the technology is unnecessary, but that is not the case. More than 100 charities and patient groups are fighting desperately
  238
  for the Bill tonight it. Thousands of people in each constituency will be affected by the legislation in their lifetimes.
  Of course it is wrong to suggest that the technology is unnecessary. I have considered the issue of adult stem cells very carefully and come to the conclusion that because they do not differentiate as much as embryonic cells, that is a severe medical and scientific disadvantage. We do not quite know how to explain it, but if I understand it rightly—and I defer to the scientists present—it is a bit like taking photocopies. After a time they start running out of toner and getting a bit dim. That is one of the problems of the system, to use a commonplace analogy.
  I hope that we will take a civilised view, like any civilised country, and build up a bank of 20 or 30 stem cell lines which could be used as a renewable resource, rather like a blood bank. It is accepted that we have blood banks, which differentiate the different blood groups. The Medical Research Council has offered up to 50 such stem cell lines, because that is what is needed to overcome different immuno-responses.
  A number of people are concerned about the policing aspect. I have thought very carefully about that. I know what happens in scientific communities; for 17 years, I have had the honour to represent Porton Down. If anyone thought that they were going to get away with anything, it would not last long, even under the Official Secrets Act, at Porton Down. Conspiracies never work, in my experience. Speaking as a former Minister, I can tell the House that the cock-up theory of Government always wins. However, in the scientific community, where there is peer pressure and peer review, conspiracies are attempted and fail They never work—someone always blows the whistle.
  I shall not repeat my views on therapeutic cloning. I spoke in the debate in November. I made my views very clear and have published them on my website ever since, for all to see. I have, of course, consulted my bishop and the Bishop of Oxford, and I agree with them. We take the developmental view that human life is a continuum. I cannot say that human life starts at any particular moment, but I distinguish between human tissue and a human person.
  Incidentally, the Bishop of Salisbury is concerned that the Government should reassure us that the benefits of stem cell therapeutic cloning will eventually be available to all on the national health service, not just to those who can pay. I hope that the Minister can confirm that. I go further than the bishop in seeking an assurance from the Minister that the benefits of any new therapy resulting from cloning will be available to all, and that there will be no postcode rationing and no need to refer it to the National Institute for Clinical Excellence.
  I am also convinced that not everything that can be done by science should be done by science, and that is where Parliament comes in. I believe, too, that the moral arguments for and against permitting research using human embryos turn on the status accorded to the pre-14-day embryo. I have no doubt that they are human, but are they human tissue or human persons?
  As I said in the debate on 17 November, I share the view of the former Archbishop of York, John Habgood, who has argued that the value that we attach to the lives of human beings—a value that is the root of all morality—

  239
  increases as human life develops, and that we are therefore entitled, morally, to hold the life of a recently fertilised egg as less to be protected than that of a foetus at a later stage or a baby when it is born. The archbishop argued that not only is that morally acceptable, it is in fact what we do. Can those who think that there should be no distinction or degrees of human sanctity explain why we have saints?
  Nature is profligate. We do not mourn for wasted sperm and eggs, alive though they are, nor for the three quarters of fertilised eggs that are lost before implant, half of which are genetically impaired. As the Bishop of Oxford has said:
  If every fertilised egg was indeed a soul, that is, an immortal spiritual reality created independently of the biological process, then, according to these figures, three quarters of heaven would be populated by souls that lived for less than a week. This does not seem congruous with what we know of a God who has chosen to create persons through a process of development.
  What of the slippery slope argument? First, it depends on whether we believe that the slope is going up or down. For science, the slope is mostly uphill—two steps forward and one step back. Even if one believes that the slope is downhill, if the first step is taken it is not inevitable that the next step should follow. Is it morally right to prohibit that first step? In logic, there is certainly no need—no necessity demands that second or third steps should follow the first—but that is Parliament's job and, in general, it has been well done.
  Considering not the religious but the ethical or moral view, I can do no better than quote Baroness Warnock, who has written:
  We are not nothing but our genes. We must recognise that we are conscious beings able to form our own purposes, with powers both to understand and to control the laws of biology, as well as of physics. It may be our moral duty to scrutinise, criticise and regulate the projects of biological scientists in the light of our concept of a common good. It cannot be our moral duty to repress and prohibit altogether the exercise of their inventive and creative genius.
  I believe that the human intellectual abilities that allow us to understand and manipulate our world are God-given powers. To scientific knowledge and the powers that it confers, we must add wisdom to accept the good and refuse the bad. The benefits that may be achieved in healing the sick in this case outweigh the down side of using cells that may have the potential for a full human life. If we can hold out hope for some alleviation of the miseries of diseases such as Alzheimer's then, being human, we have a duty to do so. If that involves cell transplants or genetic manipulation, let us pursue such goals. Let us recognise that in changing some genes in some human beings we are not changing human nature.
  As the Bishop of Oxford said on "Thought for the Day" last Friday, we are not playing at being God—we are being human. A human being does what human beings should do, which is to show a sense of respect for the miracle of human life and use our miraculous capacity to make human life better.
  5.27 pm
  Mr. Mike Gapes: It is a real pleasure to follow that speech from the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key). He has spoken so much sense that many of us will keep our remarks much shorter than they would otherwise have been.
  240
  As someone who has not had an opportunity to speak on the issue because I was away with a Select Committee on Friday when the debate was held, I want to offer the perspective of someone who has seen members of his family suffer from Alzheimer's disease, diabetes and cancer, but who has been lobbied vigorously in the past few weeks by a variety of organisations.
  I am not surprised that I am being targeted by the Society for the Protection of Unborn Children yet again. It has done so several times at different elections and it will no doubt do so again. However, I take offence when I receive a letter that suggests why we are debating the issue today, stating that it is
  a matter of grievous concern that the Government should have selected dates for the debate and the vote on an issue of such profound ethical importance when many MPs may have left for the Christmas recess.
  That was from Phyllis Bowman of the Right to Life campaign. For her information, I and many other hon. Members will be working hard to represent our constituents throughout the year. She may have long Christmas recesses, but some of us have casework and letters to respond to, including those that she has incited for many weeks.
  I have received correspondence, as no doubt have many hon. Members, from constituents who ask me please to vote against human cloning. I am delighted to be able to say that I shall do so on many occasions. If the vote today—on the basis of what the Minister said earlier—is also a vote against human cloning, I will vote against cloning today. However, I will also support stem cell research. The two are very different. Unfortunately, some people who are campaigning against the proposal are deliberately confusing and muddying the waters, which leads people to believe that we are going to create a human Dolly the sheep through our vote today. Many people have already explained why that is completely untrue—so I shall not repeat what has been said. However, it would be helpful if some pressure groups and organisations considered the facts of an issue, rather than trying to whip up the fears and prejudices that are so easy to foster because people are afraid of science.
  The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) tried to clarify three positions on the issue, although many of us think that there are many positions and that the world is more complicated than he portrayed it. He said that he would vote against the proposals. In that case, what does he think that we should do with the 273,000 embryos created through in vitro fertilisation, which are destroyed and not used for any purpose? Is he saying that we should not use IVF?
  Constituents tell me that they are desperate to have a child, after years of effort; they want the local health authority to agree to further national health service expenditure on IVF. A consequence of IVF is a large number of "surplus" embryos. At present, they are not used in any way to benefit anybody, yet—so we understand—there is a potential for medical research that might lead to benefits for people suffering from Alzheimer's disease, cancer or diabetes.
  Dr. Gibson: The number of such embryos is about 30,000 a year. That gives us a large choice, because we need only about 500 for the work we are discussing.
  Mr. Gapes: I am grateful for that information from my hon. Friend, who knows more about the matter than me.

  241
  These issues are difficult for Members of Parliament, but we do not live in a theocracy; we live in a multicultural, multi-religious and secular society. At times, we have to use our own judgment—regardless of the correspondence we receive or the pressure put on us by particular lobbies or groups. The political consequences of that may not always be easy, but it is the only course that Members of Parliament can follow on matters of conscience such as this. For those reasons I shall proudly support the motion, as I have also said on my website—to follow the hon. Member for Salisbury. The proposals are in the interests of millions of people in this country and potentially throughout the world. The legislation will lead to a better life and future for families.
  5.33 pm
  Mrs. Ann Winterton: An editorial in The Daily Telegraph today puts in context precisely why so many people in the House and outside it believe that these important matters should have been introduced through primary legislation. If you will allow me, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I shall quote briefly from the editorial:
  When, in 1990, the law was changed to permit embryo research, cloning was still science fiction; there was no debate about its ethics. It was never Parliament's intention to allow cloning, even if it had been conceivable. The new regulations are being presented as if they merely clarified the existing law, whereas in reality they mark a radical departure from it. This is a serious abuse of parliamentary procedure.
  I could not have put it better myself.
  I have no doubt whatever that a vast majority of those who will vote in favour of the instrument will do so in the genuine belief that it holds the greatest promise for scientists to find cures for many genetic diseases and other disorders that beset our society. However, I passionately believe that they are wrong and that they are being misled. We must consider the evidence. The evidence available to the House suggests that it verges on the nonsensical for us to believe the many claims that embryos are the most likely source of stem cells for treatments for such diseases. Many scientific papers have been published showing that adult stem cells are already proving of great value in treatments for several disorders—for example, cancer, heart abnormalities and degenerative diseases, including Parkinson's.
  Dr. Gibson: Can the hon. Lady tell us how those cells have been helpful in cancer research? Cord cells, which come from blood systems, work on leukaemia, but they are no good for any other cancers. Which is she referring to?
  Mrs. Winterton: The hon. Gentleman refers to an important area of research into cancers. I shall write to him if he wants other examples, but he has cited an important field, and I assume that he agrees that leukaemia is classified as a cancer. I have no doubt that he would be pleased that progress is being made using umbilical cord tissue. That is an ethical way forward, and it is to be welcomed.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: I should like to make a little progress, then I will certainly give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  242
  Some scientists claim that the use of adult stem cells will not involve the complications that could arise with embryonic stem cells. As long ago as February this year, a paper in Science magazine made it clear that adult stem cells could be easier to manage and, if transplanted to their normal environment—for example, brain cells into brain tissue—would produce only the cell types necessary for that tissue. Perhaps that is not so flexible as embryo stem cell methods, but it is probably more effective.
  Dr. Harris: We would all welcome the potential that adult stem cell research shows, but can the hon. Lady cite the names of any of the scientists involved in such research who believe that the other avenues that might aid their work should be closed? I have found no statement to that effect from those scientists. On the contrary, they know that they rely on insights from embryological research to carry out their work. Indeed, the greater the potential of adult cells, the more necessary they think insights from embryological research to be.
  Mrs. Winterton: It is perfectly obvious that scientists who have an interest—vested and otherwise—in carrying out such research will never want that avenue to be closed, but many distinguished scientists in this country, America and Europe would disagree with the view that the hon. Gentleman espouses. [Interruption.] The hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) is not sure about that, but I can assure him that many papers have been published in distinguished scientific journals that bear out that point.
  We have already lived through a similar debate. In fact, I have a strong sense of déà vu; we have previously examined claims similar to those being fired at us today in connection with the justification of cloning. The previous occasion was in 1990, when the House debated the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Bill. Many promises were made, but nothing of any substance has ever materialised. On this occasion, however, a different tack will be adopted; from now on, my colleagues and I will make a point of regularly checking the claims and promises with which we are being bombarded today.
  Dr. Starkey: The hon. Lady will know that the original legislation allows research mostly to improve assisted reproduction. Is she suggesting that there has been no improvement in the success rate of assisted reproduction in the intervening period? Is she denying the value of the research that has ensured that assisted reproduction is more successful than it used to be?
  Mrs. Wintertont: Assisted reproduction is little more successful than it used to be. [Interruption.] It may be more successful not because of the research that has been done, but because more cases are being funded by health authorities and more is being done. It is a cruel hoax to think that it is the answer for people facing fertility problems. It seems such a shame that the main cause of infertility—life style—should not have more research into it. [Interruption.] This is perfectly true.
  Dr. Gibson: Whose life style? Single parents'?
  Mrs. Winterton: No.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. Lady, but the hon. Member for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) must contain himself. We do not want that element entering the debate.
  Mrs. Winterton: I should also like to say to the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) that the numbers of cases of infertility have not fallen. Perhaps that also shows that the research has not been as successful as she would like to imply. Bearing in mind the fact that many hon. Members want to speak—
  Fiona Mactaggart: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: No, I will not give way because I am in the middle of a sentence. Perhaps the hon. Lady might like to resume her seat—thank you. [Interruption.] I am sorry, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I apologise; I should not be playing your role. I was in the middle of saying that although many Members are trying to intervene, I should like to make some progress, which would allow others to make their contributions.
  I feel as though I am in the middle of a horrible Grimm—in more ways than one—fairy story. It is both untrue and unspeakably cruel to tell families who suffer from genetic disease and other problems that a vote against cloning is a vote against providing them with any hope for the future. Our hearts must go out to those who plead, "Do not deny us a chance to be cured." Those at the Department of Health know full well that that is not so. Professor Donaldson himself has made it clear, when he told us:
  it is the view of the Expert Group that the long-term promise of stem cells from adult tissue could equal or surpass that of embryonic stem cells.
  There is no evidence, other than wishful thinking, that research on human clones can kick-start that process.
  Whence have we obtained evidence that stem cells hold such great promise? The evidence comes from successful experimentation in the use of adult stem cells, and from nothing else. We are confident only because of the successful work that has already been done with adult stem cells. Here I must add that, so far, we have no evidence—none whatever has been forthcoming—of whether embryo stem cells will achieve what is required and what has been predicted. We must therefore ask ourselves why we find the public and the press bombarded with cruel stories that those of us who oppose cloning are denying the sick their greatest hope for cures.
  Ms Glenda Jackson: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. Winterton: I will not give way; I am continuing with my speech.
  I have been involved in these matters for many years and therefore have little doubt that money is involved: the crude commercial potential that the use of the human embryo will open up to our £50 billion science industry.
  Every human embryo is a miracle. As we have said before in these debates, he or she initiates, controls, sustains and directs his or her own development. Although the embryo is no bigger than a pin point, every kind of cell and tissue that is necessary for skin, muscles, bones, nerves and organs is there from the start.
  244
  It is because of those properties that each embryo holds such promise for the biotechnological and other sections of our science industry. The industry could make enormous profits if it were able to extract cells for use in medicine, pharmaceuticals and biotechnology, but I find horrifying the manner in which we are held to ransom by its misleading claims. They are nothing less than disingenuous and a cruel hoax on those who are most vulnerable—those suffering from degenerative and other diseases, who understandably seek an instant cure for their condition.
  If we lose the vote, I have no intention of going away. Month in and month out I will be joined by colleagues, and others in another place, to table and publicise questions on work with adult stem cells and on research on the human embryo and his brother or sister the clone. We have a remarkable number of friends in the scientific and medical community, and I know that they will join us in ensuring that we see every published paper. We will make a point of drawing them to the attention of the House and the public as a whole.
  I draw attention to the claims made, primarily by members of the Government, that they have heard from families and the victims of disease—the people who have to carry the burden. I, too, have heard from such people and those who have written to me have made it abundantly clear that they are appalled by the idea of cloning or of using embryonic stem cells in their treatment. I have certainly heard from groups such as the Parkinson's Disease Society, but the people suffering from Parkinson's disease who have written to me complain that the society has never written to its members or groups to consult them and to check on their feelings on the issue.
  I well remember disabled people coming to the House in 1990 to lobby in favour of the use of embryos for experiments. Without exception, they had all been assured that embryo research would provide them with cures and, without exception, the same cruel hoax was played on them. They were used in a callous and unscrupulous way as a means to an end.
  I repeat what I said earlier and in other debates. To treat people who are suffering as so much fodder in a campaign that denies them the facts is, to my mind, cruel. Neither my colleagues nor I will stop trying to make those who are responsible for the present propaganda ultimately having to answer for their claims.
  The course that the Government are pursuing with so much determination, despite the opposition of so many in the House and outside, is an affront to the dignity of human life and flies in the face of the traditional Judaeo-Christian moral ethos of our nation.
  5.46 pm
  Mrs. Anne Campbell: I do not want to detain the House long, because I had the opportunity to speak on Friday. I reiterate that I approach this issue as someone whose mother suffered for 34 years from Parkinson's disease. I know at first hand what a terrible disease it is.
  Although current therapies and treatments can relieve the symptoms of the disease to a great extent, they do not cure it. When my mother stopped taking the drugs, the symptoms of the disease returned even worse than before. Although she appeared to be getting better, the disease

  245
  was progressing. The drugs simply relieved the symptoms, and that is true of many degenerative diseases. We have drugs that will cope with the symptoms, but we do not have drugs that attack the disease itself. Research holds out the hope of providing them.
  Over the past few days, I have talked to many hon. Members because of my anxiety to see the regulations accepted. Not only my mother but two of my aunts suffered from Parkinson's disease, so I consider myself very vulnerable. I want to be certain that, when or if I ever develop the symptoms of the disease, there will be hope of a cure.
  People have asked me how much hope we can pin on the research. One of the problems is that we do not know that the research will ultimately lead to a cure. In fact, if we knew that, we would not have to carry out the research. It is uncertainty that we are trying to explore. There is a degree of uncertainty, and only by carrying out the research can we resolve the doubts and problems.
  Other people have told me, "Even if the research can produce a cure, it will take at least 10 years." The implication is that we should not bother if it is to take that long. In 10 years' time, I would find it hard to say to someone who had developed the symptoms of the disease that we did not take a decision now when we could have done so. It is terribly important that we make the right decision today to allow the research to progress.
  Several Members have remarked that if we do not pass the regulations, the research will be done elsewhere. I am sure that it will be done elsewhere, and I find that rather frightening because this country's regulation of such research is probably the best in the world. We have the Conservatives to thank for that, because they passed the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act in 1990 and provided a sound basis for the research that continues today. I am sure that such research will be done abroad, but I want it to be done in this country.
  Dr. Michael Clark: If the research were to be done abroad, that would of course be disappointing for science in this country. Does the hon. Lady agree that it would also be moral hypocrisy to allow the research to be done abroad and then to use its findings in this country after we had failed to pass the regulations?
  Mrs. Campbell: I could not agree more. The words "moral hypocrisy" would describe such a situation very well. As with other research, such as that conducted on animals, many people do not want embryo research to be done in this country but are prepared to derive the benefits from research done abroad. That is hypocrisy.
  People have asked me how we can trust scientists. That is difficult because there is a mistrust of scientists, possibly because of the disasters that we have all experienced, such as the BSE crisis. However, those who study such matters will know that the BSE crisis was due not to scientists but to people who did not listen to scientists and those who refused to fund scientists' important research into scrapie-like diseases. If we had continued that research we might have found a solution to the BSE problem much earlier.
  A constituent rang me at lunchtime and asked me to make the point—because he did not think it had been made in the House—that adult stem cells could be used
  246
  instead of embryonic stem cells. I told him that the issue had been fully debated in the House last Friday and on Friday 17 November. I also said that although adult stem cells offer great hope for the future, they do not offer a solution at present, and more research into embryonic stem cells is needed to understand the processes by which adult stem cells may be used. I still hold that view, and I told him that that was what I would say in the debate. I am pleased that I have had the opportunity to say it.
  We should continue the research, and I implore hon. Members to vote for the regulations.
  5.53 pm
  Mr. David Wilshire: Like the hon. Member for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes), tonight I plan to follow my conscience rather than my mailbag, which is why I welcome the opportunity to put my conclusions on the record. If in doing so I help one or two other hon. Members, that will be a huge bonus.
  I am not a scientist, a medical professional or an expert on morals and ethics, but like my hon. Friend the Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), I served on the Standing Committee that considered the Bill that became the 1990 Act. I am also a committed Christian—a very bad one, but a seriously committed one none the less. However, it did not occur to me to consult the bishop of Spelthorne, as my hon. Friend consulted his bishop. It is in those two capacities—as a member of that Committee and as a committed Christian —that I wish to speak now. My views are entirely my own and are personal, and I make absolutely no claim to speak for anybody else.
  When I served on the Standing Committee, I found myself in a curious position. At various times, I voted with those who were for experimentation and with those who were against it because I could not persuade myself that all experimentation was wrong as a matter of principle. However, I found myself wanting to hedge it about with adequate and very strict safeguards. Looking back, I believe that that is exactly what we achieved in 1990.
  Like my hon. Friend, during those Committee proceedings, I thought long and hard as we debated what it is that makes us human. We found ourselves debating when our humanity begins, and I have wondered about that since. Does it begin when the first two independent cells fuse together or when we finally become capable of independent existence? Does it begin somewhere between those two extremes? As is so often the case with such conundrums, it is far easier to categorise the two extremes than the grey area that lies between.
  I concluded then and continue to believe that a small bundle of cells has yet to acquire the essence of our humanity—what some people choose to call a soul. I freely admit that I have not the slightest idea when that change happens, but I am persuaded that it does not offend against our humanity to use human embryonic cells in the first few days of their existence in the way proposed in the regulations, provided that—I stress the words "provided that"—the use of those cells is for the benefit of humankind and is strictly controlled.
  Ten years on, I have no regrets that are relevant to this debate, but I have one anxiety about what has been taking place in the past few weeks and what is happening today. As a committed Christian, I am always profoundly uncomfortable when I hear other equally committed

  247
  Christians advance absolutist conclusions to moral dilemmas. I have to say in passing, however, that I envy them in one respect: I would lose a great deal less sleep if I could see such issues in black and white because I would be spared the huge amount of agonising that I do over the seemingly infinite number of shades of grey, which is what we are confronting.
  The moral dimension of the debate, however, requires me to attempt to balance two seemingly contradictory imperatives. On the one hand, I readily accept the duty to respect human life. For me, all human life is sacred, which means that I need to think long and hard about using human embryos for experimental purposes. On the other hand, I equally accept the duty to care for the sick. Those who argue that such experimentation as we are considering tonight could help people who suffer from, for example, Huntington's or Parkinson's disease, need to be taken very seriously.
  Just as in 1990, I believe that somehow or other I must strike a balance between two competing moral imperatives. As I am neither a scientist nor a medical professional, who am I to judge the merits of scientists' claims? The best that I can do is to ask myself whether I am entitled to stand in their way if they really believe that they can help humanity through their research and if they are willing to accept the strictest controls that we will impose on them. As I am not an expert on morals or ethics, who am I to offer a definitive view of what is right and what is wrong? The best that I can do is to ask myself whether I am entitled to allow my subjective religious views to stand in the way of those who desperately need a cure for their suffering.
  My personal conclusion is that I shall vote for the draft regulations, having first given notice to the House and to anyone else who will listen to me that scientists, medical professionals and the Government of the day must implement the strictest possible controls, that those must be kept under constant review, and be observed and enforced to the letter.
  6 pm
  Fiona Mactaggart: I am glad to follow the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), my constituency neighbour. A letter that I wrote to a community of nuns in Slough reads:
  One of the things that I envy in people like the members of your community, who have a faith, is that you have the comfort of having certainty about these questions. I have to try to work out how to balance the different arguments and I am still struggling with that.
  As most Members will know, I concluded that struggle and spoke about it on Friday. It has been strange. I suppose I came out, as some would call it, as having multiple sclerosis. It is known that I am infertile. It is odd that I have suddenly been treated, in the words of The Times, as the "disabled MP". I have become defined by my condition. When we decide on these issues, we need to ensure that we do not let that happen. We must ensure that people with disabilities have rights, and that their rights and views are respected.
  I was upset by the speech of the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), in which she said that most people who are infertile are guilty of something called life style. It is true that sexually transmitted diseases lead to infertility in many instances, but there are many other reasons for it. Many people who have a restrained life
  248
  style acquire sexually transmitted diseases. I admire the energy with which my hon. Friend Minister for Public Health is tackling that issue.
  We must ensure that we do not allow ourselves to be pushed off course by a debate that does not form the basis on which a decision should be made. Strangely, most of the discussion on this subject in the newspapers has been about cloning. We shall vote on a set of regulations that simply allow three more purposes for research of embryonic material. Those are to increase knowledge about the development of embryos; to increase knowledge about serious diseases; and to enable any such knowledge to be applied in developing treatments for serious disease.
  Let us consider the purposes for which such research is already permitted. It is already permitted to improve the efficacy of contraception and to deal with infertility and genetically inherited diseases, but it is not permitted to deal with many of the other diseases which, we have learned through stem cell research, could be subject to substantial new treatment.
  Whatever our view, if we accept the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 and the existing regulations, it would be unforgivable not to vote for the proposed extension. Members have rightly been worried about the potential of cell nuclear replacement, but it has been said this afternoon that that could not lead to a developed human being. Although that is scientifically impossible now, it is not conceptually impossible. However, it is illegal. We need to be honest with ourselves and recognise that there is a difference between something being impossible and something being illegal.
  In theory, cell nuclear replacement could lead to a developed human being. That is why we are all anxious, and why we are discussing that possibility rather than what the debate is supposed to be about. It is right for Members to urge the Minister to seek primary legislation at an early opportunity, before the theoretical possibility becomes a real one. We are all deeply concerned about the theoretical possibility and about ensuring that the rigorous protection that exists in the 1990 Act is backed up and strengthened further by primary legislation. I believe that we should be talking to other countries about their framework for research. In Britain, we have pioneered a framework that provides that, in every case, the scientist must show that there is no substitute for embryonic material. That is the right way to deal with these matters because the embryo deserves special status.
  Apart from Members, such as the hon. Member for Congleton, who think that there is never any reason to carry out research on embryos, none of us can in conscience vote against the regulations. We can, however, continue to press the Department to introduce primary legislation at the earliest opportunity.
  6.6 pm
  Dr. Michael Clark: At this stage of the debate, many of the things that one wants to say have already been said. Prior to the debate, I read the speeches that were made on Friday. I found the Minister's speech on Friday illuminating, as I did the speeches of my Select Committee colleagues, the hon. Members for Norwich, North (Dr. Gibson) and for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon), who are experts on these matters. They were able to put a strong scientific emphasis on all that we are now debating.

  249
  Last Friday and today, the Minister told us about embryonic stem cells and the fact that they are pluripotent. They are therefore capable of generating brain cells, heart muscle, skin tissue and nervous tissue, all of which is important for finding cures for appalling degenerative diseases, such as multiple sclerosis, muscular dystrophy, Parkinson's disease, cancer, stroke and Alzheimer's.
  We accept that embryo stem cells may have a special status compared with adult stem cells. We would all prefer, as the Minister and others said, to be able to use adult stem cells for research if that were possible, but there are limitations. If there were no limitations and we could do all that we want to do with adult stem cells, I would vote against the regulations, as I suspect the Minister probably would. It is because we do not have confidence that we can do all that we want with adult stem cells that we must ensure that there are proper regulations to allow us to continue work with embryo stem cells.
  I understand that there are moral issues; of course there are. However, science has always troubled people; it has always upset the establishment and challenged the status quo. When Galileo looked beyond the hills and through the clouds, he was accused of looking for heaven. When Darwin decided that he would explain how we came about, and said that it was not through creation but through evolution, he, too, got into trouble with the establishment and the Church. I dare say that those two were accused in their day of playing God.
  The self-appointed assessors of science now, if they approve of scientific work, say, "Aren't scientists humanitarian? Isn't it marvellous how science can extend life and the quality of life?" However, if they do not like the scientists' work, they say that the scientists are playing God—the ultimate disapproval. Yet those scientists who ensured that we had purified drinking water, developed pharmaceutical drugs, ensured greater crop yields or pioneered life-saving operations seem to be excused from the charge of playing God. But they were doing just the same—assisting human beings to have a better life than they would have if nature were left to run its course.
  We must accept that science is a continuum. One cannot pick and mix in science. One can stop science and make a break anywhere along the line of scientific development, but not without repercussions somewhere along the continuum of the scientific chain. I accept that there must be some limitations on scientific development, but any limitation must be justified. We must say why science should be limited and the case for limiting it must be strong.
  The word "science" means knowledge. It is the study of nature and everything around us. Scientific knowledge has been accumulated over a long time: it was gleaned in small quantities; gained in greater quantities; stored, amplified and conjoined with other information until it was developed and could be turned to practical use.
  I accept that some practical uses are not good and should not be further developed. However, as human beings, we have the ability to judge between good and bad, to choose and to decide, as we are doing in this debate. But—and it is a very big "but"—there is another type of morality that comes from having knowledge and information that can cure, but not using it. It is a serious
  250
  moral issue when information that can help people who are distressed with disease is available but not used. It poses not just a moral issue, but a moral dilemma.
  My pro-life friends and constituents are against therapeutic research using embryo stem cells. I respect their views and hope that they will respect mine. I am sorry to disappoint them tonight, when I vote in favour of the regulations. If I voted against the regulations, I might please some of my pro-life constituents, but I would disappoint many, many constituents who are suffering from degenerative diseases and have written to tell me that this research is their only hope of progress. People in their 20s and 30s hope that, within the next 20 or 30 years, something might alleviate their suffering.
  I disagree with my hon. Friend the Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), who said that we are playing a hoax on these people. We promise to try, but we never promise to succeed. If we do not promise to try, we will never succeed. I do not believe that we are hoaxing people and they do not believe it, either. They know that we will do our best; they will give us time and be patient. God knows that they have been patient long enough, given the suffering that they have had to endure.
  I say to the pro-life people that, in my attitude to abortion and euthanasia, I have tried to show that I respect life. However, I am also pro-life with respect to those who are already born and who are suffering. That is just as pro-life as being pro-life in respect of small embryos and cell clusters, about which others may speak.
  I know that many other hon. Members want to speak, so I shall conclude by dealing with IVF treatment, to which the Minister and others referred. The hon. Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate) has left the Chamber, but I greatly enjoyed and appreciated his speech.
  The Minister told us on Friday and again today that, of the 750,000 embryos that were created between 1991 and 1998, 48,000 were used in research and 237,000 were destroyed. They were produced to help infertile couples to have children, and were later destroyed. That was the decision of those who donated the embryos and it must be respected. We all know that more than one embryo is required if IVF is to have any chance of succeeding. Five or six embryos may be necessary, and four or five will, by definition, be wasted. If no embryo can be created unless it is allowed to develop to its full term, we must, to all intents and purposes, stop IVF now. IVF cannot proceed on the basis of guaranteeing that every single embryo goes full term and becomes a human being.
  I suspect that most people do not want to stop IVF. Even some hon. Members who will vote against the measure tonight may still believe that IVF treatment should continue. If so, what is the logic of continuing with IVF treatment, producing 237,000 embryos more than we need, and destroying them rather than allowing them to be used for research that could benefit others?
  For those who suffer from degenerative diseases, and in the expectation that stem cell research will help them, I shall vote in favour it of the regulations tonight.
  6.16 pm
  Mr. Bill Tynan: I am grateful for the opportunity to participate in an important debate. The fact that so many hon. Members are in the Chamber this evening demonstrates the huge interest in the subject both

  251
  in the House and in our constituencies. The telephone calls and correspondence that I have received also demonstrate the importance of the issue.
  If there is a cure for today's dreadful diseases, I certainly want to be part of it. However, a decision seems to have been taken that there is only one route—developing embryonic stem cell research. I disagree. I believe that adult stem cell research is an option that we should embrace. We seem to have given up the hope that we can develop from adult stem cells cures for today's diseases.
  Having listened with great interest to this afternoon's debate, I do not want us to re-run the debate on the 1990 Act. We should debate how we see the way forward. We have spoken today about increasing knowledge about the creation and development of embryos, increasing knowledge about diseases and enabling any such knowledge to be applied in the development of treatments for disease. I support that. However, the argument is about whether we proceed on the basis of embryo research or of adult stem research.
  The study of adult stem cells over the past 30 years has clearly demonstrated that many adult tissues contain stem cells. However, such stem cells have been thought capable of producing only cells that are proper to that tissue. It was not thought that such cells could be reprogrammed. More recently, pluripotent stem cells have been discovered in various types of human tissue—bone marrow, brain, connective tissue of various organs and umbilical cord blood cells. Those cells are capable of producing different types of cells, mainly blood cells, muscle cells and nerve cells. As the British Medical Association has reported, the findings raise the possibility that adult stem cells might some day be coached to grow into organs, regenerate damaged tissue or reconstitute the immune system. The problem of immune rejection might be circumvented if an individual's own cells could be used.
  In June, Science magazine reported:
  The more research is done, the more scientists seem to realise the potential of adult stem cells. They are able to turn into different types of muscle and nerve i.e. they are pluripotent. Swedish scientists have discovered that stem cells from bone marrow have grown into nerve cells. Blood-producing stem cells can grow into muscle cells, and vice versa.
  Adult stem cell research is progressing at enormous speed and has moved on significantly, even since the publication of the Donaldson report. Increasingly, this research is demonstrating that adult stem cells may have the potential to be as effective as embryonic stem cells. Professor Donaldson himself, reporting on research carried out on adult stem cells in mice, said that the research
  contradicts the conventional wisdom that stem cells derived from adult tissue have restricted potential to differentiate.
  A number of arguments have been put forward in favour of adult stem cell research. First, it has been increasingly demonstrated that adult stem cell research rivals embryonic stem cell research in its capacity to provide a wide variety of tissue. Studies in recent years suggest that stem cells in different adult tissues may be more similar than previously thought and, perhaps, in some cases have a development repertoire close to that of embryonic stem cells. It has increasingly been demonstrated that an adult neural stem cell has a very broad developmental capacity, and could, be used to generate a variety of cell types for transplantation in different diseases.
  252
  Italian scientists have revealed that adult neural stem cells have been found to be unexpectedly pliable, and have been successfully converted into muscle tissue. Stem cells from the brains of adult mice were reprogrammed to behave like muscle cells, by being placed in close proximity to mature muscle cells.
  It is important that we examine all the options. There has been a tremendous debate, but the regulations have been introduced on the basis that the only alternative is for embryonic stem cell research to be used. I ask hon. Members to consider putting funding into adult stem cell research, as I believe that that would result in some success.
  6.22 pm
  Dr. Evan Harris: The speech by the Minister for Public Health was one of the best speeches that I have heard, in what I accept is my short time here, in terms of her grasp of a complex subject and the clarity with which she put her case. That was extremely helpful.
  May I also say, on behalf of some of those who urged the Minister to do so, that it was wise and sensitive of her to have amended the regulations slightly, to make it clear that we were talking about research into serious diseases, rather than carte blanche for medical research generally? The proposals contain a balance of benefits. Even those who take a different view of them will accept that.
  We heard powerful speeches from the hon. Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), on both Friday and today. We also heard persuasive and clear arguments from the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton) and, on Friday, from the hon. Member for Bolton, West (Ms Kelly). It is useful that the Minister heard those contributions, because certain issues will come down the line in later years, and the House will have to address them.
  The fact that we are discussing the matter today is proof that there is no automatic slippery slope. We cannot go beyond the point laid down in the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Act 1990 without obtaining parliamentary approval within a democratic and accountable system. Those who say, in debate, that this process would create a slippery slope are, by definition, contradicting their own point. The House may vote against the regulations—although I hope that it does not—and that would prevent our moving down what those people see as a slippery slope. I agree with the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) that the slope can go up or down, and I believe that in this instance it is going up, and that we should not be concerned about that danger. However, I am delighted that we are having this debate and that we shall have the chance to vote on the issue.
  There are people here who have made it clear that they will always oppose any work on embryos. That view has to be respected, because it is clear, precise and well put, not only in the Chamber but in the organised processes by which it is communicated to MPs across the country. However, that argument is not an exclusive moral argument. I do not believe that the moral arguments are all on that side. Those of us who do not take the view that the spirit enters the human being at conception, or that that is when life begins, are also under a moral imperative, once we have found out about all the other issues, to support the regulations. That is an equally ethical approach, given one's starting point.

  253
  The religious arguments are not all on the other side. I do not claim to be an expert on religion, but I take advice from those who are. The hon. Member for Salisbury made it clear that opinion in the Church of England is, at worst, split. At best, it understands the ethical basis on which this kind of research can be carried out. In a paper produced for the Church of England's board of social responsibility, Canon Dr. John Polkinghorne—a well respected theological ethicist—set out the developmental approach to the status of the embryo. It is the approach that I take, and, from what the Minister said, I believe that it is the approach that she and others also take. The paper states:
  This stance accords the embryo a profound moral respect on the basis of its potential to develop into a human being, but it sees that ethical status of human personhood as being something that develops with the increasing complexity of being. While an absolute stance is the present official teaching of the Roman Catholic Church, a developmental view of human personhood has not historically been absent from Christian thinking. St. Thomas Aquinas held the Aristotelian opinion that 'ensoulment' (presumably, human personhood) took place at 40 days for a male foetus and at 90 days for a female foetus.
  As I understand it, their current view was not adopted by the Catholic Church until some point during the 19th century. The paper goes on:
  The developmental view underlay the majority opinion in the Warnock Report and it is the basis for the HFE Act of 1990, with its restriction of embryo growth in vitro to 14 days and its permission to use embryos within that limit for tightly defined and specifically licensed research purposes. The embryo is being regarded as very much more than a 'speck of protoplasm', for it may only be manipulated for serious purposes that otherwise would be unattainable. The limit of 14 days is based on the end of the possibility of natural splitting (producing identical twins from a single embryo) and the beginning of differentiation with the onset of the primitive streak. It might be held to be a limit judged with some degree of conservative caution.
  That shows that there are people who can describe themselves as religious who do not automatically oppose the regulations.
  Dr. Iddon: Is not there a serious moral difficulty here for people who hold a deeply religious point of view? If embryonic stem cell research produced a breakthrough, and it became likely that we could cure one of the many diseases mentioned in the debate, how would we advise such people if they were suffering from that disease? Would the Churches, having objected to the regulations—if they are passed—recommend that they should not accept treatment resulting from the research?
  Dr. Harris: Accepting treatment is a personal decision. It is quite reasonable that some people already do not accept certain treatments—vaccines derived from embryonic cell lines, or from foetal cell lines from aborted foetuses, for example. The whole point about the regulations is that they are permissive—I shall come to the question of consent in a moment. They will not force people to accept the treatment resulting from the research for themselves, or, if they were in the position of having to make such a decision, for their families.
  Mr. McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the smallpox inoculation was discovered partly as the result of Semmelweiss injecting a small child with the
  254
  disease and finding that the child's resistance was improved? It does not follow that people who have smallpox injections now are behaving unethically, even though it all started unethically.
  Dr. Harris: I agree.
  Earlier in our debate, a question was asked about the effectiveness of the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority, as some considerable responsibility lies with it. Generally, it has not been more lax than society in general, as was suggested. The famous case of Diane Blood, who wanted to use, posthumously, the sperm of her husband to procreate, was opposed down the line by the HFEA, even though that went against public opinion, particularly as portrayed in the tabloid media. The HFEA was unbowing in its opposition to that proposal, even though there was an uproar that that poor lady—as, indeed, she was as the result of her bereavement—could not start a family because she did not have her husband's written consent, as required by the regulations that were then in force. People who are concerned about the HFEA should therefore be reassured that it will not merely yield to public pressure on some of these matters.
  One recommendation in the Donaldson report was that the HFEA should deal with the question of consent. Research will not be done on any embryos, and cell nuclear replacement—if it takes place—will not be done with any eggs without the consent of the donors of the embryos and eggs. That will be a personal decision for individuals who will or will not subscribe to the balance of benefits that we are discussing.
  Some of the points about adult stem cell research made by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan), and also by the hon. Member for Congleton, completely miss the point. I hope that they will be reassured on their concerns about scientific opinion, the potential of adult stem cells, the role of the HFEA and the likely path of scientists themselves. It is not correct, as a previous speaker said, that science is split on the subject. There will always be scientists who, perhaps for their own religious reasons, will express a view—such as that held by anti-evolutionary creationist scientists—which they do not claim as scientific per se, but rather the opinion of a scientist. It is not reasonable to get a scientist to state that view and then say that science is split, simply because there are scientists on both sides. One must look at peer-reviewed overviews of the literature and the state of science. The opinion of, for example, the Wellcome Trust, the Royal Society and the British Medical Association must have more resonance than the opinions of individual scientists.
  I have challenged speakers previously, and said that scientists who are working on adult stem cells recognise the need for embryological work to continue at the same time. Indeed, many scientists derive their results from putting adult stem cells in animal models into embryological environments. It would therefore be illogical for them to oppose embryological stem cell research. Those scientists who, perhaps, have the most to lose from research grants going to embryological work will not come out with the views that their science has been cited as backing. Indeed, many have said that they

  255
  are appalled that their research has been cited by those who describe it as an exclusive alternative to work with embryonic stem cells.
  Mr. Leigh: The hon. Gentleman is entirely honest in the way in which he promotes his point of view and does not take any prisoners, which is good. Does he accept that the purpose of cell nuclear replacement is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient so that cells derived from it are perfectly matched to the patient? Cell nuclear replacement is a technique that was used in the cloning of Dolly the sheep. Therefore, it is scientifically clear that cell nuclear replacement is a technique for the cloning of humans although, admittedly, it is at the first stage. Does the hon. Gentleman accept that?
  Dr. Harris: Yes.
  Another key point about adult stem cells is that their potential is the very factor that makes work on embryonic stem cells so critical. It will be possible to realise the potential of adult-derived stem cells and adult-derived stem cell therapies only if we get answers from the embryological work. The more papers that suggest that, eventually, adult stem cells might work somewhere down the line, the more important it is, in the short to medium term, to allow embryonic stem cell research to take place. That makes the point, but people in the debate have not understood that.
  Ms Kelly: What does the hon. Gentleman make of comments by Professor Scolding of Bristol university, who works in the field of adult stem cells? He says that recent peer-reviewed work done since the publication of the Donaldson review undermines the comments of the Royal Society that it would be at least a decade before scientists could overcome the hurdles blocking the therapeutic use of adult, as opposed to embryonic, stem cells.
  Dr. Harris: Professor Scolding came to speak at a meeting on Monday night, which was also attended by the hon. Member for Bolton, South-East (Dr. Iddon) and my researcher. I have it on good authority that Professor Scolding said that his view, although that of a scientist, was based not on his science but on his religious perspective. He was fair enough to admit that, and scientists should be allowed to speak about their religious views. However, they should make it clear when they are speaking on a scientific basis.
  The HFEA exists to ensure that if adult stem cell research is an obvious alternative to research proposals using embryonic stem cells, it will be encouraged and the embryonic line of research, because of the special status accorded to embryos, will not be allowed. We can trust the HFEA to keep control, as it has done with great success in the past 10 years.
  Hon. Members will find that scientists themselves will follow the successful science. Working on embryos will not be easy. One speaker said that there will be a rush to use embryos because the work is easy. It is extremely difficult to derive eggs for cell nuclear replacement. As the hon. Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) has said to me on several occasions, it is not a trivial matter for a woman to donate eggs, whether for embryos for IVF or for this sort of research. Eggs are in extremely short supply. Eventually, there may well be a
  256
  better supply of adult stem cells, and science will go where the ease of work and the best results are likely to be. Consent will be needed to do that research, as I have said before. Individual women will have to give consent for their gametes to be used for this sort of work.
  Finally, it is likely that if, eventually, there are therapeutic advantages from adult stem cells, that is where the therapies will be. Scientists will flock to that line of work because it will be available in the scale that we need. I maintain that the citing of adult stem cell research as an argument for voting against the regulations is not based on a rationale or science. Some people will oppose the regulations anyway, but it is wrong of them to seek to create a pseudo-scientific argument to justify what is otherwise a respectable opinion.
  6.38 pm
  Ms Sally Keeble: I am grateful to have a chance to speak in our debate. I do so on the basis that I, too, have had IVF treatment which, in my case, was successful. I am also a theologian, and this must be the only occasion during my entire time in the House on which I can put those two experiences to use.
  The Minister's speech was wonderful, but I take issue with her because I do not agree that ends can justify means—the ends and the means have to be justified. In this instance, I believe that both are. Perhaps the Minister does as well, and I have misrepresented her. However, I believe that the ends and the means are completely justified.
  A big argument used by people who do not agree with the measure is not so much about cell replacement but the fact that embryos are destroyed in the process, which is equated with the destruction of life. Clearly, however, that is not the case, as has been shown in the Warnock report, the Polkinghorne report and all the regulations. We are talking about embryos that have the potential for life, which is not the same as being alive. An awful lot of circumstances have to intervene to enable them to become human beings. We should not, therefore, treat them as people, although as human embryos they are worthy of special respect. It has been clearly set out that they have special status and deserve special respect. Indeed, that is partly why the Human Fertilisation and Embryology Authority was established. It has served the country startlingly well and has provided a forum for ethical debates and public consultation. It has ensured that, in comparison with people in most countries around the world, we can take the ethical dimension carefully into account.
  For people who are concerned about the family life aspect of the IVF equation, I point out that the right of the child is one of the factors that must be taken into account in the provision of treatment. The needs of any child born of the treatment must be considered, including the right of that child to a father. As I said, the regulatory framework is in place. The hon. Member for Woodspring (Dr. Fox) spoke about policing, but I have no worries whatever on that score.
  Time is short, so I shall keep my remarks brief in the hope that more hon. Members can speak. However, I should like to speak about the ethics of medical research and whether another form of research should be used. With regard to the criteria and qualifications that should be taken into account, I am again satisfied that the means

  257
  and the ends are justified. It seems to me that medical research should cost as little as possible in terms of human and other life. Of course, that point leads to a consideration of animal rights.
  Medical research should also be as non-invasive as possible and should be the most likely option to achieve success. Thus, if embryonic cells will produce a better result than adult stem cells, it is preferable to use the former, as research on them is most likely to achieve success. Medical research should also occur in an environment that replicates the human condition as closely as possible. Animal research is sometimes appropriate, but if an environment is available that is more closely related to the person who is to be treated, there is pressure and impetus to consider it first.
  Embryo research will occur only with the consent of the people who have created the embryos. That is a major consideration. People already donate their organs for transplant, but there is an obvious difference between donating a liver or heart and providing genetic material to be used for a non-procreative purpose. Indeed, that is a dramatically different step, which is why informed consent is important and why people must consider the implications carefully.
  I have been through that process and know what it is like to look at embryos that are part of one's genetic material and which have the potential for life. In the circumstances in question, they could never create life. In my case, they could not be used for donation because they are not of good enough quality, as I am too old, although I might not want to give them away as they are part of my genetic material. However, I must ask what the embryos will do if they cannot create life or reproduce something of my husband and me. Is not it special that, although they cannot create a child, they might help to save somebody's life, improve the quality of somebody's life or stop illnesses for future generations?
  All those processes and considerations can be strange. It can be a huge journey to think through all the issues while sitting in front of a form. Of course, those issues are already tried and tested. It is for people to make a decision in their hearts and to make up their own minds on what they can and cannot accept.
  For all those reasons, I believe that the means and ends are justified. I hope that the House will agree to the regulations and enable the science to proceed. It has already given people such as me the chance to have a child, and can now give other people a chance to live.
  6.45 pm
  Mr. Edward Leigh: This has been a good debate. Our discussion has generally been good natured and both sides of the argument have been put across well. It is difficult for somebody such as me to make the speech that I am about to make, for only five minutes or so, as one is faced with people who are suffering appallingly. They look at people such as me and ask how we can stand in the face of medical science that could relieve their suffering.
  First, I shall try to meet halfway some of the proponents of the regulations. I accept that embryo-based research is superior at the present stage of scientific development to that based on adult stem cells. Although I acknowledge
  258
  that, I ask those who take a stance that is different from mine to accept that science is moving quickly and that there are alternative views, which were well articulated earlier by the hon. Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan). I shall not repeat them, as the hon. Gentleman spoke on them at length.
  However, I should like briefly to refer to a view expressed in Science on 25 February this year by Dr. Vogel, who wrote that adult stem cells become different types of cells only when they are given new signals to do so. When they are placed in their usual environment, they seem to produce only the cell types of that particular tissue, which is exactly what is needed to repair such tissue safely. Dr. Vogel wrote that
  besides skirting the ethical dilemmas surrounding research on embryonic and fetal stem cells, adult cells … might have another advantage: they may be easier to manage.
  I fully accept the validity of arguments advanced by other hon. Members with different points of view, but I point out for hon. Members who are concerned about the moral and ethical dilemmas that much scientific opinion suggests that adult stem cell research may be superior to embryo research in future.
  Secondly, it is important to decide how the debate is defined and to get the definitions right. Surely we must accept that we are not discussing an instant panacea. People who are currently cruelly afflicted by illness should not believe that we are discussing a panacea in respect of their serious conditions. Paragraph 4.31 of the Donaldson report states:
  it is not known whether the cell nuclear replacement technique will be successful in creating an early human embryo.
  It cannot therefore be claimed that research on cloned human embryos I has overwhelming potential. The Donaldson report admits that
  gaining knowledge about how stem cells differentiate, and on how this process might be controlled to produce the particular kinds of tissue needed for treatment, is only just beginning.
  An article published in Science on 1 December states that
  the human embryonic stem cells and fetal germ cells that made headlines in November 1998 because they can, in theory, develop into any cell type have so far produced relatively modest results.
  I hope that we can all agree that the research would not produce an instant panacea.
  My third and strongest point relates to cloning. I hope that I may refer to the definitions provided by the European Parliament, which is not filled with people who will always agree with my point of view. It defines human cloning as the creation of human embryos that have the same genetic make-up as another human being, dead or alive, at any stage of their development, without any possible distinction regarding the methods used. I was grateful to the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris), who has been a leading proponent of the regulations, for accepting the point that I put to him. I asserted that the purpose of cell nuclear replacement is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient, so that the cells derived therefrom are perfectly matched to the patient. The technique of cell nuclear replacement was used to clone Dolly the sheep. Thus it is scientifically clear that cell nuclear replacement is a technique for the cloning of human beings. Let us at least accept that point of view.
  Every hon. Member is opposed to reproductive cloning, but let us get our definitions right. As the European Parliament and many experts have accepted, we are

  259
  discussing the same process that would be used for the cloning of human beings. Although cell nuclear replacement and embryo stem cell research are different things, I believe that they are none the less being used as euphemisms for cloning. In fact, the Donaldson committee was originally called the chief medical officer's expert group on cloning, but that title was dropped when it reported to the Department of Health. Dr. John Wyatt, professor of neonatal paediatrics at the Royal Free and University College medical school in London, has written:
  The redefinition of human embryos as mere biological material or "totipotent stem cells" in order to allay public concerns smacks of semantic trickery rather than responsible debate.
  Let us get our point of reference clear; then I will sit down and allow the Minister to speak. We are talking about an opportunity to advance medical science and to relieve human suffering to an enormous extent—although we do not know how far as it is not an instant panacea. We are talking about the creation of an embryo that is genetically exactly the same as the patient. That embryo, if allowed to implant—which I agree the Government do not want to happen—would result in the creation of a human being.
  Dr. Gibson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Leigh: No. I have been told that I must allow the Minister time to reply to the debate.
  What we are doing today is therefore very important. I urge the House to pause very carefully before it makes its final decision. It is quite different from what we talked about in 1990 because, for the first time, we are saying to the science community that we shall create cloned human beings—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] Yes, just listen. We shall create cloned human embryos which, if allowed to implant in the womb, would grow into human beings. That is what we are voting on tonight. [Interruption.] It is. There is no point hon. Members shaking their head. I have read out the scientific evidence. The whole point of the process is to create an embryo that is genetically identical to the patient so that when stem cells are grown from it, it will not be rejected by the patient.
  I accept that we do not have to have a religious view on the matter. We do not have to worry about that. We do not have to talk about whether the embryo has a soul or not, but it is entirely new. Where will it all end? Have we not got a right in the House to say to the science community, "Just pause; wait; listen to the other voices"? Let us have primary legislation and do the thing right. We should not take a step that we may live to regret.
  6.52 pm
  Yvette Cooper: With the permission of the House, I shall reply to the debate.
  We have had an excellent debate. It is perhaps the most thoughtful and considered of all that I have listened to in the House. Given the strong views that people hold and the emotive issues involved, I pay tribute to all those who have spoken in this debate and in the Adjournment debates for the respect that they have shown for opposing views.
  I welcome, too, the cross-party nature of the debate. We have heard eloquent and well-argued speeches from hon. Members on both sides of the House in favour of
  260
  and against the regulations, including from those involved in the 1990 Act, such as the hon. Members for Salisbury (Mr. Key) and for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). We have heard the view of those who could be affected and whose family could be affected by the research, such as my hon. Friends the Members for Aberdeen, South (Miss Begg), for Ilford, South (Mr. Gapes) and for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart); the view of those who morally oppose the regulations, including the hon. Member for Congleton (Mrs. Winterton), my hon. Friend the Member for Hamilton, South (Mr. Tynan) and the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh); and the view of doctors—the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) and my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Dr. Stoate).
  It has been a powerful debate and a measured one, too, but it is clear that the science is very obvious now. The research shows that embryonic stem cells have immense potential to help us understand serious degenerative disease and to research cures or treatments, too. In particular, they offer great hope for the treatment of disease and injury where tissue is destroyed and will not repair, such as with Parkinson's, spinal cord injury, heart disease and cancer.
  Hon. Members are right to say that we should not promise immediate cures. As I have said, the research could take a year, 10, 20 or 30 years. We do not know how long it will take, but it holds considerable potential. For many diseases and conditions, it holds out the only hope anywhere on the horizon.
  The science is clear that embryonic stem cells hold far more potential than adult stem cells, even though work with adult cells is the holy grail for many scientists. As many eminent scientists and medics have made clear and as many hon. Members have argued, important breakthroughs in adult stem cell research may never take place without embryonic stem cell research first.
  With the greatest respect, I caution hon. Members who oppose embryonic research against arguing that adult stem cell research has just as much potential as embryonic stem cell research. I understand that many hon. Members who oppose embryo research in principle are pinning their hopes on adult stem cells instead. It is legitimate to argue that embryonic stem cell research is wrong, and that therefore the only potential that we have is from adult stem cell research, but that is different from arguing that the science shows that adult stem cell research has more potential. The science does not show that. I caution hon. Members against believing that they can support all the most exciting potential breakthroughs in this area and vote against the regulations at the same time. They cannot.
  The science is clear, but what is at stake today is not simply the science but the ethics. It is a debate not between ethics and science, but about the ethical framework within which scientific research should take place. That in the end is what it is about.
  Dr. Fox: The Minister has said that it is perfectly legitimate for hon. Members to want adult stem cells to be used. Were we to get to the most optimistic view and were adult stem cells to show great potential, would it be the Government's intention to stop the legal use of embryonic cells?
  Yvette Cooper: We have already covered that clearly in the debate. The 1990 Act clearly sets out that if there

  261
  are breakthroughs in adult stem cells and if there are breakthroughs in embryonic stem cells that allow us to move to adult cell research, the embryonic stem cell research is no longer necessary. If it is no longer necessary, it will not be permitted under the Act. It will not be licensed. The Act provides those protections and constraints, and it is absolutely right that it does so.
  Some hon. Members believe that all research on embryos is unjustified on principle. I respect the eloquent arguments that they have advanced to that effect. They argue that the embryos should be accorded the same respect and rights as human beings. Others argue that that is not the moral position that we should take. For example, the Warnock report said:
  The human embryo is entitled to a measure of respect beyond that accorded to an embryo of other species. Such respect is not absolute and may be weighed against the benefits arising from the proposed research.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) said that we should not argue that the ends justify the means. I agree. I would not support a utilitarian approach that says that so long as the ends are good enough, any means is justified. That is why I strongly support the constraints that are set out in the 1990 Act, which says that research can be done only up to 14 days, only where embryos are essential to the research and only where there is a proper licence. Constraints exist on human reproductive cloning, so that no research on cell nuclear replacement can take place beyond 14 days. The cells cannot be implanted in the womb. That is illegal.
  It is right that those constraints are in place, but I remind the House of the strong moral case in favour of doing the research. In an earlier debate, I quoted a woman with Parkinson's disease. She said that those considering their votes on the issue
  ought to have a word with my little girl and ask her about the value of life. All she wants is that I am freed from this awful disease so that she has a mother able to care for her throughout her young life, rather than one who is increasingly disabled by a disease for which there may be a cure if this research is allowed to proceed.
  That is the choice for the House.
  Watching at home with bated breath and in the Gallery are many who hope that the research will deliver the cures and treatments to turn their lives around. Many of them know that the research comes too late for them, but they are here on behalf of the next generation, hoping for the research that will allow future generations who walk in their footsteps to walk tall, freed from pain and disability. We cannot guarantee to them that the research will transform their lives, but we can tell them that we did not turn our backs on the possibility that it might.
  It being Seven o'clock, MR. DEPUTY SPEAKER put the Question, pursuant to Order [this day].
  The House divided: Ayes 366, Noes 174.

  Division No. 12]

  [7 pm

  AYES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Ainger, Nick

  Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

  Alexander, Douglas

  Ashton, Joe

  Allan, Richard

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Allen, Graham

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

  Austin, John

  262

  Bailey, Adrian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Banks, Tony

  Cummings, John

  Barnes, Harry

  Cunningham, Rt Hon Dr Jack (Copeland)

  Barron, Kevin

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Beard, Nigel

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Dalyell, Tam

  Begg, Miss Anne

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Darvill, Keith

  Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Bercow, John

  Davidson, Ian

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Berry, Roger

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Betts, Clive

  Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

  Blair, Rt Hon Tony

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Blizzard, Bob

  Denham, John

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

  Blunt, Crispin

  Doran, Frank

  Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Boswell, Tim

  Dowd, Jim

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Drown, Ms Julia

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Bradshaw, Ben

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Brake, Tom

  Emery, Rt Hon Sir Peter

  Brand, Dr Peter

  Ennis, Jeff

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Etherington, Bill

  Brown, Russell (Dumfries)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Fisher, Mark

  Bruce, Malcolm (Gordon)

  Fitzpatrick, Jim

  Buck, Ms Karen

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Burden, Richard

  Flint, Caroline

  Burgon, Colin

  Flynn, Paul

  Burstow, Paul

  Follett, Barbara

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

  Foster, Don (Bath)

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Foulkes, George

  Gapes, Mike

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Caton, Martin

  Garnier, Edward

  Cawsey, Ian

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chapman, Sir Sydney (Chipping Barnet)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Chaytor, David

  Gidley, Sandra

  Chidgey, David

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Church, Ms Judith

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Clapham, Michael

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Hancock, Mike

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Harman, Rt Hon Ms Harriet

  Clelland, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Harvey, Nick

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hawkins, Nick

  Coaker, Vernon

  Healey, John

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Heath, Rt Hon Sir Edward

  Cohen, Harry

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Coleman, Iain

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Cooper, Yvette

  Hendrick, Mark

  Corbett, Robin

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Heseltine, Rt Hon Michael

  Corston, Jean

  Hewitt, Ms Patricia

  Cousins, Jim

  Hill, Keith

  Cran, James

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cranston, Ross

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  263

  Home Robertson, John

  Mates, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Maxton, John

  Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Hope, Phil

  Merron, Gillian

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Miller, Andrew

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Hutton, John

  Moore, Michael

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Illsley, Eric

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Morley, Elliot

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

  Jackson, Robert (Wantage)

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Mountford, Kali

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Mullin, Chris

  Murphy, Jim (Eastwood)

  Johnson Smith, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Oaten, Mark

  Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

  O'Hara, Eddie

  O'Neill, Martin

  Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Osborne, Ms Sandra

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Jones, Nigel (Cheltenham)

  Page, Richard

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Paice, James

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pearson, Ian

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Keetch, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Kemp, Fraser

  Plaskitt, James

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Key, Robert

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Prior, David

  Kirkbride, Miss Julie

  Prosser, Gwyn

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Lammy, David

  Rammell, Bill

  Lansley, Andrew

  Rapson, Syd

  Laxton, Bob

  Raynsford, Nick

  Lepper, David

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

  Levitt, Tom

  Linton, Martin

  Robertson, Laurence (Tewk'b'ry)

  Livingstone, Ken

  Robinson Geoffrey (Cov'try NW)

  Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lock, David

  Rogers, Allan

  Love, Andrew

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  McCabe, Steve

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  McCafferty, Ms Chris

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ruddock, Joan

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  MacGregor, Rt Hon John

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Salter, Martin

  McIsaac, Shona

  Savidge, Malcolm

  MacKay, Rt Hon Andrew

  Sawford, Phil

  Maclennan, Rt Hon Robert

  Sedgemore, Brian

  MacShane, Denis

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Sheldon, Rt Hon Robert

  Madel, Sir David

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Short, Rt Hon Clare

  Major, Rt Hon John

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Mallaber, Judy

  Skinner, Dennis

  Maples, John

  Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Martlew, Eric

  Smith, Rt Hon Chris (Islington S)

  264

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Smith, John (Glamorgan)

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

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

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Soames, Nicholas

  Tyler, Paul

  Soley, Clive

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Viggers, Peter

  Spellar, John

  Vis, Dr Rudi

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Watts, David

  Steinberg, Gerry

  White, Brian

  Stevenson, George

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Stoate, Dr Howard

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stringer Graham

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wills, Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Wilson, Brian

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Wood, Mike

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Worthington, Tony

  Timms, Stephen

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Todd, Mark

  Wyatt, Derek

  Tonge, Dr Jenny

  Yeo, Tim

  Townend, John

  Tredinnick, David

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Truswell, Paul

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Mr. David Jamieson.

  NOES

  Ainsworth, Peter (E Surrey)

  Day, Stephen

  Amess, David

  Dismore, Andrew

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Dobbin, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Donaldson, Jeffrey

  Atkinson, David (Bour'mth E)

  Drew, David

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Duncan, Alan

  Baldry, Tony

  Duncan Smith, Iain

  Beggs, Roy

  Evans, Nigel

  Beith, Rt Hon A J

  Faber, David

  Bell, Martin (Tatton)

  Fallon, Michael

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benton, Joe

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Borrow, David

  Gale, Roger

  Brady, Graham

  Galloway, George

  Brazier, Julian

  Gill, Christopher

  Breed, Colin

  Gillan, Mrs Cheryl

  Brinton, Mrs Helen

  Godsiff, Roger

  Browne, Desmond

  Goggins, Paul

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Gray, James

  Burns, Simon

  Green, Damian

  Butterfill, John

  Greenway, John

  Cable, Dr Vincent

  Grieve, Dominic

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grogan, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Casale, Roger

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hammond, Philip

  Chope, Christopher

  Hayes, John

  Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

  Heald, Oliver

  Collins, Tim

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Colman, Tony

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Cotter, Brian

  Horam, John

  Cox, Tom

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Crausby, David

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

  Hunter, Andrew

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Hurst, Alan

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  265

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Kelly, Ms Ruth

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Kidney, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Kilfoyle, Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Leigh, Edward

  Meale, Alan

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Mudie, George

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Lidington, David

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Olner, Bill

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Paisley, Rev Ian

  Loughton, Tim

  Pendry, Tom

  Luff, Peter

  Pickles, Eric

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Pope, Greg

  McCrea, Dr William

  Pound, Stephen

  Macdonald, Calum

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  McFall, John

  Quinn, Lawrie

  McGuire, Mrs Anne

  Randall, John

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Robathan, Andrew

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Robinson, Peter (Belfast E)

  McNulty, Tony

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  McWalter, Tony

  Rooney, Terry

  Malins, Humfrey

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  266

  Rowlands, Ted

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Roy, Frank

  Touhig, Don

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Trend, Michael

  Sanders, Adrian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Tynan, Bill

  Shephard, Rt Hon Mrs Gillian

  Vaz, Keith

  Singh, Marsha

  Walter, Robert

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Wardle, Charles

  Wareing, Robert N

  Waterson, Nigel

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Webb, Steve

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Wells, Bowen

  Spring, Richard

  Whittingdale, John

  Steen, Anthony

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Streeter, Gary

  Wilkinson, John

  Stunell, Andrew

  Willis, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Winterton, Mrs Ann (Congleton)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Syms, Robert

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Rev. Martin Smyth and

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. Kevin McNamara.

  Question accordingly agreed to.
  Resolved,
  That the draft Human Fertilisation and Embryology (Research Purposes) Regulations, which were laid before this House on 12th December, be approved.

ESTIMATES DAY
[1ST ALLOTTED DAY, FIRST PART]
ESTIMATES DAY
  SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01
    Class III, Vote 1

      Urban Regeneration
      [Relevant documents: Sixteenth Report from the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee, Session 1999–2000, on the Implications of the European Commission Ruling on Gap Funding Schemes for Urban Regeneration in England, HC 714, and the Government's response thereto, Cm. 4923; and The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions: Annual Report 2000, Cm. 4604.]
      Motion made, and Question proposed,
      That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,746,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on payments to the Housing Corporation: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; grants towards and advice on the renewal of private sector housing; the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; homelessness, including the Rough Sleepers Unit; housing management; rent and leasehold services; support for the UK construction industry; planning and minerals research and other planning programmes; payments to the Ordnance Survey (Trading Fund); the London Development Agency; Regional Development Agencies; the New Deal for Communities and other help for deprived neighbourhoods; Single Regeneration Budget; Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships); Housing Action Trusts; Estate Action; Groundwork; coalfields regeneration; European Union agency payments including those for ports and railways in Wales; European Regional Development Fund projects not funded by or in advance of receipts; Countryside Agency; Nature Conservancy Council for England; National Parks Grant; bulk pensions transfers; and sundry other grants-in-aid, grants and payments in support of housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife initiatives, including related research, publicity and publications.—[Mr. Allen.]
      7.13 pm
      Mr. Andrew F. Bennett: I am delighted to have the chance to debate the report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs on gap funding and the Government's response to our report. I thank all those who helped with the report, including those who sent in evidence or agreed to be questioned by the Committee, our specialist adviser David Lunts, and all the Committee staff.
      In politics, I usually have respect for my opponents. Although they may be misguided or just plain wrong, they usually believe very firmly in what they are doing. Only occasionally, one comes across someone who can be described as really evil—enjoying power for its own sake and using it in an entirely capricious manner with no concern or regard for the consequent destruction and misery. The European Union Competition Commissioner, Commissioner Monti, is such a man.
      In deciding to stop the United Kingdom's gap funding programme, Commissioner Monti has dealt a blow to much of urban Britain that is equal to the damage that was caused in many of our urban centres by Axis bombing during the second world war. He has done so because of
      268
      a perverse belief in an economic theory of competition that is totally divorced from reality. As we said in our report,
      The Commission's decision is perverse and bizarre. The previous Competition Commissioner found the Partnership Investment Programme acceptable, but, on the arrival of Commissioner Monti, an academic with renewed zeal and determination to search for breaches of State Aid rules, the original Commission decision was over-turned.
      We go on to state:
      Moreover, the Commission's view that it is acceptable for the public sector to bear risk using tax payers' money but not the private sector is illogical. We must conclude that the European Commission took its decision casually without regard for the consequences of its action. As witnesses have stated, having made this disastrous decision, the Competition Directorate General now considers that it is our problem, not the Commission's.
      In paragraph 46, we state:
      It is extraordinary that while the Regional Policy Directorate General of the Commission spends immense sums
      on regional aid, the Competition Directorate could destroy that aid.
      I should explain the background. For the past 30 years, more and more sites in urban Britain—particularly in our big cities, urban conurbations and small towns, and sometimes even in villages—have outlived their original purpose. However, it has been too expensive for anyone to do remedial work on that land and to restore buildings for new uses on a purely commercial basis. To put it simply, the possible rent from such new development would not cover the costs of the development itself.
      Consequently, the Government, using English Partnerships, came up with the partnership investment programme, which is more commonly known as gap funding. When English Partnerships felt that the PIP scheme could help with urban regeneration, it offered a grant intended to bridge the gap between the cost of the development and the potential rent generated by the development.
      Such schemes have been increasingly important in the past 10 years, under both the previous Administration and the current one. Many witnesses emphasised to us that not only were the schemes important in their own right, but they acted as seedcorn to encourage other developers to develop nearby sites on a purely commercial basis.
      For much of 1997, 1998 and 1999, Commissioner Monti and his officials were questioning whether such schemes broke European Union competition policy. This time last year, he scored a double-whammy by deciding that the scheme was illegal under EU rules. At a stroke, he destroyed the main plank of the United Kingdom's urban regeneration policy and reinforced a view which is very strongly held by many of my constituents that the EU is a bureaucrats' bonanza.
      I have to say that I am disappointed that United Kingdom Ministers did not make a much greater fuss about the decision. I appreciate the difficulty that 300 schemes were in the pipeline and could, without a compromise, have been put at risk. I understand those pressures.
      The compromise was that, although no new schemes could be approved, the 300 schemes in the pipeline could continue. However, that seems to be absolutely illogical. Either the schemes are legal and we should be able to continue with them or they are illegal. We cannot have

      269
      such a compromise. Moreover, there is always the risk that someone will go to the Court of Auditors and it will decide that money provided to the schemes has to be repaid.
      The Commission suggests that, instead of the schemes being operated by private companies, with state aid bridging the gap in future, they will have to be run by the Government, the regional development agencies or other local bodies such as councils and regeneration companies. Such a proposal seems totally illogical. Those bodies would have to lay out the full cost of running a scheme, and then sell the scheme on at a loss. The problem is that the public sector will have to find 10 or even 20 times as much money to get the schemes going as they would if they merely had to bridge the gap.
      I know that the Government have given the RDAs some extra money and that schemes are in the pipeline, but serious problems remain. I do not believe that the RDAs have the staff or the skills to pick up all the good schemes that should come forward.
      In addition, there is doubt about whether the RDAs can be effective in regions outside assisted areas. We need to emphasise that some of the most successful gap funding schemes have been in towns that are totally outside the assisted areas. Cities that are very prosperous in general often have a rundown inner core. Gap funding could make a major difference to such areas.
      I shall not detain the House, but I hope that, when she replies to the debate, my hon. Friend the Minister will say where the negotiations with the EU, and particularly with Commissioner Monti, have got to. How soon will a replacement scheme be in place? What is happening to ensure that the RDAs have the skilled personnel to carry out schemes in future? What is being done to avoid the waste that occurs when private companies develop people's skills for the schemes? Will they be able to offer the RDAs contracts to do the work for them?
      In their response, the Government said that they were looking at compulsory purchase order procedures, but a key element in gap funding has been the way in which private developers have been able to put together packages of land. I hope that the Government will make it clear that the RDAs will be able to use speeded-up CPO procedures to secure the land assembly that is so crucial.
      Will the Minister say whether the new schemes will be available in all those parts of the country where otherwise thriving cities have disadvantaged urban communities? Will they be available only in development areas? Will there be limits on the amount of funding made available to them? The suggestion is that, even in development areas, the amount of state aid will be severely limited.
      Finally, does the Minister really appreciate the anger felt by so many people in Britain, and the contempt that they have for the behaviour of Commissioner Monti? He has acted out of academic spite, and destroyed an important part of the lifeline that would have secured urban regeneration in Britain. I hope that the Minister will get the message over to Brussels that most of us are disgusted with the behaviour that we have seen.
      7.23 pm
      Mr. Don Foster: I am very pleased to follow the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), and I share his concern about the issues that he has raised
      270
      in respect of gap funding. Like him, I look forward to the response that the Minister will give later. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not mind my not pursuing the points that he raised, as I wish to address my remarks predominantly to the other report produced by the Select Committee. I also want to make some more wide-ranging remarks about urban regeneration.
      I was delighted by the words employed by the Deputy Prime Minister when he launched the White Paper entitled, "Our Towns and Cities: The Future, Delivering an Urban Renaissance". He said that he wanted
      sustainable communities … where economic prosperity and social justice go hand in hand.
      Liberal Democrat Members entirely agree with that. More importantly, the Deputy Prime Minister appeared to agree with another key Liberal Democrat analysis when he said:
      To be successful, plans need to be shaped by local people for local people … local people must be fully engaged from the outset.
      We on the Liberal Democrat Benches entirely endorse that approach. We also agree with what the Deputy Prime Minister went on to say:
      A good council is one that listens to, leads and builds up local communities—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1086.]
      Having endorsed all that, we want to put on record the view that nothing could have been more counter-productive over the past 30 years than the central Government belief that they knew all there was to know about urban regeneration, and that they could hand solutions down to the grateful poor in our decaying cities.
      Yet, having criticised central Government, it is only fair also to express some criticism of local government. The same top-down view can be just as harmful when local authorities decide that they have all the answers for the communities that they serve. Local authorities are also guilty of imposing their solutions, of bulldozing existing homes and of creating huge housing developments where people are isolated from their neighbours. In some cases, that has given criminals plenty of space in which to hide from and evade the law.
      In principle, at least, there appears to be much agreement between the Government and the Liberal Democrats, but what will happen in practice? The Deputy Prime Minister's speech on 16 November was full of promise, but what about the delivery? This Estimates debate is about money, so we must consider what is being done with the money already devoted to the areas in question, and what will be done with the money that is to be spent. Will that money be spent wisely? Is it even going to be spent at all?
      I shall deal first with the question of how the money will be spent. For some time, the Government have trailed their action plan for urban renewal. Their response to the 11th report of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs claimed:
      The action plan for neighbourhood renewal due to be published later this year will deal more specifically with the action needed to tackle the problem of deprived areas.
      Later in the same response, the Government were a little more specific and said that the action plan on neighbourhood renewal was
      due to be published before the end of the year

      271
      On 16 November, the Deputy Prime Minister went even further, and said that
      we have set up a neighbourhood renewal fund of £800 million and will shortly be setting out our action plan for neighbourhood renewal.—[Official Report, 16 November 2000; Vol. 356, c. 1088.]
      Five weeks have passed since then. The date is 19 December, and we are nearly at Christmas. As far as I am aware, there is still no sign of the action plan. I hope that the Minister will say when that much awaited plan will be made available.
      Even when it arrives, it will still be only a plan. The question then will be whether the plan, having been made available so late, will be able to deliver much before the next general election.
      The Deputy Prime Minister was right to stress that if we want to have urban regeneration we desperately need to ensure that the relevant key workers—police, health workers and social workers—are in place and are able to buy homes. The right hon. Gentleman said that £250 million would be allocated over the next three years for that purpose and that the Government would set out details following on from the housing Green Paper. Even more recently, another Government document referred to
      around 10,000 key workers, particularly teachers, nurses and the police.
      I hope that the Minister will be able to say whether a definitive list exists of who those key workers will be. We know that health service workers will be eligible, but will that mean that a person working in a general practitioner's health centre practice will be provided with support? We know that teachers will be helped, but will the much more poorly paid and vital teaching assistants be helped? Unless those matters are sorted out quickly, there is no chance of action before the election.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish made an important point about what the Government have said in respect of compulsory purchase powers. The judicious use of such powers will be very important in future urban regeneration. The Deputy Prime Minister has said that new legislation will ultimately be provided, yet there is no reference to any legislation to deal with compulsory purchase in the Gracious Speech. So presumably, "ultimately" means that we will have to wait until after the election at least for some movement.
      Mr. Bennett: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman has looked at the Government's response in which they make it clear that it is possible to make a lot of progress on CPOs without primary legislation, simply using the regulations.
      Mr. Foster: I have, and I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for pointing that out. He will recall that in his speech of 16 November, the Deputy Prime Minister acknowledged that there may be a need for further legislation for some of the more imaginative uses and schemes that he—and, I hope, the hon. Gentleman—want introduced. The Deputy Prime Minister has acknowledged the need to consider additional legislation. My question is whether we will see any reference to those changes, and even consultation on them, this side of the election.
      It would be wrong to suggest that the Government have not been taking action on urban renewal. The real question is what is happening, and whether it has been happening in the right place. I suspect that if I asked right hon. and
      272
      hon. Members which area of the country was fortunate enough to have eight regeneration projects, they might suggest Moss Side in Manchester, Tower Hamlets or Peckham. In fact, the answer is the county of Herefordshire. It has managed to acquire eight regeneration projects, despite being 196th in the index of local deprivation. Many local authorities which are higher up that list because their areas are far more deprived than Herefordshire have far fewer urban regeneration projects, and some have none.
      Chesterfield, for example, which is 91st on the index, has no Government initiatives whatever. Newcastle-under-Lyme, which is 19th on the list—near the top—has only two projects. That is a quarter of the number operating in the far less deprived Herefordshire.
      There is, sadly, no correlation between regeneration initiatives under the Government and levels of deprivation. We could say that credit should go to the officers and members of Herefordshire county council for all their hard work on successful bids. However, even the bidding scheme has got out of hand. Council officers are spending more and more time preparing detailed bids for funds of one sort or another through this plethora of schemes. Yet on the whole, that time is wasted and should be spent on service delivery.
      The research shows that the majority of bids are unsuccessful. In some areas it is rather more than that. For the European regional development fund, 73 per cent. of bids have been successful. That seems good news until we realise what they were successful in achieving. Even those which were successful got only 37 per cent. of the money for which they had bid.
      There is a plethora of different schemes. In my office, recently, we looked at 53 of the schemes introduced by the Government. We discovered that there is a huge and frightening overlap that makes it difficult for people even to know which bid to make for a scheme. All sorts of anomalies have occurred. There was a wonderful example in Staffordshire, where a bid was put in for a crime reduction scheme to help the local community. That included building a path 200 yd long. Because a small part of the path fell outside the precise boundary of the single regeneration budget scheme, the whole scheme was denied.
      Other anomalies make it difficult in some of the areas that are not so high on the list of deprived areas. I would never claim that my constituency of Bath is particularly deprived. However, like many other right hon. and hon. Members who represent apparently affluent areas, there is within my constituency a number of deprived but small areas. It is often difficult to find a Government scheme that will enable funds to be provided to help the regeneration of those comparatively small areas.
      I recently had a letter from Mr. Alex Schlesinger, chairman of the London road partnership in Bath. He wrote a couple of weeks ago expressing his concern about the lack of availability of funds for the regeneration of relatively small areas such as the Snow Hill estate on the London road. He had been told by the Government office of the south-west that funding would not be available for such an area because it was statistically insignificant. I can assure the Government office that the deprivation in that area is not insignificant.

      273
      Mr. Schlesinger's letter asked what alternative sources of funding the Government had in mind particularly since past Administrations have made it practically impossible for local authorities to regenerate such areas without financial assistance from other sources.
      Ms Candy Atherton: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Foster: I will happily give way, especially if the hon. Lady has an answer to my constituent's concern.
      Ms Atherton: The hon. Gentleman talks about the south-west, where the regional development agency is making massive strides in Cornwall. Is he suggesting that the more deprived areas of Cornwall should be giving money to Bath?
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady entirely misses the point. The question is how we define a deprived area. Is an area considered deprived only if it is very large? That is the way in which the current system operates. I hope that she will acknowledge that, for example, relatively small areas such as Snow Hill in my constituency—I am sure that she has similar estates in hers—need a great deal of support, well beyond the resources of the local council to provide. Yet, because of their size, they are denied access to the many different initiatives that have been introduced by the Government.
      I hope that the Minister will respond specifically to my constituent's concern, which is no doubt shared by many other right hon. and hon. Members, as to what will be done to provide funding for those smaller areas. At the same time, we welcome the support given to the hon. Lady's constituency and to Cornwall itself, which I recognise is a particularly deprived part of the country.
      Some 2,500 projects have stemmed from the 53 initiatives to which I have referred, and there is huge overlap between the schemes. The other problem is that the Government have a tendency to launch project after project, announcing how much money will be available for them, but we never subsequently find out what has happened to the money that has been announced. For instance, the Government announced that £112.5 million would be made available for the new deal for communities project. However, only £48.7 million was spent, because it was difficult for people to find their way through the bureaucracy and the bidding scheme within the required time scale.
      The Deputy Prime Minister has frequently referred in the Chamber to the Coalfields Regeneration Trust and its work. Of the budget of £27.7 million allocated to that project, £26.7 million is unspent. It has spent only 4 per cent. of its budget within the time frame.
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong)indicated dissent.
      Mr. Foster: The Minister shakes her head but my figures are direct from the Library. If she wishes to challenge them, I will be interested to hear her figures. I will give her another figure. Of the £80.8 million that the sure start project was allocated, it has spent only £19 million in the time frame.
      274
      Often, the money cannot be carried forward to subsequent years. Early excellence centres spent only 41 per cent. of the budget and employment zones are underspent by a total of £27 million. The single regeneration budget is underspent by £44.5 million in the past three years. The European regional development fund is underspent by a staggering £250 million, which is more than 10 per cent. of its budget.
      I hope that we will hear from the Minister whether the Government plan at least to allow those underspends to be carried forward to subsequent years. I hope that they will recognise that one reason why the money has not been spent is because of the bureaucracy of the system—not because there is no need for it—which makes it difficult for people to get their hands on it as quickly as they would like. I hope that it is not a case of the Government making announcement after announcement, but not being concerned about what happens next.
      Mr. Mike Hancock: Before my hon. Friend moves on, is there any evidence to show that underspends can be carried forward in certain circumstances? If so, will my hon. Friend give us examples? In my experience, it has been difficult to carry forward any of the money.
      Mr. Foster: My hon. Friend asks me to cite examples. No doubt the Minister will talk about the Coalfields Regeneration Trust in her reply, which can carry forward the money. Unfortunately, many of the schemes to which I referred are not allowed to do so under current regulations.
      Notwithstanding the problems, there are a number of good examples of regeneration schemes, which are particularly successful when local people have been directly involved. In the past few weeks, I have had the opportunity to spend a number of days in Liverpool looking at some of the work there, which covers a wide range of areas that encompass what we would define as urban regeneration.
      In Liverpool, area committees play an important part and make many decisions that would in the past have been made by the council, liaising directly with service providers, establishing a variety of different partnerships and even employing people directly.
      I was particularly impressed by the work of the North Liverpool Regeneration Company, which has set up a number of projects to employ people and give them opportunities to develop their talents and to make good use of premises that have been left empty for far too long. I was impressed by the work that it had done on anti-social behaviour in a unit that has brought together, in the spirit of all regeneration work, a range of different partner—education, housing, the youth service and many other agencies.
      Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody: I am not clear whether the hon. Gentleman is saying that some schemes work well and some people can get through all the so-called bureaucracy, but that the money is not going to Bath.
      Mr. Foster: I have a high regard for the hon. Lady, but she makes a strange point. I have been clear. So far, my argument has been that there are too many projects that

      275
      overlap and that the Government announced large sums of money that, sadly, because of the bureaucracy of the system, are not fully spent, which is a waste. The bidding scheme for the money is hugely bureaucratic, which makes it difficult for people to get their hands on it. Despite that fact, it would be wrong to deny that there are some imaginative and exciting schemes from which we can learn. I was citing an example in Liverpool that builds on the approach for which the Deputy Prime Minister has called—involving local people to determine the way forward. I hope that the hon. Lady will agree with me and certainly with the Deputy Prime Minister that often—
      Mrs. Dunwoody: I always agree with my right hon. Friend.
      Mr. Foster: The hon. Lady says that she always agrees with the Deputy Prime Minister, but I have been in the Chamber on so many occasions when that has not been the case. On this occasion, she probably would agree. The Deputy Prime Minister believes—and I agree—that the people who live with the problem are best placed to find solutions, given support.
      That is certainly the case in Norris Green in Liverpool, which urgently needs regeneration. The local community has come together and developed the ideas. With the support of the council, it has been given the opportunity to appoint architects, lawyers and advisers to help in the development of what seems, on the surface at least, to be an exciting way forward.
      If the hon. Lady agrees about that, I hope that she will share my concern about another area where a different approach has been adopted. I have also visited Newcastle upon Tyne, where I was told about a so-called impressive scheme. The council introduced, "Going for Growth", and consulted the people, asking if they wanted improved public transport, job opportunities and green areas. Of course, the local people said yes. Only when they were confronted by journalists and television camera crews asking them what they thought about plans to bulldoze their homes did they begin to look at the so-called wonderful scheme in more detail and to discover that, although no mention of it had been made in consultation, it involved the demolition of up to 6,500 homes. Clearly, that is an example of where local people have not been directly involved as they should be.
      The hon. Lady has given me an opportunity to summarise my arguments. The principle of what the Government want to achieve is right. I am genuinely concerned that the mechanism that has been adopted leaves us with too many diverse schemes with different funding regimes and with a complex bureaucracy, which is not the best way to ensure that the much-needed regeneration of our urban areas takes place.
      7.48 pm
      Mrs. Louise Ellman: I welcome the Government's comprehensive approach to urban regeneration. This must be the first time that explicitly, as a matter of policy, economic, social and environmental issues have been brought together and tackled together in an integrated way. It is the first time that a Government have recognised the critical importance of co-ordinating and dealing together with approaches from Europe, central Government, the region, local authorities and communities in the locality.
      276
      The real question is how effective the approach has been. During the past year, the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs Committee has looked at what has been achieved and at the problems, and has tried to suggest how matters might be improved.
      Liverpool is already benefiting from that approach. Unemployment in my constituency—the area with one of the highest unemployment rates in the country—has fallen by more than one third since the general election and is rapidly improving. There is new confidence and investment. Anyone who walks around Liverpool cannot fail but see the increased amount of development, construction work and activity and feel the buzz of the new confidence that resonates around the city.
      Liverpool Vision—the first urban regeneration company to be set up after the Rogers report—is starting its vital work in the city. The company is working hard with the newly formed regional development agency—which the Opposition tell us they would abolish, if they have the opportunity to do so—Liverpool city council, English Partnerships and a wide range of private sector partners. It offers Liverpool a unique opportunity for urban renaissance by investing in the city centre and developing it as a spearhead of growth. The company deserves support. It will be successful if it is able to call on funding and support from all the areas that I mentioned—Europe, the Government, the region and the locality—to enable it to fulfil its major challenge.
      The importance of businesses in our economy—specifically in Liverpool's economy—has been recognised. Much of that is due to the pioneering work of the Mersey side special investment fund, set up in 1996 with greatly valued objective 1 European funding, Government funding through the single regeneration budget and private sector investment. Since then, the MSIF has generated investment of more than £84 million for small and medium-sized enterprises, supporting about 4,800 jobs.
      Following that lead, the North West development agency is promoting its venture capital fund. I very much welcome the Government's initiative in setting up the Phoenix fund and announcing incentives in the pre-Budget report to back inner city enterprise, providing community-based funds to support businesses in inner cities throughout the country—specifically in Liverpool, I hope.
      The knowledge economy is being promoted. After the disappointing decision about Daresbury, major efforts are being made and I hope that regional projects of great economic and scientific importance—including, among others, Liverpool university's centre for accelerator science, imaging and medicine project, and John Moores university's proposals for the development of telescope technologies—will go ahead, and will receive support from the north-west science committee, which is currently considering them.
      The North West development agency and English Partnerships are certainly showing the importance of land assembly in promoting brownfield development. The additional funding for RDAs by the Government, together with the increased flexibility in its use, will enable them to become more important in supporting businesses, the economy and society.
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: Does the hon. Lady acknowledge that the ending of the partnership investment

      277
      programme, set against the extra money that has been made available for the RDAs, sets £3 billion alongside £600 million? That is the scale—the order of magnitude—of the hole that has been punched in urban regeneration by the effect of the ruling of the European Commission.
      Mrs. Ellman: I accept that the increased funding and flexibility provided to RDAs by the Government should be used to increase the capacity of the agencies. I am extremely unhappy at the prospect that it might be seen as a complete replacement for the previous private sector funding. I shall return to that subject later in my speech.
      Major issues must be addressed—but in the context of the progress and improvement that we are experiencing in my constituency, in the north-west and throughout the country. I agree with hon. Members who point out that national, regional and local initiatives must be more effectively co-ordinated. There are a plethora of initiatives; each is much to be welcomed in its own right, but there must be much more national, regional and local coherence. More explicit consideration should be given to the local and regional implications of national decisions. A directly elected north-west assembly working with strengthened local government would be one step in that direction. Will my right hon. Friend the Minister for Local Government and the Regions tell us how such issues might be dealt with in the interim before such an assembly is set up?
      In his important comments at the opening of the debate, my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) referred to one of the other vital issues that must be resolved—the problem of the removal of gap funding. The change in the interpretation by the European Commission of state aid poses a major problem for regeneration—certainly in my constituency and, I suspect, in many areas.
      The ruling on the removal of gap funding, already decided by the Commission, has had an important and damaging impact on my constituency. Important developments in Liverpool, such as those in Concert square, Queens square and Speke-Garston, were dependent on gap funding in the past. I am extremely concerned as to what its removal might mean for the future. I do not accept that the increased funding for the RDAs—welcome as it is—will provide a complete replacement for gap funding. Will my right hon. Friend give us information on the Government's efforts to bridge that gap?
      The situation is even more serious. The principles on the interpretation of state aid adopted by the Competition Directorate of the European Commission have been extended and are being applied to structural funding. I understand that, under the objective 1 programme currently being considered for Merseyside, about 14 projects specifically designed for Liverpool have been referred to the state aid unit of the Department of Trade and Industry. Will my right hon. Friend confirm whether that is correct? Can she tell us what is happening?
      I am extremely anxious, because those projects include an important proposed development for my constituency and for the inner city—a business centre in Toxteth. That development has been able to attract essential private sector investment that had been lacking in the past.
      278
      The private sector is willing to invest, yet I understand that that project and others are being closely scrutinised by the state aid unit because of concern about EU rulings on state aid. The matter is extremely important. Other projects are also involved—the north Liverpool resource centre and the Scotland road gateway. Will the Government resolve the matter with great urgency?
      Hon. Members have referred to the problem of derelict property in regeneration. That is of special importance in my constituency. I praise the Liverpool Echo for its "Stop the Rot" campaign, which has highlighted that critical problem in Liverpool, although there are wider ramifications. What progress has been made on changing the compulsory purchase order regime?
      Other bodies also have responsibilities—including local authorities, which are responsible for addressing issues of immediate concern. I call on the property-owning company, Frenson, to face up to its public responsibilities in the Ropewalks area of the city centre. Frenson is sitting on property, allowing it to rot. When it is let to tenants, rents are forced up wholly unacceptably. It is not good enough to leave listed properties in Seel street, listed merchants' houses in Duke street and the Scandinavian hotel to decline. I call on Frenson to face up to its public responsibilities and to assist in the regeneration of Liverpool, not to impede it.
      I have drawn attention to several national and local issues. I am convinced that the Government's comprehensive approach to regeneration is right and that the creation of regional development agencies and the institution of regional chambers and regional assemblies is the right way to proceed, but greater focus is needed. I ask the Minister to address those issues nationally and specifically in terms of Liverpool and the north-west.
      8 pm
      Mr. David Curry: I am sorry that I begin my remarks with a small quarrel with an hon. Member with whom I normally agree and for whom I have great respect. The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) made remarks about Commissioner Mario Monti. The decision that he took was wrong and damaging. I agree with the hon. Gentleman's assessment of the consequences, but I do not think that describing him as evil or somehow power crazed helps the argument. We accord courtesies to colleagues in the House, and it is sensible to do so to people outside as well. No doubt, I shall be labelled as flying my frightful Europhiliac flag yet again, but in the circumstances I will plead guilty.
      Regeneration policy has tended to oscillate over the years. I shall not talk about particular cases; my constituency is very much a rural one, but I had responsibility for such matters for four years and the emphasis was on physical regeneration, then on social regeneration and then city challenge and the single regeneration budget. The emphasis is now on social exclusion, and the policy is beginning to come together in the realisation that physical regeneration must go hand in hand with trying to help communities in a more personal sense. As a result, the policy tends to be bitty; it tends to be a bottom-up policy and is difficult to describe in broad, sweeping terms, but we have all learned the lesson that regeneration policies have to be built on a neighbourhood basis. The time is long past when politicians could drop strategies on to communities in the hope that they would work.

      279
      We have accepted that design is important. The key to regeneration is creating a critical mass in compact, socially mixed neighbourhoods with a mixture of uses, so that a market is created for public and private services. If no market place is created—in other words, if there is no mass of people who demand the schools, who can serve on public transport and who need the local barber's shop and betting shop—we will not produce those polycentric cities that actually work. It would do no harm to go back and read Jane Jacob's book, "The Death and Life of Great American Cities", which shows what went wrong when the mixed uses and all the informal relationships that existed in neighbours gave way to monochromatic uses.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I am following my right hon. Friend's remarks with my customary interest; he is a man of fertile mind and interesting thought. He knows France far better than I do, and various quarters are dedicated to particular activities in the planning of French cities. How does he reconcile that policy, which clearly works, with what he is saying about multiple-use areas?
      Mr. Curry: My hon. Friend would find that many French cities have a zone industrielle on their edge, and people commute out to them. The difference between many British and French cities is that many people live on top of the activities in the cities themselves and the densities of the cities is much greater He would also find that street markets are much more frequent and used by all sorts of people, which makes French cities function better. However, the French countryside is a catastrophe because anyone who is anybody has gone to the cities. That is the fault of Louis XIV. We could have a long dissertation on the consequences of Louis XIV on French rural decay, which still continues today.
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I agree with the right hon. Gentleman's comment that we cannot impose solutions on neighbourhoods. Solutions must come from neighbourhoods. It is fashionable to say that politicians cannot impose such things, but does he agree that politicians have a clear role because, in areas of urban blight, communities often have low morale and believe that they cannot contribute to their own regeneration and that it is important that politicians show them leadership to get them to the point where they can contribute to their regeneration?
      Mr. Curry: I absolutely agree with the hon. Gentleman. We must not fall into believing the cheerful myth that suggests that regeneration is waiting to happen in every neighbourhood and that if people are given the tools, by gosh, they will be on their way. Some neighbourhoods are pretty grim for all sorts of reasons, and people are very incompetent in those neighbourhoods. That can be seen in the some schools' catchment areas, which I wish to deal with in a moment. Politicians have a job to do; they must try to ensure that people can use the instruments of help that they devise in a way that lasts and creates a cycle of improvement. That is not impossible.
      The White Paper and the Pre-Budget statement must be viewed in that context. The White Paper was written by this Government, so it is windy and wordy and there is no grand sweep of ideas. The Minister for Housing and
      280
      Planning has just entered the Chamber, and he may have had a hand in it because his housing Green Paper, which suffered from similar problems, will have given him good practice. However, that is not necessary a failing; there is much that is welcome, such as the VAT changes for residential conversions, although that is applicable universally and is not specific to inner cities. It could be applied in the smallest village in my constituency, were it relevant. The changed tax treatment for contaminated land is welcome and overdue. The smaller incentives on stamp duty and the 100 per cent. capital allowances to create flats over shops are useful, small changes.
      As the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman) said, we still await two key policies—first, the codification and reform on the law compulsory purchase, which will facilitate land assembly. It would be interesting to know whether the DETR has drawn any conclusion from the recent court case that set the Secretary of State's planning powers against the European convention on human rights and threw into doubt the way in which that system operates. Clearly, that will need consideration. Secondly, we await the revision of planning policy guidance 1—the book of Genesis of the planning system that sets the tone for the way in which planning proceeds. To mention what is welcome in the urban White Paper highlights how much policy is still tentative and timid.
      The hon. Member for Denton and Reddish referred to the funding problem. As I have said, I agree with his condemnation of the decision that was taken. The RDAs can now invest directly, but that does not provide the answer because it does not produce the leverage, as the hon. Member for Riverside has said. We must be careful that the RDAs do not have too many functions placed on them, otherwise the next phase will simply involve differentiating those functions. I should be interested to know how many of the skilled staff of English Partnerships have gone into the RDAs and how many of them have taken flight into the private sector.
      The White Paper does not address the long-term funding issues of the inner city programmes and it fails properly to tackle the perverse workings of the tax system. I do not blame the DETR; it had a noble battle with the Treasury—but a few months from the election, it lost. That is not surprising; we have all had battles with the Treasury, and most of us have lost them. That is the nature of political geometry. However, we have ended up with half a carrot and no stick. Tax on renovation has not been equalised. It would have been sensible to put a levy on greenfield development and 17.5 per cent. VAT is still paid on conversion between uses. The conversion of an inner-city office block into accommodation still attracts 17.5 per cent. VAT. The Government have shown that they have spotted the problem, and have nibbled at a bit of the solution, but there is still some distance to travel.
      There is of course a vast land bank of greenfield sites ready for development. The south-east regional planning committee reckons that sites capable of taking almost 225,000 homes have already been earmarked in the south-east. That is a different debate and those of us who represent Yorkshire constituencies ought to be somewhat tentative before we venture into that minefield.
      There are still problems with contaminated land. The tax treatment proposed in the Chancellor's statement is welcome, but there are still problems relating to regimes for waste and for water, which are not always working

      281
      and pulling in the same direction. The Government need to consider such matters in the round if they are to address the complex disincentive that still operates for development on some contaminated land.
      To turn to a broader issue, there is a lack of joined-up government. I see in the DETR annual report a chapter picturesquely entitled:
      The Department's Role in 'Joined-Up' Government,
      and some very endearing pictures of the ministerial team. However, the joining up between Departments is not immediately apparent. I am glad that the Minister for Housing and Planning is present. He has been busy proposing in his Green Paper rent increases under the formula of the retail prices index plus 0 per cent., which would have shot to pieces many of the development plans of registered social landlords at the time we were being told how important it was that more people lived in inner cities. I see that he has pulled back to a formula of RPI plus 0.5 per cent., which at least shows that he has done some listening.
      I turn to the transfer programme. I agree with the Minister that transfer is a central issue. We should not allow local authorities arm's-length companies. They are, on the whole, for rather dismal local authorities that cannot hack it, and we should not give such authorities a way out. However, we need a wider menu.
      I want to know the Government's view on proposals for securitisation. It is a way of raising money directly against the rent stream, cutting out the landlord. It is made difficult owing to section 47 of the Local Government and Housing Act 1989, which stipulates that all a local authority's liabilities must be charged against all its assets. Therefore, a council cannot provide security in favour of a particular lender. The Government could help in the short term by amending the 1995 European system of accounts rules. I would be interested to know whether the Government would like to consider securitisation as one part of the menu of getting to grips with the regeneration of housing.
      We have all had problems with binding education to the regeneration process. I would have made the same reproach of the Conservative Government because the Department of Education was not even represented in the regional offices. There are many specific initiatives on education, but nobody has successfully married it to wider regeneration issues.
      Clearly, DETR Front Benchers are reading their annual report for the first time, since they are entranced by their own photographs in it. I am glad to have been the bearer of such happy tidings. I hope that the cult of personality will not strike too deeply. The pictures are very small, but Ministers can always live in hope.
      Many inner city schools with multi-ethnic catchment areas are often characterised by violence against children, parents and teachers. There is a great deal of abuse, much deprivation and enormous disintegration of society in such schools. The kids often do not know where they are going home of a night, and the teachers do not know whether the kids have come to school on a breakfast in the morning. I have never thought of free school meals as a satisfactory indicator of deprivation, but some such schools have a very high proportion of children eating free school meals.
      282
      The problem is that, often, parents are incompetent in many ways. Any policy based on an educational strategy that assumes a competent and caring parental force must come to terms with some reality.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: In striking such a sound chord, has my right hon. Friend ever given thought to who teaches parenthood? Is it possible?
      Mr. Curry: Parenthood must mainly be taught by example, which is why I agree with the Government that the traditional nuclear family appears to represent the best formula for bringing up children—that is not to deny that people who are not part of such a family are perfectly able to bring up successful children.
      We should be careful before we load schools up with too many civic responsibilities. Our job as a nation is to make them competitive. If schools are competitive, they are likely to be more competent in dealing with civic responsibilities. If one wants someone to do a job in society, one on the whole finds that somebody who is busy tends to do the job more willingly.
      It is impossible to exaggerate the extent to which head teachers of some inner city schools live in dread of losing the three or four middle-class parents whose children make the difference between standard assessment test results that are verging on respectability and those that look catastrophic. The battle that goes on to try to ensure that a few middle-class parents hang on in there and do not send their kids elsewhere is a noble one. It is a measure of the difficulty of the circumstances.
      I would like head teachers to be given more power to fire poor quality teaching staff—such as the Monday-to-Friday brigade who have got used to survival as the main essence of the week—and to reward quality staff. I find it inconceivable that people who teach in inner city schools are on the same pay scales as those in the leafy suburbs. Compared with the problems encountered day after day by some teachers in the inner cities, those in the suburbs do not know that they are born.
      I would like there to be more support from local education authorities. Some, such as Lambeth, do not even provide supply staff. So schools must go to private sector organisations for supply staff, at great daily cost, in order to replace teachers who are on holiday or taking maternity leave. As a consequence, classes can have three or four teachers in a year.
      Dr. Ladyman: Will the right hon. Gentleman comment on LEAs that make the system even worse by introducing selective education and, in my constituency, thereby creating sink schools that are guaranteed to be in the bottom 25 for GCSE results?
      Mr. Curry: The hon. Gentleman has asked that question of the wrong Conservative Member. He will recall that we had a ballot in Ripon. We won it because the argument was not between the grammar school and the city school. They were on the same side. The argument was about how we enhanced education in the city school in partnership. It has now become a technology college, its examination results are improving and it has demonstrated, under a committed head teacher—the alpha and the omega of real education—that it can haul itself into contention as a competitive school.

      283
      I appreciate that the hon. Gentleman holds his views firmly, but we just happened to win the ballot 2:1 because we sought not to divide but to unite people.
      I would like a primary school head teacher to be in charge of two or three schools. Much depends on building blocks, structures and being able to ensure that the school knows what it is seeking to do daily. Given the shortage of staff in inner city schools, there is something to commend the most able teachers who want to continue working with children, not undertaking advisory functions but remaining in schools and assuming wider responsibility.
      There should perhaps be a link between the secondary school and primary schools. I am amazed by how many secondary schools appear to have no contact with the primary schools before the new kids walk through the main gate on the day they begin secondary education—
      Madam Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Sylvia Heal): Order. I feel that the right hon. Gentleman is straying rather wide of the debate. I have been generous in allowing him some comment on education, but we must now return to the subject of the motion.
      Mr. Curry: I was anxious to demonstrate where the joined-upness was not joining up. I thought that more joined-upness would work well in education. Mercifully, I am coming to end of my remarks on that subject. I leave with the Minister the need to bind education into the regeneration process. Today's children are the citizens of the next generation, to whom we are trying to give competences. They are the people whom we shall ask to provide leadership in the community. If we cannot provide them with the education that they need, they will not be able to do that job.
      Mrs. Linda Gilroy: I am not sure where the right hon. Gentleman's nearest education action zone is, but I recommend the one in Plymouth, which is working very hard with the regeneration projects to ensure that the young citizens of the town are able to play their part in a regenerated Plymouth of 2020.
      Mr. Curry: My nearest education action zone is probably in Bradford. However, there are not many zones and the head teachers in charge of them are often paid miserably too little for the responsibilities that they take on. Madam Deputy Speaker would no doubt reproach me if I pursued that point, so I shall resist the temptation to be diverted again.
      The White Paper is welcome and the beginnings of a strategy are emerging through the mist. However, we need to see the structures of that strategy more clearly. Some of the issues that have been sketched in should be more positively addressed. In particular, I refer to the issues that relate to fiscal incentives and that are essential to pulling in private sector involvement.
      We have seen the emergence of an almost consensual approach to regeneration. The Labour Government have built on the programme that was put in place by the previous Administration.
      Ms Atherton: I am astonished that the right hon. Gentleman can suggest that there is a consensus on
      284
      regeneration, given the Conservative party's policy of abandoning regional development agencies and their budgets just as they are getting into their stride.
      Mr. Curry: To regard regeneration as synonymous with the regional development agencies seems to be a curious piece of intellectual gymnastics. The Conservative party's policy is interesting because it represents examining the most successful programmes that were carried out previously and attempting to bring elements, such as effective policing and effective education, into the strategy. The hon. Lady might not like that, but the intellectual undertow of that policy is not greatly different from the approach taken by the Government. There is a difference of view about mechanisms and delivery vehicles, but there is no philosophical divide between what we are trying to do, what this Government have done and what we did previously.
      I rejoice in the continuity in the programme. We are trying to build communities even though we should use that phrase with hesitation, because building communities is much easier said than done. If there is continuity of programme and an element of planning, and if people feel that they can be adventurous and take risks, we might all be more successful in what we universally wish to achieve in our great inner cities.
      8.22 pm
      Dr. Stephen Ladyman: May I ask for your indulgence, Madam Deputy Speaker, before I start my speech? I wish to express my deepest sympathies to the family of Police Constable Jon Odell, who was killed while on duty in Margate last night by a hit-and-run driver. Although Margate is in North Thanet, the Thanet police force serves both the North Thanet and the South Thanet constituencies very well. The anger and distress at what has happened will unite the whole of Thanet.
      I want to speak not only because I served on the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs when it discussed what it wanted in the urban White Paper and when it produced its report on gap funding, but also because as a Member of Parliament representing Thanet and, before that, as a councillor, I have had experience of regeneration.
      Thanet is in east Kent; many people think that means that it is in the leafy suburbs in a wealthy part of the United Kingdom. In reality, Thanet is among the top six areas of England for unemployment and has one of the lowest wage rates in the whole country. That is evidenced by the per capita take-up rate for housing benefit in Thanet, which is usually the highest in the country. More than 40 per cent. of the work force in Thanet are unskilled. Those problems are recognised by the fact that we have assisted area status at tier 2 and objective 2 funding from the European Union. Despite that assistance, regenerating Thanet is extremely difficult for several very practical reasons. In a capitalist economy, the practical reasons usually relate to the way in which the figures add up, so I shall give the House some practical examples of those figures.
      First, however, I shall comment briefly on the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett). Perhaps I would not go as far as him in the description of Commissioner Monti. Commissioner Monti is probably more bonkers than bolshy, and more

      285
      mad and misguided than malign. However, on the issue of the partnership investment programme, he is clearly wrong. I shall try to illustrate my view with a practical example.
      Three business parks have been created in Thanet, because we need to attract new industry and investment to the area to deal with our high unemployment. We were able to provide services to two of those parks by using funding that came to us from the single regeneration budget and objective 2. The parks are in private hands and building a factory on one of them costs some £50 to £56 a square foot. I have checked those figures, and they are very competitive for the south-east. Ashford is 40 minutes down the road, and building a factory there also costs £56 a square foot.
      The difference is that, once one has paid £56 a square foot and taken occupation of the premises in Thanet, they are worth about £30 a square foot. That is how much one would receive from selling them. However, if one sold the premises in Ashford, one would receive very close to the £56 a square foot that one paid for them. Even if we assume that property inflation is about 4 per cent. a year, it would take a considerable time before the factory in Thanet was worth what one paid for it.
      To deal with that problem, help is provided through tier 2 assisted area funding. That can work out at 20 per cent. of capital cost. However, even allowing for a 20 per cent. grant towards the capital cost of building the factory, it would still take 10 years of 4 per cent. per annum price inflation on the value of the property to get back to the discounted value of the factory that one had just bought.
      That does not mean that we cannot attract new factories and new investors to Thanet; it means that it is very difficult to do so. Investors have usually to come to Thanet for something else that it can offer: our available work force. Thanet recently attracted a prestigious Spanish car component company, Grupo Antolin. One reason why the company came to Thanet, despite the fact that the figures that I quoted are perhaps working against it, is that it is looking to train its future work force from among our unskilled and semi-skilled workers, who are anxious to get back into work. It was therefore attracted by the work force that Thanet offered rather than by our ability to put together an interesting financial package. However, such companies are few and far between.
      Time and again, we lose investors to Ashford and other areas in Kent. When I knock on companies' doors and ask why they decided not to invest in Thanet, they say, "The local council was great; the business parks were great; the quality of life that you were offering was great; but the figures simply don't add up." That is where the partnership investment programme could have stepped in. It could have provided the difference between the price that people have to pay to build their factory and the actual value of that factory. By taking away that plank, Commissioner Monti has made it extremely difficult for us to continue the regeneration of Thanet. I gave the example of a factory, but the principle is the same for areas that we are trying to regenerate with leisure attractions, housing developments and all the other forms of development that Thanet needs if it is to recover.
      The European Commission rules say that state aid is inappropriate if it distorts the marketplace. They go on to say that derogations might be possible if compatible with
      286
      the common market, but that aid schemes that are not compatible with those derogations are illegal. That is why the Commission has said that the partnership investment programme is illegal. To my mind, however, it has failed to consider that the first basic clause in the rules is that the scheme is illegal if it distorts the marketplace. If it does not, why would the Commission even look at whether it is compatible with the derogations? That is the mistake that Commissioner Monti has made.
      If we give money to a regional development agency and ask it to carry out development, it may build a factory in a business park; but to sell that factory at market value, it has to make a loss. The difference between the price for which the agency builds the factory and the price at which it sells will be exactly the same amount, to the penny, as the gap funding that would have been provided through the partnership investment programme. By definition, the amounts are identical. The factory owner buys the property at the market rate in both cases, so there is no distortion of the marketplace in either scheme and no difference in the funding that is provided. The only difference is that, without the partnership investment programme, the publicly accountable RDAs have to do the development. As they do not have the necessary staff and expertise at present, as my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett) said, their task is very difficult.
      I turn now to housing. I could take you, Madam Deputy Speaker, to Ramsgate, the town in which I live, and I am willing to bet that with very little effort I could find 50 empty properties that are being allowed to become derelict, all of them in private hands.
      The urban taskforce report says that the Government
      should introduce new measures to encourage the restoration and use of historic buildings left empty by their owners. These should include revised planning guidance … inclusion of heritage issues in regional economic strategies, a review of building regulations and an end to the business rate exemptions on empty listed buildings.
      The Government's response did not go nearly so far. They simply said that they
      will consider these issues in the light of the forthcoming report from English Heritage on the historic environment.
      I am a new Labour politician, and I do not deal in the language of nationalisation without compensation, but empty properties that are unpleasant to look at and which drag my town down—destroying the quality of life for the people who live there and lowering the value of surrounding properties—make me very angry. We should stop messing around, give local authorities the power of compulsory purchase over such properties as quickly as possible and put them into the hands of people who will redevelop them. When we consider what compensation we should provide for those properties, we should ask ourselves what income they are generating for their owners and how much it would cost to capitalise that income. If a property is empty, it earns its owner nothing, and the local authority should take possession at no cost.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman may find me an extraordinarily unlikely ally, and may ask himself whether he has it right after all. Does he agree that, in addition to compulsory purchase—I am not quite sure

      287
      about at no price—it would be constructive for the local authority to be able to grant me re or less omnibus planning permission and then auction the property?
      Dr. Ladyman: I completely a free with the hon. Gentleman. I am pleased that I haw an ally on the other side of the House. I am not quite as Stalinist as I thought I was on the issue.
      Mr. Tim Loughton: I offer the hon. Gentleman the support of the Opposition Front Bench as well. It is a waste, whether the properties are owned by the local authority, by registered social landlords or privately, as most of them are. Would he extend the premise to council-owned properties that lie unoccupied and dormant for whatever period, and force authorities to take them over and give them especially to young couples who need to get on the housing ladder, perhaps with homesteading grants?
      Dr. Ladyman: I would. I am happy to say that local authorities that neglect their housing stock should answer to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for why they are doing that. They should have to put in place a strategy for dealing with the problem as expeditiously as possible. If they are not capable of doing that, somebody else should be found who is.
      Mr. Don Foster: May I embarrass the hon. Gentleman still further by offering full support from the Liberal Democrats for his proposition? However, like the hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor). I am not entirely convinced by a no-cost approach. Is the hon. Gentleman prepared to go further, bearing in mind the scandal that there are 750,000 empty homes and 150,000 homeless households? Something must be done Is he prepared to go as far as equalisation of value added tax for renovation, and reducing it to a much lower level? That, too, would help.
      Dr. Ladyman: I agree. There should be a clear tax advantage in regenerating existing properties and developing brownfield sites. I think that I signed an early-day motion to that effect.
      Now that we have established cross-party consensus, we have a perfect opportunity for my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State and other Ministers to leap to their feet to announce that they will introduce strong powers for local authorities to engage in the compulsory purchase of empty properties.
      I agree with something else that the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) said earlier. He talked about the amount of council officer time that has to be spent on preparing bids, working through regeneration programmes and other administrative work. It takes a significant amount of councils' time, and the councils tend to be the poorest and the least able to afford the quality of officers that are needed to generate the work. Until programmes are under way, whether they are assisted area, single regeneration budget or objective 2 programmes, and until it is possible to claim back the percentage that will cover administrative costs, it is difficult to get officers in place to design the projects in the first place. It would help councils that are becoming regeneration areas for the first time to receive some seedcorn to help them set up the necessary departments before they can begin claiming back money.
      288
      Occasionally, I have found English Partnerships too rigid with its policy of being the funder of last resort. It was often difficult to get an exciting project started until contracts could be signed. English Partnerships would not sign the contracts because it was always hoping that a private individual would step in. As a result, programmes have often been delayed and thereafter fallen through. The Government should consider that.
      I am immensely proud of being involved in the regeneration of Thanet. It has given me much satisfaction and a great deal has been achieved. The seafront has been modernised and we have started to recover some streets to regenerate them. We have three business parks and we have got businesses into them. Thanks to the Labour council donating land and the Labour Government donating money, we have our own university campus in Thanet, which is the greatest achievement that any politician has been able to announce for Thanet for a generation. We can succeed, but we would do so much better if obstacles were not put in our way. I ask my right hon. Friend the Minister to address these issues this evening and when considering how the White Paper will be implemented in the coming years.
      8.40 pm
      Mr. Peter Lilley: Urban regeneration and preservation of the countryside are two sides of the same coin. Both those who live in towns and those who live in the country want their green fields preserved, and everyone wants more housing. We can have both, as long as we ensure that we build primarily in built-up areas or on built-up land, not on green fields. That will be a major concern of the public in the coming months, and it will be a major issue in the coming election.
      I draw the attention of the House to four very recent events that have a bearing on those issues. The first occurred yesterday, when the Minister for Housing and Planning sneaked out in a written answer the figures for the number of houses to be built in the south-east by the Government. He tried to give the impression that the target number had been reduced. In fact, the target is higher than that proposed by the south-east regional planning committee—39,000, instead of 33,000. The target is only for five years. The Government propose then to raise the level to 43,000 houses a year, or possibly even higher. That is a fudge to get the Government through the election next May. They hope that they can obscure the burden that they are imposing with the demand for new houses in the south-east.
      The second event occurred today, when my right hon. Friend the Member for Richmond, Yorks (Mr. Hague), the leader of the Conservative party, launched the Conservative campaign to save our green fields. He launched it, I am happy to say, in Hertfordshire, on a piece of greenbelt land threatened by planning development under this Government.
      The campaign proclaims my party's commitment to protect green fields and to promote urban regeneration. It spells out our policies and highlights the Labour and Liberal Democrat parties' hypocrisy on the matter. They say one thing, but they do another—[Interruption.] As I think the Minister for Housing and Planning is saying, no doubt echoing the words of his boss, the green belt is a Labour achievement and the Government are building on it.
      Mr. Andrew Love: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for giving way. After the consensus of the past hour, I am pleased that we are back to good old-fashioned party politics. Does the right hon. Gentleman accept that the net impact of what he suggests will be higher house prices, when they are already going through the roof, and more homelessness in the south-east?
      Mr. Lilley: I am saying that house building should be focused on the already built-up areas. I am simply pointing out what the Government are doing, as opposed to what they are saying, and the discrepancy between the two. The hon. Gentleman is rather more open than those on his Front Bench, and I give him credit for that.
      The third event to which I draw the attention of the House is occurring simultaneously with this debate. It illustrates the Government's attempt to do one thing and say another, and the problems that are caused as a result. While we are engaged in the debate in the House, the North Hertfordshire district council in my constituency is considering advice from its officers to withdraw its local district structure plan. That advice is based on legal opinion delivered to the council by Queen's Counsel, who has pointed out that the Government's own policy planning guidance note 3 requires the council to do that. He spelled out the fact that the Government have created a dilemma for local authorities. The origins of that dilemma lie in an earlier period when Hertfordshire county council—under the control of Labour and the Liberal Democrats, with a majority of one—steamrollered through a proposal to build 10,000 houses on greenbelt land west of Stevenage.
      The council did that using an undemocratic procedure, which prevented the full council from voting on the issue. Only 14 councillors—Liberal Democrat and Labour, of course—voted for the measure. The Conservatives tried to take the issue in full council, and a majority of councillors voted to do so, but the standing orders were then changed so that abstentions counted as votes against taking the matter to full council. By that undemocratic procedure, the measure was steamrollered through.
      My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Conservative party came to my constituency to highlight the proposal, because it was the biggest incursion into the green belt ever approved by the Secretary of State, who is not in the House today. The resulting uproar at what the Government were authorising, and at the precedent that it would create throughout the country—planning proceeds by precedent, after all—led the Secretary of State to come to the House in a panic with a proposal to try to cover up what the Government were doing and to pretend that they were changing direction. As a result of that, they introduced the new planning policy guidance.
      The Secretary of State said that the Government would never in future authorise massive incursions into the green belt or on green land, but would instead give priority to development on brown fields. I said that, if the Government were genuine about that, I would salute what they were doing.
      Dr. Ladyman: Given that the policy that the right hon. Gentleman espouses would dramatically accelerate the boom in house prices in the south-east, including Hertfordshire, and that the Government of whom he was
      290
      a member scrapped housing allowances for key workers such as the police, v here would the key workers live if his policies were implemented in a Tory south-east?
      Mr. Lilley: They would live in houses that were not built on the green belt. That is my proposal. They would live in houses built on brown land, or, if there had to be any incursion into greenfield land, it should be greenfield land that is not green belt.
      The Government also gave the impression that that was to be their priority when they introduced the planning policy guidance. Meanwhile, in the small print, they were still pressing ahead with concreting over Hertfordshire and other areas. They intended that those proposals should still go ahead. However, they did not realise that they had launched a torpedo that would threaten to sink their proposals to build t rose massive developments west of Stevenage and elsewhere. It now appears, from the legal advice of Mr. Christopher Lockhart-Mummery, QC, that that is just what they have done.
      I wrote to the Minister and received a reply from him. Mr. Lockhart-Mummery considered that reply and wrote:
      I find it hard to accept some of the logic in the letter to Peter Lilley MP from the Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the DETR.
      He went on to say that that reply from the Minister was the "antithesis" of what PPG3 was seeking, and that it was "illogical". He also said:
      The course suggested in the Minister's letter cannot be appropriate.
      In short, the Government are on a course of action that runs contrary to the law and to the legally binding advice that they have set out. I hope that North Hertfordshire district council will take a decision tonight that will expose the contradiction between the Government's proclaimed policies and their actions on the ground.
      A fourth, very sad event that was announced last week—a tragedy to many local people—was the closure of the Vauxhall plant at Luton, just adjacent to my constituency. If there is no possibility of rescinding that decision, the priority must be streamlining planning processes on the site to ensure that the development of new business is as rapid as possible. I was glad that the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry responded positively when I put that proposal to him. I hope that he has taken it up with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, and that the Department will include in the remit of the taskforce that is considering the Vauxhall works the question of whether it can streamline the process to ensure the rapid development of new businesses on the site. The site is massive, and if there is any spare land after the first priority of developing new businesses is met, it should be available for housing, which could further remove the need for the development that is proposed only a few miles away, west of Stevenage.
      Those four major recent events demonstrate the importance of the issues that we are discussing. They show that the Government are not doing what they are purporting to do, and also demonstrate that the Conservative party is probably speaking for the bulk of people in towns and rural areas when it calls both for more development—focused, above all, on brownfield land and developed areas—and the regeneration of city centres. We would not, as the Government have done, authorise the largest incursion of building on the green belt ever authorised by a Government in living memory.
      8.51 pm
      Mr. Hilary Benn: In one sense, it is a pleasure to follow the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley), as I want to devote most of my remarks to the issue of the development of brownfield land.
      However, first I want to respond to a comment about neighbourhood renewal made by the hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), who is not in his place at the moment. From my experience, I believe strongly that renewal is about practical action. We must recognise that the Government deserve credit for the initiatives that they have begun. I shall mention two that impact particularly on my constituency, one of which is the neighbourhood warden scheme, to which I referred last week in a debate on the Gracious Speech. The other is excellence in cities. Those are two examples of ways in which money is being targeted specifically on areas on social disadvantage. Indeed, for the first time in 20 years that I can recollect, excellence in cities has meant that schools in inner-city urban areas, which face the biggest challenge, have received additional funds because of that fact.
      On the issue of the single regeneration budget and potential underspend, one reason why it takes time to spend money wisely is that, if we are serious about asking people in the local community what they want, it takes time. It is easy to rush ahead and say that we have already got a plan at the centre, but if we ask people what they want, that takes time. On the issue of initiatives, the Government's approach clearly has the advantage of allowing resources to be targeted and encouraging new initiatives. The disadvantage is that it is a challenge to join up all of those.
      I hope that, in time, as we learn from the experience of the initiatives, we will allow local authorities, especially the strategic partnerships that we are now encouraging, to come to the Government and say, "We want to achieve the same objectives as you. We have some ideas about ways in which we might be able to combine the pots of money that you have made available to achieve those objectives and, in effect, we want to bid to take on those programmes and join them together it ways that make the most sense on the ground." In doing so, we could focus more on the outcomes that we want to achieve, rather than the outputs.
      I wanted principally to address what I regard as the most serious problem facing our inner cities prospects for regeneration, especially on brownfield land: the decision of the EU Commission, which was mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), who chairs the Environment Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs. It strikes me as deeply ironic that, between the publication of Lord Rogers' visionary report on our cities and the Government's White Paper earlier this year, the EU Commission should have taken a decision that does more to threaten successful urban regeneration than anything else.
      All hon. Members understand why gap funding developed. It did so for the simple reason that the free market works well in some places, but not in others. Where it does not work well, it fails to provide for wider social and economic need and intervention is required. Gap funding was created because of the failure of the free market, and it has now been banned because of the philosophy of the free market. We know how
      292
      successful it has been. Indeed, it is an example of a public-private partnership of which every hon. Member is strongly in favour. One cannot say that about all forms of PPP.
      The partnership investment programme made possible the development of the waterfront in Leeds. In the past 15 years, the decaying mill buildings that lined the river like spectres from Leeds' industrial past have been transformed into living buildings containing homes and offices. The Victoria quays scheme was the first such development and was the catalyst for the others. Anybody who remembers the Leeds riverside of old and who visits now is amazed. It is estimated that the riverside regeneration and its knock-on effect have created some 15,000 jobs in the inner city. That is what I call urban regeneration. The development is a success that makes it all the more inexplicable that the source of practical support that made it possible is being brought to an end.
      Mr. John M. Taylor: The hon. Gentleman has described some good developments on the riverside in his constituency. Does he believe that there might be something to learn from the London docklands experience, which suggests that it is necessary for the local planning authority to be pretty broad minded and willing to say yes?
      Mr. Benn: I agree with the hon. Gentleman. In a moment, I shall comment on the success of Leeds city council in taking precisely the approach that he describes.
      In May, members of the Environment Sub-Committee met European Commission representatives in Brussels. It was clear that the Commission had not understood the implications of the decision that it took when it took that decision. However, we left it in no doubt of the consequences, and others—especially my right hon. Friend the Minister—have done the same. The Commission has also come to realise that one of the reasons why it did not understand what it was doing was that the United Kingdom has evolved a very different system for dealing with regeneration. Our system principally involves partnership between the public and private sectors, while the rest of Europe has a much greater reliance on public development, partly because so many of its city centres are publicly owned.
      I realise that the Commission is responsible under the treaties to act as guardian of the rules. It is, however, worth reminding ourselves precisely of what article 92(1) of the treaty of Rome says. My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) referred to the thrust of that article, but the crucial wording states that
      any aid granted by a Member State … which distorts or threatens to distort competition by favouring certain undertakings or the production of certain goods shall, in so far as it affects trade between the Member States, be incompatible with the common market.
      The words
      in so far as it affects trade between the Member States
      are crucial to the argument.
      Not for want of a lot of trying, I cannot fathom how the Commission has reached its decision. It seemed to have three concerns: first, that a windfall payment could be made to the owner of land; secondly, that a subsidy could be provided to a developer; and thirdly, that a subsidy could be given to the organisation that rented the new premises. Let us consider those concerns in turn. First, the Sub-Committee asked about windfall. The Commission gave

      293
      one example involving a car manufacturer, and we were told that a complaint had been made. If that happened, why did not the Commission use its powers to say that the project could not go ahead? Secondly, subsidies are the point of gap funding. Local authorities will sometimes have to deal with a single developer that owns the land. If the problem is that developers should have an equal chance to compete, why cannot the Commission deal with the matter under its public procurement rules?
      Thirdly, I do not understand the Commission's concern about potential subsidy to the end user. Much of the riverside development in Leeds has consisted of flats. Unless I have missed something, a flat cannot be regarded as a tradeable commodity. A person cannot pick up a flat from Holbeck, put it down in Hamburg and say that he or she has traded it. The suggestion is nonsense. Such events would not occur, any more than the head of a company that is occupying business or retail space in Milan would suddenly say, "Gosh, cheaper premises are available for rent in the centre of Leeds and we'll move the whole business, lock, stock and barrel." It simply will not happen. An ideological sledgehammer has been used to crack the hard nut of trying to regenerate our inner-city areas and it has smashed it to pieces.
      I shall give three quick examples of what is now at risk in the centre of Leeds. In Leeds, we feel strongly about the matter for the reasons to which I have referred. The city council, together with business through the Leeds initiative, has successfully regenerated the city, although Leeds is the first to acknowledge that parts of the city and large parts of my constituency have not benefited from that regeneration.
      There is a great contrast between the successful and unsuccessful parts of Leeds. The best measure of that is relative house prices—the most sensitive index that we have developed as a society for measuring the quality of life in the areas in which we choose to live. Two weeks ago, the Yorkshire Evening Post highlighted the difference between a £725,000 penthouse flat that was for sale in the centre of Leeds and a four-bedroom house with front and back gardens that was on sale for £7,250, which will come as something of a shock to hon. Members who represent seats in the south-east.
      The first thing at risk is Holbeck urban village—50 acres of old mills and factory buildings, 17 of which are listed. They are of great historical significance and hold the key to regenerating an area between the centre of the city and Holbeck, one of the most deprived parts of my constituency. Regeneration could bring 1,000 jobs to the area, but parts of that development are at risk because of the ban on gap funding.
      Secondly, a large bit of land in the Aire valley has potential for industrial development and has been earmarked for that in the plan. To open it up, issues of contamination and land access need to be addressed. I am glad to say that last week, in their transport announcement, the Government said that they would fund their share of the east Leeds link road, but that leaves the city council to raise the funds for its matching contribution.
      One of the sources that the city council wants to look to are the owners of that land. They are a bit reluctant to put the money up front because they are not sure what will happen. Gap funding would have met not just the
      294
      funding gap, but the timing gap, by allowing the investment to go in first, opening up the land and then possibly leading to a situation where all the money could be clawed back fix m the owners of the land after successful development. That has come to an end.
      On the issue of funding from regional development agencies, I understand that it is Conservative party policy to abolish the RDAs. It would be helpful if the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman made clear what would happen to that funding, which at the moment is the only game in town in relation to regeneration because of the decision on gap funding.
      Thirdly, Mount St Mary's church is on the east bank, which overlooks the city. It is a grade II listed, unused Catholic church, which the Mount St. Mary's trust, working with a developer and a housing association, wants to convert into housing. It has secured single regeneration funding but Yorkshire Forward and English Partnerships have now said that they cannot help because they no longer have access to gap funding.
      That is a tragedy. If we apply the three Commission concerns, we realise how ridiculous it is. There is no windfall for anyone to benefit from. How could the developer, which is a housing association with a development company, get an unfair advantage? The flats cannot be exported. It is nonsense. As a result, a piece of Leeds history that commands a magnificent view over the city lies idle and pro vides homes for pigeons, rather than for people. It is almost as though the Commission has reversed that old conundrum about theory and practice and said about gap funding, "That is all very well in practice, but how might it affect trade in theory?" That seems to have been its thought process.
      As hon. Members will gather, I find it hard to detect any common sense. What the Commission has done is actively to discourage the bringing forward of the brownfield land that every hon. Member in the Chamber agrees should be the focus of development, a subject I notice is dear to the heart even of the right hon. Member for Hitchin and Harpenden. I wish the Minister all good speed and success in her discussions with the Commission, although, based on our discussions with it, I do not know whether it will act terribly quickly. However, I hope that she will continue to impress on the Commission the urgency of agreeing a new framework. It is what we desperately need in places such as Leeds if we are to carry on successfully with urban regeneration.
      9.5 pm
      Miss Anne McIntosh: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), even though his constituency is more eligible for brownfield sites than mine, where we have a dearth of appropriate sites. I was slightly bemused by his comments about the transport settlement last week because I saw that it was only Labour-held seats that received any such settlement. Perhaps the Minister might tell us in which part of north Yorkshire any of my Conservative colleagues might benefit.
      For the benefit of interest to right hon. and hon. Members I should declare that in 1978 I was a stagiaire—I did a traineeship—with the Commission in Directorate-General IV where we were all allowed to work on briefs such as this. I worked on joint ventures and was not able to participate in any article 92 agreements.

      295
      We may have had a new insult aided to the House's vocabulary today—we could call it a full Monti—in relation to whether it is a greater insult for a Commissioner to be called an unelected bureaucrat or, in the words of the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), an academic.
      I should like to use my experience to draw hon. Members' attention to why article 92 applies in cases such as gap funding in so far as it affects trade between member states. In May this year, I was on the same Select Committee visit as the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. I understand that this issue was brought to the Commission's attention because a complaint was made by a constituent in another member state where it was felt that state aid had been misused. It was felt that a car distributor was benefiting and was deemed to have been given an uncompetitive advantage over his competitors in other member states. Having said that, I am intrigued as to why it is more appropriate for the state to take the risk than a private sector company. I am sure that all hon. Members would feel much more comfortable if the private sector, which stands to gain, were to take the risk rather than passing it on.
      Dr. Ladyman: Will the hon. Lady give way?
      Miss McIntosh: No. The hon. Gentleman has spoken and has intervened on almost every speaker. I hope to allow time for my remaining hon. Friends to participate in the debate.
      I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on her discussions with the Commission, and Commissioner Monti on how it will be appropriate to enable local authorities to continue to operate gap funding in assisted areas. There was some evidence to suggest that a slight delay in her Department's drawing up the maps for the new assisted areas had compounded another delay. I hope that the right hon. Lady will report on that to the House. I hope that she will also tell us about her longer-term discussions with the Commission on a possible new regeneration framework and whether the Commission and Commissioner Monti are minded to have regard to that.
      We took a great deal of evidence on alternatives, and perhaps the Minister will report on that, too. One possibility was to look at public service exemptions from competition policy under article 88. There were three other alternatives, which included scope within the current EU aid provision so that grant regimes, albeit at a reduced rate, would remain within assisted areas. Another was horizontal aid rules providing opportunities for regeneration funding to a particular industry or region, albeit greatly reduced in scope. A further alternative was direct development, whereby the state undertakes site assembly, reclamation and provision of infrastructure and thereafter releases the development on to the open market.
      The evidence taken by the Committee prompts the question of why gap funding has beer used so much only in the United Kingdom. At paragraph 102 of the minutes of evidence, Professor Fothergill, the co-ordinator of special programmes for Barnsley metropolitan borough council, said:
      I am only guided … by what other people tell me and other people tell me that we have been ahead of the rest of the European Union in employing public/private partnerships. The tradition in the other Member States of the EU is much more one either of direct development by the public sector or of end users of buildings going
      296
      through the whole development process themselves. The firm that finally uses the building buys the land, puts the bricks on the ground and so on.
      In his evidence, Mr. Chris Brown said:
      In Europe, they put much more public sector money into regeneration. They have much more public sector land ownership. The contrast is we have a much greater regeneration need because we industrialised earlier and therefore we have the problems of that industrialisation. Also, we are much better at urban regeneration than they are.
      At paragraph 10, Mr. Gill, the commercial director of English Partnerships, said:
      elsewhere in Europe agencies or the equivalent of our local authorities, very often carry out direct development site preparation.
      I ask the Minister to confirm that, as the Government's response to the report states:
      The UK Government is proposing to convene a seminar to which representatives from all the Member States have been invited in order to identify the different approaches which are used to achieve the physical regeneration of derelict or contaminated land across the Community, and the extent to which private sector partners are involved.
      Such a development would be very positive indeed.
      I also query some of the evidence that the Committee took. At paragraph 14, Mr. Gill seemed to be rather surprised that under European Union rules, contrary to our usual conception, a subsidy is not deemed to be a subsidy when the state takes the risk and the hit.
      I am delighted to have been able to make this short, modest speech—which has been especially brief to allow my hon. Friends to speak. However, I hope that the Minister will be able to bring the House very much up to date on the negotiations and tell us which assisted areas the Department hopes to ensure will continue to benefit from that status. I hope that she can also tell us how far we are in establishing for the United Kingdom a new regeneration framework that meets with the Commission's approval.
      9.13 pm
      Mr. John M. Taylor: I am very pleased that the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) has returned to the Chamber, as I wanted to say in his presence that, in his interesting speech, he made a very interesting observation on contaminated land.
      I dare say that other hon. Members will say, "What on earth is the hon. Member for Solihull doing speaking in this debate? Solihull is hardly a place of great deprivation or even of much regeneration." There is certainly not much regeneration in my part of the borough. I should explain that I am in that unusual position of representing a constituency that has the same name as a borough whereas I represent only half of the borough. Arguably, in the north of the borough—in the constituency represented by my hon. Friend the Member for Meriden (Mrs. Spelman)—there is some deprivation. However, as there is hardly any deprivation in my constituency, I am not going to pray in aid the constituency of Solihull to inform me in the debate.
      Perhaps I shall, however, hark back to a previous existence of mine, in the 1970s, when I was leader of what was called the West Midlands metropolitan county council—which, after the Greater London council, was the largest local authority in the country. A funny thing happened to the GLC. The then Prime Minister considered

      297
      herself somewhat provoked by the GLC and set about abolishing it. To my great disappointment, the other provincial metropolitan authorities—West Midlands, Merseyside, West Yorkshire, South Yorkshire, and Tyne and Wear—also went. I considered that the West Midlands county authority had a real role to play in regeneration, and it was beginning to develop it. When it granted a peripheral planning permission for a greenfield site—not in the green belt—the authority would set the condition that the developer had to deal with an inner-city brownfield site as well.
      The classic example concerned Saltley gas works, and it was that example that caused me to return to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. At Saltley, the ground was contaminated to a depth of at least 12 ft, and there were very difficult workings underneath the gas works. The problems gave rise to a concept about which I have not heard much recently but which was very current in the 1970s—negative value. Was it possible that a property could become so worthless and rundown that no one would take it for nothing, and that anyone taking it over would have to be paid? There was quite a lot of discussion about negative value in those days.
      Incidentally, in the county council areas there were two cities—Birmingham and Coventry—and five boroughs, namely Solihull, Walsall, Sandwell, Dudley and Wolverhampton. Of course, now that Wolverhampton is a city, we would have to say that there are three cities in the area, and I am sure we all very pleased about that.
      I have always lived either in Birmingham or close to it. It is possible to see how Birmingham, as a typical big provincial city, has rolled out into the countryside over some 200 years. Its progress at various stages can be traced, rather as the rings of a tree display its growth. What is quite near today's city centre was once the edge of the city: proud villas with a name and a date over their doors can be found there, and one realises that they belonged to what was once fashionable Birmingham. However, the city's progress has gone dangerously far into the Warwickshire countryside, as the economically mobile have headed for suburbia and, ultimately, for rural addresses.
      Any constituency with a great industrial city on one side and Warwickshire countryside on the other will experience pressure on its green belt. There are some very sensitive areas in my part of the world and the pressure on the green belt is remorseless.
      Mention has been made today of the north, the south and the south-east; I hope that I might aspire to be the authentic voice of the midlands. Our greatest anxiety is that Birmingham will sprawl into Coventry. There is a crucial corridor of green belt called the Meriden gap between the two cities, and everyone in my area wants to defend it.
      Mr. Andrew Stunell (Hazel Grove): I agree very much with the hon. Gentleman, as my constituency is in a somewhat similar position on the edge of Manchester. The hon. Gentleman suggests that debate has centred on the south and the midlands, but I want to extend the case that
      298
      has been made to the north-west. Does he agree that this is one of the most crucial issues for suburban constituencies such as ours?
      Mr. Taylor: Yes, I do. I have travelled through the hon. Gentleman's constituency and accept that it bears distinct similarities to mine.
      In my area, we are very anxious about three motorway service station applications in Solihull, which would mean that local people would never see the night sky again. There is interesting talk of a rail link between the Land Rover plant that is the largest employer in my constituency and the west coast main line. I cannot but think that the Deputy Prime Minister would be extremely enthusiastic about that link, as it would take more than 100,000 lorries a year off the roads. However, I trespass not on the constituency of Meriden, through which most of the track goes—the plant is in my constituency.
      I am conscious of the pressure of time; there are others who would like to speak. I will end with a yuletide indulgence, if I may. I took the opportunity last Friday of planting an oak tree to Brueton park in Solihull. The oak tree was twice as tall as me, which would not be very difficult. I end on a note of tribute to the Warwickshire wildlife trust, which made this all possible—in particular Dr. Andy Tasker, the director.
      My final word is simply this: let us all remember that the renaissance was financed by the private sector. There is a real role for the private sector in regeneration, and I look forward to seeing it.
      9.20 pm
      Mr. Crispin Blunt: I am grateful to my right hon. and hon. Friends for their restraint in allowing me to contribute to the debate. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor), I represent a constituency that is largely green belt. I sympathise with and endorse the remarks of my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley). Our constituencies, where the green belt will be concreted over, are the flip side of the difficulties of urban regeneration. If we suck investment and the most talented people from the north-west and the north-east down to the economic magnet of the south-east, we will continue to make problems for ourselves, which any amount of urban regeneration schemes will be unable to solve.
      I compliment my hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) on a brave speech—with all the loaded meaning that "brave" has when one politician uses it to compliment another—for being prepared to defend her former employers in the European Commission for a decision as outrageous as that made by Commissioner Monti.
      I commend the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn). I, like him, had the privilege of visiting the Holbeck urban village. For Holbeck to be the victim of the Commission's decision—and there are hundreds of other victims in schemes such as Holbeck up and down the country—is a disaster for urban regeneration. That is why I endorse the introduction to the debate by the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee, on which I have the honour to serve.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) chided the hon. Member for Denton and Reddish slightly for the extremity of his remarks. As

      299
      far as I was concerned, the hon. Gentleman lost me only when he effectively compared Commissioner Monti to the Luftwaffe. Until then, I was with him all the way.
      The right emotion about the decision is anger. It was a capricious, foolish, stupid decision by the European Commissioner; there was no question of balance in terms of the effect on the single market and the disaster that it has wrought on urban regeneration.
      The first point that I want to make to the Minister is one of regret. The Government should have fought over the decision. For them to roll over and say that one of the factors that led them not to fight the case was because it was part of our wider interests within the European Union was wrong. If the right hon. Lady wanted to hear the legal case for fighting the decision, she had only to listen to the speech of the hon. Member for Leeds, Central. With forensic skill, he laid out the legal weaknesses of the European Commission's position.
      I am appalled at the quality of the legal advice that the Minister must have received if she thought that there was no case to fight. The Government should have taken the case not only to the European Court of Justice but to the Council of Ministers and the European Parliament, because the decision was a disaster for urban regeneration. I should like to explain in a little detail why it is as bad as the Select Committee report says. The key point is the scale of the money that has been lost to urban regeneration.
      In the previous three years that the partnership investment programme was working, £2.1 billion was levered into urban regeneration, with nearly £1.5 billion of that coming from the private sector. That was building on a history of successful urban regeneration schemes that began with the urban regeneration companies of the late 1980s and the 1990s, which was picked up by English Partnerships and then by the partnership investment programme. It was a stunning success, but that success is now being lost.
      Part of the Government's case was that they wanted to protect the 300 existing schemes in that quixotic way, although they were somehow in violation of the state-aid rule according to the Commissioner' s ruling, and to allow those schemes to continue. The fact is that we have lost all the other schemes that were to come on stream.
      All that the Government have been able to do is put £500 million extra into the RDAs to fund urban regeneration. Of course, that extra money for the RDAs is not only for urban regeneration. It has to meet a host of other priorities. It will be up to the RDAs to decide their order of priorities.
      All we know is that, for the next three years, that £500 million is a maximum figure. As has been said, the real problem lies in the fact that the costs are now all up front. When the schemes have to be under way, a public sector body will have to find public-sector money for the up-front costs of the urban regeneration schemes that they want, in a battle with the Treasury and with all the other demands that are always there on public sector bodies. That will put a huge burden on individual schemes that are competing for the limited pot of money. The risk is being borne entirely by the public sector. In terms of the scale of resources available for urban regeneration, the quantum on the face of it is extremely high, but the resources will also all have to be sound within the public sector.
      300
      The second disaster is what has happened to the people and the talent available to undertake urban regeneration projects. When the Select Committee took evidence on the urban White Paper and the partnership investment programme we heard from some impressive people. Chris Brown of AMEC Developments and Tom Bloxham of Urban Splash are two names that spring to mind as witnesses who came across not only as outstanding entrepreneurs in their own field, but as men of immense quality, who have brought private-sector drive and enthusiasm to urban regeneration projects.
      My right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon asked how many people from English Partnerships have gone to the RDAs to help them to deliver. The real question is not where have those people gone from English Partnerships, but what has happened to the people in the private sector.
      I draw the attention of the House to the evidence that we took from Chris Brown of AMEC, when he was asked:
      What are the implications for urban regeneration programmes? I agree with your analysis about where we have come from and what land we have but what really are the implications?
      He said:
      Jonathon Blackie used the word "disastrous". I would agree. For my part, in my organisation, my colleagues are looking at me and saying, "What do you do now?" It is personally quite a problem.
      Chris Brown was the director of AMEC Developments for urban regeneration. He also stated, when considering the effects and what is already happening within the industry:
      It has hardly started. What happens in practice is, if we take a scheme to an RDA and say, "This needs some grant", they say, "Unlucky. Bring it back maybe sometime in the future. We are not sure." What we—
      Amec—
      say to our people is, "Do not bother yourselves with schemes which you think need grant. Go and do something that looks commercial.
      That is the real disaster, as well as the money. All the talented people from the private sector who involved themselves in urban regeneration will do something else. The victims will be people who live in places such as Holbeck urban village—schemes whose success we desperately need in order to deliver urban regeneration throughout the country. The European Commission ruling was a disaster; we should continue to fight it and we should try to reinstate that scheme.
      9.30 pm
      Mr. Tim Loughton: It is high time that the House discussed urban regeneration. We have had a good debate—albeit conducted under the obscure parliamentary device of a 20-line motion on supplementary estimates, comprising a medley of environmental causes. Before this debate, the House had been entitled only to a short session of questions on the long-awaited urban White Paper and to some references in the pre-Budget report to urban regeneration tax breaks.
      The attendance in the House, on an otherwise quiet evening, makes it clear that the latest buzz words—urban regeneration—strike a chord with many hon. Members. There is an obvious breadth of interest and experience across many constituencies. We heard of the experiences of the hon. Member for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman); I too have visited some of the projects that she mentioned. The hon. Member for South Thanet

      301
      (Dr. Ladyman) clearly demonstrated that partnership investment programmes were essential when the figures do not add up. The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) made an excellent speech.
      We heard outright condemnation of Mario Monti; words such as evil, mad, misguided and bonkers were used—that was the toned-down version. There was universal condemnation of the decision over which he presided. The current attacks on the green belt will continue and accelerate unless we get urban regeneration absolutely right—as was clearly demonstrated by my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden (Mr. Lilley) who described the attack on green fields in Hertfordshire. He pointed out that brownfield and greenfield interests are inextricably linked. My hon. Friend the Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) mentioned the greenfield problems in her area. There are similar problems in Solihull and Reigate.
      There was a broad consensus on many issues—with the possible exception of the suggestion of the hon. Member for Falmouth and Camborne (Ms Atherton) that RDAs had a monopoly on urban regeneration; I shall return to that point later in my remarks.
      As I said, the latest buzz words in environmental parlance are urban regeneration. The profile of urban regeneration was raised considerably by the report of Lord Rogers—who has perhaps become its great guru—and the work of the urban taskforce. However, the urban White Paper, which responded to the report, singularly failed Lord Rogers's own test. Generously, only 14 proposals from the Rogers report were adopted by the urban White Paper.
      Yesterday's news that the Government intend to overrule local authorities in the south-east—by rejecting the south-east regional planning committee figures and imposing 39,000 homes per year for the first five years and then accelerating the programme—is a slap in the face for local democracy. It is an act of environmental vandalism—as my right hon. Friend the Member for Hitchin and Harpenden so correctly said—and makes effective urban renewal even more urgent.
      To date, the Government do not have an impressive record on urban regeneration. In their first four years, they budgeted about £5.7 billion for urban regeneration projects, but that compares with £6.1 billion—before inflation—in the last four years of the previous Conservative Government. The Government have introduced about 26 conflicting and disjointed initiatives—as many hon. Members pointed out—many of which cut across the same resources and local expertise; for example, education action zones, sure start, health action zones, neighbourhood support funds and so on. They all have merits, but they are a disjointed and unco-ordinated muddle.
      Mrs. Gilroy: When I was elected to my constituency, I had the doubtful privilege of inheriting from my Conservative predecessor the poorest ward in England. In Plymouth, the disparate projects to which the hon. Gentleman refers add up to the fact that unemployment in the city has returned to the average figure for the first time in 20 years. Will he clarify how the cuts of £55 million, which would result from the £16 billion
      302
      package of cuts proposed by the shadow Chancellor, would be spread across Plymouth's greatly valued public services and regeneration projects?
      Mr. Loughton: The disparity and disjointedness of the various initiatives has posed an enormous problem. The hon. Lady does not know what the budget for urban regeneration will be under the next Conservative Government. If she waits, she will be rather pleasantly surprised.
      The Government's performance and innovation unit stated that the clear evidence from those on the ground is that there are too many Government initiatives causing confusion, not enough co-ordination and too much time spent negotiating the system, rather than delivering. I shall continue to deal with that record. More families now live in poor households than did under the previous Government. Some 14.25 million people live in households with less than half the average income, which is more than double the number in the early 1980s and an additional 500,000 on the high point in 1992–93, when the country was in recession.
      Despite the Government's lofty claims about eradicating child poverty, there is no evidence for any reduction in number of children—there are 4.5 million—who live in households with less than half the national average income. One million older people have no income other than state benefits. More people live in temporary housing. The number of priority homeless has risen by 3,000. In London, the number of priority homeless has risen by 14 per cent. The number of families in bed-and-breakfast accommodation has risen by 51 per cent. since 1997. The numbers of low weight births, problem drug users, excess winter deaths and people in young offender institutions have all risen. According to almost any measure of poverty, social deprivation or social exclusion, the Government's record is not impressive, but they do not like to hear that.
      Mrs. Gilroy: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Loughton: I want to make progress; the hon. Lady had a good shot before
      On rising crime, making the streets safe must be the prerequisite of any sustainable urban regeneration project, but the figures for the inner cities are most worrying—3,000 fewer police officers and hundreds of early releases are inextricably linked with the fact that crime has risen by 4 per cent. in Greater Manchester; by 12.6 per cent. in the Metropolitan police area; and by 5.2 per cent. in Merseyside, partly because of the exodus from our cities of about 90,000 people a year.
      The Government's record is not impressive, and it is right that we should analyse the details of the grants under the no less than 27 headings and sundry titles to discover whether the money is being well spent.
      The Joseph Rowntree Foundation report, published earlier this month, included evidence to show that regeneration attempts are being undermined by a breakdown in trust between residents and service providers, especially on large, problem council estates. It is little wonder that the Environment Select Committee said in its 11th report in July that the quality of services provided to urban neighbourhoods is very poor, despite the large amount of mainstream funds spent.

      303
      How will the Minister judge the success and the value for money of the urban regeneration grants? The pre-Budget report announced the possibility of up to 12 new urban regeneration companies based on three pilot schemes, but gave no indication of how those schemes were performing or on what criteria they were being judged. How much of that policy can be achieved given the absence of any primary legislation, especially to give urban regeneration companies proper teeth, and given the absence of a renaissance Bill, any urban priority area legislation or any compulsory purchase measure?
      I want to ask the Minister some more questions on the Pre-Budget report because its detail does not bear close scrutiny. On the proposals for zero stamp duty in disadvantaged areas, when will she tell us what constitutes a disadvantaged area? Where are they? Will they be established on a ward basis using an index of deprivation? If the amount of stamp duty exemption is not capped, how much will it help residents in larger, higher value homes?
      Last week, during a meeting of the Select Committee on Environmental Audit, the Financial Secretary seemed to think that the zero-rate stamp duty exemptions were aimed at business, with purely a knock-on effect on residential property, yet everyone knows that the stamp duty take from business and residential properties is split roughly 50:50.
      Last year, 660,000 properties were sold worth less than £60,000—the sum at which stamp duty kicks in. That represents more than 40 per cent. of sales. Without those in London and the south-east, the vast majority of property sales last year did not qualify for stamp duty. So how will the measure help most deprived areas rather than act as a kick-back for people living in houses worth £500,000 or £750,000 in Islington, Hackney and such places?
      There are similar question marks over certain measures that, as my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) said, sound good and can be welcomed in principle, but in practice do not amount to much more than a row of beans. Let us consider regional development agencies. It is true—we have been clear—that we do not believe that RDAs add value. Typically, between 75 and 80 per cent. of their budgets are purely for distributing single regeneration budget spending.
      Urban regeneration happened long before RDAs came on the scene. From 1981 onwards, there were urban development corporations, enterprise action zones and everything else. RDAs are not essential. So, I assure the hon. Member for Leeds, Central that we would first save the £70 million of RDA administration costs and recycle it into sharp-end regeneration and spending. Their powers would be devolved to local authorities or the Government offices of the regions, as before.
      Mr. Bennett: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
      Mr. Loughton: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I should like to make some progress as I am very short of time.
      There is a serious question mark over the distribution of the sixth round—in the summer—of single regeneration budget funding, which the Minister has failed to address. Of the top 10 Labour-held marginal constituencies involved in a bid under SRB—six in August—why did all 10 receive their bid, yet nine of them contain no ward
      304
      among the 10 per cent. most deprived on the normal deprivation index? Indeed, only one contained a local authority eligible for neighbourhood renewed funding. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster) made that point, but the answer is rather more sinister than he suggested. Will the Minister assure us about the balance with which the funds are distributed?
      I should like to raise many other questions about the way in which funds from the grant will be used, such as those for the ordnance survey—even though we are still awaiting last year's results from what is supposed to be a profitable organisation. We could consider the way in which money will be spent on national parks grants and on the Housing Corporation, which has failed to meet its own targets over the past three years and continues to do so.
      I shall end as we started, with reference to gap funding. Friday is the first anniversary of the European Commission's absurd ruling that the partnership investment programme was in breach of state aid rules. As the Select Committee report rightly says, the decision
      threatens seriously to undermine … regeneration in England … A body blow for the Urban Renaissance.
      The report concluded that the Commission's decision was "illogical and ill-considered" and that it brings
      "the European Union into disrepute".
      As all hon. Members have said, the PIP was highly successful over six years in providing seedcorn—gap—funding of £1.1 billion, which levered in £2.5 billion from the private sector for remediation of land, refurbishment of buildings, site servicing, new build and so on by providing the minimum necessary to allow projects to go ahead. Those projects would not otherwise have done so. The programme was ruled against because it could provide a windfall to the owners of land, represented a subsidy to developers and is a subsidy to an organisation that rents the new premises—or so we are told. As one hon. Member has said, it was clear that the Commission just did not understand what it was doing.
      Now, not only are planned schemes at risk, but the good work in many areas may be undermined. The decision will have a serious effect on RDA budgets, as has been said. The 60 per cent. brownfield target, which the Government are far from reaching but we are constantly promised—the actual target date is not until 2008—will now surely be impossible to achieve and can only fuel further pressure on greenfield sites.
      How final was the decision? How are we to get out of this mess? How are we to finance the smaller bread-and-butter projects of English Partnerships in particular? How on earth was this allowed to happen?
      In the words of the report, the whole issue has been handled abysmally. The Competition Directorate has decided effectively to abolish the most efficient, effective and imaginative regeneration scheme in the European Union. Will the Minister give the whole House—we are all interested—an up-to-date account of the way ahead and what effect the judgment has had on the estimates to which we are agreeing today? I hope that she will also answer the other questions raised, because many more questions have been asked than have been answered by the Government on their record on urban regeneration.
      9.45 pm
      The Minister for Local Government and the Regions (Ms Hilary Armstrong): We have had a wide-ranging and interesting debate. However, may I begin by thanking my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) for reminding the House of the tragic death of a policeman in Margate last night? We all join my hon. Friend in offering our deepest sympathies to the policeman's family and to the people of Thanet who, as my hon. Friend made clear, have been so distressed by this incident.
      Several Members concentrated on the issue of urban regeneration in its widest form. The hon. Member for Bath (Mr. Foster), the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) and the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) mainly concentrated on issues other than the cancellation of the partnership investment programme. However, my hon. Friends the Members for Liverpool, Riverside (Mrs. Ellman), for South Thanet and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) covered that programme as well as other issues.
      The hon. Member for Solihull (Mr. Taylor) made some interesting points about the metropolitan counties that we no longer have. He also reminded us about suburbs, which were an important aspect of the urban White Paper. I hope that he will take the opportunity to consider the ideas in the White Paper and examine how we have given local authorities and regional development agencies the framework within which to deal with the issues that he raised. We continue to consider the involvement of the private sector as central.
      The cancellation of the partnership investment programme has meant that the private sector has woken up to how useful it was. It is now engaged much more fully with regional development agencies and local authorities to examine how it can contribute much more effectively to regeneration and how it can develop an effective replacement to the programme.
      I talked to someone from a major financial institution and I was impressed that, because of the Government's work and the commitment that was in the urban White Paper, urban regeneration has become a central part of that institution's corporate strategy. It now seeks to be much more engaged in regeneration, and I hope that the House will be pleased to hear that.
      The hon. Member for Bath raised a whole range of issues and, clearly, I cannot respond to all of them this evening. I want to set out the way in which the Government approach urban renaissance. Urban regeneration and rural development go together, and that is important. The work of the urban taskforce was the foundation of the urban White Paper and we have set a clear strategic framework that identifies priorities and does so at a regional and local level.
      I was struck by the exchanges on the Floor of the House about empty properties and I noticed that everyone who contributed to the exchanges represented a southern constituency. The issue is different in different parts of the country and those exchanges had nothing to say to those people who deal not with empty properties that have not been renovated quickly enough, but with abandoned properties and properties that are impossible to let or sell.
      Mr. Don Foster: I hope that the Minister will accept that the figures show that empty homes are a problem
      306
      throughout the country, but she is right to say that there are different approaches to dealing with it, not least in the role of registered social landlords.
      Ms Armstrong: Of course I accept the general thrust of the hon. Gentleman's point, but we too often take a one-dimensional view of the problem which does not reflect differences in the country. That is precisely why a regional approach is so important. Having set out a strategic approach, we now have a much more clearly focused neighbourhood approach, with far greater involvement of local people.
      I point out to the hon. Gentleman and others that some of the money was not spent in the first year because we involved local people in a way, they say, in which they had never been involved before. That was so important to them that they asked us to delay the timetable so that they could have more time to get things right. We were happy to do so because we did not want them to be constrained by our timetable; rather, we wanted to be energised by their timetable so that our actions would be effective.
      I want to make only one more point on wider regeneration because I cannot respond to every point that was made. We seek to ensure that mainstream programmes work more effectively. The neighbourhood renewal fund, which will provide investment of £800 million over the next three years, is geared to that. We want to ensure that no area has an educational or health profile that does not reach the targets that have been set. I thought it interesting that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned education so often, because this Government have put education at the centre of urban regeneration, and our development of the urban renewal fund demonstrates that fully.
      I turn now to the main debate, which concerned the partnership investment programme. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Denton and Reddish (Mr. Bennett), the Chairman of the Environment Sub-Committee, on his relentless pursuit of the issue. Other colleagues mentioned the benefits that the scheme has brought to their constituencies and the problems that they now face because of the scheme's removal. The Commission's decision on the PIP was clearly a blow, and many hon. Members have spoken of how urban regeneration, in their constituencies and more widely, will suffer. The PIP was an extremely cost-effective way of delivering regeneration, and apart from reducing the call on public funds, it enabled us fully to harness private sector skills.
      When the Commission considered the scheme I argued strongly that the PIP was not illegal state aid because the grant given was the absolute minimum necessary to bridge the gap between the development costs and the market value of the regeneration site. The scheme did not give an unfair competition advantage to the developer because any undertaking could apply for assistance under the PIP, and all costs and values were assessed at open market rates. There was negligible, if any, intra-Community trade in the development of derelict land and buildings.
      Despite that, the Commission decided that the PIP breached the state rules for reasons that have been given in the debate. Obviously, we were disappointed, but that decision was logical under a very strict interpretation of the rules. The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) asked

      307
      why we did not pursue the matter in the European Court. Once the decision was made, that was that, and we had to live with the consequences. We could have decided to argue, but that would have brought great uncertainty to the market, including developers, regional development agencies and local authorities. We took the view that we should get on with the transition and with agreeing new schemes that could be implemented. Once the PIP had finished, we could not operate it—even if we had appealed—without having made an agreement in the way that we did on the transition scheme. A legal challenge would have been lengthy and there was no guarantee that it would have succeeded.
      What have we done? First, we were successful in negotiating a deal with the Commission to allow more than 300 projects already in the pipeline to come to fruition, despite the adverse ruling. We are working closely with English Partnerships and regional development agencies to ensure that these projects come on stream as quickly as possible.
      Mr. Blunt: Will the right hon. Lady give way?
      Ms Armstrong: I am sorry, no. I do not have time.
      Secondly, we provided extra resources to ensure that the projects which previously would have been funded under the PIP could continue. We have made an extra £60 million available this year, which will rise to £150 million next year. That, together with the other money that we have made available to English Partnerships and the RDAs, brings the total for their land and property budgets to £351 million in 2001 and £379 million in 2001–02.
      Thirdly, we have begun the important work of developing a new framework by notifying the Commission of five new schemes that will partially replace the PIP. Two of the schemes will provide gap funding in the assisted areas for bespoke and speculative projects. The three other schemes, which will operate anywhere in England, cover direct development, neighbourhood renewal and environmental regeneration. I am confident that all of these schemes will be approved shortly.
      More widely, we underpinned the Government's total commitment to the regeneration of our towns and cities and to addressing the decline in social cohesion in the country when we published the urban White Paper. This sets out our vision for an urban renaissance and builds on the work of the Rogers taskforce.
      The White Paper contains a wide range of proposals that is designed to stimulate the regeneration of our urban areas. The proposals include the fiscal incentives, to which hon. Members have referred, to encourage the clean-up of brownfield land, up to 12 new urban regeneration companies and five more millennium villages, new planning policy guidance to put urban renaissance at the heart of the urban planning system, and a new £100 million public-private partnership for the English cities fund, subsequently rising to £250 million. Together with our work on tackling social exclusion and neighbourhood renewal in addressing the problems of the most deprived areas, this represents the most comprehensive set of measures that has been designed to regenerate our towns and cities.
      We believe that we have good arguments that support the need for a regeneration framework. Physical regeneration serves community objectives by improving
      308
      the standard of living and quality of life, for example. None of the existing frameworks serves regeneration goals. Regeneration is a horizontal rather than a sectoral issue, and can apply across the range of economic sectors. The hon. Member for Vale of York (Miss McIntosh) understands these terms because they are used by the Commission. If the right hon. Member for Bromley and Chislehurst (Mr. Forth) had been in the Chamber all evening, he would know that they represent the issues that we have been discussing.
      All existing and future member states would benefit from the existence of a framework for furthering regeneration objectives. Having a regeneration framework in place will, in our view, help those countries that are hoping to join the Community by giving them a range of delivery mechanisms to make regeneration work.
      We are working with the Commission and examining the scope for creating a new regeneration framework under which state aid would be permitted for the physical regeneration of derelict and disused sites throughout England and the rest of the Community. We are actively engaged in a dialogue with the Commission, and I am optimistic that it will be possible to negotiate a new framework.
      Those of us in the House who wish to see the effective enlargement of the EU will want the framework to be in place as soon as possible. The seminar will be held next year. We have engaged with other member states, and they are interested. I believe that we can make progress. I am sure that all sensible people who support regeneration will welcome the proposal.
      It being Ten o'clock, MR. SPEAKER proceeded to put forthwith the Questions relating to Estimates which he was directed to put at that hour, pursuant to Standing Order No. 54(4) and (5) (Consideration of Estimates).
      The House divided: Ayes 301, Noes 9.

      Division No. 13]

      [10 pm

      AYES

      Ainger, Nick

      Blizzard, Bob

      Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

      Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

      Alexander, Douglas

      Borrow, David

      Allen, Graham

      Bradley, Keith (Withington)

      Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

      Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

      Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

      Bradshaw, Ben

      Ashdown, Rt Hon Paddy

      Brand, Dr Peter

      Ashton, Joe

      Brinton, Mrs Helen

      Atherton, Ms Candy

      Burden, Richard

      Atkins, Charlotte

      Burgon, Colin

      Austin, John

      Butler, Mrs Christine

      Bailey, Adrian

      Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

      Barnes, Harry

      Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

      Barron, Kevin

      Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

      Battle, John

      Bayley, Hugh

      Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

      Beard, Nigel

      Cann, Jamie

      Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

      Caplin, Ivor

      Begg, Miss Anne

      Casale, Roger

      Beggs, Roy

      Caton, Martin

      Beith, Rt Hon A J

      Cawsey, Ian

      Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

      Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

      Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

      Chaytor, David

      Bennett, Andrew F

      Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

      Benton, Joe

      Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

      Bermingham, Gerald

      Berry, Roger

      Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

      Blackman, Liz

      Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

      Blears, Ms Hazel

      Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

      309

      Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

      Hopkins, Kelvin

      Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

      Howells, Dr Kim

      Clelland, David

      Hoyle, Lindsay

      Coffey, Ms Ann

      Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

      Coleman, Iain

      Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

      Colman, Tony

      Humble, Mrs Joan

      Cooper, Yvette

      Hurst, Alan

      Corston, Jean

      Iddon, Dr Brian

      Cox, Tom

      Illsley, Eric

      Cranston, Ross

      Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

      Crausby, David

      Jamieson, David

      Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

      Jenkins, Brian

      Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

      Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

      Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

      Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

      Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

      Dalyell, Tam

      Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

      Darvill, Keith

      Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

      Davey, Edward (Kingston)

      Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

      Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

      Davidson, Ian

      Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

      Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

      Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

      Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

      Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

      Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

      Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

      Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

      Keeble, Ms Sally

      Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

      Dawson, Hilton

      Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

      Dean, Mrs Janet

      Khabra, Piara S

      Denham, John

      Kidney, David

      Dismore, Andrew

      Kilfoyle, Peter

      Dobbin, Jim

      King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

      Dobson, Rt Hon Frank

      Kirkwood, Archy

      Donaldson, Jeffrey

      Ladyman, Dr Stephen

      Doran, Frank

      Laxton, Bob

      Dowd, Jim

      Lepper, David

      Drew, David

      Leslie, Christopher

      Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

      Levitt, Tom

      Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

      Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

      Edwards, Huw

      Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

      Ellman, Mrs Louise

      Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

      Etherington, Bill

      Linton, Martin

      Fisher, Mark

      Livsey, Richard

      Fitzpatrick, Jim

      Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

      Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

      Llwyd, Elfyn

      Flint, Caroline

      Lock, David

      Flynn, Paul

      Love, Andrew

      Follett, Barbara

      McAvoy, Thomas

      Foster, Rt Hon Derek

      McCabe, Steve

      Foster, Don (Bath)

      McCafferty, Ms Chris

      Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

      McDonagh, Siobhain

      Foulkes, George

      McFall, John

      Gapes, Mike

      McIsaac, Shona

      Gardiner, Barry

      McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

      George, Andrew (St Ives)

      McNamara, Kevin

      Gerrard, Neil

      McNulty, Tony

      Gibson, Dr Ian

      MacShane, Denis

      Gilroy, Mrs Linda

      Mactaggart, Fiona

      Godsiff, Roger

      Mahon, Mrs Alice

      Goggins, Paul

      Mallaber, Judy

      Golding, Mrs Llin

      Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

      Gordon, Mrs Eileen

      Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

      Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

      Marshall, David (Shetllston)

      Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

      Martlew, Eric

      Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

      Maxton, John

      Hain, Peter

      Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

      Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

      Meale, Alan

      Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

      Merron, Gillian

      Harvey, Nick

      Michael, Rt Hon Alun

      Healey, John

      Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

      Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

      Miller, Andrew

      Hendrick, Mark

      Moffatt, Laura

      Hepburn, Stephen

      Moonie, Dr Lewis

      Hill, Keith

      Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

      Hinchliffe, David

      Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

      Hood, Jimmy

      Morley, Elliot

      Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

      Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

      Hope, Phil

      310

      Mountford, Kali

      Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

      Mullin, Chris

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

      Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

      Soley, Clive

      Naysmith, Dr Doug

      Spellar, John

      Norris, Dan

      Squire, Ms Rachel

      O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

      Starkey, Dr Phyllis

      O'Hara, Eddie

      Steinberg, Gerry

      Olner, Bill

      Stevenson, George

      Pearson, Ian

      Stewart, David (Inverness E)

      Pendry, Tom

      Stoate, Dr Howard

      Pickthall, Colin

      Stuart, Ms Gisela

      Pike, Peter L

      Stunell, Andrew

      Plaskitt, James

      Sutcliffe, Gerry

      Pope, Greg

      Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

      Pound, Stephen

      Powell, Sir Raymond

      Taylor, David (NW Leics)

      Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

      Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

      Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

      Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

      Primarolo, Dawn

      Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

      Prosser, Gwyn

      Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

      Purchase, Ken

      Timms, Stephen

      Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

      Tipping, Paddy

      Rapson, Syd

      Todd, Mark

      Raynsford, Nick

      Truswell, Paul

      Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

      Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

      Rendel, David

      Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

      Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

      Turner, Neil (Wigan)

      Twigg, Derek (Halton)

      Roche, Mrs Barbara

      Tyler, Paul

      Rooney, Terry

      Tynan, Bill

      Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

      Vis, Dr Rudi

      Ross, William (E Lond'y)

      Walley, Ms Joan

      Ruddock, Joan

      Wareing, Robert N

      Russell, Bob (Colchester)

      Watts, David

      Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

      Webb, Steve

      Ryan, Ms Joan

      White, Brian

      Salter, Martin

      Whitehead, Dr Alan

      Sanders, Adrian

      Wicks, Malcolm

      Savidge, Malcolm

      Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

      Sawford, Phil

      Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

      Sedgemore, Brian

      Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

      Shaw, Jonathan

      Willis, Phil

      Shipley, Ms Debra

      Wills, Michael

      Short, Rt Hon Clare

      Wood, Mike

      Singh, Marsha

      Woodward, Shaun

      Skinner, Dennis

      Worthington, Tony

      Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

      Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

      Smith, Angela (Basildon)

      Wright, Tony (Cannock)

      Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

      Tellers for the Ayes:

      Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

      Mr. Don Touhig and

      Smith, John (Glamorgan)

      Mr. Clive Betts.

      NOES

      Blunt, Crispin

      Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

      Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

      McIntosh, Miss Anne

      Swayne, Desmond

      Chope, Christopher

      Fabricant, Michael

      Tellers for the Noes:

      Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

      Mr. David Wilshire and

      Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

      Mr. Eric Forth.

      Question accordingly agreed to.
      Resolved,
      That a supplementary sum, not exceeding £81,746,000 be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund, on account, for or towards defraying the charge for the year ending on 31st March 2001 for expenditure by the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions on payments to the Housing Corporation: Housing Revenue Account Subsidy; grants towards and advice on the renewal of private sector housing; the Estates Renewal Challenge Fund; homelessness, including the Rough Sleepers Unit; housing management; rent and leasehold services; support for the UK construction industry; planning and minerals research and other planning programmes; payments to the Ordnance Survey (Trading

      311
      Fund); the London Development Agency; Regional Development Agencies; the New Deal for Communities and other help for deprived neighbourhoods; Single Regeneration Budget; Urban Regeneration Agency (English Partnerships); Housing Action Trusts; Estate Action; Groundwork; coalfields regeneration; European Union agency payments including those for ports and railways in Wales; European Regional Development Fund projects not funded by or in advance of receipts; Countryside Agency; Nature Conservancy Council for England; National Parks Grant; bulk pensions transfers; and sundry other grants-in-aid, grants and payments in support of housing, construction, regeneration, regional policy and countryside and wildlife initiatives, including related research, publicity and publications.

      Urban Regeneration

        SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 55(1) and (2) (Questions on voting of estimates &c.),
        That a further supplementary sum, not exceeding £4,352,561,000, be granted to Her Majesty out of the Consolidated Fund to defray the charges for civil services which will come in course of payment during the year ending on 31st March 2001, as set out in HC 962 of Session 1999–2000.—[Mr. Pope.]
        The House divided: Ayes 297, Noes 10.

        Division No. 14]

        [10.14 pm

        AYES

        Ainger, Nick

        Caplin, Ivor

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Casale, Roger

        Alexander, Douglas

        Caton, Martin

        Allen, Graham

        Cawsey, Ian

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Chaytor, David

        Ashton, Joe

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Austin, John

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Bailey, Adrian

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Barnes, Harry

        Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

        Barron, Kevin

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Battle, John

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Bayley, Hugh

        Clelland, David

        Beard, Nigel

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Coleman, Iain

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Colman, Tony

        Beggs, Roy

        Cooper, Yvette

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Corston, Jean

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Cox, Tom

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

        Cranston, Ross

        Bennett, Andrew F

        Crausby, David

        Benton, Joe

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Berry, Roger

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Blackman, Liz

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Dalyell, Tam

        Blizzard, Bob

        Darvill, Keith

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Borrow, David

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Davidson Ian

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Davies, Rt Hon Ron (Caerphilly)

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        Burden, Richard

        Burgon, Colin

        Dawson, Hilton

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Dean, Mrs; Janet

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Denham, John

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Dobbin, Jim

        Dobson. Rt Hon Frank

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Cann, Jamie

        Doran, Frank

        312

        Dowd, Jim

        Lepper, David

        Drew, David

        Leslie, Christopher

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Levitt, Tom

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Edwards, Huw

        Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Etherington, Bill

        Linton, Martin

        Fisher, Mark

        Livsey, Richard

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Lloyd, Tony (Manchester C)

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Flint, Caroline

        Lock, David

        Flynn, Paul

        Love, Andrew

        Follett, Barbara

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        McCabe, Steve

        Foster, Don (Bath)

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        McDonagh, Siobhain

        Foulkes, George

        McFall, John

        Gapes, Mike

        McIsaac, Shona

        Gardiner, Barry

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        McNamara, Kevin

        Gerrard, Neil

        McNulty, Tony

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        MacShane, Denis

        Gidley, Sandra

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Godsiff, Roger

        Mallaber, Judy

        Goggins, Paul

        Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Marshall, David (Shetlleston)

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Martlew, Eric

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Maxton, John

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Merron, Gillian

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Harvey, Nick

        Miller, Andrew

        Hayes, John

        Moffatt, Laura

        Healey, John

        Moonie, Dr Lewis

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Hendrick, Mark

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Morley, Elliot

        Hill, Keith

        Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Hinchliffe, David

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Mountford, Kali

        Hope, Phil

        Mullin, Chris

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Norris, Dan

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Olner, Bill

        Hurst, Alan

        Pearson, Ian

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Pickthall, Colin

        Illsley, Eric

        Pike, Peter L

        Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

        Plaskitt, James

        Jamieson, David

        Pope, Greg

        Jenkins, Brian

        Pound, Stephen

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Primarolo, Dawn

        Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

        Prosser, Gwyn

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Purchase, Ken

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Rapson, Syd

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Raynsford, Nick

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

        Rendel, David

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Khabra, Piara S

        Rooney, Terry

        Kidney, David

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Ross, William (E Lond'y)

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Ruddock, Joan

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Laxton, Bob

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        313

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Salter, Martin

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Timms, Stephen

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Tipping, Paddy

        Sawford, Phil

        Todd, Mark

        Shaw, Jonathan

        Truswell, Paul

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Singh, Marsha

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Skinner, Dennis

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Smith, Rt Hon Andrew (Oxford E)

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Tyler, Paul

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Tynan, Bill

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Wareing, Robert N

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Watts, David

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

        Webb, Steve

        Soley, Clive

        White, Brian

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Spellar, John

        Wicks, Malcolm

        Squire, Ms Rachel

        Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Stevenson, George

        Willis, Phil

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        Wills, Michael

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Wood, Mike

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Woodward, Shaun

        Stunell, Andrew

        Worthington, Tony

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        Mr. Don Touhig and

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Mr. Clive Betts.

        NOES

        Blunt, Crispin

        Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Chope, Christopher

        Swayne, Desmond

        Fabricant, Michael

        Forth, Rt Hon Eric

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Hayes, John

        Mr. David Wilshire and

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Mr. Gerald Howarth.

        Question accordingly agreed to.
        Ordered,
        That a Bill be brought in on the foregoing resulutions: And that the Chairman of Ways and Means, Mr Chancellor of the Exchequer, Mr Andrew Smith, Mr Stephen Timms, Miss Melanie Johnson and Dawn Primarolo do prepare and bring it in.

        SUPPLEMENTARY ESTIMATES, 2000–01
          CONSOLIDATED FUND BILL
          Dawn Primarolo accordingly presented a Bill to apply to certain sums out of the Consolidated Fund to the service of the year ending on 31 March 2001: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow, and to be printed [Bill 7].

        BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
        That, at this day's sitting, the Motion on Tax Simplification (Joint Committee) and the Business of the House Motion relating to the sitting on 21st December may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Pope.]
        The House divided: Ayes 253, Noes 32.

        Division No. 15]

        [10.28 pm

        AYES

        Ainger, Nick

        Dean, Mrs Janet

        Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

        Dismore, Andrew

        Alexander, Douglas

        Dobbin, Jim

        Allen, Graham

        Donaldson, Jeffrey

        Anderson, Janet (Rossendale)

        Doran, Frank

        Armstrong, Rt Hon Ms Hilary

        Dowd, Jim

        Ashton, Joe

        Drew, David

        Atherton, Ms Candy

        Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

        Atkins, Charlotte

        Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

        Austin, John

        Ellman, Mrs Louise

        Barnes, Harry

        Etherington, Bill

        Barron, Kevin

        Fisher, Mark

        Battle, John

        Fitzpatrick, Jim

        Bayley, Hugh

        Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

        Beard, Nigel

        Flint, Caroline

        Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

        Flynn, Paul

        Begg, Miss Anne

        Follett, Barbara

        Beggs, Roy

        Foster, Rt Hon Derek

        Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

        Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

        Benn, Rt Hon Tony (Chesterfield)

        Foulkes, George

        Benton, Joe

        Gapes, Mike

        Bermingham, Gerald

        Gardiner, Barry

        Blackman, Liz

        Gerrard, Neil

        Blears, Ms Hazel

        Gibson, Dr Ian

        Blizzard, Bob

        Gilroy, Mrs Linda

        Boateng, Rt Hon Paul

        Godsiff, Roger

        Borrow, David

        Goggins, Paul

        Bradley, Keith (Withington)

        Golding, Mrs Llin

        Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

        Gordon, Mrs Eileen

        Bradshaw, Ben

        Griffiths, Jane (Reading E)

        Brinton, Mrs Helen

        Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

        Burden, Richard

        Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

        Burgon, Colin

        Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

        Butler, Mrs Christine

        Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

        Campbell, Alan (Tynemouth)

        Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

        Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

        Hanson, David

        Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

        Healey, John

        Cann, Jamie

        Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

        Caplin, Ivor

        Hendrick, Mark

        Casale, Roger

        Hepburn, Stephen

        Caton, Martin

        Hill, Keith

        Cawsey, Ian

        Hinchliffe, David

        Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

        Hoon, Rt Hon Geoffrey

        Chaytor, David

        Hope, Phil

        Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

        Hopkins, Kelvin

        Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

        Howells, Dr Kim

        Hoyle, Lindsay

        Clark, Paul (Gillingham)

        Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

        Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

        Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

        Clarke, Rt Hon Tom (Coatbridge)

        Humble, Mrs Joan

        Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

        Hurst, Alan

        Clelland, David

        Iddon, Dr Brian

        Coffey, Ms Ann

        Illsley, Eric

        Coleman, Iain

        Jamieson, David

        Colman, Tony

        Jenkins, Brian

        Cooper, Yvette

        Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

        Corston, Jean

        Cox, Tom

        Jones, Rt Hon Barry (Alyn)

        Cranston, Ross

        Jones, Mrs Fiona (Newark)

        Crausby, David

        Jones, Helen (Warrigton N)

        Cryer, Mrs Ann (Keighley)

        Jones, Ms Jenny (Wolverh'ton SW)

        Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

        Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

        Jones, Jon Owen (Cardiff C)

        Curtis-Thomas, Mrs Claire

        Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

        Dalyell, Tam

        Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

        Darvill, Keith

        Keeble, Ms Sally

        Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

        Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

        Davidson, Ian

        Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

        Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

        Khabra, Piara S

        Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

        Kidney, David

        Davis, Rt Hon Terry (B'ham Hodge H)

        King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

        Ladyman, Dr Stephen

        Dawson, Hilton

        Laxton, Bob

        315

        Lepper, David

        Pearson, Ian

        Leslie, Christopher

        Pickthall, Colin

        Levitt, Tom

        Pike, Peter L

        Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

        Plaskitt, James

        Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

        Pope, Greg

        Linton, Martin

        Pound, Stephen

        Lock, David

        Powell, Sir Raymond

        Love, Andrew

        Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

        McAvoy, Thomas

        Primarolo, Dawn

        McCabe, Steve

        Prosser, Gwyn

        McCafferty, Ms Chris

        Purchase, Ken

        McFall, John

        Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

        McIsaac, Shona

        Rapson, Syd

        McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

        Raynsfod, Nick

        McNamara, Kevin

        Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

        McNulty, Tony

        Robertson, John (Glasgow Anniesland)

        Mactaggart, Fiona

        Mahon, Mrs Alice

        Roche, Mrs Barbara

        Mallaber, Judy

        Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

        Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

        Ruddock, Joan

        Marshall, David (Shettleston)

        Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

        Martlew, Eric

        Ryan, Ms Joan

        Maxton, John

        Salter, Martin

        Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

        Savidge, Malcolm

        Merron, Gillian

        Sawford, Phil

        Michael, Rt Hon Alun

        Shipley, Ms Debra

        Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

        Singh, Marsha

        Miller, Andrew

        Skinner, Dennis

        Moffatt, Laura

        Smith, Angela (Basildon)

        Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

        Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

        Morley, Elliot

        Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle (B'ham Yardley)

        Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

        Smith, John (Glamorgan)

        Mountford, Kali

        Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

        Mullin, Chris

        Soley, Clive

        Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

        Southworth, Ms Helen

        Naysmith, Dr Doug

        Spellar, John

        Norris, Dan

        Squire. Ms Rachel

        O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

        Starkey, Dr Phyllis

        O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

        Steinberg, Gerry

        O'Hara, Eddie

        Stevenson, George

        Olner, Bill

        Stewart, David (Inverness E)

        316

        Stoate, Dr Howard

        Vis, Dr Rudi

        Stuart, Ms Gisela

        Walley, Ms Joan

        Sutcliffe, Gerry

        Wareing, Robert N

        Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

        Watts, David

        White, Brian

        Taylor, David (NW Leics)

        Whitehead, Dr Alan

        Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

        Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

        Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

        Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

        Timms, Stephen

        Wills, Michael

        Wood, Mike

        Tipping, Paddy

        Woodward, Shaun

        Todd, Mark

        Worthington, Tony

        Truswell, Paul

        Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

        Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

        Wright, Tony (Cannock)

        Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

        Turner, Neil (Wigan)

        Tellers for the Ayes:

        Twigg, Derek (Halton)

        Mr. Don Touhig and

        Tynan, Bill

        Mr. Clive Betts.

        NOES

        Beith, Rt Hon A J

        Llwyd, Elfyn

        Blunt, Crispin

        McIntosh, Miss Anne

        Brand, Dr Peter

        Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

        Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

        Rendel, David

        Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

        Russell, Bob (Colchester)

        Sanders, Adrian

        Chope, Christopher

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

        Davey, Edward (Kingston)

        Stunell, Andrew

        Fabricant, Michael

        Swayne, Desmond

        Foster Don (Bath)

        Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

        George, Andrew (St Ives)

        Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

        Tyler, Paul

        Gidley, Sandra

        Webb, Steve

        Harris, Dr Evan

        Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

        Harvey, Nick

        Willis, Phil

        Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

        Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

        Tellers for the Noes:

        Kirkwood, Archy

        Mr. David Wilshire and

        Livsey, Richard

        Mr. Eric Forth.

        Question accordingly agreed to.

    Tax Simplification (Joint Committee)
    10.40 pm
    The Paymaster General (Dawn Primarolo): I beg to move,
    That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed to consider tax simplification bills, and in particular to consider whether each bill committed to it preserves the effect of the existing law, subject to any minor changes which may be desirable.
    This is a narrow motion for the process of agreeing new procedures by which Parliament can scrutinise tax simplification Bills and ensure that they are fit to be enacted. These are Bills produced by the Inland Revenue tax law rewrite project, and we are considering this motion now because the first such Bill is due before the House shortly.
    These are not consolidation Bills, but they have much in common with such Bills. They will restate the law rather than change it. It was clear from the outset that a new procedure would be needed so that Parliament could scrutinise the rewritten legislation properly.
    The question was considered in 1996 by a working party set up by the tax law rewrite committee, chaired by Lord Howe of Aberavon. The group proposed that the Bills should be introduced in the House of Commons and then referred after Second Reading to a Joint Committee of both Houses, with a Commons majority and chaired by a Member of that House.
    The general approach was broadly endorsed by the Commons Select Committee on Procedure in February 1997, following which this House passed Standing Order No. 60 on 20 March 1997, setting out the broad procedure for tax simplification Bills. The detailed procedure, including such matters as the composition and the proceedings of the Joint Committee, was deferred until such time as it appeared in the new Parliament that a Bill would be ready for enactment.
    Today's motion is the first step in setting up this Joint Committee. If the House agrees to the proposal, a message will be sent to another place inviting agreement. If it is agreed, each House will set up its own Committee which, together, will meet as the Joint Committee.
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the hon. Lady be good enough to tell the House how the Committee will be composed, and what balance of party representation there will be?
    Dawn Primarolo: That was to be my next point. At present, we expect the Committee to be composed of 13 members in all, of whom seven will be from this House. The details of the Committee's procedure are still being discussed through the usual channels and will be subject to final agreement.
    The fact that the tax law rewrite Bill deals with matters that are traditionally the concern of the Commons is recognised by the fact that the Committee is expected to have a Commons Chairman and a Commons majority, as recommended by the Procedure Committee. The Committee will consider the Bill and amend it if necessary. It will, of course, be alert to ensure that no more than minor changes are made and that the procedures are not abused.
    318
    The Bill will bring together some 300 pages of legislation, which is currently found in various places. The main legislation is in the Capital Allowances Act 1990, which is, itself, a consolidation Act that brought together earlier legislation.
    Mr. Hogg: Will the Committee be able to call evidence as though it were a Special Standing Committee? The House may well think that, in this sort of technical matter, accountants and others should testify to the merits or defects of a Bill to such a Committee.
    Dawn Primarolo: The project has already produced four drafts of legislation—the latest in August 2000. I understand—this will be for the final agreement of the House when the procedure is agreed—that the Committee will decide how best to proceed on scrutiny of the legislation. That will be a matter for the Chairman and members.
    Mr. Hogg: Are we to understand that the Committee can take evidence if the Chairman and the Committee so determine?
    Dawn Primarolo: Yes. I think that I made that clear. If the Committee determines to do that, it would be the case. It is for the Committee to determine how it wants to proceed.
    Extensive consultation procedures have been the hallmark of the rewrite project's work to date. There was a round of consultations on four separate drafts of the proposed legislation between October 1998 and February 2000, with the latest draft Bill published in August 2000.
    This project is immensely worth while. It will modernise our direct tax legislation, making it clearer and easier to use. The first Bill is a milestone in the projects's work and will show what improvements are possible. In order for it to become law, we need to continue the work undertaken by the previous Administration. In fairness, I must acknowledge the work that they undertook to initiate the project and set the broad parameters. We are taking it forward—I hope with the agreement of the House—to establish a new procedure by which this and successive Bills can be scrutinised and enacted.
    The measure is an important step in that direction and I hope that it will command the support of the House. I also hope that, as the legislation proceeds through Parliament, it will enlighten the House about how such Bills can be scrutinised.
    10.45 pm
    Mr. Richard Ottaway: I am grateful to the Minister for recognising that the previous Government initiated the project. I share her view that it is worth while and I look forward to producing something constructive through the passage of the legislation. Under the circumstances, we do not oppose the measure.
    10.48 pm
    Mr. Edward Davey: The Liberal Democrats will also support the measure, which is historic in that it changes the way in which we deal with tax legislation.
    The tax law rewrite project, which was proposed by the previous Government, is incredibly important. Simplifying the language in which the House and its

    319
    Committees write our tax legislation is long overdue. Anyone who has tried to work out what tax statutes mean knows that they can be incredibly confusing. As we move towards more self-assessment in both the personal and the business tax sectors, it is important that the legislation by which people have to abide is easily accessible to the wider audience.
    We have no problem with the procedure before us. However, we need to go much further. One problem is that the previous and the present Governments have made the tax system far more complicated. The tax law rewrite project is restricted in the way in which it can simplify the tax system. It has been given the remit to restrict itself simply to the language in which the law is expressed, not to deal with the effects that it gives to tax liabilities.
    The technical aspects—as well as the language in which the law is expressed—need to be simplified to ensure that there is real tax simplification. I hope that the House accepts this historic measure and that we use it to modernise our procedures with cross-party support. That will ensure that the output of this place is better—not merely in its language, but in its impact on business and compliance costs.
    We should develop the link with the other place. The fact that there is to be a Joint Committee is welcome, because Members of the other place can make a positive contribution to some of the complex aspects of these matters. I should like to see the establishment of a House of Lords Select Committee on tax simplification as well as the Joint Committee; it could offer this place some serious lessons.
    I do not want to detain the House; but I want to mark this historic occasion. I hope that the Government will be motivated by the success of this measure, which has received cross-party support, to go further in reforming our procedures so that we can more effectively scrutinise tax legislation and make it much simpler.
    10.51 pm
    Mr. David Wilshire: In principle, the measure is a good idea. I am bound to say that because we thought of it in the first place. I am grateful to the Paymaster General for acknowledging that we got something right—I am always pleased to hear that, although I knew it all along.
    I am a little confused by the wording of the motion. Will the hon. Lady explain it? I had assumed that we should take a decision on the matter this evening, so I expected the wording of the motion to be "That this House decides to set up a Joint Committee". As those words do not appear, I am baffled.
    The motion states:
    That it is expedient that a Joint Committee of both Houses be appointed.
    I take that to mean that such a Committee is a good idea, but my response to that is, "So what?", because the motion is merely an expression of opinion. If I am wrong, I should be grateful if the hon. Lady could tell me. The House is only expressing an opinion tonight; we are merely saying that the proposal is a good idea.
    The hon. Lady tells us that the other place will discuss the motion; presumably the Lords will say, "Hey, this is a good idea" and send it back to us. It is only at that stage that we shall be asked to pass a motion that states that we
    320
    shall do something. I hope that is the position—otherwise the wording of the motion makes no real sense; it merely expresses a good idea.
    When the motion comes back to this place for decision, I hope that we shall be given more detail than was included on today's Order Paper. The Paymaster General kindly gave us some information, but it took the prodding of my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) to elicit details such as how many people would serve on the Committee. It would be helpful if such matters could be decided by the House, rather than by the usual channels carving things up between them in a quiet corner. If the usual channels want the backing of the House, they should ask us to endorse matters rather than telling us about them after they have made a decision. I hope that the hon. Lady can help me on that point.
    I am not an expert in financial matters, but I was schooled in the principle that there should be no taxation without representation. The motion is on tax, but I am being asked to agree that Members of the other place, who are not elected, should have a say in taxation matters. I thought that did not happen in this country. The Paymaster General has not yet explained why undemocratic and unelected people should have a say in such matters.
    Perhaps that is an admission that, at long last, the Government are going to finish the job of reforming the other place and will ensure that its members are elected. Thus, when the Committee is finally set up—after we have been asked to vote on it—its members from the other place will have a democratic mandate and will be entitled to an involvement in taxation matters. If my understanding is correct, at present, they are not so entitled. I should therefore be grateful if the hon. Lady could put me out of my misery on that point when she sums up.
    10.55 pm
    Mr. Michael Jack: I speak as the former Financial Secretary who established the mechanisms that, I hope, the House will approve this evening, and as a member of the rewrite steering committee. I thank the Paymaster General for supporting the endeavour that the previous Government started in trying to translate the existing tax code into plain English. I also thank her for enthusiastically developing the project.
    It would be wrong if I did not put on record my appreciation of the work of the Inland Revenue officials who have laboured very hard indeed to start translating into plain English our complex tax legislation, for without their efforts, we could not discuss the procedure for dealing with the first Bill produced by the tax rewrite exercise.
    The product that the Joint Committee will consider reflects the input of many tax practitioners, who have enthusiastically welcomed the efforts involved in such improvements. As the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) said, the exercise has thrown up several issues that go beyond the original Committee's remit. The previous Administration designed the procedures and the remit; the current Administration have followed them to the letter. However, many members of the Revenue feel frustrated because they would like the next step, following the rewrite exercise, to involve not

    321
    necessarily a change in tax law, but a modification to improve the existing procedures. I should like both things to happen in parallel, but I do not wish to trespass too far beyond the motion.
    Mr. Hogg: Is not the problem the fact that, if the House entrusts to a Committee the ability to change procedures and thereby to impose obligations on the citizen, we shall entrust to a Committee a role that should be reserved for the whole House? The House should set obligations and impose penalties.
    Mr. Jack: My right hon. and learned Friend would be entirely correct if that were what the exercise was about, but it was not. The exercise was simply and straightforwardly intended to rewrite the existing law in plain and understandable English so far as is possible, given the technicalities of the tax code. We are considering the mechanism by which the House and the other place will be invited to review the fruits of that exercise.
    Mr. Hogg: I understand what my right hon. Friend says. I am happy to agree with him, provided that the process does not go beyond that which he outlines. That is why I did not intervene in the Minister's speech. However, my right hon. Friend said that another exercise should exist in parallel. I understood him to say that that exercise would address the merits of any tax requirement with which the citizen had to comply.
    Mr. Jack: As a member of the Committee that had the opportunity to listen to some of the remarks made by those who have been closely associated with the exercise, I can see that there are evolving ideas and concepts, which, if they were able to find their place in legislation, would go beyond the exercise of rewriting the tax code in plain English, but would further improve it. However, that is not what the House is invited to approve. I am merely saying to the Paymaster General that I hope that the present Administration will not lose sight of the fact that good ideas that have come out of the exercise are within the scope and purpose of existing tax legislation.
    Indeed, ideas have come, for example, from the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England and Wales, which would like to go further in developing an exercise to simplify our tax code. The House is invited to approve a mechanism to make certain that the work of draftsmen and officials has been true to tax law.
    Mr. Edward Davey: May I help the right hon. Gentleman and the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg)? If I understand the right hon. Gentleman correctly, he would like to extend the tax law rewrite project to other areas in order to develop some of the ideas. He is not suggesting that the procedure to which the House is asked to assent is the one that will be used to develop those ideas. Perhaps he would like to describe the procedure that he envisages for such development.
    Mr. Jack: I entirely agree with the hon. Gentleman's intervention. If we have a chance to debate another Finance Bill before the election, the Paymaster General
    322
    might embrace the idea of developing some of the sensible ideas on, for example, the way in which pay-as-you-earn legislation operatesߞsensible, improving measures that do not fundamentally alter the PAYE legislation but make its operation even more effective than the one that will result in due course from the rewrite exercise.
    I do not want to detain the House unnecessarily, but it would be wrong if hon. Members did not put on record their appreciation of the efforts of my right hon. Friend Earl Howe for chairing the Committee and making progress on the exercise with incredible dedication and enthusiasm.
    In response to a point raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire), I reiterate that the exercise that we are asked to approve does not change in any way the present tax code. It merely invites the expertise of both Houses to approve that the new plain English law enacts the existing law in every respect, but in a more understandable linguistic form.
    11.2 pm
    Dawn Primarolo: I pay tribute to the right hon. Member for Fylde (Mr. Jack), who I know has been a keen enthusiast for the tax law rewrite project, both as a Minister in the previous Administration and as a member of the Steering Committee, on which he worked hard. I certainly underline strongly our appreciation of the dedicated work of all those involved with the tax law rewrite, particularly Lord Howe of Aberavon, who has a passion for driving through the legislation.
    It is important for hon. Members to rememberߞI did not think that I would need to remind them given that the act was one of the last of the previous Governmentߞthat the project was required to look at rewriting the code, without alteration, so that it was more user-friendly, had a more logical structure, used shorter sentences, was more consistent in the use of definitions, used modern language, clearly signposted related provisions and grouped together similar laws. The project was told that there should be no change in the underlying tax system, although some minor, obvious changes could be made to tidy up legislation. They will be flagged up in the procedure, so that everybody is aware of where they are.
    Full consultation with interested parties throughout the life of the project will continue, and a new streamlined parliamentary procedure for enactment of the rewrite Bills will be produced. That was provided for in Standing Order No. 60 and included provision for the Joint Committee, for the involvement of the other place, and for the structure that is similar to that of a Select Committee with all the powers that that entails. The provision recognises that the majority of the Committee's members will be from the House of Commons and that it will be chaired by a Member of this House. That will ensure that the clear interest that this House has in such matters is preserved.
    Mr. Hogg: I am not against the proposals that the Paymaster General is outlining, but I want to be clear about one point. It appears to be common ground that the Committee will not be able to alter the substance of underlying tax law. Who will have the overarching role

    323
    of supervising the work of the Committee, so that we can be sure that the underlying tax law is not changed by the decisions taken by the Committee?
    Dawn Primarolo: I will check that point, but my understanding is that the person appointed to chair the Committee will have the lead responsibility on how the Committee manages its business. It is important that parliamentary draftsmen and Ministers ensure that information is available to members of the Committee, so that they can satisfy themselves of the position. It is not an adversarial Committee structure. It seeks to use the expertise of both Houses, without duplication of procedure, to undertake what seemed to be the simple proposition of rewriting the tax code. Into—dare I say it—a more user-friendly form. The Committee will report to the House and the House will finally have to decide whether it agrees to a Bill. A double lock is in place.
    I have covered the points about Members of the other House that were raised by the hon. Member for Spelthorne (Mr. Wilshire). If he examines what the Conservative party did when they were in government, he will see that there is a common thread. The procedure to be established is similar to that for consolidation Bills, and it was recommended by the Select Committee on Procedure in 1997.
    The right hon. Member for Fylde and the hon. Member for Kingston and Surbiton (Mr. Davey) referred to simplification. That issue is outside the tax law rewrite requirements, but, in principle, I am sympathetic to their point. I have served on the Finance Bill Committee both in opposition and in government, and I am well aware of the arguments of professional tax bodies, such as the Institute of Chartered Accountant; and the Chartered Institute of Taxation. Last month, this issue was the theme of the Hardman memorial lecture that was given by Lord Howe. It is important to acknowledge that pressure from tax professionals was the stimulus for the review in 1995 that led to the establishment of the tax law rewrite project.
    However, the issue gives rise to difficult questions and there is no consensus on how tax simplification should be carried out or on what should be simplified. The rewrite project does not just simplify the tax code; it makes it much clearer and easier to understand.
    The Government have taken steps on tax simplification. We included such measures in the Finance Act 2000, and the drafting of new elements of tax legislation and the phraseology that is used follow the example of the tax law rewrite. However, Members will know that such simplification is not always possible, particularly when such measures have to be cross-referenced with parts of the tax code that have existed for a long time.
    Mr. Jack: Will the hon. Lady consider calling a half-day meeting, between now and the election, of all the interested parties, some of whom she has mentioned, at least to discuss with the Treasury and the Inland Revenue what is meant by tax simplification? They could then perhaps define the scope and scale of such an exercise.
    Dawn Primarolo: I have already had such discussions with those organisations. The right hon. Gentleman will know from his experience as Financial Secretary that when a Minister seeks to defend revenue that does not arrive in the Treasury as planned by tax law because of
    324
    highly complex tax planning measures, responding to those complex proposals requires a complex solution. One of the big issues for us is anti-avoidance legislation, which all Governments have increasingly used.
    I hope, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that you will allow me to make a brief point that is slightly wide of the debate. The Government undertook consultation on a general anti-avoidance regulation. We offered the profession alternatives: a general regulation or the continuation of specifically targeted anti-avoidance measures. We went further and consulted on two solutions to a specific problem; one of those solutions was targeted and the other was a general regulation. The profession decided that it wanted to stick with the specific legislation. That has clear implications for the complexity of the tax code and the operation of the system.
    Those issues go beyond the tax law rewrite but they are pertinent to the wider debate on the tax code. I am sure that the House will continue to debate those matters, not only in proceedings on finance Bills but in general finance debates. I say to the right hon. Gentleman that I am aware of those issues and I pay particular attention to them. However, as he will know, it is not always as simple to introduce a measure as it is to agree to it.
    Mr. Edward Davey: Has the Minister given any thought to other procedures that the Government could adopt to try to further the tax simplification process? For example, Lord Howe has argued that we could separate the Finance Bill into two parts, one containing the key political tax-raising measures and the other technical tax measures that could be debated at greater length with more consultation.
    Dawn Primarolo: I shall try to be careful on this point, Mr. Deputy Speaker, because it is wide of the debate. If the definitions of policy issues and technical issues were so clear cut, I am sure that Governments would have separated them long ago because it seems to be an obvious proposition. The Opposition might take a slightly different view from the Government on what counts as a technical issue and what is a policy issue.
    The general point concerns how we can simplify our tax system so that it is understandable, because modern economies such as ours have complex tax laws. We must also ask how we can make the system accessible, and the tax law rewrite project is a means of doing that. Another means is to ensure that taxpayers have a positive relationship with the tax authorities. The Government are making changes to make that relationship as easy as possible. Of course, the drafting of new legislation is crucial. We are alive to those issues. These are all issues outside of the debate, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I shall not try your patience any more. I have tried to give a flavour and respond to the points that have been made.
    I am delighted that there is so much agreement in the House that we have adopted the right way to proceed, and that we have been prepared to pay tribute to those who have worked so hard on our behalf in the tax law rewrite committee. The new procedure will prove to be effective, provide the scrutiny that the House requires and produce the tax legislation for which we would all hope. I hope that the House agrees with the proposed procedures.

    325
    Question put:—
    Mr. Deputy speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
    Hon. Members: No.
    Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

    Business of the House
    11.15 pm
    The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): I beg to move,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December—

    (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and the Order relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees [20th November],—

    (a) the House shall meet at half-past nine o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

    (b) proceedings on business shall be interrupted at Five o'clock;

    (c) in their application to that sitting, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time five hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Eight o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration); and

    (d) no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Ten o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock';

    (2) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;

    (3) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with, through opposed, after Five o'clock; and

    (4) in the Order relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall, in paragraph (1)(b), for 'half-past Two o'clock', there shall be substituted 'half-past Twelve o'clock'.

    Mr. David Wilshire: On a point of order, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I do not think that the motion makes sense, and I ask you to consider whether it should be withdrawn and put in some order before it is debated. Paragraph (3) reads that
    proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with through opposed, after Five o'clock; and …
    In my 13 years in this place, I have always read "though opposed".
    If I am correct, we have a meaningless motion on the Order Paper. As no amendment has been tabled to correct it and as manuscript amendments are not acceptable, I contend that the motion is out of order and should be withdrawn.
    Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the simple answer is that there has been a typographical error. I will put the

    327
    motion in the form in which it is clearly intended, the word meaning "though" as opposed to "through". I hope that that deals with the matter.
    Mr. Tipping: I shall set out briefly the consequences of the motion for the benefit of Members who are in the Chamber. In effect, it moves a normal Monday to Wednesday sitting day forward by five hours to a 9.30 am start. It protects the slot for questions, business questions and any possible statements. It allows the normal period of three hours for debate on the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order and the draft Social Security Benefits Uprating (No. 2) Order. These measures may be taken separately or together, dependent upon the view of the House.
    The motion allows the traditional three-hour pre-recess Adjournment debate. If the House agrees to it, it will allow the House to rise rather earlier on Thursday than usual. Given the time of the year, I know that that will be welcomed by many Members, if not all, and most particularly by members of staff.
    Although I may have another opportunity before the House rises for the Christmas recess, perhaps I can take my chance now and wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker—
    Mr. Douglas Hogg: Will the Minister give way?
    Mr. Tipping: Wait a minute.
    I wish you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, the right hon. and learned Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg), with whom I have spent many happy hours during the year, and other Members a very happy Christmas. I will of course give the opportunity of a pre-Christmas present to the right hon. and learned Gentleman.
    Mr. Hogg: It is good of the Minister to be so nice. Perhaps he will now answer my question. I understand that there are advantages in bringing forward the sitting hour on Thursday 21 December, and I do not object to that. Will the hon. Gentleman make it plain to the part of the House that is now present that he is not intending to build on the motion, and is not intending to apply it to ordinary sittings on Thursdays?
    Mr. Tipping: No, that is not the Government's intention. I give the right hon. and learned Gentleman that guarantee from the Government. Business motions always have to be approved by the House. We discussed that earlier today. A number of hon. Members want such matters to be discussed by the House. That is right and appropriate, and it is a matter for the House.
    I hope that the right hon. and hon. Members who are present will approve the motion. It is for the benefit of most hon. Members and for the benefit of staff. I commend it to the House.
    11.20 pm
    Mrs. Angela Browning: I support the Minister's proposal. I am the only woman in the Chamber and I hope that hon. Members will not take this as a sexist comment, as I am sure that it applies equally to them, but the coming Thursday is an exceptional Thursday. I would share the concerns of my
    328
    right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Sleaford and North Hykeham (Mr. Hogg) if I thought that the Minister's proposal was to become the norm for Thursdays, but this Thursday is different.
    No doubt we all have turkeys to stuff, mulled wine to warm and halls to deck with holly this Thursday. That is not something that I would do on any other Thursday during the year, and I am sure that all hon. Members will welcome the opportunity to make their Christmas preparations and pass on their good wishes to their constituents and members of their family.
    I warmly welcome the pragmatic suggestion from the Minister. I hope that that does not sound too much like the late Harold Wilson. As the Minister knows, I am not a great supporter of modernisation per se, but in this case he has struck the right chord and the right balance without diminishing the quality of our debate.
    In case the proceedings on Thursday pass so rapidly that I do not get a chance to do so then, I join the Minister in wishing all right hon. and hon. Members a happy Christmas. I hope that the House will recognise that we have important business on Thursday. We want it to be given sufficient time and properly dispatched. I look forward to taking my place in the Chamber with the Minister on Thursday, to hear important speeches in the Christmas Adjournment debate. It is right that we are allowing sufficient time, and also allowing hon. Members to get home in good time to be with their families for the Christmas recess. I warmly support the Minister's proposal and urge hon. Members in all parts of the House to support it.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Ordered,
    That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December—

    (1) notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Order No. 9 and the Order relating to Thursday sittings and meetings of standing committees [20th November],—

    (a) the House shall meet at half-past nine o'clock, and will first proceed with private business, motions for unopposed returns and questions;

    (b) proceedings on business shall be interrupted at Five o'clock;

    (c) in their application to that sitting, reference to a specified time in the Standing Orders shall be interpreted as reference to a time five hours before the time so specified, save that reference to half-past Eight o'clock shall be substituted for reference to Twelve o'clock in Standing Order No. 24 (Adjournment on a specific and important matter that should have urgent consideration); and

    (d) no standing committees sitting at Westminster shall sit between the hours of twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock and half-past Ten o'clock, except as provided in paragraph (2) of Standing Order No. 88 (Meetings of standing committees) with the substitution in that paragraph of 'twenty-five minutes past Nine o'clock' for 'One o'clock' and 'twenty minutes to Ten o'clock' for 'a quarter past One o'clock';

    (2) notwithstanding Standing Order No. 16 (Proceedings under an Act or on European Union documents), the Speaker shall put the Questions on the Motions in the name of Mr. Secretary Darling relating to the draft Guaranteed Minimum Pensions Increase (No. 2) Order 2000 and the draft Social Security Benefits Up-rating (No. 2) Order 2000 not later than three hours after the commencement of proceedings on the first such Motion;

    329

    (3) proceedings on the Motion for the adjournment of the House in the name of the Prime Minister relating to matters to be considered before the forthcoming adjournment, may continue for up to three hours, and may be proceeded with, through opposed, after Five o'clock; and

    (4) in the Order relating to Sittings in Westminster Hall, in paragraph (1)(b), for 'half-past Two o'clock', there shall be substituted 'half-past Twelve o'clock'.

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

        FAMILY LAW
        That the draft Child Support (Variations) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculations and Special Cases) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That the draft Child Support (Maintenance Calculation Procedure) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That the draft Child Support (Information, Evidence and Disclosure and Maintenance Arrangements and Jurisdiction) (Amendment) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        330
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),
        That the draft Child Support (Collection and Enforcement and Miscellaneous Amendments) Regulations 2000, which were laid before this House on 6th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation) and Order [12 December 2000],

        SECTION 5 OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES (AMENDMENT) ACT 1993
        That this House takes note with approval of the Government's assessment as set out in the Financial Statement and Budget Report 2000–01, the Economic and Fiscal Strategy Report 2000–01, and the Pre-Budget Report 2000 for the purposes of section 5 of the European Communities (Amendment) Act 1993.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        ANIMALS
        That the Mink Keeping Order 2000, dated 22nd November 2000, a copy of which was laid before this House on 23rd November, in the last Session of Parliament, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker: I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].
        Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 118(6) (Standing Committees on Delegated Legislation),

        BROADCASTING
        That the draft Broadcasting (Limit on the Holding of Licences to Provide Television Multiplex Services) Order 2001, which was laid before this House on 11th December, be approved.—[Mr. McNulty.]
        Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): I think the Ayes have it.
        Hon. Members: No.
        Division deferred till Wednesday 20 December, pursuant to Order [7 November 2000].

      SITTINGS IN WESTMINSTER HALL
      Motion made,
      That, following the Order [20th November], Mr. Nicholas Winterton, Mr. John McWilliam, Mr. Barry Jones and Frank Cook be appointed to act as additional Deputy Speakers at sittings in Westminster Hall during this Session.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: We now move to motion No. 16 on the Order Paper.
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I think that the motion needs to be moved first, before it can be objected to. I know that after the scintillating display of Christmas fare to which we have been treated by the hon. Member for Tiverton and Honiton (Mrs. Browning), we are anxious to make progress, but we must do it in an orderly manner.

      SELECT COMMITTEES (JOINT MEETINGS)
      Motion made,
      That, for the current Session of Parliament, Standing Order No. 152 (Select committees related to government departments) be amended as follows:
      Line 37, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 46, before the word 'European' insert the words 'Environmental Audit Committee or with the'.
      Line 48, at the end insert the words:—
      '(4A) notwithstanding paragraphs (2) and (4) above, where more than two committees or sub-committees appointed under this order meet concurrently in accordance with paragraph (4)(e) above, the quorum of each such committee or sub-committee shall be two.'—[Mr. McNulty.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
      Motion made,
      That Private Members' Bills shall have precedence over Government business on 2nd and 91h February, 9th, 16th, 23rd and 30th March, 6th and 27th April, 11th and 18th May, 8th and 15th June and 20th July 2001.[Mr. McNulty.]
      Hon. Members: Object.
      Motion made,
      That, at the sitting on Thursday 21st December, the Speaker shall not adjourn the House until he shall have notified the Royal Assent to Acts agreed upon by both Houses.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

      HUMAN RIGHTS (JOINT COMMITTEE)
      Motion made,
      That—
      the Lords Message [12th July] communicating a Resolution relating to Human Rights (Joint Committee), be now considered;
      this House concurs with the Lords in the said Resolution;
      and the following Standing Order be made:
      332

      (1) There shall be a Select Committee, to consist of six Members, to join with the Committee appointed by the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.

      (2) The Committee shall consider—

      (a) matters relating to human rights in the United Kingdom (but excluding consideration of individual cases);

      (b) proposals for remedial orders, draft remedial orders and remedial orders made under Section 10 of and laid under Schedule 2 to the Human Rights Act 1998: and

      (c) in respect of draft remedial orders and remedial orders, whether the special attention of the House should be drawn to them on any of the grounds specified in Standing Order No. 151 (Statutory Instruments (Joint Committee));

      (3) The Committee shall report to the House—

      (a) in relation to any document containing proposals laid before the House under paragraph 3 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether a draft order in the same terms as the proposals should be laid before the House; or

      (b) in relation to any draft order laid under paragraph 2 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether the draft Order should be approved;

      and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said proposals or draft orders.

      (4) The Committee shall report to the House in respect of any original order laid under paragraph 4 of the said Schedule 2, its recommendation whether—

      (a) the order should be approved in the form in which it was originally laid before Parliament; or

      (b) that the order should be replaced by a new order modifying the provisions of the original order; or

      (c) that the order should not be approved,

      and the Committee may report to the House on any matter arising from its consideration of the said order or any replacement order.

      (5) The quorum of the committee shall be three.

      (6) Unless the House otherwise orders, each Member nominated to the committee shall continue to be a member of it for the remainder of the Parliament.

      (7) The committee shall have power—

      (a) to send for persons, papers and records, to sit notwithstanding any adjournment of the House, to adjourn from place to place within the United Kingdom, to adjourn to institutions of the Council of Europe outside the United Kingdom no more than four times in any calendar year, and to report from time to time; and

      (b) to appoint specialist advisers either to supply information which is not readily available or to elucidate matters of complexity within the committee's order of reference.—[Mr. McNulty.]

      Hon. Members: Object.

      HUMAN RIGHTS
      Motion made,
      That Jean Corston, Mr. Desmond Browne, Mr. Andrew Miller, Mr. Gareth Thomas (Clwyd West), Sir Patrick Cormack and Mr. Robert Maclennan be Members of the Select Committee appointed to join with a Committee of the Lords as the Joint Committee on Human Rights.—[Mr. McNulty.]
      Hon. Members: Object.

    Road Crashes
    Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. McNulty.]
    11.25 pm
    Mr. Bob Russell: The tragic death in the early hours of this morning of PC Jon Odell, killed by a hit and run driver while he was carrying out checks on speeding motorists in Kent, gives added poignancy to tonight's debate, particularly as it has come just four days after two students were killed by an out-of-control car while they stood on a pavement in Nottingham. I know that I speak for the whole House when I extend condolences to the families, friends and colleagues of these three young people, and those of the estimated 40 other people who have been killed on our roads during the past four days.
    In the final five days before Christmas there is every likelihood that another 50 people will die. Every day, on average, 10 people are killed in road crashes—about 3,500 will have died this year. Yet despite such an appalling state of affairs, the Library has confirmed that at no time since the 1997 general election have the Government initiated a debate on road safety. Indeed, according to the Parliamentary Advisory Council for Transport Safety—PACTS—the last time the Government of the day had a debate on road deaths was in November 1994. In the six years since then more than 20,000 people have been killed on our roads.
    I declare an interest in that I am a member of RoadPeace, the national charity for road traffic victims. It was established nine years ago by parents of children killed in road crashes.
    Research undertaken by the Transport Research Laboratory compared hospital and police reported road casualties—it concluded that official statistics are substantially under-recorded. The true financial cost to the nation of crashes involving serious and slight injuries is probably more than £18 billion a year—twice the official figure.
    I would like to say much more about RoadPeace's detailed research document, "The Missing Chapter", published in response to the Government's road safety strategy launched in March this year, but I do not have sufficient time this evening to do it justice. I urge the Minister and his colleagues to study it closely.
    I deliberately do not use the words "road accident", because crashes that result in injury or death are seldom an accident, but rather the result of incompetent driving, at one end of the spectrum, or reckless driving, at the other—the latter often associated with excessive drinking.
    With an average of 10 deaths every day on the roads, that puts the Hatfield rail crash, which resulted in four deaths, into context. Yet the Hatfield disaster attracted massive media attention, with questions and statements in the House, and major disruption of rail services. In contrast, the thousands of deaths in road crashes have been ignored.
    It is a tragic irony that the high-profile work to make our railway system safer has caused more deaths and injuries on our roads, as a consequence of people using their cars instead of trains.
    Mr. Andrew Miller: As chairman of the all-party group that supports RoadPeace, I commend the hon. Gentleman for the tremendous work that he does. Does he agree that the public perception of the difference between road and rail deaths is not helped by the official Opposition, who last night described the Government's attempts to recoup money from speed cameras for communities as a stealth tax? Will he, on behalf of the Liberal party, join the Labour party in condemning that?
    Mr. Russell: I shall indeed, because all of us in public life should welcome any measures that may reduce road deaths. I also pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman for the part that he has played in RoadPeace and in many other ways to bring to public attention the awful number of road deaths in this country. I mentioned that people leaving trains to use their cars has had the consequence of more road deaths. Indeed, on 8 December, The Oxford Times reported:
    A sudden and disturbing rise in deaths and serious injuries on Oxfordshire roads is being, linked to commuters switching from rail to car. Fatal and serious injury accidents are up by nearly a third on the same period as last year.
    In the period in question there were 56 crashes involving serious injury and fatalities, compared with 43 the year before.
    It would be wrong to say that successive Governments have totally ignored road deaths. My complaint is that too little has been done. Nothing has been done to address the fundamental issue that road crashes and their consequences are not given the importance that they should. I particularly should like to praise the hon. Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) who, when he was a transport Minister, introduced the country's first casualty reduction target. That was a good start, which we need to build on. That welcome initiative was an attempt to change the attitude of society which, over the years, has seemingly shrugged its shoulders and become accustomed to accepting the huge human and financial cost of deaths on our roads as one of those things that we can do little to prevent.
    I have never accepted the inevitability of any death on our roads. I hope that tonight the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Streatham (Mr. Hill), will give a commitment that the present Government does not either. Surely, the aim should be for a zero death rate, not a target that would still mean that nearly 2,000 of our citizens were being killed every year? The present projection is that one in 80 people will die as a result of a road crash, but the Government's target is to reduce that to one in 160. To bring that statistic into the Chamber, between four and eight hon. Members face the prospect of being killed in a road crash.
    No price can be put on the loss of life, but the best official estimates are that the financial cost to the public purse of every fatal crash is about £1 million; it is about £110,000 for a serious injury crash; and £11,000 for a slight injury crash.
    I welcome the Minister, but, in truth, I would much prefer a Minister from the Home Office, not the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, to respond to my debate. The biggest single measure that can be taken to reduce road crashes would

    335
    involve tougher action against those who endanger lives through their driving, whether because of excessive speed, lack of care and attention, general bloody-mindedness—sometimes known as road rage—or, worst of all, driving under the influence of drink or drugs.
    Making cars and our roads safe' creates the feeling that the question of reducing the number of people being killed or injured is being addressed. However, if dangerous driving habits are not challenged, all that we are doing is making it more likely that bad drivers will feel even more immune to the consequences of their driving.
    I welcome this afternoon's publication of the Government's consultation paper, "Road Traffic Penalties", which proposes tougher action against motorists who drive dangerously, or at excessive speed or while drunk. But what is the point of tougher penalties, when the courts do not use to the full extent the powers that they already have? The Government would do better to get magistrates and judges to start imposing existing penalties in advance of introducing the proposed new ones.
    Let me cite an example of the way in which road deaths are treated as less important than any other form of involuntary death. It was set out in shocking, graphic detail in a full-page report in The Sun of 6 December, under a lengthy headline that read:
    Allan Jackson was 3 times over the limit when he ran down and killed 3 pals on the pavement. The sentence—Just 8 Years.
    The report went on to describe how Jackson killed three young teachers as the result of his drunken driving. Had he shot them or stabbed them to death, he would now be serving three life sentences for murder. But because Jackson was a drunk driver, and despite the fact that he had twice been banned for drink-driving convictions, the judge jailed him for just eight years, which is less than the maximum sentence which, in any event, is a pathetic 10 years. With remission, he could be out of prison in four years.
    What sort of message does that send out? Quite simply, if someone is killed in a road crash, the guilty person is treated more leniently than if he had killed using a weapon other than a car driven recklessly. The mother of one of the teachers said:
    In my mind the man has committed murder and his car was a lethal weapon.
    The court hearing, which The Sun reported, involved a crash in Huddersfield. It is ironic that the headquarters of Brake—a national organisation that promotes road safety in the widest sense—is less than a mile away. Brake held a reception last evening at the House. Those of us who attended were told in a report by executive director Mary Williams:
    Ten families a day in the UK lose a loved one in a road crash. These deaths are sudden, horrifying, and violent, causing extensive grief and trauma.
    Of course, I accept that measures to make our roads safer are a matter for the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions, working with the Highways Agency and local councils. However, although I will continue to press for more to be spent on traffic-calming schemes and other road safety measures, the single most important measure that will make a difference is a change of attitude by society towards those who kill and maim on our roads.
    336
    That takes us beyond the DETR—it involves not only the Home Office, but also the offices of the Lord Chancellor and the Solicitor-General. In October, accompanied by my constituent Mr. Raymond Mason, whose wife was killed in May 1999 in a road crash, which left him with three young sons to bring up, I had a meeting with the Solicitor-General. We were concerned because the driver whose car killed Mrs. Mason escaped prosecution. I regard our one-hour meeting as potentially the most productive that I have experienced since I became a Member of Parliament.
    The Solicitor-General, in consultation with the Home Office and other Departments—I hope that they include the DETR—is now considering changing the law in the following ways: creating a new offence of causing death by driving negligence—the court would determine the severity of the case and the sentence; the referral of all crashes involving a road death by the magistrates court to the Crown court for trial by jury or sentence by a judge, even in cases where a guilty plea is entered; immediately suspending the licence of the driver involved in a fatal crash, pending a medical inspection to determine whether he or she has a health condition that may affect driving; providing for an extension, beyond the current six-month legal limit, when alternative charges can be introduced if further evidence emerges either from the defence or prosecution that affects the original charge.
    There must be a national crusade against the number of road crashes. The only sure way to reduce road deaths and injuries is for civilised society to regard those who drive at speed, fail to stop after an accident or drink and drive in exactly the same way as we regard those who carry out assaults. We need to shame the irresponsible as if they were thugs—thugs on wheels. We regard assault as unacceptable. We need to change attitudes so that those who endanger others through their driving are likewise condemned for their irresponsible behaviour. Their actions result in thousands of deaths and injuries every year.
    The Government, supported by MPs and councillors, should set an example by making driving skills and attitudes the major features in improving road safety. It is all very well making our highways and cars safer, but if reckless and anti-social drivers carry on regardless, crashes will still occur at a sickening rate. We need much tougher legislation against bad drivers, and encouragement for the courts to hand down deterrent sentences against drivers who cause death and injuries.
    The worst culprits are the young, and they are often the victims. One in four drivers who die are under 25. That reflects both on their driving inexperience and tendency to take risks. Brake points out that most serious crashes are caused by drivers; the roads and vehicles are not to blame. Deterrent sentences are therefore the most potent method of reducing road crashes.
    Drivers who cause accidents through their failures should be more readily disqualified than currently happens. Their vehicles should be taken from them for varying periods. Those who drive too fast put lives at risk. It is regrettable that not everyone agrees that breaking speed limits, especially in built-up areas or on narrow country roads, is socially unacceptable, dangerous and a major cause of deaths and injuries.

    337
    What are we to make of Government calls for tougher action against frequent offenders when we consider the action of Judge Tom Longbotham at Swindon Crown court? Last week, he quashed a three-month driving ban on a speeding motorcyclist because he was finding it difficult to get to work. The motorcyclist had been convicted of his third speeding offence; he had been travelling at 101 miles per hour. I can do no better than to quote the road safety manager for the Royal Automobile Club Foundation, Mr. Kevin Delaney, who said of the judge's decision:
    This sends out all the wrong signals and sets a dreadful precedent … Speeding is about an attitude of mind and this man clearly didn't care about the speed limit and was grossly irresponsible.
    If the Government want to be tough on serious road offenders, they had better make sure that magistrates and judges get the message.
    Although there is general condemnation for those who drive while under the influence of drink or drugs, not all drivers have got the message. Tonight's Colchester Evening Gazette reports that, so far this month, Essex police have breathalysed 182 drivers who were over the limit. That is about 50 more than in the corresponding period last year.
    I welcome the prospect of more traffic-calming road safety measures to prevent deaths and injuries; of more speed cameras to deter motorists who endanger others through driving too fast; and of educating drivers in how tiredness and lack of concentration such as the use of mobile phones can lead to crashes, but the biggest single measure is for society to regard those who cause crashes in the same way as it does those who are guilty of acts of thuggery and violence.
    11.40 pm
    The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): As is customary, I begin by congratulating the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell) on securing this important debate and on the passion and detail with which he delivered his speech. I thank my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller), who has also contributed to the discussion. I pay tribute to the excellent work of both hon. Members in RoadPeace. I join in the expression of condolences to the families of Police Constable Jon Odell, of the young people tragically killed in Nottingham and, indeed, of all those who have lost their lives in road accidents recently, the pain of whose loss will be acute to their bereaved relatives.
    Although Britain's roads are, with Sweden's, the safest in Europe, the risk of accidents and the numbers of deaths and injuries are still unacceptably high. We must do all we can to reduce them.
    I am certain that the House will be aware of the Government's firm resolve in that area. Earlier this year, the Prime Minister himself launched our new road safety strategy, which focused on 10 main themes and the corresponding casualty reduction targets that we have set ourselves. As has already been mentioned, by 2010, we want to reduce the number of deaths and serious injuries by 40 per cent. and, within that, the number of child deaths and injuries by 50 per cent.
    338
    As the House will appreciate, with such a large range of activities, I shall have to restrict myself to some headline news on our latest initiatives. There is time only to scratch the surface.
    Road safety is an integral part of all thinking about roads and traffic management and of our aim to reduce the use of cars by providing attractive, reliable and efficient public transport as a realistic alternative for many journeys. Clearly, if people think that the roads are unsafe, they will not want to walk or to cycle.
    The Government's road safety strategy is a joint effort by many Departments, with the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions co-ordinating. The Home Office and the Lord Chancellor's Department, for example, are primarily responsible for enforcement, justice and victim support, be it for people who have been involved in accidents, or for families who have had to suffer the sad consequences.
    Similarly, the Department of Health is responsible for the care of the injured. We are pleased to be part of its new accidental injury taskforce, which is looking at accidents of all types, whether they occur at home, work or play or when travelling between them.
    To start with the freshest news, it is only a few hours since Lord Whitty, who has lead responsibility for road safety in my Department, joined the Minister of State, Home Office, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), at the launch of the Government's consultation paper on penalties for road traffic offences. We are applying the results of research to what we do and we want responses to our ideas. It is better to go forward with consensus.
    Through the Home Office-led review that has produced the consultation paper, we have been looking for a robust package of measures to reduce drink driving. The review has specifically considered raising the minimum disqualification period for first-time, high-risk offenders from one year to two and making drink driving an offence for which a convicted driver has to retake the driving test.
    We hope to clarify the law to allow the police to breath-test in locations where they suspect drink driving to be taking place, without having to have grounds for suspicion in each individual case. That is not random breath testing, but it will allow the police to take a more targeted, intelligence-led approach to that branch of enforcement.
    On drug driving, which is already an offence, we are continuing our research into how drugs may affect drivers and into effective counter-measures, such as drug-testing devices. The "Cannabis and Driving" report, which was published last Friday, shows that driving under the influence of cannabis can be a hazard, although the effects are less drastic than those of alcohol. We are strengthening enforcement. The police are training officers to recognise the symptoms of drug use and impairment. We intend to give the police powers to test for drugs at the roadside.
    Although it was not possible to commit ourselves to legislation on such matters in this Session, advance drafting of a new safety Bill was announced in the Queen's speech. Thai is the most likely vehicle for the final proposals when we have been able to take account of views expressed in response to the consultation. If I might offer some advice to hon. Members present, I am sure that it would be a good idea to respond now to the

    339
    proposals in the consultation paper and, if necessary, draw attention to proposals that they favour, but which are not covered, rather than waiting for firmer proposals to come before the House.
    Mr. Miller: My hon. Friend tempts me; I have a long list. I thank him for his invitation. I concur fully with the observations made by the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Russell). Will my hon. Friend accept the first consultation from me? Page 15 of the consultation document deals with sentences and sets out the averages for sentences over five years. The figures for sentences in the circumstances mentioned by the hon. Member for Colchester are incredibly low. Will my hon. Friend bring that point firmly to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and the judiciary? Will he also look carefully at ensuring that driving bans do not run concurrently with prison sentences but are consecutive and, preferably, that they are life bans?
    Mr. Hill: I shall draw both the points that my hon. Friend made so forcefully to the attention of the Lord Chancellor and other relevant Ministers. As of this moment, I can declare the consultation period open.
    Although we have a while to wait for the safety Bill, the House will know that the Vehicles (Crime) Bill successfully completed its Second Reading yesterday. One of its measures provides for the transfer of some of the income from speeding fines so that it can be used to help pay for more safety cameras and the processing of more penalty notices. That will bring to the whole country the proven benefits of some successful pilot schemes that have been running in eight police authority areas, including Essex, where the hon. Member for Colchester has his constituency.
    I know that safety cameras are not everyone's pet scheme—certainly not those who are fined or have penalty points added to their licence. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston rightly said, it is nonsense for some people and some newspapers to describe them as a form of stealth tax. They make a valuable contribution to road safety and, if people stop speeding, the cameras will stop flashing.
    On education, the already heavy demands of the national curriculum mean that road safety cannot be taught as a subject in its own right. However, it will be covered as part of personal health and social education. We are also looking for ways to work the issues of safety into other lessons such as maths, physics and geography, where it can provide a link to the world outside through examples taken from real life.
    One thing that does not transfer well from the classroom to the street is kerb craft. We are planning to encourage local authorities to give more practical experience at the roadside through a national pilot network of training schemes for children of about six and seven. We will be offering to pay authorities to employ co-ordinators to set up local schemes and to recruit parent volunteers to do the training. Initially at least, this may be mainly in areas of social exclusion because that is where statistics show that the children who are most at risk live and play.
    340
    It is also important to get road safety messages across to older children. Independent research has confirmed the value of the Driving Standard's Agency's schools programme—presentations by driving examiners about learning to drive and road safety generally. We are doubling the number of programmes this year to 1,500, reaching some 750,000 students aged 16 to 18. Further increases will follow.
    The main role of the Driving Standards Agency, however, is to help improve the quality of its own novice drivers and the people who train them. We want to improve the way in which learner drivers are tested. Since the road safety strategy was published, the Transport Act 2000 has provided new powers to enable us to introduce compulsory training schemes for users of different classes of motor vehicle and to regulate the providers of such training. We shall now be considering how to use those powers to help us to deliver the commitments in the strategy to improving driving standards and reducing the number of road casualties.
    Many of the vehicles driven on our roads are being driven for work purposes. Research indicates that, mile for mile, company car drivers have accident rates that are 30 to 50 per cent. higher than those of comparable private drivers. We have established a task group to consider how best to prevent work-related road-traffic incidents. The group will be publishing a discussion document early next year and holding a conference to debate the issues raised in the document, before making recommendations to us.
    Switching to two wheels for a moment, early in the new year, we shall be implementing a package of measures to improve learner rider safety while scrapping unnecessary restrictions. All learners will be taking a theory test, and car drivers qualifying in the future who want to ride a moped will have to take basic training like other learner riders. At the same time, we are abolishing the old "two years on, one year off' rule for provisional motorcycle licences. We think that a training requirement is a better approach to longer-term learner riders than a one-year disqualification.
    As for the role of local transport departments, authorities must build in safety for pedestrians and other vulnerable road users as one of their priorities in their local transport plans. That entails an intensification of road engineering, pedestrian separation where necessary, and more home zones and other safe-speed areas.
    Although we no longer have ring fencing for local safety schemes within the local transport plan system, after last week's announcements of their spending allocations for 2001–02, with indicative allocations for later years, authorities know that there will be no excuses for holding back on that type of expenditure. Ultimately, it is up to them. However, we know from their bids that we are allocating enough to fund 8,000 safety schemes in England alone in the next five years. Local authorities bid for them, and now they must deliver them.
    Despite the new hands-off approach on local spending decisions, we are not backward in coming forward with advice. The Transport Research Laboratory is working on a guide to good practice in road safety for us, and our consultants on the safe city project in Gloucester—where the five-year project that we have been funding has shown the great benefits of adopting an area-wide approach—are writing up the results of that work, too. Both reports will

    341
    be launched at a special road safety conference, in June, that the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents is organising for us.
    Once again, I give my sincere thanks to the hon. Member for Colchester for raising this issue for debate. I hope that I have been able to respond to at least some of
    342
    his main concerns. I assure him that I shall check the Official Report to see whether, because of the pressure of time, any points have not been adequately dealt with. If so, I shall send him a fuller response.
    Question put and agreed to.
    Adjourned accordingly at seven minutes to Twelve midnight.

Preamble
[MRS. SYLVIA HEAL in the Chair]

Equitable Life
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Miss Melanie Johnson.]
9.30 am
Mr. Richard Ottaway: I should like to raise the situation at the Equitable Life Assurance Society. I declare my interest as a policyholder of Equitable Life.
Since I announced that I was to instigate this debate, I have been deluged with advice, e-mails and faxes. I apologise to those who might be following the debate because, in the short time available, I cannot address every technical point. However, I am sure that this will not be the only debate on the subject and there will be plenty of opportunity in future to examine the minutiae. Today, I intend to consider some fundamental questions.
The Equitable Life Assurance Society is the oldest mutual assurance company in the world and it is a tragedy that this debate should have to take place. The situation at the Equitable is of extreme concern to the hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people who are caught up in it. The frenzy of media coverage over the past few weeks—much of it uninformed—has not been helpful. We need a period of calm reflection so that the situation can be satisfactorily resolved.
It is important to remember that there has been no fraud and no intent to deceive. Although, in the view of many, there may have been misjudgment, every penny that has been paid to the Equitable is still there and has not gone away. That money is competently managed and the issue is an argument over which policyholders are entitled to which assets of the society. That argument can be resolved by rational intelligence and proper leadership. My thinking is based on my family maxim, "It's not how you get into the hole, it's how you get out of it that counts."
The recent case, culminating in the House of Lords decision in July, concerned the validity of the society's decision to award lower terminal bonuses to those whose with-profits pension policies matured with guaranteed annuity rates, known as GARs in the industry. A with-profits pensions policy is one in which the insurance company pays bonuses that are added to the fund at intervals. When the plan comes to an end, a final bonus is paid. The level of bonus depends on the investment performance of the insurance company. When the plan matures and the individual retires, part of the final pension fund must—I emphasise the word "must"—be converted to a regular income by the purchase of an annuity, either from the original pension provider or from another insurance company. The amount of annual income payable from the annuity depends on the market.
2WH
I shall now make the only party-political point that I intend to make. The Conservative party plans, after the next general election, to change the obligation to buy an annuity. We shall adopt the recommendations of the committee headed by Dr. Oonagh McDonald, which will virtually remove that obligation.
The with-profits policies at the centre of the Equitable Life case were first sold in the late 1950s and offered a guaranteed annuity rate regardless of the annuity rate at the time the individual retired. Annuity rates have fallen considerably in recent years. In the past 10 years, they have fallen from around 16 per cent. to 8 per cent. per annum, halving the income that a newly retired person, with the same lump sum, would receive.
Rates have fallen for two reasons. First, the value of yields from Government bonds—more commonly known as gilts—that are used by insurance companies to back their annuities has fallen sharply as the Government's borrowing requirements have reduced. Secondly, people's life expectancy has increased and annuity rates have fallen to reflect that. As a result, the Equitable, along with many other pension providers, stopped offering GARs in the late 1980s.
However, the Equitable faced growing costs as about 90,000 GAR policies, already sold, began to mature. A greater proportion of the company's profits was subsequently allocated to those policyholders than had been originally anticipated. Equitable attempted to offset some of those costs by paying a lower final bonus to policyholders with GARs, compared with bonuses paid to policyholders without a guaranteed annuity.
Guaranteed annuity policyholders were effectively given a choice between exercising the right to a guaranteed annuity rate, in which case the final bonus would be reduced, or relinquishing the guaranteed growth, purchasing an annuity at current market rates and receiving the full bonus. The financial effect of both those options was roughly neutral. As a result of the Equitable board's policy and management, a number of the GAR policyholders complained to the Personal Investment Authority ombudsman, who agreed to allow the dispute to be referred to the High Court to test the validity of the society's actions.
In September 1999, the Vice-Chancellor of the High Court, Sir Richard Scott, held that the Equitable's actions had been valid. A representative policyholder appealed to the Court of Appeal, which reversed the decision and allowed the appeal in January 2000. The society appealed against the decision to the House of Lords. The Law Lords published their judgment on 20 July, finding that the Equitable's actions had not been valid, and saying so in extensive terms that went much further than the decision of the Court of Appeal.
That decision by the House of Lords obliges the society to pay a full bonus to the GAR policyholders and to pay the guaranteed annuity on the whole sum. That has created two different classes of policyholders in the Equitable: those with guaranteed annuities and those with annuities at market rates. The upshot is that the non-GAR policyholders are funding those with GAR policies. To cover that cost, the Equitable has frozen bonuses for seven months, which has raised the sum of £1.5 billion to cover those with guaranteed annuities. However, I understand that that is only an estimate, and the liability remains unquantified.

3WH
After the House of Lords decision, the management immediately announced that the society was for sale. No less than 15 parties expressed an interest. The last, Prudential plc, withdrew from the process two weeks ago, precipitating what some have called a crisis inside the society. It should come as no surprise that it was impossible to find a buyer for the Equitable when the precise liabilities to the GAR policyholders remained unknown.
At the same time, the company announced that it would take no new business. That, coupled with the regulator's demand that investments be switched to more secure investments such as gilts, means that the fund will inevitably lose its momentum and pay lower returns. This has led to widespread concern. I am particularly concerned about the plight of existing annuitants, who face a shrinking annuity for the rest of their lives with no way out.
Having set the scene, the question is, where do we go from here? The number of policyholders involved is truly alarming. There are 90,000 policyholders with guaranteed annuities, and it is believed that there are 390,000 with-profits policyholders without guaranteed annuities. In addition, it is thought that up to 700,000 individuals have an interest in the matter through company group schemes.
Some of Britain's finest blue-chip companies, such as Sainsbury and Shell, as well as organisations such as the Consumers Association and the BBC, are caught up in the situation. Last, but not least, the parliamentary pension funds are involved, as they offer policies that are commonly known as AVCs for people who wish to make additional voluntary contributions.
I have been swamped with advice about what the Equitable has done wrong and what it should do in the future. I am sure that the management of the Equitable would agree that misjudgments were made; some people have described what has happened as incompetence, others as negligence. Some people talk about suing the Equitable or its directors, but that would achieve little and waste a lot of money. As the Equitable is a mutual society, those concerned would, in effect, be suing themselves. Other people say that the society's advisers should be sued. That would be a long drawn-out struggle and, as it is far from clear how they may have misled investors, in my judgment would achieve little.
The right way forward is for the Equitable to realise the massive and widespread concern, anxiety and dismay about the way in which the society has been managed, and to take a number of steps to restore confidence. At the society's last annual general meeting, an effort was made to elect a member on to the board of directors. The management resisted the attempt—slightly surprisingly, as the Equitable is, after all, a mutual society—and advised members not to vote for the person concerned. I hope that the management will change its attitude, and that the non-executive directors will insist that the board is expanded to include three further non-executive directors, all of whom are policyholders affected by the situation and who can bring their experiences into the boardroom.
4WH
I have nothing against the present chief executive, but I do not believe that he should also hold the post of the society's actuary—although I understand that that is only a temporary arrangement. The management team should accept the appointment of someone credible from outside the society. A world-class pension fund manager without any involvement with the past should take over the reins and bring a fresh start and fresh thinking. I appreciate that the management are up to their neck in muck and bullets and are doing their best to stabilise the situation, but I hope that, as time passes, they will recognise that the best way forward is to accept such appointments.
When the board has been so constituted, it should address a clarification of the law. Many people believe that policyholders without guaranteed annuities were not properly represented at the successive court hearings at the High Court, the Court of Appeal and the House of Lords. The management of the Equitable invited the courts to approve its handling of the guaranteed annuity policy holders. The courts did not approve and, as their focus was on the guaranteed policy holders, the arguments of the with-profits policyholders without guaranteed annuities were not properly considered. It is the opinion of people far more qualified than I am that there was a conflict between the views of the Equitable's management and the non-guaranteed annuity rate policyholders. The least that the society can do is to take an independent legal opinion on the point and consider legal action if it supports the contention.
It is essential to stabilise the situation, so that the society can navigate itself through its difficulties without causing significant damage to its members' interests. If peripheral interests are to be sold off, that must done in an expeditious and orderly manner.
As I said at the outset, the fund is still there and has not gone away. It is not a Maxwell-type situation where funds are missing. It is simply a discussion or argument among intelligent people about who exactly owns what. I hope that agreement can be reached between the different classes of policyholder and that the liabilities can be quantified. I am sure that everyone involved in the matter wishes the management of the Equitable well and hopes that they will open up, loosen up, become transparent and work with policyholders to resolve this difficult situation.
On the role of the regulator, it is the view of many in the industry that the Equitable has been treated differently by successive regulators; by the Department of Trade and Industry until 1998 and by the Financial Services Authority thereafter. It is clear that something had to give. It was not possible for some policyholders to have guaranteed policies with guaranteed annuities, while other categories of policy holder were not so entitled, without there being some difficulty.
In the High Court, which found in favour of the Equitable, the Vice-Chancellor, Sir Richard Scott, believed that the society was right to pay a smaller final bonus to guaranteed policy holders, as the society was only obliged
to bring the value of the benefits being taken by the policy holder on maturity up to a level that equates to the policy holder's notional 'asset share' in the Society's with profit funds.
That is known as the asset share argument.

5WH
In other words, the judge said that there was no need to pay a large final bonus because the high annuity would give the guaranteed policyholders their fair share. However, in the House of Lords, in a most lucid judgment, Lord Cooke of Thorndon said:
The Vice-Chancellor's description introduces the concept of asset-share, which is nowhere mentioned in the policy but dominates the approach of the Directors.
That is the nub of it. Lord Cooke was absolutely clear about that and so were his four colleagues. The highest court in the land has found that the Equitable management took an approach that was nowhere mentioned in the policyholders' contracts.
What was the regulator's view? When it looked at policyholders' contracts, did it think that the directors were adopting a policy that was nowhere mentioned in the contract? If not, why not? Why was that clear to the Law Lords, but not to the regulator or, indeed, to the Treasury? It is possible that the worst impact of the situation could have been ameliorated if it had been examined some years ago.
The Treasury, too, must answer an essential question. In December 1998, the Treasury was still offering guidance to all companies authorised by it to carry on long-term business in the insurance sector to the effect that the policyholders entitled to some form of guaranteed annuity could reasonably expect to pay some premium or charge towards the cost of their guarantee. In a letter of 18 December 1998, the Treasury said:
This could be achieved in some cases through some reduction in the terminal bonus that would be payable if there were no such guarantee.
There we have it. The Treasury was, in effect, endorsing the situation and the management of the Equitable. There is no doubt whatever that, in the Treasury's view, the Equitable's policy of paying smaller final bonuses to those with guaranteed annuity options was right. The Treasury must answer exactly the same question that I posed to the regulator. Why was the situation obvious to the Law Lords but not to the regulator or to the Treasury? When questioned on that point, the Minister's answer of 6 September to my hon. Friend the Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight) was far from satisfactory. I am not sure where that leaves the Government, but the Minister will undoubtedly tell us in her winding-up what responsibility she accepts for the situation, why the Government acquiesced in the situation and why they issued guidance in support of the Equitable's decision and in support of the view that many now believe to be misguided.
The situation needs thorough investigation and I urge the Treasury Committee to look into it. I hope that the Minister will accept that there is widespread concern and that a calm, rational approach is needed, but that important questions must be answered to ensure that such a dreadful situation does not happen again.
9.50 am
Dr. Vincent Cable: I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing this topical debate and on the balanced way in which he introduced it. He made it clear that we are talking not about dishonesty or sharp practice, but
6WH
about a major error that has had serious consequences. Like many hon. Members, I am a member of the parliamentary pension scheme and, therefore, have an interest that I should appropriately declare.
My initial point leads directly from the hon. Gentleman's closing remarks in addressing the question of whether there has been a regulatory failure. I do not assert that there has been, but the question needs to be asked. If there has been a failure, or indeed negligence at a regulatory level, that will have substantial implications. The matter would cease to be merely an issue between the policyholders and the company, and we would need to ask what were the Government's liabilities. There have been precedents of regulatory failure—for example, Barlow Clowes. In that case, policyholders received compensation.
The question of whether there has been regulatory failure focuses on different periods, the first of which concerns the distant past, when the guaranteed annuities were written. With the wisdom of hindsight, the Financial Times said that guaranteed annuities were actuarially based on mathematical brilliance and economic illiteracy, but we should ask at what point the Government began to have doubts about the policies being based on the assumption of continued high inflation. It has been the objective of successive Chancellors to produce low inflation and low long-term interest rates. It must have occurred to someone that there was a conflict between those objectives and the assumptions under which an important part of the insurance industry operated.
A more important question concerns the run-up to the House of Lords ruling. At what point did the Government, who regulated the industry, realise that something was seriously amiss? It is becoming clear that, about two years before the House of Lords ruling, serious worry was expressed in Government. I have been shown a minute— I am sure that there are many others—written in a note from the insurance directorate to the FSA on 5 November 1998. It says:
The greatest public attention is focused on the Equitable Life, because of its controversial policy of paying the guaranteed annuity rate only on the guaranteed sum built up in the fund…Our preliminary view is that the Equitable is entitled to do this, though we are seeking further information to test the position further.
That confirms what the hon. Gentleman said concerning the Government's judgment about the policies being pursued by Equitable Life and makes his point that the Government regulator did not anticipate the House of Lords ruling.
The second comment—which is more serious—in the note says:
However, our primary concern is over the company's ability to reserve adequately for these guarantees. The information received to date is unconvincing, and raises serious questions about the company's solvency.
That was written 18 months before the House of Lords ruling. The insurance directorate gave a clear signal of the danger of insolvency, and the need for urgent and major action. We must ask why the FSA did not act. It took action to strengthen reserves, but why did it not act commensurately with the scale of the problem that had already been identified?
To assess regulatory failure, we also need to focus on the period since the House of Lords ruling. The hon. Gentleman has already asked whether it was

7WH
appropriate to stop writing policies. I would ask a slightly different question: why was it not considered necessary to launch a rescue operation in the City, such as that launched when Barings bank collapsed some years ago? Of course banks are not insurance companies and different principles apply. For example, there are issues of confidence in the banking sector, which do not apply to the same extent in this case. None the less, the City was encouraged to rescue a major flagship British bank but not a major insurer in which hundreds of thousands of people had invested their savings. Why was that urgency and sense of importance not communicated? Has there been a regulatory failure? Will the Economic Secretary explain how that will be investigated? How will the investigation take place and will it be undertaken by the Treasury or by someone independent?
Is a more comprehensive inquiry into how the insurance sector operates appropriate? Mr. Cruickshank led a major inquiry into the operation of the banks. A whole set of factors have come together in the Equitable Life case which suggest that the insurance sector should be subject to the same degree of overarching inquiry. I will illuminate some of those factors.
First, the Government are launching stakeholder pensions, a scheme I wish well. It is important that pensions are available, particularly to low-income families. However, in many ways, the concept of a stakeholder pension is based on the same form of operating as that followed by Equitable Life. As the hon. Member for Croydon, South said, Equitable Life was an admirable company. It operated socially aware policies, including flexibility in the payment of premiums. If Equitable Life got into trouble by operating socially enlightened policies for pension provision, can we be as confident as we were that stakeholder pensions will succeed?
My second question relates to mutuality. The Equitable Life case has exposed the instability of the mutual sector within the insurance industry. The ultimate source of Equitable Life's weakness was low reserves. However, had the company provided substantial reserves, it would have become a target for carpetbaggers. I can only speculate whether that was one of its reasons for not increasing reserves, although it was probably more to do with a wish to appear at the head of the performance tables. None the less, as a consequence of trying to operate according to the spirit of mutuality and not lay itself open to carpetbagger attack, Equitable Life was highly vulnerable. As we have seen in the building society sector, the lack of a proper regulatory structure for mutuals requires further investigation.
The orphan assets problem that we attempted to debate a few weeks ago is a third issue. Equitable Life was disadvantaged by not having orphan assets; indeed, one of the companies that tried to buy it used orphan assets as leverage in the purchase. Orphan assets are often accumulated through policies that are not entirely consistent with the welfare of policyholders, such as low rates of persistency and not paying out on with-profits policies. Equitable Life appears to have been penalised
8WH
by its lack of orphan assets. That perverse state of affairs raises, yet again, the question of whether the Government have an appropriate policy for dealing with such problems.
The issues raised do not simply relate to Equitable Life. We must ask whether there has been a regulatory failure, but we must also ask the more general question of whether the insurance sector as a whole is properly managed and regulated. It is the Government's duty to address both problems.
9.59 am
Mr. David Lidington: I start by declaring that one office building in Aylesbury occupied by Equitable Life is leased from the Aylesbury Conservative association. Although the registrar tells me that that is not a registrable interest—it is a straightforward commercial arrangement—it is sensible for me to be completely open about it.
I sought to intervene in today's debate because Equitable Life is, by a long chalk, the largest private sector employer in my constituency. About 1,500 jobs in Aylesbury are at stake because of Equitable Life's troubles. That entails a threat to the purchasing power that its employees put into the town's economy.
I am grateful for the measured speeches of my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) and the hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable). The sense of shock in Aylesbury during the past few weeks has been compounded by the high reputation that Equitable Life has always enjoyed locally, both as a good employer and as a company that takes pride in its mutual status and contributes to the local community. For example, it has supported the youth enterprise scheme enthusiastically year after year, and readily seconds staff to voluntary and charitable activities in the area.
Many of the points that I wanted to make have already been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South and the hon. Member for Twickenham. I will not repeat them, because other hon. Members wish to speak. However, I endorse their approach and their requests for further explanation, parliamentary debate and inquiry.
Many of my constituents are employed by Equitable Life, and many have invested in Equitable Life products over the years. I speak with the interests of both staff and investors in mind. I hope that the Economic Secretary will explain in detail her view of the role of both the Treasury and the FSA during this saga.
The hon. Member for Twickenham suggested that the Equitable's policy on reserves might have been prompted partly by awareness of performance league tables and partly by commitment to the spirit of mutuality. When I have met Equitable directors during the years in which I have represented Aylesbury, they have always impressed on me their commitment to the principle of mutuality. They take pride in it as a factor that differentiates Equitable from limited liability company competitors. It should not have surprised the regulatory authorities that few reserves were available to make good a loss such as that which has now occurred. Equitable's board was not keeping a secret, or covering up failure. It was a declared policy by successive boards that believed it was in the best interests of the society and all its members.

9WH
At what point did alarm bells start to ring in the Treasury and the FSA? Was it when the court cases were first brought, or after the judgment in the court of the first instance? Was it after the House of Lords ruling? Has the Treasury changed the advice to which my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South alluded when he quoted from the letter from Treasury officials stating that the guidance had been suspended on 20 July this year? Perhaps the Department should have reconsidered that advice earlier. Why did the Financial Services Authority agree that Equitable Life should continue to sell new policies after the House of Lords ruling, although the future of the society was at that stage uncertain, to put it mildly?
The most difficult questions concern what should be done now, not how to discover what went wrong in the past. As my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South said, matters remain in a state of considerable confusion and flux. We wish the management of Equitable Life and other concerned parties well as they try to quantify the liabilities involved and to decide on the best way to make good the duty hat Equitable Life owes to every one of its policyholders. A great deal of discussion has taken place about the sale of various parts of the business to various parties, but the final outcome remains unclear.
It may be too early for the Government to answer some of these questions. However, an investor in my constituency has suggested the possibility of some kind of Government underwriting—not of the £1.5 billion estimated loss in growth stemming from the GAR, but to allow Equitable Life to continue to invest in equities instead of restricting its portfolio more closely to gilts. That would allow the asset base to grow over the years, helping both the annuitants to whom my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon, South drew attention and other policyholders who do not stand to benefit from the guarantees that were the subject of the recent litigation.
Have the Government considered appointing a troubleshooter or facilitator to help to bring the parties together? It is generally accepted that these circumstances are not comparable to those of the Maxwell case, in that no fraud has been involved. However, there are contending parties with different interests, and the experience of the Maxwell case proved that sometimes an impartial and respected third party is able to broker a way forward that the parties and their lawyers are unable to achieve if left to themselves.
About a week ago, in response to 2,000 redundancies in Luton, Ministers announced to the House a package of measures to help employees there to find new work. I ardently hope that the people of the neighbouring town of Aylesbury do not face a comparable situation to that in Luton. If the worst came to the worst and such an employment disaster occurred, I hope and expect that the Government would present a similar package of help and support for redundant employees in Aylesbury.
This has been a timely debate, but it is important that Parliament and Select Committees continue to inquire into the circumstances affecting Equitable Life and the insurance sector in general and continue to debate the development of this crisis.
10WH
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. I hope to call two further speakers before the Minister winds up, but she will require sufficient time to reply to this very important debate.
10.10 am
Ms Oona King: I shall endeavour to be exceptionally brief, Mr. Winterton.
I want to take this opportunity to discuss the problems faced by my constituents and, as we have heard, many others. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing this important debate. I admit to being rather shocked, as many Members seemed to be, at the detail of what has happened to Equitable Life investors. In 1997, two of my constituents, Melvyn and Alizah Litvin, took the advice of Equitable Life and invested money in the managed pension with-profits bond. Like many others, they had no reason to mistrust such advice. Indeed, as the Financial Times pointed out this week, Equitable Life
was regarded by most observers as a pillar of the establishment.
My constituents were unaware that, in the 1980s and 1990s, Equitable Life was, as some might put it, recklessly marketing guaranteed annuities that proved unsustainable when the financial climate changed.
As we have heard, Equitable Life is now raiding the with-profits fund to honour those guaranteed annuities. Essentially, it is robbing Peter—or Melvyn and Alizah and others like them—to pay Paul. It has now closed its fund and imposed a 10 per cent. deduction on anyone who wishes to remove their investment, which represents a double whammy. My constituents have already lost a substantial sum, and they will lose even more if they try to get out. Naturally, they are aggrieved. As they put it:
We did not have unrealistic unsustainable expectations for our investments, we invested in a reputable company considered very ethical and therefore we feel very aggrieved and angry about the outcome.
My constituents have two questions for the Minister. First, why was the quality of supervision by the authorities so low? Secondly, why was Equitable Life apparently allowed to operate with a much slimmer financial cushion than comparable insurers? As the hon. Member for Croydon, South pointed out, it seems extraordinary that its directors were adopting a policy that was nowhere to be found in policyholders' contracts. Naturally, we must ensure that that cannot happen again, and I look forward to hearing about the Government's plans to prevent such an injustice from recurring.
10.13 am
Mr. Howard Flight: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Croydon (Mr. Ottaway), South on securing this debate. It is a serious matter when the bluest of blue-chip insurance companies encounters a problem that threatens to undermine public confidence in insurance and pension provision. It will cause considerable problems in promoting the stakeholder product, and weaken greatly public confidence in regulation.

11WH
As we know, the problem occurred because of the obligation to buy annuities, because liabilities were not reinsured and because the company—partly because it was a mutual—adopted a policy of paying out and not reserving. The regulators, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Treasury and the Financial Services Authority, must have known what was going on for at least the past three years. Indeed, the increase in the cost of annuities has occurred mainly during that time.
The letter of 18 December 1998 is perhaps the tip of the iceberg. The bodies concerned concluded that the problem could be fixed by the method outlined in the letter, which was that those with guaranteed annuities would suffer a loss of with-profits. As my hon. Friend pointed out, that seemed legally doubtful at the time and unlikely to fix the problem effectively. The problem exploded two years later, by which time it had probably worsened. Meanwhile, the cost of annuities rose further with the fall in real interest rates. It is not only falling nominal rates and falling inflation that drive up the cost of annuities, but the dried-up supply of gilts. Many lawyers who are members of Equitable Life feel that there is a possible case for Government liability, given that the regulatory body did not address the problem two years ago.
I urge the Government to encourage a rescue, and I ask the Minister if the Government are willing to make available public funds to smooth the path of a possible rescue. If there is no rescue, the problem will get worse because many people will seek to withdraw, given the change in investment policy. In that case, the scope to recover will be reduced by the lower equity element and the higher gilt element. If large numbers of people decide to pay the 10 per cent. penalty and withdraw, there will be a declining pot of assets at Equitable Life to finance the fixed annuity liabilities. I take the point made by my hon. Friend that the matter requires a responsible and calm approach. If it is not addressed urgently, the potential problems for both Equitable Life and the public perception of insurance pension schemes will become significant.
10.16 am
The Economic Secretary to the Treasury (Miss Melanie Johnson): I shall do my best to respond to the points that have been raised. I congratulate the hon. Member for Croydon, South (Mr. Ottaway) on securing the debate. When Equitable Life announced that it was to close to new business on 8 December, its president said that
this is a very sad day for all in the Society.
Many hon. Members have shared that sentiment today.
As a number of hon. Members have pointed out, the size of Equitable Life means that news of its closure to new business is of great interest to many thousands of families across the UK. Before discussing the circumstances that led Equitable Life to close to new business, it is important to make it clear where responsibilities lie. First and foremost, it is for the board and management of Equitable Life—as for any insurance company—to account for their stewardship of the business to their owners and customers. In the case of Equitable Life, which is a mutual, that
12WH
responsibility is particularly vivid, since its customers own it. Its policyholders have a range of interests, depending on the terms of the policies that they hold, and over the years it has been Equitable Life's responsibility to strike a proper balance between those different interests.
I speak as a Treasury Minister in this debate because the Treasury has policy responsibility for the FSA. The FSA is the prudential regulator for the insurance industry, including of course Equitable Life. Equitable Life sold a range of investment-linked insurance policies whose distribution was regulated under the Financial Services Act 1986. The main regulator responsible for setting rules relating to this part of Equitable Life's business was the Personal Investment Authority. Some professional bodies may also have been member firms that did business with Equitable Life. The PIA is in the process of being absorbed into the FSA as part of the Government's policy of establishing a single regulator for financial services.
Equitable Life is, of course, a large mutual insurance company. Its premium income in recent years has placed it as one of the UK's three largest pensions providers, with total assets of around £33 billion. Equitable Life has approximately 1 million policies in force and 650,000 policy holders, of whom 450,000 are members. It is the oldest mutual life assurance society in the world, and the unexpected news of its closure to new business came as a shock to policyholders and members—and, as the hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) said, to the staff and the whole of the financial services industry.
The Government have noted the recent statements on the matter by the Financial Services Authority and by Equitable Life, and welcome the fact that the FSA and the society are working closely together to protect the interests of policyholders. I stress that that work is continuing because it has been suggested that the FSA might be acting as a sort of ring-holder in the process. At the moment, it is actively engaged.
The Government appreciate the concern that the closure to new business has brought to the 650,000 policyholders of Equitable Life, especially in the run-up to Christmas. We welcome the society's efforts to provide timely information to policyholders, so that they can fully consider their options. We also welcome the fact that the FSA is providing information to affected policyholders via the consumer section of the FSA's website and its consumer helpline. The FSA's advice is that policyholders should reflect carefully on their options before taking action. It is only right that they should have access to the best possible information to enable them to make appropriate decisions. The Government support that approach.
Equitable Life has said that its inability to find a buyer means that the loss of growth in with-profits policies between January and July 2000 is now unlikely to be restored. The society has said that the investment performance of its with-profits funds is likely to be impaired because it will need to be invested to a greater extent in bonds and gilts rather than in equities, which have historically generated higher returns in the longer term. The FSA has advised policyholders to take that into account when deciding on their options for their existing investments as well as for their future investment strategy.

13WH
I turn briefly to the remarks made by the hon. Member for Arundel and South Downs (Mr. Flight). We should be clear that no theft has taken place, that Equitable Life is not insolvent, that the contractual elements will be honoured and that the policies are valid. I thank hon. Members for their generally measured tone, but it is important that we do not over-emphasise the problem. We should remember that the factors that I have just mentioned still hold true, and we should feel confident about the matter.
Many hon. Members will, of course, have an interest in the FSA's advice because they are making additional voluntary contributions to the parliamentary pension scheme. I do not hold any AVCs, so I do not have an interest in the matter.
The FSA is concerned that material changes to the expectations of Equitable Life policyholders are seen in context, and that policyholders should not rush to take precipitate action. The FSA has advised Equitable's customers to remember that the society remains solvent and that their existing policies are still valid. The society therefore continues to meet the statutory requirements that apply to insurance companies. The society has made it clear that it is still able to meet its contractual obligations to policy holders.
The hon. Member for Croydon, South alleged that the regulator had treated Equitable Life differently. The regulator is obliged to treat every firm in the same way and under the same principles, taking account of the risks of the business. The Treasury's guidance on running such a business does not absolve Equitable's management of responsibility for taking legal advice about running the society. It can do no more than give its best assessment of how the courts would interpret matters.
The hon. Gentleman suggested that there might be several proposals that involved new board appointments and new external management in selling off assets, but that is primarily a matter for Equitable Life. Any new manager will be subject to regulatory approval by the FSA, as any senior manager in a financial services business would be. It is for Equitable Life to consider and take legal advice if there is an issue about the clarity of the law, as the hon. Gentleman suggests that there is.
The FSA is concerned that material changes to the expectations of Equitable Life policyholders are seen in context. That is why the FSA has advised policyholders to reflect carefully on their options before taking early action. The FSA has noted that the early surrender of an Equitable Life policy, for example, may not be the best option. In addition to the information being provided to policyholders by Equitable Life, the FSA has helpfully posted information on its website to enable policyholders to assess their situation. The FSA's information includes several questions that policyholders considering a transfer to another product provider should ask financial advisers.
The hon. Member for Twickenham (Dr. Cable) referred to a 1998 document that was recently leaked, which he said showed that the regulator was aware that Equitable Life was not managing its risk properly. I believe that a more accurate interpretation of that document is that the regulator recognised the problem
14WH
and was taking action to deal with it. It is a matter of public record that Equitable Life's reserves went up by £1.5 billion in the following year as a result.
The hon. Member for Twickenham also raised the issue of the FSA allowing Equitable Life to keep advertising and selling new business after the Lords' judgment. Immediately after the judgment, the FSA accepted Equitable Life's view that it seemed likely that the society could be sold as a going concern. The FSA appreciated that stopping the business from trading normally would have prejudiced the chances of a successful sale. Of course, it was only with the benefit of hindsight that the FSA appreciated that there might have been merit in earlier closure.
Mr. Ottaway: Will the Minister give way?
Miss Johnson: Very briefly, if the hon. Gentleman wants me to answer any questions.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. The hon. Gentleman must be brief.
Mr. Ottaway: If the Minister believes that the guidance from the Treasury was the right advice, why was it suspended two days after the House of Lords decision?
Miss Johnson: It was suspended because the House of Lords decision was a legal judgment that obviously altered the circumstances.
The question of mutuality being doomed was raised. It is wrong to draw such a sweeping inference. Mutual institutions can offer a range of valuable advantages to their customers, as members of several building societies have found. In the case of Equitable Life, the FSA has pointed out that the circumstances of its business challenges were unique and did not betoken wider-ranging problems.
The hon. Member for Aylesbury (Mr. Lidington) suggested that the FSA should compensate Equitable Life investors. Compensation for the customers of financial services firms is available if they become insolvent, as the hon. Gentleman is aware. The FSA has made it clear that Equitable Life is not insolvent, that its customers' policies are valid and that it will meet its contractual obligations.
I am afraid that I have little time to make some of the points that I wanted to make, but I shall concentrate on one, which is the question of what happens next. Several hon. Members made it clear that they sought further information about the events that led to Equitable Life's decision to close to new business. Those concerns are understandable and timely, as it is important that lessons should be learned promptly from the unfortunate episode.
Hon. Members will want to know that the FSA chairman will invite the board, when it meets later this week, to put in hand a review of the events that led to Equitable Life's decision to close to new business. The review will cover the FSA's actions as a prudential regulator and in carrying out its functions under the

15WH
Financial Services Act 1986. The FSA's internal audit department will carry out the review with external assistance as necessary; for example, from expert accountants and lawyers. The Treasury will publish the conclusions of the review, which is likely to take a number of months.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Time is up. The next debate, initiated by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), is on key worker housing in the south-east.

Key Worker Housing (South-East)
10.30 am
Jane Griffiths: I am very grateful for the opportunity for this debate. I have been applying for a debate on the subject since the House returned from the summer recess. [Interruption.]
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Will hon. Members who are leaving the Chamber please do so quietly, so that others can hear the hon. Member who has the Floor?
Jane Griffiths: Thank you, Mr. Winterton.
The state of affairs with respect to recruitment and retention of key workers varies around the country. No two parts of the United Kingdom have identical economies. Economies also vary within regions. My colleagues from Kent will say that regeneration is needed in parts of the county. Hon. Members from the Thames Valley would probably report the opposite—that there is a tendency for the economy to overheat at present.
The definition of a key worker needs careful thought. We all assume that the term covers police, nurses and teachers, but does not the private sector also contain key workers? What about bus drivers and retail staff? Who are the key employees in our economy, ensuring that people can carry on their lives?
Decisions by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor in the comprehensive spending review have revealed the importance that the Government place on public services. In July, my right hon. Friend announced an extra £11.9 billion for education—a 33 per cent. increase, which pays for another 6,000 teachers; an extra £11.4 billion for health—a 35 per cent. increase, to include 4,780 extra doctors and help to pay for 20,000 more nurses; an extra £4.2 billion for transport—a 50 per cent. increase; and an extra £2.4 billion to fight crime—a 19 per cent. increase. All those increases in spending and all those extra staff are welcome. However, in Reading, East and in much of the south-east of England there may be no beneficial outcome from those decisions with respect to staff. People will not take jobs in areas in which their pay does not enable them to afford a place to live.
The debate should proceed in the context of an understanding of the real benefits that the Government have brought about for people in Reading, East. Figures from the Treasury reveal that homeowners there are saving about £1,000 a year because of lower and stable mortgage rates. About 30,000 homeowners in my constituency have benefited from mortgage rates that have averaged 7 per cent. interest, instead of the 11 per cent. that was the average under the previous Government. Across the south-east, 2.5 million homeowners are benefiting from low and stable mortgage rates.
The Government's assured handling of the economy has reduced housing costs for people in Reading, East and the south-east as a whole. Welcome as that is, it has benefited people who already own a home, rather than helping to make home ownership easier. It could even be argued that the stability and careful handling of the economy has helped people to feel more confident in

17WH
their working lives, and has caused some of the house price inflation that is particularly a noticeable in the south-east. Some examples and figures will give an idea of the situation in Reading, East.
Last Friday, I visited St. Martin's primary school, in Caversham Park village in my constituency. The school had just been awarded beacon status for writing. My visit revealed why it had been chosen as a beacon in writing, because I saw the enthusiasm and commitment to the teaching of writing throughout the school.
While I was looking around the school and talking with the children and staff, the head teacher told me about the school's experience in trying to recruit a year 2 teacher. St. Martin's primary advertised for a new teacher. The advertisement attracted some interest—people asked for information—but the interest and expense incurred in advertising did not result in any application.
Fortunately for the school, the head teacher managed to attract an Australian teacher, who was travelling in the UK, to come on a one-year contract. The teacher was interested in working at the school, but found that she would not be able to find accommodation in the area that she could afford. She was therefore not able to take up the job offer. The head teacher was very concerned, and her only solution was to offer the teacher a room in her house so that she could take up the job. While that was very kind and considerate, it is clearly no way to recruit teachers. The upshot is that, because of all the difficulties, the Australian teacher has decided that she will go elsewhere, and will not be teaching in St. Martin's school. That leaves the school in a quandary.
It is important that schools such as St. Martin's primary continue to deliver quality education. For the school to be able to spread best practice, which is why it was awarded beacon status, it must be able to attract good teachers. It is not right that a head teacher has to put a teacher up in her own house so that the person can afford to come to Reading.
The head teacher of the Hill primary school, in another part of Caversham in my constituency, wrote to the director of education and community services at Reading borough council on 25 October, on behalf of Reading primary head teachers association. He set out the concerns of the association with regard to the recruitment and retention of teachers as a result of the high cost of housing in my constituency. The problem experienced by schools is not that Reading borough council is doing or has done nothing, which is a point to which I shall return.
Earlier this month, I received a letter from the chair of governors at Caversham primary school—yet another successful school like the Hill and St. Martin's—which already delivers the quality education that we are striving for across my constituency and the south-east in general. The chair of governors, Mr. Odel, had written to me previously about the difficulty in recruiting and retaining teachers for the school. This month, he wrote that the problems were intensifying. Recently, the school advertised for a maternity cover teacher. In spite of placing a large advertisement in a national publication—again, at considerable expense—he described the response as dreadful. The school has had to resort to persuading former teachers to return to work there. Mr. Odel is aware that Caversham primary
18WH
school is not alone in Reading in experiencing that problem. His concern is that it is only a matter of time before some schools in the area introduce a four-day week.
The situation is the same elsewhere in the public sector. Figures from the Royal College of Nursing show that the three-month vacancy rate has risen by 30 per cent.—almost one third—in the south-east in the past year. That situation is reflected at the Royal Berkshire and Battle Hospitals NHS trust in my constituency, which said today that it currently has vacancies. It has done the same as many others in the same situation—recruited nurses from abroad. It attends every recruiting fair that it can, and, sometimes, recruits three or four times for the same job. When people come for interview, they are happy to come and work in the area, until they find out the cost of housing.
I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter), who highlighted the situation regarding police recruitment on 28 July. He said:
My local police force, Thames Valley, has been hardest hit by the shortage in affordable housing and the previous Government's actions. In 1996, police numbers fell to an all-time low: 3,674 officers. Luckily, they have now risen a bit to 3,783. The fall was the result of the change in funding formula by the then Home Secretary…which cost some 200 officers overnight.
My hon. Friend then highlighted the difficulties caused by the Government's good decision to increase the pay of the Metropolitan police and said:
As a result of the payment of £3,000, a differential of £2,500 has risen to some £6,000. It is small wonder that so many police officers in my neck of the woods—officers living in Reading or Slough, who can easily commute to London—want to transfer to the Metropolitan police. Some 55 officers want to transfer: that constitutes a record increase.—[Official Report, 28 July 2000; Vol. 354, c. 1446–47.]
The recruitment and retention of firefighters has also been debated before in the Chamber. Some firefighters have to travel ludicrous distances to Reading—from places such as Lincolnshire and Dorset—because they cannot afford to live in Reading. There are implications for key workers in jobs that are crucial to public safety—for example, tiredness. It worries me that firefighters may have driven more than 100 miles before starting their shifts.
Who are the key workers? The starter homes initiative, which was launched last week, does not outline a definitive list of key workers, and rightly so, but funding under the scheme will be prioritised to teachers, police, nurses and other health workers. We have all heard the good news that nurses and other health workers are to receive a significant pay increase. It will help them, but it will not help them enough in my constituency.
Last week, my right hon. Friend the Chancellor announced a sum of more than £7 million to tackle Reading's traffic problems. It is a welcome tenfold increase on the money that was made available by the previous Government and is a signal that the present Government are serious in their commitment to tackle traffic congestion. Prosperity brings with it congestion. Last month, Reading Transport, the local bus company, had to reduce its mileage by 5 per cent., partly as a result of serious congestion in the city. Buses cannot keep to their timetables, and people are less willing to use that

19WH
mode of transport if they expect to have to stand in the rain. However, the main reason for the reduction in mileage was the shortage of bus drivers. That resulted in lost mileage to such a level that the bus company was at risk of incurring serious fines for not keeping to its timetable. The company made the difficult decision to reduce mileage so that people could be sure that the bus was likely to arrive, rather than running a more ambitious timetable.
Reading Transport is 25 drivers short of the number that it needs to run a full timetable, although the recruitment of five drivers this week has improved the situation. At its worst, the company was 40 drivers short. That is not because it pays badly, although historically bus drivers do not earn a great deal. Reading Transport is known for its pay and conditions. For example, Stagecoach Swindon has just given its drivers a 25 per cent. pay increase, yet those drivers are still earning less than those who work for Reading Transport, which pays £7.53 an hour compared with the top rate of £6.50 an hour at Stagecoach Swindon.
According to the managing director of Reading Transport, the situation is worse than when we previously had a boom economy. Now there is a greater shortage of affordable rented accommodation in the town. Interestingly, when FirstBus won the contract for the Madjeski park-and-ride, it brought in drivers from south Wales to fulfil it. The fact that unemployed people in south Wales were willing to travel that distance to work in Reading speaks volumes about the relative difference in the economy of south Wales and that of Thames valley.
Who else can be considered to be key workers? It is all well and good having a generally healthy and booming economy, with people earning good money, but they need the opportunity to spend it in a smooth-running local economy. This autumn, Reading university had a slightly later start of term than other universities. The result was that Reading-based students who had had summer jobs in shops, cafes and bars left them to return to their universities, and there was a two-week gap before students at Reading university appeared on the scene.
In that two-week period, the queues and waiting times were longer at restaurants, bars and shops. I experienced the problem when I was eating lunch in a restaurant. The apologetic manager said, "I am sorry for the long wait. We had a very good student working as a waitress, but she has left. We are getting a new one, but she cannot start for another two weeks and we simply cannot serve you as quickly as we want to." That is how tight the situation is.
Well-staffed public services underpin not only successful communities but successful local economies. On 1996 figures, the retail sector is the largest single employment sector in the Reading economy, providing more than 20 per cent. of jobs. That was before the opening of the Oracle shopping and leisure destination, which provided 3,500 jobs.
Last week, the Government announced the £250 million starter home initiative for consultation until March next year. Local councils have welcomed the initiative, and see it as complementary to other
20WH
policy and financial tools. But what does the scheme really mean? The starter homes initiative shows a current upper limit of £93,000 in Reading's lower-quartile housing market values according to Land Registry data for the first quarter of 2000–25 per cent. of the properties sold in Reading during that time cost no more than £93,000.
In a dynamic market such as Reading's, a threshold such as that of the "lower quartile" is more welcome than a fixed-value figure. For example, in the property section of the Reading Chronicle on 15 December, seven properties were priced at less than £93,000. The cheapest property advertised in that edition was a one-bedroomed, first floor maisonette conversion selling for £79,950. Four years ago, a similar property was selling for approximately half that price. To purchase the property today would require a single person's salary of approximately £21,700, assuming a 95 per cent. mortgage based on three and a half times a person's salary, with £6,000 available for deposit and fees. That is more than most public sector workers earn, and a newly trained teacher or newly qualified nurse is unlikely to have the £6,000 required for the deposit. That is why the starter homes initiative is so welcome. Due to the assistance offered under the initiative, the salary requirement is brought down—from £21,700 to less than £16,000. That brings home buying within the reach of many more public sector staff.
Dr. Alan Whitehead: Does my hon. Friend agree that the existing schemes, such as do-it-yourself shared ownership and similar proposals already piloted by local authorities, could be of great assistance in making affordable homes for people on their first salaries, and that that is the way forward for a number of local authorities in the south-east where the price of houses is of the order that she mentioned?
Jane Griffiths: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. Schemes such as do-it-yourself shared ownership play an important part. I congratulate local authorities that have piloted them. I also note, with approval, schemes that exist in London but not in other areas, such as that of the Peabody Trust, in which housing is available for public sector workers who can share ownership. When the owner moves on, the property remains available for another key worker in the public sector. That seems to be an excellent notion, and local authorities and others should look at such trust schemes. There is more than one answer to any problem.
Reading borough council has taken steps to create the right strategic policy framework to enable employers to partner the local authority. It seems simple and attractive to give the name "key worker" to our teachers, police officers and nurses and to say that they should be eligible for affordable housing. However, the pitfall for local authorities in acquiring a new designation of key worker would be that it would have the opposite effect and put even more pressure on public housing.
We need well-staffed public services. Government initiatives have helped towards that but, however commendable, they cannot provide a blanket solution to the nation's problems. I want to highlight the problems that come with prosperity. I may be unusual among Members of Parliament in that I have lobbied, in

21WH
the past, for new jobs not to come to my constituency. That is not what Members usually do. However, new jobs that come into a local area do not necessarily bring benefits with them. The Meteorological Office in Bracknell needed to relocate, and it was suggested that it should move to south Reading I proposed that it should go somewhere else, because those who work in the Met Office live in the Bracknell, Wokingham and Reading areas. They would be unlikely to move house—they would simply drive into my constituency. We do not need those new jobs.
The housing market appears to be moderating, at least in London, and what happens in the capital tends to happen a little bit later in the rest of the south-east. The Halifax and Nationwide building societies report a sharp decline in house price inflation, this year. That is welcome, but problems remain with rented housing. When the local market is dynamic, as it is in Reading, rented housing becomes available at a growing rate. However, the rented housing that becoming available in my constituency is, to an increasing extent, towards the upper end of the market—luxury apartments in the city centre. That accommodation is welcome, but it is not affordable to nurses, teachers or junior police officers.
It is difficult to create affordable rented housing in flourishing city centres, but that is what we must do—that is the road that we must take. There is no space to build many houses with gardens for family use, so people will move to apartment dwellings. That change in culture is necessary, but it will not happen unless affordable housing can be found. I welcome the Government's starter homes initiative and those initiatives taken by local authorities, but I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to look at the problems that prosperity brings.
We should look ahead to what we fear may, but hope will not, happen. We do not want schools working only a three or four-day week; we do not want our streets not to be policed or patients to lie on trolleys in hospital corridors owing to a lack of nurses. We do not want there to be no buses because there are no bus drivers; we do not want an unbelievable crush in our shops because not enough people are serving behind the counters, although people are walking in with money to spend on their Christmas shopping. That is the nightmare scenario that is before us. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider ways in which the Government might assist to provide affordable housing for all our key workers in the south-east.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. This is a one-hour debate and we want to give the Minister adequate time in which to respond. If those who have said that they want to catch my eye limit their remarks to five minutes, everyone will be able to speak.
10.54 am
Mr. Tim Loughton: I shall make a few brief comments. I largely agree with the remarks made by the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths), whom I congratulate on securing this debate on the key issue for key workers in the south-east and for us all. She rightly said that there are differentials
22WH
within the region, but much of what she said will strike a chord in my part of the south-east on the Sussex coast, where there is a problem with housing for key workers, particularly in public services such as nursing. Before I became the Member of Parliament for East Worthing and Shoreham, the Worthing and Southlands hospital had about 75 nursing vacancies. People from the local hospital trust have been to South Africa and Australia to try to recruit additional nurses. As we speak, they are in the Philippines, because we still have 75 vacancies three and a half years later.
The local police service also has many vacancies. Despite everything that the Home Secretary says about recruiting additional policemen and the fact that 4,535 policemen were recruited throughout the country last year, 5,948 policemen left the police service last year—a net loss. That is partly due to problems with housing conditions, as the hon. Lady said. She was right to say that the Government will be unable to deliver on pledges of extra staff if people cannot find affordable homes in the areas where vacancies exist.
I am pleased that the hon. Lady did not mention only public service workers. The example of bus drivers strikes a chord with me. The Brighton and Hove bus company, which serves my part of Sussex well, has been haemorrhaging staff for many years. Recently, many staff have moved from Sussex to the north, simply because they cannot afford to buy homes in our part of the south-east. That has led to the problems of transport infrastructure weakness that have been mentioned.
There is also a problem with the recruitment of teachers, particularly male teachers in primary schools. I visit all the primary schools in my area, and it is rare to find a male teacher—there may be a lone one—on the staff of primary schools. That also applies to nursery schools in both the state and private sectors. To encourage greater nursery provision, we need to recruit and house staff.
There is a particular problem with nursing. Last week's report from the Royal College of Nursing suggests that as many as 70,000 registered nurses do not work in the nursing profession. That is a large factor in the 22,000 nursing vacancies. One in five trainee nurses fail to complete their training, and I am sure that the pressure of housing conditions must be a factor.
The hon. Lady rightly identified the problem of defining a key worker. The Government's proposal to leave the definition largely to local authorities does not make the situation any easier. The definition is supposed to cover nurses, but will it extend to doctors, who are surely key workers also? Equally importantly, will it extend to ancillary workers, without whom hospitals could not operate? The definition will supposedly cover teachers, but will it also cover ancillary workers such as caretakers, without whom schools could not remain open? Will the definition include civilian police staff? Without them, uniformed policemen could not spend as much time out on the beat, because they would have to stay behind their desks in police stations doing paperwork. Many civilian personnel have been recruited to the police service over the past 15 years to remedy that problem.
There is also a problem in social services and we have a particular problem in Sussex with the recruitment of child social workers, which is partly due to the cost of

23WH
living in the south-east. I think that the average pay for a child social worker in the north of West Sussex is about £5.50 an hour. When one considers that Burger King at Gatwick airport pays just over £7.40 an hour, it is a real no-brainer. That is why we lack so many key workers in key public services. How will it affect people working in mental health in the community, of whom there is a severe shortage in my constituency? What about local authority employees who were such key workers in dealing with emergencies during the recent floods?
Yesterday's figures from the Minister's Department overruling the democratically arrived at Serplan figures are just another example of the Secretary of State providing the wrong houses in the wrong places and not concentrating at all on the problem of affordable housing in the south-east. Employment demand is likely to grow by some 6 per cent., especially in the high-tech, higher status employment areas, which is likely to lead to further upward pressure, overheating in the property market and further employment shortages. Average incomes in our region are high, but the distribution around that average is particularly uneven so that lower income households are disproportionately disadvantaged in the housing market. Inevitably, whatever the Government say, the south-east will always be dominated by the City of London and City salaries spilling out into the region, and the situation is worsening.
I leave the Minister with some questions about the consultation document that was published last week. We welcome initiatives to help with starter homes, but can he tell us more about which key worker jobs will be covered? Will the financial help be in the form of grants or loans? What happens if the key worker in a family leaves a key worker job or moves away altogether? What happens if that key worker is promoted to a grade that no longer qualifies for key worker assistance? What help will all this bring to private renting where there is a big problem too? How will the proposed means testing work?
The real problem is supply. The key worker initiative within the starter homes initiative is all about helping demand. The problem will never be solved unless we tackle the problem of supply. These proposals have the potential greatly to distort the housing market, particularly in housing prices up to £100,000. We certainly need more shared ownership perks schemes. The hon. Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead) was quite right. Do-it-yourself shared ownership schemes were very successful under the previous Government, but they have been cut to such levels that in my local authority area of Adur, there is funding for just one such scheme in the current year.
We need more homesteading proposals. We need proposals such as zero stamp duty on starter homes for young couples starting on the housing ladder. We must consider more imaginative solutions, as is already happening in certain parts of London, such as tax breaks for hostel accommodation that is particularly suited to student nurses and trainees in other public services. There are many other considerations for retaining public service workers, particularly nurses, such as better child care facilities and so on. The questions that the hon. Member for Reading, East raises are perfectly legitimate and her concerns are shared by
24WH
all of us in the Chamber today. The proposals put forward so far by the Minister in the consultation document sound good, but in practice are fraught with problems. Perhaps he will start to address some of them by responding to the points that I have raised.
11.3 am
Mr. Martin Salter: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) for securing a timely debate. It is significant that a large proportion of the hon. Members in the Chamber come from the Thames valley and M4 corridor, which suffers disproportionately from the strain on public services and burgeoning house prices. We have seen changing patterns of employment in Reading, Slough and Newbury, which is very much the high-tech capital of the region. But even high-tech internet company chief executives need the services of fire fighters, police officers, ambulance drivers and hospital porters.
If the debate achieves anything, we need to get the problem across to some of our friends in the north. Some members of my party think that the south-east is featherbedded and that people enjoy record levels of prosperity, so everything must be fine. However, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said, the region is facing problems caused by prosperity, which is the price of success.
A few short years ago, in the early 1990s, there were record numbers of house repossessions in Reading: 2,200 homes were repossessed in 12 months. It was difficult to find a street in my constituency or that of my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East that did not have boarded-up properties. One could not point the finger at Reading borough council for being negligent as it won national awards for its empty homes strategy. The council used the downturn in the housing market—the tragedy caused by negative equity and by the boom-and-bust policies of the previous Government—to create a larger supply of social housing. But someone who has studied at police college or for a graduate place in teaching should be able to afford to buy a two-up, two-down terraced property in a town like Reading, Slough or Newbury. Those houses were built more than 100 years ago for workers at the Huntley & Palmers biscuit factory and on the railways. However, as my hon. Friend said, such properties now sell for £110,000 to £120,000, which is far beyond the reach of someone graduating as a teacher or a public service professional on a salary of about £20,000 to £22,000.
Fiona Mactaggart: Does my hon. Friend accept that the solution to the problems in the Thames valley corridor, which he and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East so vividly described, must include rented properties? One of the most important things about the education action zone in Slough is that rented properties are offered to new teachers. It is the only housing for new teachers and the policy is working. Rented property in Slough is not as expensive as in Reading—it is quite cheap—but it is full of asylum seekers, so the market does not work. Rented housing would be helpful to key workers in a range of employment.
Mr. Salter: I accept my hon. Friend's point, but while the supply of affordable rented housing in the short term

25WH
may attract people to an area, in the long term people's aspirations to home ownership must be recognised and Government policy must be targeted with that in mind.
I am currently serving on the police service parliamentary scheme, which is a useful secondment because I can get to know the problems and challenges that face the police service in the Thames valley. I say to the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) that the rot in the police service started when the previous Government implemented the recommendations of the Sheehy report and abolished the police housing allowance. That ripped £4,800 a year from the salaries of police officers in the Thames valley and triggered the recruitment and retention crisis in the south-east and many other regions. Conservative Members should recognise that the decision to implement the Sheehy report was catastrophic and triggered the problems that we face now. They should apologise for past mistakes.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East said, the problems have been exacerbated by the huge £6,000 differential created between the Thames valley and other police services surrounding London and the Metropolitan police force. It is little wonder that officers who live in Reading and Slough apply to the Metropolitan police force for an additional £6,000 per annum, or do their probation in the Thames valley and then go to Lincoln, Dorset, Cumbria or Northumbria where they can afford to purchase properties on the national salary rate and do not have to endure the financial penalties of living in a high-cost area.
I welcome the Government's starter homes initiative. However, is the £250 million to help 10,000 public service workers—or key workers—a one—off initiative or part of an on-going support programme? Moreover, will it be enough?
Although market forces have their place in mixed economies, they cannot deliver for us in this respect. The civilising element in the make-up of any mixed economy is the quality of its public services. The previous Government have a lot to answer for: they screwed down public service wages year on year and took bad decisions, such as the removal of the police housing allowance.
We need highly trained, highly motivated public service workers—be they teachers, doctors, nurses or hospital workers—and they need, above all, a roof over their heads. The marketplace will not provide that. It is up to the Government and public, authorities to ensure that public service workers can afford to live in the south-east and other high-cost housing areas.
11.10 am
Mr. David Rendel: Key worker housing is a vital issue in west Berkshire, so I am delighted that the subject has been introduced. There are some 10,000 more jobs in west Berkshire than there are people to do those jobs, and that figure will rise to 14,000 when the Vodafone headquarters are completed.
Consequently, many local firms have vacancies, salaries are being forced up as the local economy overheats, and house prices are going through the roof. That puts further pressure on the small stock of available and affordable rented accommodation, some of which is being sold off under the previous
26WH
Government's right-to-buy policies. The price of land is being pushed up so quickly that it is almost impossible for housing associations to buy more land on which to build. Those are the problems of success, which are preferable to the problems of failure that are experienced by those in inner cities. I am happy to represent an area that is so successful. Nevertheless, they are problems, and we must find solutions.
As the hon. Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) said, it is difficult to arrive at an exact definition of key workers. However, there is no question that they form ever more and ever larger groups—not only teachers, nurses and policemen, but bus drivers, for example. I have to tell the hon. Lady and the hon. Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) that bus drivers are paid even less by Newbury Buses than by Reading Buses. It is difficult to recruit bus drivers and yet ours is a predominantly rural area in which the only form of public transport is the bus. That is causing great problems.
We are very short of postmen, and the Royal Mail is constantly trying to recruit more. When I was in my local post office yesterday, I was told that they could not remember a time when they did not have vacancies.
We are short of local authority staff, including planners. In an area such as mine, where the number of planning applications has soared, planners are difficult to find—many are leaving for less stressful jobs in other parts of the country.
Broadly speaking, I welcome the Government's starter homes initiative. However, they are only scratching the surface of a major problem. My calculations suggest that, on average, 10 to 20 households per constituency may be helped by the policy. Given that there are 14,000 more jobs than people in my area, that is a low figure—even if, as I suspect, we would be well above the average.
I should like to focus on the police, who face a crucial problem in the Thames valley, especially in west Berkshire. The extra salaries for the Metropolitan police are attracting people to commute from as far out as west Berkshire—and I know to my cost how difficult that can be. The position may get even worse if parts of the Thames Valley police are given a small salary increase, but it does not stretch as far as west Berkshire. Our policemen could be sucked away into places such as Slough, Reading and Wokingham because they pay a little extra, so the problem in west Berkshire will, if anything, worsen.
I am delighted that the Government have set up a crime fighting fund to try to increase the number of policemen throughout the country. For 2000–01, sufficient money for Thames Valley has been allocated to increase the number of policemen by 111. However, the current predicted increase is 42 and falling, and the chief constable said only a couple of weeks ago that the actual increase could prove to be zero. That is not because there is no money to recruit or pay policemen, but because no one is prepared to take on those jobs. As quickly as policemen are recruited, they are lost to other parts of the country, or through retirement or premature sickness.
The local police force has applied to defer to next year the money that cannot be used, but that application has not yet been successful. Would it not be better to spend

27WH
some of the money set aside for recruiting policemen on providing extra housing? I put that suggestion to the chief constable, who seemed keen and rapidly accepted it, but unfortunately the Minister said that that is not possible. The money must be spent simply on the salaries of extra policemen, and not, for example, on a shared-ownership housing scheme that might encourage policemen into our area.
That is a great pity. I hope that the Minister can assure me that he will try to persuade his Home Office colleagues to reverse their current dogmatic policy of spending that money only on salaries. Spending it on other means of encouraging police recruitment in our area would be in line with the starter homes initiative, and would marginally increase the money available for that initiative. Given that it would lead to the recruitment of more policemen, such a policy would also be fully in line with the crime fighting fund. As it stands, the money will probably go back into the pot, never to be used for recruitment. In the light of those points, it would be madness and grossly illogical for the Government not to follow up that idea.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I call Mr. Alan Whitehead, who I hope will be extremely brief.
11.17 am
Dr. Alan Whitehead: I shall be very brief indeed, Mr. Winterton.
Everyone should welcome the starter homes initiative. It contains provisions to encourage local authorities to bid for available funds, and given that there is considerable pressure in my local authority area, I want to encourage Southampton city council to make an early bid. Southampton general hospital has recently recruited more than 70 nurses from the Philippines, who are currently lodging in nurses' homes. Reference was made to the police rent allowance and recruitment, and discussions with the chief constable of Hampshire constabulary have suggested a problem in that regard.
If local authorities get involved in the starter homes initiative, I hope that they will consider imaginative schemes for opening up new housing, rather than eroding existing council house stock. I commend the Southampton city council scheme, "opening up the empties", which has put back on the market housing above offices and shops that was hitherto vacant. That is the way forward, and I hope that schemes such as the starter homes initiative will be used in a positive way to bring new housing into the market. Such housing should not allowed to compete with existing stock, which is in short supply in my local authority and elsewhere in the south-east.
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): I am very grateful to the hon. Gentleman for being so brief.
11.19 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, East (Jane Griffiths) has raised an important issue that affects not only her constituents but, as she says, many others in
28WH
the south-east. As some hon. Members have remarked, these are problems of prosperity. It is ironic that in my constituency and many others that are further north, we are demolishing houses that are unsaleable—that has happened 200 yd from where I live—whereas at the other end of the country, we have the problems described by my hon. Friend. There is a case for regional planning to try to share out the benefits of the undoubted prosperity that the economy, through safe management, is starting to produce. This is the first time that I have heard an hon. Member plead for jobs not to be transferred to their constituency, although I understand that my hon. Friend was making a serious point. If she would like to put in a word for my constituency, or for one or two others that are further north, we would be grateful.
The Government recognise the need to ensure that key workers can live within a reasonable travelling distance of the communities that they serve. Recruitment and retention of key workers such as nurses, teachers and police has become a problem in the south-east because of high prices and high rents, and my hon. Friend is naturally concerned about that. The problem is not new, but it has worsened as house prices have mushroomed in recent years. We must recognise that access to subsidised rental housing was adversely affected by right-to-buy sales of some of the best local authority housing stock and by sales of other public sector housing.
Last night, I talked to someone connected with a London hospital trust, who told me that under the previous Government many nurses' homes in central London were sold off for short-term gain, with the current Government left to face the consequences. I make that point gently, because the hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham (Mr. Loughton) did not lay it on too much, but had he done so, I could have been provoked. Although I do not pretend that the seeds of the problems that we face today were all sown under the previous Government, as my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West (Mr. Salter) remarked in relation to police housing allowances, some problems can undoubtedly be traced back to them.
Our Government are taking a number of measures to address those issues. On 13 December, we announced details of the starter homes initiative, which will make available £250 million in the next three years to help key workers in high-price areas. In the same period, we shall double the funding for the Housing Corporation improved development programme and take measures to improve its targeting and delivery. Next year, we shall provide more than £240 million for south-east housing authorities, including increases of more than 50 per cent. for almost one-third of relevant authorities. As suggested by my hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Test (Dr. Whitehead), we are providing stronger incentives to bring empty properties back in use. Both our housing strategy, which we announced last week, and the draft revised regional planning guidance for the south-east—RPG9—emphasise the need for local implementation of our policies for affordable housing. Those initiatives highlight our additional investment and other mechanisms through which local authorities and others can help to deliver affordable housing, not only for those on council waiting lists, but for the key workers to whom hon. Member: have referred.

29WH
Several local authorities are already taking positive steps to tackle housing problems. My hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) said that an education action zone in her constituency has come to an arrangement with a local housing association to provide 25 homes for rent and shared ownership by local teachers. We want such schemes to be introduced elsewhere. In Runnymede, some health authority workers have priority rights to specific flats. I am aware that in other areas—including Reading—work is in progress to assess the need for affordable homes, define local key workers, establish strategy, review letting policies and take action to deal with problems. A range of partnerships with health authorities and other key regional partners is developing. The Government's measures are intended to support such partnerships.
As I have mentioned, £250 million is being provided over the next three years for the starter homes initiative. Full details of the scheme and an invitation to bid were released last week as part of our housing policy statement. Preliminary bids are due to be submitted in mid-February and final bids by the end of April. We expect to announce allocations to successful schemes in June. We expect the starter homes initiative to help about 10,000 key workers, particularly teachers, police, nurses and other essential health workers, to buy their homes in urban and rural areas where high prices might otherwise price them out of the communities they serve.
Several hon. Members asked about the definition of key workers. Groups other than those I have listed could be assisted if a good case were made for doing so. The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham gave some examples and my hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West mentioned bus drivers and firefighters. The wage increases for bus drivers in Reading that my hon. Friend mentioned are a rare example of market forces operating in favour of the workers.
Mr. Salter: Will my hon. Friend give way?
Mr. Mullin: If my hon. Friend will forgive me, I have only a short time in which to respond to many points.
Bids should reflect local circumstances. It will be necessary to demonstrate that they will help workers whose services are essential to the community and who must be housed in or near that community. We will expect bids to have the support of the local authority and to provide evidence that high housing demand and prices are creating recruitment and retention difficulties for the key workers who are targeted. We are keen to encourage a wide range of bids. We are not placing any restrictions on the type of help that might be offered, which could include, for example, shared ownership, by which a person part rents and part buys a property;
30WH
interest free loans, or cash grants. Bids will, however, have to demonstrate value for money. We have not imposed restrictions on the organisations eligible to bid. Our aim is to ensure that the programme is well targeted and that it contributes to meeting the needs of key workers and the communities that they serve.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham suggested that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State had imposed the wrong number of houses on the south-east. In our draft revised regional planning guidance, we make it clear that a range of types and sizes of houses, and even a range of tenures, should be provided within localities. We fully recognise the problems and we provide local authorities with a range of mechanisms for dealing with them. If some people are fortunate enough already to own a home in one of the more prosperous parts of Britain, it is no good their trying to pull up the drawbridge after them, but when I hear some of the protestations about our plans to build houses uttered by the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends from such areas, I sometimes think that that is what is on their mind. People should recognise that, if they want services, they will have to arrange affordable housing for the people who provide those services. I am not always sure that that is appreciated.
The hon. Member for East Worthing and Shoreham referred to do-it-yourself shared ownership. In response to the housing Green Paper, we said that we would consider changes in the future. There is relevant research funding, which will continue to be available to local authorities until March 2002 at the earliest. The hon. Gentleman also suggested that the starter homes initiative would distort the housing market and fuel further prices rises. Obviously, we must try to avoid that, but our funding will be spread over three years and will be carefully targeted. Help will go to small numbers of people relative to all housing market transactions, and we expect the impact on the housing market to be marginal. As to what will happen when key workers leave or are promoted, people who have been assisted will not be required to repay their assistance in those circumstances. However, when they move house, they may have to repay the assistance provided if it was provided as an equity loan or through shared ownership.
My hon. Friend the Member for Reading, West asked whether the starter homes initiative was a continuing project or a one-off. As he knows, we now plan three years ahead, so it is designed to cover the next three years. Who knows what will happen after that? We will judge by the circumstances prevailing at the time—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Time is up.

The Moluccas
11.30 am
Mr. Edward Leigh: I am pleased to have the opportunity to raise the urgent issue of sectarian violence in the Moluccas islands of Indonesia. According to Moluccan Church leaders, there are 7,000 or more Islamic militants in the Moluccas waging a violent jihad—a so-called holy war—against Moluccan Christians. Church leaders believe that the Islamic militants are intent on destroying the Christian presence in the Moluccas by killing, forcibly converting or driving out all the Christians.
In many parts of the Moluccas, Christian villages have been wiped out by Islamic militants. Reports from local churches suggest that 75 per cent. of the island of Ambon has been cleared of Christians. The Maranatha Church and the Masariku Network, a human rights group, both of which are based in Ambon, report estimates of 487,000 internally displaced Moluccan Christians. Of those, about 300,000 have fled the Moluccas islands to other parts of Indonesia. Semmy Weileruny, one of the Moluccan Church's team of lawyers, states that at least 5,000 Moluccan Christians have been forced to convert to Islam by the Islamic militants, and that thousands more are under threat of death if they do not convert.
The allegation is that the Islamic militants are assisted by elements of the Indonesian military, which has also helped to equip them with automatic rifles, hand grenades and even mortars. Moluccan Church leaders report that, since sectarian violence began in January 1999, at least 455 churches have been destroyed, and more than 5,000 Christians have been killed. Those figures are, again, according to the Masariku Network. We think that that is a conservative but reliable estimate. We do not quote estimates with a considerably higher death rate.
Many, perhaps thousands, of Muslims have also been killed. Muslims and Christians have used violence in the conflict. That is not surprising, given that Christians have mostly been defending themselves, especially as the Indonesian military is generally reluctant to protect them. One must be balanced. Some Christians have used violence out of a desire for revenge, which is unforgivable. They have used violence in more than self-defence, but we are told that such incidents are rare.
One must recognise that there are aggressors in most conflicts, and that conflict is rarely even handed. In the Moluccas, the evidence suggests that the aggressors are militant Muslims. That view is supported by the fact that the situation in the Moluccas had relatively calmed down by April, but the chances of peace and reconciliation that we had all hoped for between Moluccan Muslims and Christians were sharply reduced when thousands of Islamic militants from other parts of Indonesia entered the Moluccas to wage what they described as a holy war against Moluccan Christians. The influx of thousands of Islamic fighters from outside pushed the Moluccas into its most intense phase of violence.
The issue will worry the Foreign Office. As the Christian Serbs were generally viewed as the aggressors against the Muslims in the sectarian conflict in Kosovo—despite the presence of an armed Muslim
32WH
organisation, the Kosovo Liberation Army—so, too, the Foreign Office should be prepared to recognise that there are aggressors in iii the Moluccas conflict: the Islamic militants, including the group Laskar Jihad.
The level of violence in the Moluccas is already as bad as, if not worse than, in East Timor, and we allege that agents of the state—that is, elements of the Indonesian military—are actively participating in atrocities. The Kostrad unit, a particularly notorious Indonesian army unit, has been carrying out such abuses. For example, in August 1999, soldiers from the Kostrad unit herded 25 or more Christians into the Yabok Protestant church in the Galala area of Ambon and then opened fire on them. After killing them all, the troops tried to cover up the evidence by cutting up the bodies and setting fire to them.
Until now, the Indonesian authorities do not appear to have punished the soldiers responsible for that or for any other atrocities. On 19 June 2000, more than 200 Christians were massacred by Muslims in the village of Duma. The Indonesian military did nothing to stop the slaughter, and Moluccan Church leaders are desperately appealing for United Nations peacekeepers to come to the Moluccas because they cannot rely on the Indonesian military to protect the Christian community. Instead of supporting the request for UN peacekeepers, the Government have chosen to keep repeating the distinction that East Timor was not recognised by the United Nations as part of Indonesia but that the Moluccas are.
That argument is far from satisfactory. It implies that, merely because the Moluccas are part of Indonesia, the Indonesian military and Islamic militants should be left free to destroy the Moluccan Christian community and that, if the Indonesian Government do not wish to do much to try to stop it, we can do nothing. That was not the attitude that the Government took when they intervened in KOSOVO, which was part of Serbia at the time. Perhaps it is as a the result of taking a selective approach to suffering and human rights issues that atrocities in Europe are treated with more gravity than atrocities in south-east Asia. I do not blame the Government for that attitude. We all suffer from it.
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for letting me intervene. The crucial difference is that the whole UN did not accept East Timor as part of Indonesia, but that the whole UN does accept the Moluccas as part of Indonesia. It is not only our bilateral relationship with Indonesia that is at stake, but the role of the UN.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Minister for that comment, because it reinforces the point that I am trying to make. The Moluccas are, always have been and always will be part of Indonesia. I am not speaking on behalf of any sort of independence movement. I contend that, because everyone knows that the Moluccas always have been, and will remain, part of the UN, western Governments are reluctant to become involved.
East Timor was quite different; it was a former Portuguese colony and was never recognised as part of Indonesia. It was wrongly invaded by Indonesia but, because it had an obvious minority Catholic population,

33WH
the west was prepared to act. This is different; the Moluccas are part of Indonesia. Surely we are not going to accept, simply because the genocide is taking place somewhere admittedly very far away that is part of another nation, that we should not become involved, that we should not talk to other members of the UN to try to put pressure on them to take an interest and, if necessary, to take action.
The intervention in Kosovo and the trials of those responsible for genocide and crimes against humanity in the former Yugoslavia and in Rwanda demonstrate that national sovereignty can no longer be used as an excuse to permit widespread atrocities. I should be grateful if the Minister were to confirm that that principle is now accepted in the western community. We cannot be indifferent to such atrocities, wherever in the world they may be taking place.
I emphasise that I am not suggesting a Kosovo-style military intervention in the Moluccas. I am simply asking that the British Government should do their best to put maximum pressure on the Indonesian Government to accept United Nations peacekeepers.
The Government imposed an arms embargo on Indonesia over atrocities in East Timor, and urged the European Union to take steps. They should seriously consider imposing a similar embargo over the Indonesian Government and military's continued failure to stop the violence in the Moluccas. The Indonesian military are a powerful force in Indonesia. We have strong bilateral relations with Indonesia and our view is listened to with respect—we have influence there.
The Indonesian Government have for more than 20 months repeatedly failed to control the same soldiers who were supposed to restore order but who, instead, have made the Moluccan situation worse by taking sides with the Islamic fighters and helping to arm them. An arms embargo would send a strong signal to the Indonesian armed forces that the international community is deeply concerned about the military's failure to act neutrally in the Moluccas and its participation in several of the atrocities that have occurred. I hope that the Minister will consider that point.
Mrs. Hanja Maij-Weggen, the European Parliament's rapporteur on the relationship between the European Union and Indonesia, recently returned from a working visit to Indonesia. She says that the situation is still disastrous and that things are worse than they were in East Timor in 1999, when the United Nations decided to send a peacekeeping force. She writes:
For the people of the Moluccas, and for the Moluccan community in the Netherlands, it is unacceptable that the international community intervened in 1999, but not now. Aid is not enough, if the government doesn't quickly restore order to the Moluccas, a role for the international community can no longer be ruled out.
In light of those comments and of the systematic destruction of the Moluccan Christian community, it is time for the Government to put as much pressure as possible on the Indonesian Government to accept UN peacekeepers in the Moluccas. We should consider the attitude of the United Nations to this question. Farhan Haq, a spokesman for the UN, has said that the organisation is ready to play a role in resolving the violence in the Moluccas, if the Indonesian Government
34WH
desire it. Indonesia's state-appointed national human rights commission has declared that UN intervention is needed in the Moluccas as the Government have failed to stop the violence. Despite the UN's willingness to help and the view taken by Indonesia's human rights commission, Abdurrrahman Wahid, the Indonesian president, obstinately continues to refuse to allow UN peacekeepers into the Moluccas.
The only chance of saving the Moluccan Christian community from eventual destruction is intervention by UN peacekeepers. The mistakes and tragedies in the Moluccas in the past 23 months show that no other credible security force can intervene and restore order. Moderate Muslims and Christians have demonstrated in Jakarta, calling for urgent intervention in the Moluccas by UN peacekeepers. They argue that what is happening in the Moluccas is nothing short of religious and cultural genocide.
Mr. Battle: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way and for introducing this debate, which allows us to discuss particular points in detail. He said that he was not asking for a military intervention in the Moluccas. During the difficulties in East Timor, I was party to the discussions to persuade the then Indonesian authorities to invite the UN peacekeepers to come in. If they had failed to invite the UN in, I do not think that even the hon. Gentleman would have argued for sending in troops and fighting our way into Indonesia. Does he suggest that that should happen in these circumstances? Does he expect British soldiers to go into the Moluccas?
Mr. Leigh: No; but, if the Minister will excuse me, I will throw the question back at him. Has he invited the Indonesian Government to allow UN peacekeepers into the Moluccas, as he did so effectively in the case of East Timor, on which I congratulate him?
Mr. Battle: If the Indonesians invite the UN peacekeepers, our offer to support and accept that invitation is there. We have regularly made it plain to the Indonesian authorities that we view what is happening in the Moluccas with great concern. I will spell that out in detail in my response.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful for that little debate because, although the answer was not absolutely firm, it has highlighted that our Government are happy for the UN to go in. They have expressed their concern. However, I want the Minister to convince me that he is putting pressure on the Indonesian Government to invite UN peacekeepers in.
Mr. Battle: I have made it plain throughout our debates on this subject, and in my regular correspondence with the hon. Gentleman, that we would stand by the Indonesians if they felt that they could not resolve the situation.
Mr. Leigh: I am grateful to the Minister for his interventions.
We believe that mass forced conversions are going on. More than 1,000 Christians in Bacan island in the northern Moluccas have been forced by Muslim militants to change their religion. There is not enough time to give all the many examples that I have. An

35WH
ultimatum has been given that those Christians in Bacan who do not convert by 31 December will be killed. One of the Christian pastors in Bacan was caught by Islamic militants, tortured and killed. And so it goes on. On Seram island, about 400 Christians from Hatu village and 300 from Hatumete were told by Islamic militants that they had until 30 November 2000 to convert.
I apologise for reading out all these examples but it is important to get them on the record. Mr. Weileruny, whom I have quoted before, reports that eight people were killed in the attacks on Christian villages. About 3,000 fled to the forests. Their attackers, including Muslims from the Gorong island group, pursued them and had captured about 671 of them by the next day. So far, about 93 Moluccan Christians have been killed by Islamic militants on Kasiui island for refusing to convert to Islam. About 760 Christians on Kasiui island are reported to have been forced to convert, as have 75 Christians in Bonvia, 215 Christians in Solan and 300 Christians in Dawang villages. The list goes on and on.
The conflict in the Moluccas appears to be part of a general attempt to promote violence against non-Muslims, especially Christians, throughout Indonesia. Indonesia is the largest Muslim country in the world. However, its constitution is based not on Islam, but on Pancasila, the five principles. The first principle is belief in God. Since the formation of Indonesia's first constitution in 1945, some Muslims have tried to change the multi-religious basis of the country's constitution to one that that is solely based on Islam.
The apparent goal of the Islamic militants is to Islamicise by force not only the Moluccas but Indonesia as a whole. Attempts have already been made to provoke sectarian violence in provinces with large Christian populations such as Sulawesi. That attempt to change the Indonesian constitution and impose Islamic Sharia law was made by Muslim parties during the Indonesian parliamentary session in August 2000. The incitement by Islamic militants of anti-Christian violence throughout Indonesia is likely to trigger widespread violence and chaos, and that will probably weaken and ultimately unseat the Government of President Wahid if we do nothing.
There was the incident of the armoured car, although there is not time to go into it in detail. There has been correspondence between the Minister and Lord Alton about it. The present Government are not responsible for exporting the car to Indonesia but it is reported to have been involved in attacks there. The Government have denied that it was used in attacks, but I hope that they will send someone out to check the story. Richard Lloyd Parry of The Independent who was on the spot quoted Andi Jatmiko as saying:
The military were definitely helping the Muslim side attack the Christians and the Saladin was part of that.
I hope that the Foreign Office will check that story, as it is extremely worrying. It shows just how concerned we should be about the use of British military resources that have been sold to the Indonesian Government. That was not the first time that British armoured units have been misused in the Moluccas. On 26 December 1999, the Silo Protestant church in Ambon was attacked and destroyed by Indonesian troops and Muslim militants.
36WH
Indonesian soldiers took part in the attack and even used the British-made Saladin armoured car in the assault.
What action are the British Government taking to persuade the Indonesian authorities to stop the Islamic militants from mass forced conversions of Christians in the Moluccas? Will the British Government urge the Indonesian Government swiftly to evacuate all Christians from Muslim-controlled areas of the Moluccas to rescue them from pressures to convert to Islam and place strong pressure on the Indonesian Government to accept United Nations peacekeepers in the Moluccas? Will the British Government, if necessary, institute an arms embargo on Indonesia and urge the European Union to do likewise, at least until the sectarian violence in the Moluccas is stopped?
The Moluccas are one of the few areas in the world where such large numbers of Christians are being killed or forced to change their religion. I hope that the Government will show a strong sense of urgency about the matter and not be deterred from taking action, despite the islands being so far away.
I was recently given a book about the spice islands by Giles Milton called "Nathaniel's Nutmeg: How One Man's Courage Changed the Course of History"—
Mr. Battle: I have read it.
Mr. Leigh: I am delighted that the Minister has read it. At one time in our history, the spice islands were incredibly important economically because of their nutmeg. The book states:
Nutmeg, the seed of the tree was the most coveted luxury in 17th century Europe, a spice held to have such powerful medicinal properties that men would risk their lives to acquire it. Always costly, it rocketed in price when the physicians of Elizabethan London began to claim that their nutmeg pomanders were the only certain cure for the plague…But nutmeg came from much further east, from the fabled Indies, which lay far beyond Europe's myopic horizons. Ships had never before plied the tropical waters of the Indian Ocean and maps of the far side of the globe remained a blank. The East, as far the spice dealers were concerned, could have been the moon.
As far as much of the British press is concerned, it is the moon. There were oceans of column inches at the weekend about what our politicians are or are not saying about each other, but how much coverage was there of the slaughter and the genocide in the islands? How many British journalists go there? I would not be surprised if there were none, but I wonder how many will cover Madonna's wedding? I do not expect reportage of this debate but I do expect British journalists to take an interest in genocide, torture and forced conversions.
I also ask the Foreign Office to take the matter seriously. The Minister invited me to a briefing on Burma, where we heard lots of harrowing stories. At the end of the briefing, when someone from a well-known Christian human rights group stood up to make allegations, a Foreign Office person of ambassadorial rank, a senior former diplomat, who had already spoken, said, "Oh, my God," in a tone of exasperated contempt.

37WH
The Minister, whom I respect, does not take that attitude; he takes a genuine interest in human rights. At prayer meetings with ministerial colleagues—Conservative Ministers held them every morning when we were in power, although not much praying went on—and when he talks to the Foreign Secretary, I ask him to raise the issue to ensure that his office takes a stand. If the Minister visits the islands and does what I know he can do, he can save lives.
Several hon. Members rose—
Mr. Nicholas Winterton (in the Chair): Order. Three Members have sought to catch my eye, all of whom will be able to speak if they keep their remarks relatively short.
11.53 am
Mr. Win Griffiths: I shall try to do so, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
I congratulate the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on raising the urgent issue of human rights abuses that are part of the sectarian conflict in the Moluccas, which seems to be more than an internal matter.
It appears that Islamic fighters in the Moluccas are receiving assistance from radical foreign Muslims in carrying out their objective of exterminating the Christian community. Reports from the Catholic Church in the Moluccas indicate that non-Indonesians, including Afghans, southern Filipinos, Pakistanis and Saudi Arabians, have been fighting alongside Islamic militants. The leader of Laskar Jihad, the main Islamic militant group attacking Moluccan Christians, has stated publicly that it receives financial backing from people in Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Yemen. All those actions are in line with the general tendency of radical Islamic movements to possess agendas on both a national and international scale. Victory in the Moluccas will encourage Islamic militants to take their violent and intolerant agenda to other parts of Indonesia with large non-Muslim communities. With more than 20 million Christians in Indonesia, such tactics will, if left unchecked, result in horrific chaos and bloodshed and have serious consequences for the region's stability.
Recently, there have been repeated Muslim attacks on the remaining pockets of Christians on Ambon island and in Halmahera. Such attacks appear to be an attempt to exterminate what is left of the Christian presence in those areas. Following threats by Islamic militants that no church bells will be ringing in Ambon by Christmas day, Christians in Halmahera and Ambon are worried about a possible major Muslim offensive around that time. In anticipation of such an attack, some Christians are celebrating Christmas early this year.
Sectarian violence has raged in the Moluccas for 23 months, but the Indonesian Government and military have repeatedly demonstrated their unwillingness to do whatever is necessary to end it and protect the Moluccan Christian community, which faces impending annihilation at the hands of Islamic militants. Moluccan Christians are besieged on all sides and elements of the Indonesian military are working in close co-operation with Islamic militants to wipe out Christians.
38WH
Moluccan Church leaders know that they cannot rely on the Indonesian military to protect their community, so they continue to appeal desperately for United Nations peacekeepers to come to the Moluccas. However, while failing to stop the systematic destruction of the Moluccan Christian community, President Abdurrahman Wahid refuses to allow UN peacekeepers to enter the Moluccas. For nearly two years, Moluccan Christian leaders have called repeatedly for UN peacekeepers to be sent to the Moluccas, for UN human rights monitors to be allowed to investigate atrocities committed in those islands and for those responsible for such atrocities to be punished.
Since the influx of thousands of Islamic militants into the Moluccas in April, the violence has escalated sharply and desperate appeals have been made for the Indonesian Government and military to remove those Muslim fighters from the Moluccas islands. Until now, the Indonesian Government have ignored those requests. As a result, Islamic fighters have overrun most Christian areas of the Moluccas and thousands of Christians in Muslim-controlled areas are confronted with the difficult choice of converting to Islam or being killed. The very least that the Indonesian Government should do is evacuate Christians from Muslim-controlled areas so that they can escape the pressure to change their religion, but they have not taken even that measure.
The usual Indonesian Government solution of simply sending more troops to the scene of unrest is likely only to make the situation worse, until those soldiers are willing to conduct themselves neutrally and responsibly, instead of lending their manpower and firepower to the Islamic militants' cause. The Indonesian Government have verbally expressed many concerns about the Moluccas conflict, but little practical action has been taken in the past 23 months to end the violence. As the hon. Member for Gainsborough pointed out, that violence also results in Muslim fatalities. The mayhem that has been created in the Moluccas causes deaths and casualties on both sides, but those responsible for atrocities continue to walk free and cause destruction.
Evidence has been produced of British armoured vehicles being used to commit human rights abuses in the Moluccas, yet it appears that the British Government have not thoroughly investigated that claim. I should like to hear the Minister's view.
Violence caused by Islamic militants is unlikely to end with the Moluccas, as their objective appears to be to islamicise the whole of Indonesia. It should thus be in President Wahid's interest to stop the Muslim fighters in the Moluccas now, before their powers grow any further and they are encouraged by victory to seek further conquests in other provinces of Indonesia.
The minimum that the British Government should be doing is to impose an arms embargo on Indonesia and to urge the European Union to do the same, at least until the Indonesian Government agree to permit the entry of UN peacekeepers into the Moluccas. The British Government, along with their European partners, should also put strong and continual pressure on the Indonesian authorities to stop the forced conversions, evacuate the Moluccan Christians from Muslim-controlled areas, bring justice to the civilians and soldiers who are responsible for atrocities, and remove the Islamic fighters from the Moluccas. If the

39WH
Indonesian Government are not prepared to take such action, Britain and the European Union should contemplate other sanctions besides an arms embargo against Indonesia.
It is misleading to think that the situation in the Moluccas has really improved while forced mass conversions and attacks on Christians continue. Such conduct by Islamic militants creates doubts about their willingness to make peace and the possibility of reconciliation between Muslims and Christians in the Moluccas—an outcome that I should dearly welcome. I hope that the Minister will be able to make such an outcome possible by means of diplomatic channels at national, European Union and United Nations levels. Perhaps the Indonesian Government will then intervene even-handedly to bring peace in conditions in which good will can be re-established. Unfortunately, it is too late for the Christmas message of peace and good will to be a reality in the Moluccas in the Christmas celebrations of 2000, but I hope that there will be a change for the better in 2001 and that that message will be a reality by Christmas 2001.
12.1 pm
Rev. Martin Smyth: For 500 years Christians and Muslims have lived with each another peacefully in the Moluccas. We want to return to that situation, which is vital for the well-being of Indonesia. The hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) developed the debate effectively, but said that it was unlikely that the world media would pay much attention to it. All that I can say is that, having initiated a similar debate when I was in Australia with the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association delegation in September, I was informed that that debate was the first to alert the world to what was happening. I trust that the present debate will likewise stir up people, and particularly Governments, so that they will not remain silent in the United Nations or other arenas, but will use their influence to maintain pressure on the Indonesian authorities.
I do not want to speak at length because time is pressing, but I remind the Minister that the involvement of the Kostrad group in East Timor was a factor in the extreme way in which the situation developed. It was not defending but persecuting the citizens. It is important that that group and others like it should be restrained by the lawful authorities in Indonesia for the well-being of the whole country.
The authorities tried earlier to stop Jihad people going to the Moluccas. Unfortunately, because of our concept of civil liberties, they were allowed to enter because they had no weapons on them. The weapons entered by another route and some have since been supplied by the armed forces serving in Molucca. We need to keep up the pressure.
The tragedy is that the Moluccas and Ambon have been a haven of light in their area for centuries. The outstanding university in Ambon has been ravaged and burnt, and now there are plans to replace it with an Islamic centre on the same site. The Indonesian Government are trying to be fair and even-handed, but they are unlikely to be able to be so unless the
40WH
international community combines to maintain pressure on them to restore property and land to families driven out of their communities after seeing many relatives put to death.
I know that others want to speak, but I wanted to make those simple points to enforce what the hon. Members for Gainsborough and for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) said. We are deeply concerned—we know that the Minister is worried—because we are not convinced that our representatives in the United Nations have pressed for UN input. It is not enough for one Government to maintain pressure. That job must be for the world population, especially when we realise that there are those outwith Indonesia who participate in the extermination of communities. It is not only Christians who have become victims of the jihad, but moderate Muslims who oppose what is happening. We cannot stand idly by while claiming to be human.
12.6 pm
Mrs. Cheryl Gillan: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) on securing the debate. I, too, will try to be brief, because I am interested in the Minister's response. The contributions made by the hon. Members for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths) and for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) should have given the Minister the message that there is a high level of concern about the Moluccas.
It would be wrong of me to speak without acknowledging the tremendous work of Christian Solidarity Worldwide and the Jubilee campaign. Both have been consistent in pressing the case of the Moluccas. I was privileged to meet the Rev. John Titaley earlier this year, who, at some danger to himself, came here to brief parliamentarians on the dreadful situation in the Moluccas.
The case of the Moluccas is especially tragic, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Belfast, South, because for centuries Christians and Muslims lived side by side in peace. The islands were models of religious harmony, but the tensions that built up during recent years have exploded into the dreadful sectarian violence in which many thousands of people have been killed and more than 250,000 displaced. Even now, more violence is threatened. It seems as though the situation is set to reach a tragic conclusion, unless the Indonesian Government demonstrate the political will to stop the violence, and friendly Governments such as ours help to give them the backbone to take action in the Moluccas.
It is appalling that religiously motivated massacres take place almost weekly in what amounts to systematic extermination of an entire religious community. The level of concern expressed in the Chamber today possibly understates what is happening in those islands.
The causes of the current conflict are complex. They include demographic, economic and political factors as well as religious ones. For example, the former Government's policy of encouraging large numbers of settlers into the region upset the demographic balance. The Christians started to be marginalised in local government, the military and the police force, and there were more injustices and tensions. All that was exacerbated by the arrival of large numbers of self-proclaimed jihad warriors. There was great concern

41WH
about the tremendous influx of people, primarily men, who stated that their aim was to remove the Christians from the island. It has become clear from comments made by Laskar Jihad that the threats that have been issued are unacceptable. Indeed, they make one's blood run cold. The threat to which the hon. Member for Bridgend referred was that there will be no church bells ringing in Ambon by Christmas. That is probably the most appalling thing that we have heard in this Chamber for some time.
On the official Laskar Jihad website, the Muslims apparently refer to celebrating a bloody Christmas this year. I hope that the Minister will comment on the statements made by Laskar Jihad, and explain what representations the Government plan to make to the Indonesian Government, especially about such violent and inflammatory statements.
We have heard some blood-chilling examples of individual massacres and murders, which I do not want to repeat. However, I want to ask the Minister a couple of questions, which I hope he will answer when he winds up. Last week, during a debate on arms export controls, I drew attention to a report on the BBC website that the French had offered arms to Indonesia in exchange for a maritime exploration licence. Will the Minister comment on that in the light of remarks that have been made on the EU code of conduct? A response was not provided by the Minister of State, the hon. Member for Neath (Mr. Hain), during last week's debate, or by Baroness Ramsay in another place yesterday, to a question on the Moluccas. Such an answer would be helpful, because to sit back and idly say, "We will not make any comment on the French arms situation" is, in light of the concerns expressed by hon. Members, not good enough. I hope that the Minister has come armed with the latest information on the French situation and, likewise, on the reports of the sale or donation of arms by Jordan to Indonesia.
Defence Minister Mahfud in Indonesia has said that the US embargo has semi-crippled the military capability in Indonesia. I hope that the Minister will say how successful that embargo was and whether he plans to make further representations on the arms situation, either to other countries with which we have diplomatic relations or to our colleague countries in the European Union.
The Government's response in another place yesterday contained many warm words. Indeed, Baroness Ramsay said:
All that the international community can do at the moment is support the democratic regime of President Wahid and try to give him all the help we can in his efforts to find peaceful solutions to the problems of his country.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 18 December 2000; Vol. 620, c. 567.]
I share that sentiment, as do the other speakers in this debate. I hope that the Minister, who is in charge of such matters, will go a little further and provide hard facts on what he has done, what help has been given and what support has been offered. For example, has there been an exchange of correspondence between Her Majesty's Government and the President of Indonesia that does not merely contain warm words and sympathy but offers practical advice and help? If so, I hope that, in the spirit of this debate, the Minister will place such correspondence in the Library for hon. Members to see.
42WH
It would be good to know that our Government are taking an active role and not merely relying on warm words and sympathy.
A clear message should go out today from this Chamber, the British Government and all hon. Members that there is no place for such slaughter anywhere in the world and certainly not in Indonesia. I had the great privilege of visiting that country last year and I must admit that I was impressed by the people whom I met and the prospects for prosperity and peace. It is a bitter pill to swallow that a section of the Indonesian people are being systematically wiped out in such murder. In echoing the words of the hon. Member for Bridgend, I hope that the Minister can offer more than mere comfort, so that a message can go out to the people of the Moluccas at Christmas 2000 that the British people are behind them and that we will help to restore peace in that area of the world.
12.14 pm
The Minister of State, Foreign and Commonwealth Office (Mr. John Battle): I sincerely thank the hon. Member for Gainsborough (Mr. Leigh) for raising the issue of what is happening in the Moluccas. It is important that such matters are debated. In the world of economic globalisation, I believe that the campaign for justice and peace internationally should be global, and I am sure that we share the hon. Gentleman's sentiments about the attention to such matters sometimes being less than negligible. I thank also my hon. Friend the Member for Bridgend (Mr. Griffiths), the hon. Member for Belfast, South (Rev. Martin Smyth) and the spokesperson for the Opposition, the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham (Mrs. Gillan).
All who have spoken in the debate have sustained a high level of commitment to what is happening, whether in writing to me, encouraging others to write to me, tabling early-day motions or in meetings with me. I want to continue such meetings, as I do with the Jubilee Campaign and Christian Solidarity Worldwide, which have contacts in the Moluccas islands through the churches and on the net. The information is valuable and makes it known that we are as aware as we can be of what is going on. Having said that, what do we do about it? A tragedy is taking place there and we all share the sense of urgency. Horrific events have unfolded this year. In fact, they go back further than that. We deplore the activities that have brought such pain, suffering and loss to the communities in the Moluccas over the past 18 months.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough asked whether we recognised the role of Laskar Jihad. Yes, we do. We kept tracks on those ships that carried its people from Java to the Moluccas. They were not armed, but they claimed that they were free to move about. That was a worrying development. We do not support Laskar Jihad, and nor do the Indonesian Government. I want to challenge some of the points that have been made. It is not true that no one in Laskar Jihad has been touched. On 5 July, 250 members of the group were arrested by the Indonesian navy, soon after the Duma massacre. I assure hon. Members that a blind eye has not been taken to such problems. The Indonesian military were instrumental in restoring order in North Maluku.
The conflict in the Moluccas has complex origins that go back many years. I also recommend "Nathaniel's Nutmeg" as a good read. It ties in 500 years of history of

43WH
the Dutch, Portuguese and the British colonial traders in those islands fighting for control of them with their rich treasures. That colonial trading left Indonesia with a legacy of a diverse mix of Catholic, Protestant and Muslim traditions and local customs, and more than 150 different dialects. On 23 and 25 October, I visited Sulawesi, an island in the direction of the Moluccas, which was too dangerous to visit at the time. I never fail to be amazed by the sheer size of Indonesia, with its 212 million people and 17,000 islands that stretch across 3,000 miles. The Indonesian archipelago is a huge continent. I emphasise that, because sometimes it merely seems that the Indonesia islands are a few small dots on the map.
As the hon. Gentleman said, we must take seriously what is happening in the Moluccas. The rough split of 40 per cent. Christians and more than 50 per cent. Muslims is rare in Indonesia, but it has existed in the Moluccas since the 16th century. Communities have lived peacefully in close proximity for centuries. The Dutch exerted a strong influence over the islands until Indonesia became independent in 1949. Soeharto ruled it with an iron fist until 1998. We must remember the breakthrough in September 1999, with the democratic election of President Wahid and civilian control of the army—for the first time for generations. Given that move towards democracy in Jakarta, there has been increasing pressure at the periphery for a relationship between the edges and the centre. As we know, tension has been at the edges of the archipelago. In January 1999, violence and destruction erupted between Christian and Muslim communities in the Moluccas.
It is generally agreed by the United Nations that the peak of that violence was between December 1999 and January 2000—this time last year. Thousands died, hundreds of buildings were destroyed and more than 150,000 people were forced from their homes. We urged the Indonesians to pursue conflict resolution, and we raised the matter with the authorities. I say to the hon. Member for Chesham and Amersham that it was not a case of saying that we support, as we all do, the democratic forces in the emerging democracy. We must go further and say that, because of the conflict, the process does not appear to be working. We want the conflict resolved, and we have made that plain.
A UN resource centre was established. The United Nations Development Programme undertook humanitarian assistance and there was a period of relative calm. However, violence flared in the summer following the arrival of the Laskar Jihad extremists, and the escalation of the violence illustrated the fragility of the reconciliation that had been worked through in the previous months. That matter was raised with the Indonesian authorities, including the movements of Laskar Jihad, and our people in Jakarta supported that.
To add to the complexity, it is sometimes difficult when those even in the other place approach me, write to me and suggest that we give more support to some of those opposing Laskar Jihad. I point out that the issue is not always clear-cut. It is sometimes suggested that the conflict is simply Christian-Muslim. It is not. Social, economic and political tensions exist between local interests that are also factors. It is essential to understand that violence affects all communities.
44WH
Christians and Muslims alike have been victims and perpetrators of attacks and atrocities. Churches and mosques have been destroyed.
In the past few days, I have obtained the latest report from our ambassador, which describes an attack on a speedboat carrying Muslims that triggered further violence in Ambon in November, although the situation has been calm since the beginning of December. The North Maluku governor reports that progress continues, with grass roots peace agreements now in place between Christian and Muslim communities in Halmahera. The two Christian provincial parliamentarians have already returned to Ternate. The report states:
On 18 November a speedboat carrying 16 Moslems from Ambon to Sin Son Islam, the only remaining Islamic village on Saparua Island, disappeared. On 21 November the bodies of two mutilated female passengers washed ashore in Ambon. The UN Resource Centre, based in Ambon, tell us this was followed by tit-for-tat attacks on speedboats, sniper fire and bombing, which lasted until 7 December. For the last week the situation has been better but this may only be temporary.
On 30 November the Diocese of Ambon Crisis centre reported coordinated attacks on the four Christian villages on Kasiui, Island, also known as Keswui, south east of Seram. The villages of Utta, Karlomin, Wunin and Tanasoa were destroyed between 23–28 November. The Crisis Centre reports that between nine and 91 were killed, with up to 700 Christians imprisoned and being forced to convert to Islam. However, on 13 December the Crisis Centre withdrew their earlier statements and said they would wait until the mixed-faith investigation team from the Governor's office reported their findings. The National Commission on Human Rights (KomnasHAM) are participating in the team which left Ambon on 13 December. The Crisis Centre reported that on 10 December Moslems had attacked Catholic villages on the neighbouring Tior island. An unknown number of IDPs—
internally displaced persons—
had fled to the nearby Kai Islands, SE Maluku.
I read that out not simply to say, "Is it one lot or another—is it Christians or Muslims?" We need to know the truth about what is happening, but, crucially, we must put on the pressure to resolve the basic conflict and crisis. Calm was broken on 7 December, when unidentified assailants attacked a boat carrying 40 Muslims from Ternate to Halmahera. The important point, however, is that we are now working together, trying to exert pressure internationally, but also trying to ensure that there are conflict prevention measures on the ground to work with the communities in an attempt to remove the violence.
Despite reports of over-reaction and partisanship from a number of police and military units, the role of the police and the military is generally not as negative as is sometimes suggested. A naval blockade is in place to stop more Laskar Jihad boats going to the island. That is welcome. The marine commander has proved especially effective in North Maluku. The death toll would almost certainly have been higher if personnel had not been deployed or had been withdrawn from the province.
As a result of the violence, the European heads of mission visited the Moluccas to see the devastation and to consider how best to deliver humanitarian assistance and support for conflict resolution. In October this year, the delegation visited Ambon in Maluku province and Ternate in North Maluku. It reported that Ambon resembled Beirut in the 1980s and that warring communities were separated in devastated streets, living

45WH
with daily bombs and gunfire. However, the situation in North Maluku improved greatly when order was restored, largely as a result of the marine commander's efforts. The deputy governor believes that there is a strong desire for peace and reconciliation.
Mrs. Gillan: I am grateful to the Minister for giving way, especially as he is running out of time.
Does he find it ironic that, at the same time as the EU is sending a mission to the region to try to bring aid and relief, the Defence Minister reports that the French are offering arms in exchange for maritime exploration licences? Will the Minister tell me what he knows about that?
Mr. Battle: I know little more than the hon. Lady. Those allegations have been made, and I urge the French strictly to apply the terms of the EU code of conduct on the sale of arms. I shall be happy to raise the matter with them at the appropriate time. The idea is to calm the situation down and to ease, not heighten, tensions.
Peace agreements are now in place in Christian Tobelo and Muslim Galela in north Halmahera, and internally displaced persons are returning home. The governor of North Maluku has persuaded two Christian provincial parliamentarians to return to Tenate, which will allow them to work in the communities. The UN and the international NGOs have started to deal with the immediate humanitarian problems, and we have worked closely with them to establish the mechanisms to deliver assistance.
Peace in the Moluccas is fragile. We are concerned about recent incidents such as attacks and forced imprisonments in Christian villages on Kasiui island and the attack on a boat carrying Muslims to which I referred.
I am often asked about the possibility of UN military intervention in the Moluccas. I must repeat that the situation is very different from that in East Timor. The
46WH
UN Security Council did not recognise East Timor as part of Indonesia. To draw a parallel—without wishing to be offensive—I remember its being suggested that a UN peacekeeping force should be sent into Northern Ireland. People were not keen on that, because it was felt to be an internal security matter within the United Kingdom. We must respect such boundaries. Even in the context of the EU report, to which the hon. Member for Gainsborough referred, the role of the international community cannot be ruled out. I hope that I made that plain to the hon. Gentleman in our exchange.
We must wait for an invitation to intervene, thus respecting the democratic sovereignty of Indonesia now that it is established. However, that does not mean that we will not continue to put pressure on the Indonesian Government. We regularly raise such matters with the authorities, Government and President of Indonesia, as I make clear in my replies to hon. Members' questions on the subject.
President Wahid's reform-minded Government are intent on halting the violence. The people of the Moluccas want peace, not independence. That is the specification, although it is different in other parts of Indonesia. Nationalist tensions are running very high in Jakarta. The UK is actively trying to find ways of providing practical back-up and support. We funded two events promoting reconciliation and conflict prevention and we have helped to put people on the ground to work on those matters.
The hon. Member for Gainsborough mentioned journalists and the fair reporting of events. Reporting crisis, tension and war is a difficult business, and this year we have worked to ensure that journalists in the Moluccas participate in training programmes. The Department for International Development seconded a specialist to help establish mechanisms for managing the humanitarian response of the entire UN, and we are considering funding further conflict prevention work. As recently as last week, I discussed Indonesia's efforts with Foreign Minister Shihab at the EU-Association of South-East Asian Nations Foreign Ministers' meeting in Vientiane, and offered further practical support.

Crime and Prostitution (Leeds)
12.30 pm
Mr. Fabian Hamilton: I am grateful to Mr. Speaker for allowing this debate, especially given that I failed to catch his eye in last Tuesday's debate on the Queen's Speech. I hope to show what is really happening on the ground in the fight against crime. I want to get away from the hype, headlines and cartoons, such as that in The Guardian today, which depicts a "political football" commentator saying:
Now the political football results; Hague, own goal.
When local police forces are asked to establish their policing priorities, and they, in turn, ask the local population on what their policing plans should concentrate, prostitution rarely appears at the top of the list. That is because prostitution affects only the women involved, their families and—when it occurs in a residential area such as Potternewton in my constituency—local residents.
One of the biggest problems that my constituents face is the constant stream of vehicles carrying kerb crawlers and visitors to houses that are, in effect, brothels—usually houses in multiple occupation, interspersed with family homes in which children and young people live. Those families are trying to live a decent, ordinary life, but they are constantly plagued by the noise, detritus and disruption that are caused not only by the women who ply their trade, but by vehicles, pimps and drug dealers who make their deals in nearby phone boxes. People whom I meet regularly have formed an effective residents and communities association to fight the scourge. Although they live in a pleasant, albeit poor area of the city—in streets such as the Avenues, the Hiltons and the Roundhays—they have to put up with the problem day in, day out. They cannot get a decent night's sleep because of the goings-on around them. An 11-year-old girl was recently accosted on her way home from school by someone who was looking for sex from a prostitute; thankfully, she was released unharmed.
There are many ways in which to begin to deal with the problem. We can try to remove the immediate trade—the kerb crawlers themselves. Last year, we in Leeds established an effective trial scheme—the kerb crawlers rehabilitation programme, administered by Leeds Metropolitan university. Of the 81 men who attended the programme throughout the year, only one was known to reoffend. The scheme, which ended last December, was a partnership that was largely funded by the police and other agencies such as the health authority. That is one way to tackle the problem. Instead of being referred to court and named and shamed—as the police and press put it—first-time offenders were sent on the programme at a cost of about £120—a sum similar to the fine that they might have received had they been convicted. Attendance is voluntary: during a full day's programme, the men learn about prostitution's effect on and the pressures experienced by prostitutes themselves, local residents, and the families of those caught kerb crawling.
That is one measure that we can use to try to deter kerb crawling, but I am delighted to see an alternative measure, to make kerb crawling an arrestable criminal offence, included in the new criminal justice and police
48WH
Bill that will be presented to the House next year. Once the Bill becomes law, it will have a salutary affect on kerb crawlers, who will be easier to catch and convict. The kerb crawlers' rehabilitation programme was effective, but it closed last year, mainly because West Yorkshire police thought that they should not continue to fund it, believing that savings were made by the Crown Prosecution Service, not by them. Some in West Yorkshire police feel that kerb crawlers who are caught should be referred to the courts, to be named and shamed and convicted. As we have said, that will be easier once new legislation is enacted.
The Home Office, and the Minister of State, my hon. Friend the Member for Norwich, South (Mr. Clarke), helpfully put together a crime reduction fund specifically for programmes to fight prostitution. A group got together in Leeds to put in a bid together for that funding: it included Leeds city council, West Yorkshire police and an organisation called CROP—the Coalition for the Removal of Pimping. Unfortunately, I recently learned that the Leeds bid was unsuccessful. I am deeply unhappy with the role that Leeds city council played in that. I hope that lessons will be learned, and that next time, should further funding become available, Home Office officials will work together with different agencies to form a true partnership bid. We must ensure that the next bid is successful, so that we can re-establish the kerb crawlers rehabilitation programme. I must thank the Yorkshire Evening Post for highlighting the effectiveness of the programme and pressing for its re-establishment; I hope that it will continue to support the programme.
A woman called Irene Irene was key to CROP. She had a daughter, Fiona, who, after three weeks working as a prostitute, was murdered at the age of 17. She had come under the influence of a pimp at the age of 14. Irene made it her life's mission to stop pimps, who often get away—literally—with murder. Irene set up CROP and was heavily involved in Rotherham's successful bid for crime reduction funding. I am delighted that Risky Business has received funding. The organisation tries to assist the families of prostitutes and to help prostitutes to get away from prostitution and leave the trade. Tragically, Irene died prematurely last month. We all mourn her.
I thank my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary for his visit to Leeds in April. As the Minister will know, I have been pressing the Home Office and raising the issue wherever I can. The Home Secretary agreed to come to my constituency in April to see and hear for himself some of the problems that residents face day in, day out, and he listened to the Potternewton community action group for nearly an hour. I am also grateful to the Minister of State present today, who came to my constituency last month, primarily to speak to the community action and support against crime annual general meeting, where he was well received. At his request, he also met residents from the Potternewton community action group. We had a fruitful discussion, and I was pleased by his interest. CASAC is trying to fight crime in the Chapeltown and Harehills area, and it does so successfully. In no small measure, that is due to the work of Travis Johnson, who set up CASAC and is its current chairman.
Today's debate is also about crime. Recently, we have heard a great deal about the police—their numbers, their impact on crime and other issues that are currently

49WH
in the headlines. During the debate on the Queen's Speech my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said that the number of police is, of course, important in trying to fight crime, but that so too is the way in which the police use their resources. I shall draw the House's attention to some examples of how police in the city of Leeds have used their resources both more and less effectively.
In the Chapeltown division of West Yorkshire police, Chief Superintendent Frank Farmer has been enormously successful in solving a series of shootings and murders that took place in Chapeltown, north Leeds and east Leeds during the first six months of this year. Through good intelligence and concerted policing, every one of the perpetrators is either dead—shot, not by the police, but by one another—or behind bars. That is a 100 per cent. clear-up rate for some 20 shootings, all drug related; and the associated drug dealing has also been largely cleared up through the efforts of the Chapeltown police. I thank Chief Superintendent Farmer for concentrating so hard on something that disturbed every resident of the area, not only those who live in my constituency.
More trivial incidents cause disturbance. A few weeks ago, Steve and Wendy Jones-Blackett, two residents of Chapel Allerton, a district centre in my constituency, visited my advice surgery to tell me about a gang of youths, perhaps the product of yob culture, who were robbing shopkeepers and sometimes holding them up at knifepoint. Again, thanks to effective and swift action by Chapeltown police, and to the use of anti-social behaviour orders, that scourge has now been ended.
I contrast that with the situation on the Queenshills in the Moortown area of my constituency, which is policed by another division of West Yorkshire police. A spate of crimes there has involved my office and other premises, including the newsagents, where Mr. Singh was held up at gunpoint this weekend. Earlier in the week, the hairdresser's premises were burgled and the door kicked in. Luckily, however, video cameras had been temporarily installed and video footage was taken; I hope that the police will follow up that evidence. Earlier still, an office was burgled: because it had been burgled once before, the police had installed a temporary direct-line digital alarm, and at 2 am, when the office was burgled for the second time, the police arrived swiftly. Unfortunately, they forgot to turn their sirens off, thus warning the criminals inside the building and allowing them to escape. It might have been easier if the police had telephoned to say that they were on their way.
Other areas of my constituency have suffered the effects of crime. One small example is that of Moortown Methodist church on Alderton crescent in the north of my constituency. The minister there, Richard Bryant, telephoned the police a few months ago, after youths had been found throwing stones at the church and houses in the locality. The police said that they were unable to attend because they could not find the church in the telephone book and so did not know the address. When Mr. Bryant told them the address, they said that Alderton crescent was not on their map and that they could not help. That is one example of poor-quality policing. However, I know that the point has been made and that it has been taken up by the divisional commander.
50WH
In the fight against crime, partnership is everything. It is vital. As we know from trying to fight prostitution in Leeds, all the agencies, including the police, must fight the scourge of crime together. The Government have made an extremely good start with some of the initiatives that I have mentioned, including anti-social behaviour orders and the crime and police Bill, which I know will help in the fight against various aspects of crime. There is certainly no question of complacency. Communities must fight together. Headline grabbing is not a solution: what counts is the work on the ground, as CASAC has shown.
Supporting communities and the police in their fight against crime is part of the answer, but no one has the whole solution. It is clear that attacking the causes of poverty, deprivation and unemployment are also an important part of the solution, and the Government have made an effective start on that. Being tough on crime and its causes will finally bring a real reduction in crime. The Government are going the right way about the problem and they deserve our full support.
12.44 pm
Mr. Paul Truswell: I am grateful for this opportunity to make a short contribution to the important debate secured by my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton). He graphically described the problems within his constituency and the increasing frustration felt by his constituents about the capacity of the police to address them. Communities throughout West Yorkshire, including my constituency, face to varying degrees the problems that he has raised.
West Yorkshire police force has a good record of efficiency. It has continued to maintain downward pressure on overall crime figures and has an especially good record on crimes such as burglary and car crime. This year brought good news about funding: the force's budget uplift has been an above-inflation 4.6 per cent. and extra money has been allocated to begin the process of recruiting 300 officers. The force has also been successful in bids for £2.5 million from the reducing burglary initiative and £500,000 for the distraction burglary initiative, about which I have personal interest in lobbying the Minister. A little time ago, it was feared that the cost of a new police radio system would fall wholly or partly on West Yorkshire police authority, but those fears were assuaged when the Home Office announced an extra £500 million to fund the project.
Despite those improvements, my colleagues and I have become increasingly concerned about the possible impact on West Yorkshire police authority of the proposed increased contributions that it may have to make towards the National Crime Squad and the National Criminal Intelligence Service—increases for NCS of 32 per cent. and for NCIS of 108 per cent. That would result in an additional levy of £3.2 million on the police authority, which represents a real-terms increase of £2.9 million above the settlement figure for West Yorkshire police. That is the equivalent of more than 100 officers.
The marked gains that the police authority has made on the swings may therefore be lost on the roundabouts of increased funding contributions to NCS and NCIS. West Yorkshire Members are convinced that the

51WH
Minister and his colleagues will want to avoid that, having given the area the boost that it desperately needed to address the problems described so graphically by my hon. Friend. Will the Minister assure us that increased contributions to those two national squads will be made from central funds, or set at a level at which they will not impact so profoundly on our force's ability to boost officer numbers and tackle the issues raised in the debate?
12.48 pm
The Minister of State, Home Office (Mr. Charles Clarke): I begin by welcoming the opportunity to debate an important and difficult subject. I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East (Mr. Hamilton) on securing the debate and my hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey (Mr. Truswell) on his contribution.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said, I had the opportunity to visit his constituency, Potternewton in particular, to discuss the issues with some of the people involved. I am well aware of the nuisance and misery that prostitution can cause and the serious risks that it can pose. I am especially concerned about children being drawn into prostitution. We should all recognise that those people are victims, not offenders, and approach the question from that viewpoint.
The issue was the subject of a major guidance document produced by the Government earlier this year as part of the working together initiative, which was widely welcomed by the agencies involved. I have great sympathy with people in Leeds who are affected by the activities of prostitutes, kerb crawlers and pimps. The Government are strongly committed to tackling the crime and disorder associated with prostitution. The police and criminal justice Bill will contain provisions to make kerb crawling an arrestable offence, which would assist police in tackling the anti-social behaviour of kerb crawlers and improve the environment for residents and visitors. We believe that a combination of legislative change and other interventions is the best way forward.
I shall say a little about the funding that the Government are making available from the crime reduction programme, then discuss briefly some recent research and reports, and finally note the areas in which the Government are introducing legislation. I should like to take this opportunity to pay a personal tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East, who has been campaigning on the issue of prostitution for many months. He has taken it up with me and with my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary, arguing strongly and forcefully that prostitution needs special Government attention, as it has not received sufficient attention in the past. It is a tribute to his work that we now have a fund from the crime reduction programme, the details of which I shall announce today.
There has been very little research to determine what strategies are effective to combat prostitution. The purpose of the schemes that we are announcing today is to find out what works to reduce some of the general crime and disorder associated with such activity. It is a coincidence that we are announcing the results for the
52WH
bids for these projects on the same day as the debate. Some excellent bids are to be funded. The basis of the bids is partnership between the various local agencies to tackle the nuisance and crime associated with prostitution, as well to tackle long-term aims such as providing exit routes from prostitution. We are addressing a number of issues specifically to deal with kerb crawling and soliciting, noise and harassment, discarded needles and condoms, thefts and muggings, drug-related offences, violence to women by pimps and so-called clients and extremely serious offences such as rape and the sexual exploitation of children. Projects that will receive up to £100,000 each are being approved in Bournemouth, Bristol, Huddersfield, Hull, Liverpool, London, Manchester, Nottingham, Rotherham, Sheffield and Stoke. Each project offers a series of ideas on how to deal with the whole range of problems.
The money will be used as seed funding to develop models of good practice to be used by other multi-agency partnerships in the future. As I said on the phone to my hon. Friend yesterday, I regret that it has not been possible to fund the Leeds bid in the current round. In the eyes of those experts looking at the project, there was insufficient partnership between all the relevant agencies to enable the bid to be funded. As my hon. Friend said in his speech and to me yesterday, he is strongly committed to ensuring that those partnerships are built and developed.
I am confident that, although the money that is being announced today is used as seed funding, it will develop models of good practice to be used by other multi-agency partnerships in future. They could well include Leeds, if a bid is made that builds on the foundation of partnership. I regret that Leeds could not be one of the pilots announced today, especially given the important role that my hon. Friend has played in pressing the case, but the professional assessment was that partnership should be at the core of our approach. My hon. Friend the Member for Pudsey mentioned the 15 crime reduction projects worth slightly more than £4 million that are currently being funded in Leeds. They deal with burglary, targeted policing, violence against women, neighbourhood wardens and a variety of different schemes of that type. It is not a question of Leeds being left out of our approach on crime reduction: it is just that the city's bid did not meet the criteria that we had set out.
We are looking at the funding of the National Crime Squad and the Nat ional Criminal Intelligence Service. I have had friendly, frank and fraternal discussions with both the chief constable and the chairman of the West Yorkshire police authority on these matters. No doubt, we shall reach a solution that is welcomed and applauded by all—except, perhaps, my Conservative opponents, who usually oppose anything that is agreed on any grounds of good sense.
In addition to the overall crime reduction partnership approach, which has led to a unique departure in the funding of bids to try to attack the evil of prostitution, the Government have decided that a change in the law is necessary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East said, the Bill to be considered in this Session will include the power to arrest kerb crawlers. We intend to take action to allow the police greater powers in tackling that menace, and the Bill will make kerb

53WH
crawling an arrestable offence, which will make a real difference to all the areas of the country in which prostitution is a problem, including that represented by my hon. Friend.
Last week, we also announced plans to make an offence of and to ban the advertising in telephone boxes of sexual services. Cards advertising such services are a nuisance and often advertise trafficked women or the sexual services of children, constituting the marketing end of a vile trade. We are keen to crack down on the problem and we will legislate as soon as parliamentary time is available to do so. The advertising of sexual services is a particularly severe problem in London, Brighton and the south-east, but it is a problem in all our major conurbations. It is another important element on which legislative change is needed.
Through our research, we have forcefully addressed other aspects of this appalling trade. Pimping is a crime and tackling it effectively is a key element in dealing with the evils associated with prostitution. Domination and bullying by the pimp can lead to many consequent and damaging crimes. Some of the successful projects that I have mentioned have picked up that theme. Our research report "For Love or Money: Pimps and the management of sex work" found hat young people were at greatest risk of being pimped and suffering violence from pimps. I commend the report to hon. Members interested in studying the relationship between pimping and prostitution, as it is useful and fills gaps in our knowledge. We hope that our research work and the practical action that we are funding will make more effective action possible.
In July, we published "Setting the Boundaries", the report of our sex offences review, which recognised the need for effective legislation to deal with those who exploit others for the purposes of prostitution. That report has gone out to consultation. It is an important and profound report, which recommends the creation of new offences to deal with the sexual exploitation of children and adults. It is apparent from our research and the report that there are significant holes and loopholes in our legislation. Prostitution is only one aspect of
54WH
sexual exploitation, albeit an important one. The Government are awaiting responses to the report's conclusions before adopting a firm view, but the report proposes that separate offences should cover the exploitation of children and adults to set an unambiguous standard that states absolutely that sexual exploitation is wrong and outside the law. It may seem trivial or absurd to say that, but the current law is not sufficiently clear and needs to be made clearer.
Many solutions to the difficult problems under discussion will be practical, rather than based in the law. Solutions such as the provision of advice and support to sex workers who wish to exit prostitution are important in tackling problems in the long term. Helping people to leave prostitution is important: it involves breaking the power of pimps and establishing real alternatives for the young women who have ended up in a situation in which their lives, if they are not careful, will slide away into uselessness and despair. It is our job to do what we can to address the problem much more coherently. Many interventions funded by the crime reduction programme will help us to understand which methods are effective in assisting sex workers to find alternative ways of living.
I am delighted that crime and prostitution are now being debated more openly. I warmly commend my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, North-East on his campaigning work and on securing this debate to allow the issue to be debated much more widely. It has often been dealt with under cover and must be brought out into the open. People need to discuss the issues in far greater depth.
The Government are working with all parties in the House—there are no differences of political opinion on the matter. We are determined to tackle the nuisance of prostitution to ensure that communities are not blighted by the resulting crime and disorder. We are also determined to help those trapped in prostitution to find a way out. The projects that we are funding and other initiatives should make a difference. I hope that the proposed legal changes will win support and that we make a fundamental difference to an appalling situation.

Farming (Vale of Aylesbury)
1 pm
Mr. John Bercow: Interest in agriculture and farming has been reflected in the House since May 1997 in 2,100 oral and written parliamentary questions, 30 Adjournment debates and seven early-day motions. I am especially grateful to Mrs. Virginia Crick and Mr. Tim Whitlock, secretaries of the Aylesbury and Buckingham branches of the National Farmers Union, and to farmers to whom I have spoken recently: Mr. Antony Aston, Mr. Robin Culley, Mr. Mike Duckworth and Mr. James King.
A deep-rooted crisis is afflicting British agriculture. The recent Deloitte & Touche report showed that for a typical, 500-acre, often family farm, incomes have been slashed to the desperate level of £8,000 a year. As the Minister knows, that is a cut of well over 70 per cent. in the past five years. In addition, the albatross of a £10,000-million debt is hanging around the industry's neck. It is salutary to remind ourselves that about 450 people a week leave farming; no fewer than 24,000 have done so in the past 12 months. I know from personal experience in my constituency that there are two continuing problems, the first of which is that some farmers earn as little as £4,000 a year, showing beyond peradventure that they earn less than the national minimum wage for the amount of work that they do. That is by no means uncommon. Secondly, many farmers in my constituency no longer farm for 12 months a year as farming simply will not sustain them. They usually work for four or five months a year on their farms and undertake contract work to keep themselves and their families for the remainder of the year.
That is an appalling situation. What is to be done about plummeting incomes, declining numbers and severely depleted morale? The answer is that we must construct a fair deal for farmers, which should be characterised by three principal themes. First, there is an urgent and compelling case for slashing—I use the word advisedly—red tape. Lord Haskins, chairman of the better regulation taskforce conceded that this country is too eager to implement European Union directives and regulations that have an impact on British agriculture. Eighty per cent. of rules relating to environmental matters originate in the European Union, and we are too prescriptive about the means of implementation. Typically, we take "insufficient account" of British interests, which gravely damages British agriculture and that must be changed as a matter of determined public policy without delay.
Secondly, there must be honesty in labelling, so that consumers can see at a glance the country of origin and the method of production of the food that they are invited to buy. Thirdly, we need to ensure that British agriculture is protected from unfair competition—competition from countries that do not produce food to our standards, in terms of either animal welfare or protection of public health, on which Britain has traditionally prided itself. Those three themes should inform the gamut of public policy in relation to agriculture.
I shall address some of the agricultural sectors which are represented in significant numbers in my constituency and which I have had the pleasure and
56WH
experience of seeing at first hand in the past three and a half years. We need a fair deal for the arable sector. Arable farmers need to be protected urgently. Government action is required to protect them from the threat of contamination of crops. We need to ensure, as I hear again and again as I visit farms in my constituency, that the regulations relating to the washing of arable farmers' equipment are not overly burdensome or interpreted with excessive zeal. We must also do what we can to cut the price of diesel for those farmers: I am sure that the Minister is well aware that the continuing high price of diesel adds about £10,000 a year to some cereal farmers' bills.
We also need a fair deal for beef farmers. We need to ensure that the remaining conditions, and, therefore, restrictions on the export of British beef are removed. We need to promote actively, as has not hitherto been done, our own produce. We need to slash again Meat Hygiene Service charges, which remain exorbitant and a significant blight on a struggling sector that needs the hand of Government assistance and impartiality on that front. Honesty in labelling must be established, and, as beef farmers continually remind me, we need to stop unfair competition. The best and most efficacious way in which the Government can do that is to invoke article 36 of the revised treaty of Rome to prevent the import of substandard beef, the most recent examples of which come from France, although there have been many others over the years. We must ensure that we bat for our agriculture as, typically, continental Governments do for theirs.
We also need a fair deal for dairy farmers. The quota settlement under the common agricultural policy of Britain's dairy farmers is pitiful and risible. Even the Prime Minister has said that the deal so far secured was "not satisfactory" and "disappointing".
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin)indicated dissent.
Mr. Bercow: The Minister chunters and shakes her head, but the position is deeply unsatisfactory. Dairy farmers in my constituency holler at me about it all the time, and I make no bones about the fact that it is the Government's fault. Farmers expect Ministers to do something about it, and not simply to wait until 2005 in the hope of crumbs descending from the table. We cannot afford to wait that long without the risk—nay, the certainty—of large numbers of dairy farmers going out of business in my constituency and across the United Kingdom.
Secondly, as a matter of public policy for the dairy sector, we need to encourage farmers co-operatives to produce, process and sell their milk, along the lines undertaken by the great continental conglomerates. I do not want to revisit the argument about the neutering of Milk Marque, but I hope that the Minister accepts that the tendency towards agri-businesses and the development of conglomerates is commonplace and growing on the continent. Measures to encourage a similar process here are necessary if a decent dairy sector is to be sustained in the future.
We also need a fair deal for pig farmers. The National Pig Association has calculated that the sector—
Mr. George Stevenson (in the Chair): Order. It is difficult to have a debate on farming in the vale of

57WH
Aylesbury by talking about general farming policy. I am sure that all the factors that the hon. Gentleman is discussing are relevant to the vale of Aylesbury, and that he will refer to that.
Mr. Bercow: I most certainly shall, Mr. Stevenson, and I am sorry if I have somehow fallen foul of your exhortations. However, I emphasise the fact that the individuals whom I consulted in my preparations for this debate were conscious that each of the sectors to which I have referred are affected.
I am glad that I have been given the opportunity to remind hon. Members that I met Mr. James King of Cowley farm in Preston Bissett, which is near Buckingham in the northern area of my constituency. He is a decent, hard-working, effective and talented pig farmer—I congratulate him on his imminent wedding—who suffers under the depredations of the Government. He is concerned that he faces a big loss—for reasons of confidentiality, hon. Members would not expect me to disclose precisely what his balance sheet is; suffice it to say that Mr. King has been severely hit.
There has been an exodus of people—about 25,000—from the sector in the past two years, with the prospect of a similar exodus unless efficacious action is taken in the next two years. Mr. King told me that there must be honesty in labelling and that, if his farm is to have the chance of survival, we must be prepared to restrict or prevent the import of pigmeat that does not satisfy our standards. He appealed for the review of integrated pollution prevention controls to ensure that they do not adversely discriminate against our pig sector relative to those of our continental counterparts. Those are issues of pressing concern in the south, north, east and west of my constituency.
It is commonly held that some restructuring of agriculture is required, including in my constituency, but we need to think afresh. There is a requirement for diversification. The Minister will know from her visits that many farmers across the country are willing to entertain the prospect of diversification. However, they need some guidance, encouragement and the prospect of their hopes being fulfilled.
From visits around my constituency, especially during the past 12 months, I have learned that there is an interest in and a desire to preserve the business rate concession on the letting of accommodation of up to six lets. Farmers who are struggling to make a decent income should be encouraged, if they are willing, to let a property commercially, which is to the advantage of many people who cannot afford to purchase property in the vale of Aylesbury. I hope that the Minister can assure me that the concession will remain.
I cheekily invite the Minister to consider another proposal, which is that we should relax the planning controls on the conversion of farm buildings. A threshold could be set; I have seen many such developments in my constituency, typically of around 1,500 sq ft. Let people have the chance to convert to different types of businesses, so that farmers who want to leave the sector can do so, and farmers who want to share their time between farming and other activities and so prop up their incomes can do so. Diversification is important.
When I address Young Farmers meetings in my constituency, and especially when I listen to what those who attend them have to say, an issue that arises again
58WH
and again is the attraction of young people into farming and the prevention of the exodus of those currently in it. We need a fair deal for young farmers. I put it to the Minister that it would be good if there could be some sort of pension arrangement for tenant farmers in this country, perhaps funded from the rural development regulation. That would give people an incentive to leave the sector and create an opening for youngsters to enter the industry. That subject came up at a recent question-and-answer session in Buckingham. The Minister will be aware that the average age of farmers is 58 and rising. I would like that to be changed. That is not an ageist observation; it is true in my patch, as I am simply citing the evidence. The Minister and I have nothing against farmers of mature years, but we would like to think that young people will come into the sector. The proposal that I outlined would be one way to give them their chance.
An NFU officer from Haddenham in my constituency suggested to me that there should be a siphon of milk, sheep and suckler disposals to provide finance to attract young people into the sector—young people, I emphasise—who are industrious, able and ambitious for a career in farming, but who happen not to possess money. We all know that, traditionally, a person's chances of entering and remaining in the sector have been dependent on money—on having the backing of capital, buildings and land. I would like to think that the sector could be opened to people who lack such assets, but who can help to maintain British agriculture as a thriving part of British industry.
The Minister is an agreeable individual, but the record of the Government is deeply disagreeable from the point of view of farmers in my locality. The verdicts of some of them on the Administration's record for the past 43 months are unprintable. That record is characterised by indifference, disdain and contempt, but, even now, it is not too late for the Minister to repent, admit error and seek clemency from rural Britain. Above all, she should go back to the drawing board and come up with a package of robust, credible and attractive policies to help all sectors of British agriculture. In my humble and modest way, I have tried to offer the Minister the key to the survival of British farming and her own personal redemption. I shall now sit in eager anticipation, with bated breath and beads of sweat on my brow, to hear her reply.
1.16 pm
The Minister of State, Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Ms Joyce Quin): First, as is traditional, I congratulate the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on securing the debate and on introducing a topic of great interest to him and, as I hope he appreciates, to me. He began by referring to the many questions that have been tabled on agricultural issues and the large number of Adjournment debates on such subjects. I concur in that observation, since I seem to have responded to many of the questions and a considerable number of Adjournment debates.
The hon. Gentleman's concerns are wide ranging. I appreciate that he has spoken from his constituency experience and with reference to the vale of Aylesbury, but he will appreciate that, given the number of issues that he raised, many of which have been debated in the wider agricultural context, it will be impossible in 15

59WH
minutes to discuss every aspect of what he said about the future of farming. However, I am sure that he and his hon. Friends will, as in the past, detect all the parliamentary opportunities to pursue those issues.
The hon. Gentleman will not be surprised that I do not accept some of his strictures against the Government. Certainly with respect to CAP reform and, indeed, tackling red tape, the Government have done more in the past three years than Conservative Governments did in 20. Also, I reject any charge of indifference, or of lack of concern or of policy with respect to the future of such an important sector of our economy. That is far from the case. Ministers have both a short-term and a long-term strategy for agriculture, and they take great personal interest in what is happening, in their regional and constituency visits.
We are very aware of the extent of the crisis in agriculture. I do not dispute the statistics with which the hon. Gentleman began his speech, about the reduction in farming incomes and the personal and financial difficulties that farmers have experienced as a result. Indeed, I recently met representatives of the Arthur Rank Centre, which, as the hon. Gentleman will know, is involved in the establishment of the rural stress network throughout the country, to provide support to farmers. That is in addition to the various financial support measures that I want to mention.
The hon. Gentleman will certainly not disagree when I say that agriculture is highly supported by public expenditure, whatever else one might say about it. There may be common ground between the present and the previous Governments on the issue of whether that money—most of which relates to expenditure under Europe's common agriculture policy—is wisely spent. The sector is highly supported and there is no question of there not being a public commitment to help it. In addition to some £3 billion that comes in direct support from the common agricultural policy each year, the Government have given not far from an extra £1 billion to ensure that farming is in a better state to face the future and the long term.
The hon. Gentleman raised several issues. I will refer to both the short-term strategy for agriculture pursued by the Government and some of the longer term measures—especially diversification and forward-looking measures for the future—relating to issues that he mentioned towards the end of his speech.
The Government have paid out a considerable amount of support in agrimonetary compensation to the agricultural sector. The hon. Gentleman—he seems to be having a conversation, but I am sure that he is listening to my reply—is concerned about the dairy industry. We have given that industry the maximum amount available to us under agrimonetary compensation and have introduced several measures specifically to help it, including the removal of the over30-months scheme weight limit, on which many dairy farmers in his area and in others had lobbied Ministers.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the break-up of Milk Marque, which has caused much concern to farmers. However, I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree with me that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry made a welcome statement on
60WH
that subject, in which he said that the successors to Milk Marque would be able to get involved in processing and vertical integration. The hon. Gentleman, understandably, referred to some of the large conglomerates in the European Union, many of which are involved in processing. The successors to Milk Marque are considering some of the patterns of co-operation and collaboration that exist elsewhere in the European market.
The hon. Gentleman also referred to Meat Hygiene Service charges and the situation in respect of abattoirs. That area is mainly the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency, but I assure him that Ministers are concerned about the health of the agricultural sector. Important to that sector's health is the availability of a range of abattoirs and the costs of that system, which are broadly comparable to those elsewhere in Europe. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will welcome the Government's acceptance of the recommendations made in the Maclean report on abattoirs, which is good news, especially for small and medium-sized abattoirs that serve several rural areas. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will recognise, too, that the Government have taken a number of measures for the removal of existing charges or the deferral of proposed charges to help the abattoir sector and, through that, individual farmers, including those in his constituency.
The hon. Gentleman made great mention of red tape. That does not surprise me, although I must point out to him that the spectacular growth in red tape occurred very much in the lifetime of the previous Government. Given that he was trying to blame the Government for agriculture's red tape problems, it is reasonable for me to respond by saying that that was not the case. Having been a member of the Agriculture Committee of the European Parliament about 15 years ago, I was astonished when I became an Agriculture Minister at Westminster to discover the growth of red tape during the intervening period. It has been a real problem and I am not surprised that farmers have complained bitterly about it. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman would not decry necessary rules to guarantee hygiene and health standards, but there has been a growth in farm bureaucracy, which we are determined to tackle.
Understandably, the hon. Gentleman referred to the report for which Lord Haskins was responsible. Its recommendations are welcome and the Government will be responding to them within the deadline. Lord Haskins' report is not the only initiative that has been taken up to combat red tape. My right hon. Friend the Minister set up several working groups to consider red tape as it affected farmers in particular sectors, including the integrated administration and control system, meat inspection and the intervention system with which farmers are much concerned. Several measures have already been introduced as a result of those red tape reviews. For example, of the 29 recommendations that required administrative action to be taken on intervention, 22 have already been implemented and progress is being made on a further three. Of the 29 recommendations concerning inspections of the integrated administration and control system, progress is being made on 26 As for the meat industry, 32 of the 35 recommendations were accepted.
I stress to the hon. Gentleman that the red tape initiative was very much the result of the Government acting together with the industry. There was industry

61WH
representation on each of the review groups. While we have taken action on those recommendations that can be progressed domestically within the United Kingdom, the hon. Gentleman will understand that, because we are part of a common agriculture policy, it has been important to pursue some of the recommendations at EU level, and that we are doing.
I am also pleased to report that, whatever the shortcomings of the common agricultural policy—of which there are many—our desire for an attack to be made on red tape and for a greater simplification of the system is now widely shared in the European Union. At the Agriculture Council meeting in October, there was general agreement by the Commissioner, Franz Fischler, and the majority of delegations around the table that we needed a wide-ranging simplification of the CAP rules and regulations to help farmers throughout the European Union.
The hon. Gentleman referred to the need for honesty in labelling. Labelling is now the responsibility of the Food Standards Agency, but, before the agency was created, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food had made significant progress. For example, the work of the verification officer in the Ministry led to the changing of labels in some of our leading supermarkets. Labels are now a good deal more accurate than they used to be, and that includes origin labelling, especially on meat. Evidence shows that consumers are looking increasingly for such labelling. Some misleading examples of origin labelling have been tackled successfully by our verification officer. The Minister also issued guidance to local trading standards officers, and we have monitored its implementation.
We have also worked with the industry and organisations such as the NFU and the Women's Food and Farming Union, all of which have actively pursued the labelling issue. As a result, there is much greater honesty in the labelling system.

M25 Parkway Station (Stevenage and Hertfordshire)
1.30 pm
Barbara Follett: I am grateful for the opportunity to raise a matter that is of considerable concern to my constituents and many others in Hertfordshire. The cause of this concern is Great North Eastern Railway's bid to renew its franchise to operate inter-city services on the east coast main line. If GNER wins the franchise, it proposes to build a large out-of-town multi-platform parkway station on a greenfield site at Hadley Wood, at the junction of the M25 and the AIM, near Potters Bar, in Hertfordshire.
At first glance, the proposal seems eminently sensible. The large, low-cost car park that such a station would provide would be welcomed by Hertfordshire commuters who are eager to travel to London by train, but are compelled to reach the station by car because of the paucity of bus services in the many villages and small towns that dot the county. London's overburdened roads and polluted air would also benefit from commuters leaving their cars at Hadley Wood and travelling to the city by train. However, a longer and more careful look at the proposal reveals flaws that cause my constituents and many others in the county much concern. That concern has nothing to do with the concept of a parkway station, which my constituents are wholly in favour of, and everything to do with its proposed siting at the southern end of the county at Hadley Wood, just on the M25.
First, the proposed siting would shift the centre of gravity of Hertfordshire's transport system to the very edge of London. It is also contrary to the county council's strategy, which bases long-distance rail services at the two railheads at Watford and Stevenage. At present, Stevenage, which is about 16 miles further down the line than Potters Bar, is the first stop after London for most inter-city trains that use the east coast main line. If the proposal were implemented, the first stop would be Potters Bar, and no fast train worthy of the name would also stop 16 miles later at Stevenage.
Secondly, additional traffic would be drawn into an already congested area of south Hertfordshire, which includes a stretch of the M25 for which there are no proposals for improvement or widening. Some of that additional traffic would come from Stevenage itself because, as I said, no fast train worthy of the name would stop at both Stevenage and Hadley Wood.
Caroline Flint: Is my hon. Friend aware that GNER envisages that the introduction of parkways will not involve a reduction in services to stations such as Stevenage and Doncaster, for which a parkway is also planned? Does she agree that Ministers involved in granting franchises to rail operators should perhaps establish a condition that services to mainline stations such as Stevenage and Doncaster must not be adversely affected by the introduction of parkways?
Barbara Follett: I agree. However, although Doncaster can perhaps survive with a parkway station, I shall argue that Stevenage cannot.
Thirdly, the proposal would downgrade Stevenage station. Instead of being one of Hertfordshire's major gateways for long-distance and local routes, it would

63WH
become a small, provincial siding. That would be a terrible pity for a town that has experienced significant growth in recent years. It would betray the vision of the planners who built Stevenage as the first post-war new town and designed it to be a centre for high-tech industry. The proposed development to the west of the town means that the population is set to grow from around 79,000 to an estimated 92,500 in 2016.
Fourthly, the new parkway at Hadley Wood would significantly retard the regeneration of Stevenage town centre, which, despite valiant efforts by the local council, is beginning to show signs of wear and tear. After all, the town was built 55 years ago, and after 55 years of heavy use it could do with some serious refurbishment—like most of us of that generation.
Fifthly, the proposal would have a negative effect on the economy of the town and its surrounding area. Stevenage is only just recovering from the recessions of the late 1980s, which took unemployment to a peak of 12 per cent. in 1993. In the late 1980s, Stevenage suffered the equivalent of five pit closures in respect of job losses. In the early 1990s, when I first came to the town, I found families with three generations unemployed. That had a devastating effect on the people of Stevenage and their self-confidence. There is still deprivation and suffering in the town. Its unemployment rate of 2 per cent., although low, is the highest in Hertfordshire.
The recent closure of Vauxhall's passenger car-making facility at Luton, where 274 of my constituents are—or were—employed, means that we have to do all that we can to attract new businesses into the area and to provide the right climate for the expansion of those that are already there. The siting of Hertfordshire's parkway station on the M25 would do the exact opposite.
Stevenage train station is situated in the heart of the town—next to the bus depot, in the middle of a shopping centre and next to a new leisure complex. It is also at the heart of the town's current and future economic success. It allows Stevenage companies easy access to a large pool of labour from the surrounding towns and villages—the town has a net inflow of commuters—and gives local people direct and quick rail access to London, Cambridge and the north. That reduces congestion on the AIM to the south and north of Stevenage and allows a freer movement of goods and commercial vehicles between Hertfordshire and the rest of the county. It also allows the continuing development of the Cambridge-Stevenage corridor, which is being actively promoted by the East of England development agency. The agency has identified Stevenage as a town with the potential to develop a high-tech cluster of new employment. If Stevenage loses its direct link to London and the rest of Britain, I fear that its potential will never be realised.
My fears are shared by local businesses, many of which have lobbied me. As many hon. Members will know, Glaxo Wellcome's Stevenage site contains the biggest research and development facility in Europe. An executive recently told me:
The reason that the company chose the Stevenage site was the excellent communications links with the rest of the country.
64WH
He went on to say that the removal of the station
could have a detrimental effect on future inward investment for business in the town.
Stevenage has many insurance companies and businesses that employ a large number of people. An executive from Norwich Union told me:
Not to have a mainline station here would be a disaster. We have offices in Norwich, York and Perth and in most cases it would mean people driving to Peterborough to pick up a train, which would increase traffic—
especially on the already congested A1M. He went on to say that
it would be a point to consider when looking at expansion.
Matra BAE Dynamics, one of Stevenage's biggest employers, told me:
An M25 Parkway station would make it hard for us to be a green employer. We would probably have to send people up to Peterborough to catch the train because of congestion on the M25.
Finally, the Hertfordshire chamber of commerce wrote:
Many of our 450 companies rely on the rail service for their business needs…it is wholly beneficial to the future strategy of local and government policy that any parkway development should be based in Stevenage.
I agree with the business people of Stevenage and the surrounding area. The parkway station should be built in Stevenage and not at Hadley Wood. That decision would have national as well as local benefits. First, it is more environmentally sound. If the station were built at Stevenage, it would be on a brownfield site, but the Hadley Wood site is greenfield and development would, possibly, eat into the green belt.
Secondly, the decision to build the station at Stevenage would cause less congestion on the county's already over-burdened road network. Being a new town, Stevenage has a planned internal transport system. Although the parkway station would generate more traffic on the A1M, that traffic would be travelling contraflow at peak hours, and there are existing proposals to widen the section of road affected.
Thirdly, it makes sense to direct resources to a scheme that promotes the Government's twin aims of urban regeneration and integrated transport. Finally, Stevenage borough council is at an advanced stage in the process of investigating the feasibility of moving the existing bus depot, and integrating it with the existing train station to create a combined bus-rail centre. The new centre would provide easy access to the town and the leisure park with a concourse built over the main road. The concourse would contain shops, cafes, newsagents, waiting-lounge areas, toilets and showers. There would be plenty of room for short and long-stay car parks, park-and ride facilities and cycle storage. The new development could also include a hotel, offices, commercial and even some residential units. The planning for that is advanced. In other words, Stevenage is ready and willing to have a parkway station.
With the Great North road running straight through it, the town has been a transport gateway since Roman times. In his diaries, Pepys describes travelling to the north through Stevenage. It is no accident that Dick Turpin was based just outside Stevenage—he knew where to fleece the customers. However, modern day Stevenage is not into highway robbery. We want to

65WH
ensure that the whole county benefits and prospers. If we put the Hertfordshire parkway station on the M25, it would seriously affect the ability to attract new business and would restrict the ability of existing businesses to expand.
An M25 parkway station would also positively promote more car travel in Hertfordshire, which would be disastrous in a county that already has one of the highest levels of car ownership in the country. I wholeheartedly support the measures that the Government are taking to reduce the number of car journeys. I beg them to take into account the effect of an M25 parkway station on that laudable aim. A decision must be made on the franchise in 2001. I urge the Government, for the sake of the people, the economy and the environment of Stevenage and Hertfordshire, to do all that they can to prevent the siting of a parkway station in the southern tip of the county, near the M25. They should seriously consider the advantages of moving the station to Stevenage.
1.43 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Keith Hill): I begin, as is customary, by congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage (Barbara Follett) on securing the debate. As ever, she has proved herself to be a most hard-working constituency Member and an outstanding advocate of the interests of her constituents. I also note that my hon. Friend the Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. Mc Walter) and the hon. Member for Hertford and Stortford (Mr. Wells) are in their places and, doubtless, were in sympathetic mode.
For the second time in recent debates, I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Don Valley (Caroline Flint) on her tireless campaigning efforts on behalf of her constituents, although I remind her that the responsibility for granting franchises lies with the franchise director and not Ministers.
My hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Twigg) raised the subject of the Hadley Wood parkway station in a similar debate on 19 January 2000. I say, as I did then, that there are no firm plans at this stage for a new M25 parkway station.
To set the scene, I want to outline our strategic approach to the railways and the east coast main line before returning to the Hertfordshire issues. We set up the Strategic Rail Authority with the specific aim of looking at the long-term development of the railway network. In our 10-year plan we have provided unprecedented resources for railway development. The SRA, in its current shadow format, is taking forward an extensive franchise replacement exercise, which will, in return for long franchises of up to 20 years, bring in important improvements to train services. That focus of public and private resources and expertise will take the railways into a new era.
On the east coast main line, Railtrack already has in hand an exciting programme of improvements. In the east of England, that will result in a four-track route all the way from London to Peterborough. That additional capacity will create the opportunity for a significant number of additional train services. To develop those services the SSRA has the franchise replacement of the
66WH
present GNER services well in hand. It has also initiated the Thameslink 2000 franchise replacement exercise for regional trains through London from Bedford, Peterborough and King's Lynn. All those services are important for Hertfordshire and many will use the east coast main line.
In carrying out the franchising replacement process, the SSRA is consulting widely, at various stages in the exercise. The franchising director is consulting, among others, local authorities, regional planning bodies, regional development agencies and rail passengers' committees.
By that means the SSRA is keeping people and organisations informed and also learning about aspirations for rail service development. The SSRA will obviously have to work with Railtrack, the rail regulator and the train operating companies to balance these aspirations with the resources available to create a comprehensive service pattern for all users on routes such as the east coast main line.
I shall speak now about the current position on the inter-city east coast franchise. The House will be aware that my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister has asked the SSRA, through the franchising director' s instructions and guidance, to deliver improvements through renegotiation and replacement of the terms of franchise agreements.
When considering renegotiation and replacement proposals, we asked the franchising director to give due weight to commitments in six issue areas: first, current performance, customer services, innovation, investment and efficiency; secondly, new or earlier investment; thirdly, securing better performance; fourthly, initiatives to promote integrated transport; fifthly, a willingness to give passengers a greater voice in the level and standard of services; and finally, value for the taxpayer. The franchising director has received best and final offers from Sea Containers, the parent company of GNER, and Virgin Rail, in conjunction with Stagecoach, for replacement of the inter-city east coast franchise. These are now under consideration. I cannot say when a decision will be made, but the franchising director is looking for assurances of better performance, more investment and expansion of network capacity and improvements for passengers, which he believes are deliverable.
Caroline Flint: In the guidance provided to the franchising director, would ensuring integrated transport include the protection of inter-city services at existing main line stations if parkways were developed?
Mr. Hill: One of the criteria that we expect the franchising director to examine in looking at franchise proposals is obviously the element of integrated transport, but there is no presumption in favour of one or another aspect of transport integration and certainly no presumption in favour of particular projects within the franchise proposals.
The M25 parkway station is one of the new parkway stations proposed as part of Sea Containers' bid. As I said, no decision on the replacement of the intercity east coast franchise has been taken. Even if Sea Containers' bid were successful, implementation of the proposal for a parkway station would still be dependent on local

67WH
planning consents, which may require a Transport and Works Act 1992 application. Careful consideration would need to be given to a number of important issues including planning, transport and wider environmental and economic development implications, before any parkway station could be approved. If a parkway station proposal were to be adopted as part of a franchise commitment, planning permission and full local consultation would be required.
Meetings to discuss the M25 parkway proposals were in the process of being confirmed with the Government Office for the East of England, Hertfordshire county council, Stevenage borough council, Hertsmere borough council, Welwyn Hatfield district council and North Hertfordshire district council, but the proposals were put on hold due to the Hatfield tragedy. A meeting is now planned to discuss the matter further, as early as possible next year.
We are keen to encourage integrated transport proposals that are designed to encourage people to travel by public transport and to reduce the need to travel by car. I understand that Sea Containers' proposal is intended to encourage a modal shift from car and air travel to rail travel and to allow a seamless transfer between transport modes. GNER believes that the parkway stations would considerably reduce long-distance car usage, thereby reducing road and motorway congestion and associated pollution problems.
We are keen also to improve the quality of rail services. Sea Containers believes that the parkway stations would make long-distance rail travel more accessible and attractive. The parkway stations would be served by a planned new fleet of high-speed trains. I understand that GNER's stations would be airport-style in design, and built to accommodate the needs of all passengers, including those with special needs.
Parkways are not, in common parlance, park-and-ride facilities, as their prime purpose is not to develop short-distance, commuter services. Rather, they provide important gateways to new markets and communities that currently find it difficult to access fast passenger rail services between the north and the south. They build on existing rail provision, rather than detract from it.
I am aware that, for the east of England, Peterborough and Stevenage are currently the key railway stations for passenger access to east coast inter-city services. In Hertfordshire's rail prospectus, which was submitted with the local transport plan in July, the county council made it clear that its strategy for access to long distance rail services would continue to be based on two railheads—at Stevenage for the east coast and Watford for the west coast. Although there has been little analysis of the full effects of an M25 parkway station, the county's initial impression is that it is not ideally suited for Hertfordshire users, and it therefore opposes the proposal. In the council's view, an M25 parkway station would be likely to have a negative impact on service levels at Stevenage, where the council is looking for long-distance services to be developed.
68WH
In its rail prospectus, Hertfordshire set out its ideas for the significant development of Stevenage station, with a bus-rail interchange, parking and station facilities, as my hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage pointed out. The council is keen to work in partnership with train operators, Railtrack and others to create a quality interchange facility. The refranchising process will establish long-term train operators who will, in their turn, be keen to work with partners to develop the railway.
In the local transport plan settlement announced last week, we increased Hertfordshire's block allocation from £5 million in 2000–01 to £12.5 million for 2001–02, with similar annual levels of expenditure over the five-year period. Deciding which projects to pursue is a matter for the county council, according to the priorities set out in the local transport plan, but those considerable extra resources will enable it to plan integrated transport schemes with confidence.
I am aware that GNER objected to the deposit draft of the Hertsmere local plan on the ground that it did not include the provision of a parkway station on green-belt land to the north of Hadley Wood. Following a public inquiry in 1999 the inspector concluded that the plan should not be altered to meet GNER's objection. Consequently there are no provisions to include a parkway station in the proposed modifications to the plan published in September 2000.
My hon. Friend has set out clearly the issues that would need to be carefully examined should a parkway station be seriously proposed. She has emphasised the importance of Stevenage as the railhead for Hertfordshire and the east coast main line and its potential for further development as a modern, major transport interchange, well sited in an important urban area. She has pointed out clearly the differences between parkway-type stations, which take large areas of green-belt land and attract significant numbers of cars, and the potential integrated transport solution that could be created at Stevenage. In addition, there are concerns about the dilution effect of parkway stations on the level of service at other important stations in Hertfordshire.
The issues that I have outlined would all need thorough examination should a parkway station scheme be proposed. A full analysis of all the pros and cons would be needed. Clearly, such a scheme would not accord with the local plan in the Hadley Wood area. That is something that any promoter would have to consider carefully.
I reiterate that GNER's proposal must be regarded, for the present, as an option, not as a firm package that can be implemented without further consultation and the most detailed analysis.
Mr. Tony McWalter: Does my hon. Friend accept that it would be appropriate for his Department to be slightly more proactive about the relationship between car use and train use? Leaving things to Railtrack and the operators has often resulted in a higgledy-piggledy system with overpriced car parks and massive disincentives to people to get out of their cars and into trains.
Mr. Hill: I take the point, and that is why, through the Transport Act 2000, we are establishing the new Strategic Rail Authority, which will, as its name implies, take a strategic role in the development of the rail network.
My hon. Friend the Member for Stevenage has set out in her speech the wide range of concerns that are entertained at district and county level. It is important that the new railway that we are creating meets users' needs. We are keen to achieve the maximum use of the
70WH
railways, as a cornerstone of our integrated transport policy. Obviously, a great deal of work would need to be done if the new train operator on the east coast main line wanted to pursue the project of an M25 parkway station. I hope that I have been able to reassure my hon. Friend that any decision would be taken only after the most detailed investigation and consultation.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at three minutes to Two o 'clock.

DEFENCE

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Shaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the training being provided for the Sierra Leone Army. [143683]

  Mr. Hoon
  The training is going well, and trainees completed the fourth short-term training team course on 15 December. Soldiers from 2 Royal Gurkha Rifles have now deployed to run the next course, taking over from 1st Prince of Wales Own Regiment. They will be deploying with additional trainers to conduct the continuation and refresher training that we announced in October.

  In addition, we are making preparations for the short-term deployment of a surgical team to Sierra Leone to cover the possibility of a gap in medical cover due to the roulement of UN troops. We would hope to be able to continue to draw on the medical facilities provided by UNAMSIL, for whose support we are most grateful, but it is essential to ensure that emergency cover is in place. The team will be withdrawn as soon as possible once alternative arrangements are available.

  Together, these deployments will mean an increase in UK forces on the ground in Sierra Leone to between 550 and 600.

  Nuclear Submarines
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence for what reason four Upholder class nuclear-powered submarines were removed from active service between 1994 and 1995; what plans he has for these submarines; and if he will make a statement. [142172]

  Dr. Moonie
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer Lord Robertson, the then Secretary of State for Defence, gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Wentworth (Mr. Healey) on 6 April 1998,Official Report, column 56W, and to my answers to the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock) on 23 October 2000, Official Report,

  Date

  Type/registration

  Operator

  Origin

  Destination

  Number of PAX

  Customs

  Immigration

  Airport (£)

  Airport

  23/12/1999

  Gessna Citation G-

  West Jets Ltd.

  Staverton

  Inverness

  —

  1—

  1—

  124.44

  1—

  06/01/2000

  Gulfstream 4 G-HARF

  Fayair Jersey

  Stansted

  Manston

  —

  1—

  1—

  604.44

  1—

  03/03/2000

  HS125 G-OMGD

  Lynton Aviation

  Bristol

  Luton

  —

  1—

  1—

  231.11

  1—

  06/03/2000

  Cessna Citation G-

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  106.66

  1—

  27/03/2000

  Cessna Citation G-

  London Executive

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  134.92

  1—

  30/03/2000

  Beech 200 G-BPPM

  Gamma Aviation

  Glasgow

  Aberdeen

  —

  1—

  1—

  106.66

  1—

  30/03/2000

  Cessna Citation G-

  London Executive

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  134.92

  1—

  30/03/2000

  Cessna Citation G-

  London Executive

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  134.92

  1—

  02/05/2000

  Cessna 550 G-JCFR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  84.83

  1—

  03/05/2000

  Antonov 124 RA

  Heavylift Stansted

  St. Louis

  Shannon

  —

  2—

  2—

  7,693.31

  1—

  12/05/2000

  Piper PA 31 G-MAXI

  Centreline Air Charter

  Inverness

  Bristol Fitton

  —

  1—

  1—

  63.74

  1—

  02/06/2000

  Cessna 550 G-JCFR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Northolt

  Blackpool

  1

  1—

  1—

  84.83

  1—

  05/06/2000

  Gulfstream 4 G-HARF

  Hatfiad Aviation

  Stansted

  Stansted

  0

  1—

  1—

  604.44

  1—

  06/06/2000

  Cessna 500 EC-HFY

  Premier Aviation

  Bournemouth

  Bale (France)

  1

  2—

  1—

  109.34

  1—

  12/06/2000

  Jet Provost G-UNNY

  Plane Pictures

  Hatfield

  Hatfield

  0

  1—

  1—

  109.34

  1—

  90W
  column 30W, and the hon. Member for New Forest, East (Dr. Lewis) on 31 October 2000, Official Report, column 341W. The decision to dispose of the four Upholder class conventionally powered (diesel-electric) submarines was taken in 1993, following a reassessment of strategic requirements after the end of the cold war.

  After an extensive marketing campaign an agreement was reached with Canada in the form of an eight-year lease with an option of outright purchase. The submarines will be refurbished (reactivated) prior to handover to Canada.

  The first of the submarines was handed over to Canada on 6 October 2000 and the remaining submarines will follow over the next 18 months.

  DERA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list in each of the past 12 months to 30 November the movements of private commercial aircraft at the DERA Boscombe Down airfield by(a) date, (b) type of aircraft, (c) owner, (d) operator, (e) origin of flight, (f) destination of flight, (g) number of passengers, (h) attendance of HM Customs and Excise, (i) attendance of Home Office Immigration and Nationality officials, (j) airport charges levied and (k) national airport taxes levied. [141361]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]: This is a matter for the Chief Executive of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency. I have asked the Chief Executive to write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 19 December 2000:
  I am replying to your Parliamentary question about the movements of private commercial aircraft at the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA) airfield at Boscombe Down.
  The information that you requested, such that we are able to provide, is detailed in the attachment to this letter. We have not included civil aircraft using the airfield on MOD business since charges are not levied on these. Neither have private aircraft using the airfield for leisure or sporting purposes, such as those of the Boscombe Down based flying club, been included. We do not have information on the owners of aircraft, only their operators. The information on numbers of passengers is somewhat incomplete since we are only required to keep this information for six months. Customs and immigration tasks are undertaken on behalf of the authorities by designated DERA Boscombe Down staff on the understanding that the appropriate authorities are notified in advance of air movements. Airport charges are levied in accordance with Ministry of Defence instructions. There is no requirement to levy a national airport tax.
  I hope the above explains the situation.
  91W

  Date

  Type/registration

  Operator

  Origin

  Destination

  Number of PAX

  Customs

  Immigration

  Airport (£)

  Airport

  15/06/2000

  Beech Kingair F-

  Premier Aviation

  Paris

  Paris

  1

  2—

  1—

  109.34

  1—

  07/07/2000

  Piper PA 34 G-WIZO

  Centreline Air Charter

  Bristol

  Inverness

  2

  1—

  1—

  36.35

  1—

  10/07/2000

  Beechcraft G-SBAS

  Gamma Aviation

  Aberdeen

  Aberdeen

  Medeyac

  1—

  1—

  72.89

  1—

  03/08/2000

  HS125 G/NCFR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Hawarden

  Madrid

  1

  2—

  1—

  254.50

  1—

  10/08/2000

  Cessna 550 G-JCFR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Blackpool

  Blackpool

  1

  1—

  1—

  84.83

  1—

  17/08/2000

  Cessna 550 G-JCFR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Blackpool

  Blackpool

  1

  1—

  1—

  84.83

  1—

  24/08/2000

  Cessna 560 G-CZAR

  Chauffair Farnborough

  Blackpool

  Blackpool

  1

  1—

  1—

  127.25

  1—

  12/09/2000

  Cessna 501 G-FLVU

  AD Aviation Ltd.

  Harwarden

  Harwarden

  1

  1—

  1—

  117.84

  1—

  27/09/2000

  Piper PA 30 G-AVUD

  FA Aviation

  Biggin Hill

  Biggin Hill

  1

  1—

  1—

  44.94

  1—

  24/11/2000

  Falcon CSDNP

  NET Jets Portugal

  Luton

  Isle of Man

  2

  2—

  1—

  273.36

  1—

  1 Not required

  2 Informed

  Lynx Helicopters
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many Lynx helicopters have had their rotor heads rectified and are now available for operational deployment. [143335]

  Mr. Spellar
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 28 November 2000,Official Report, column 492W.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if his Department has now decided whether to convert the remaining Mark 3 Lynx helicopters to Mark 4 standard; and if he will make a statement. [143349]

  Mr. Spellar
  No decisions on the remaining conversions have yet been made.

  Merlin Helicopter
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will make a statement on the consequences for the coming into service of the Merlin helicopter of the recent loss of a Merlin aircraft. [143332]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Merlin HM Mk1 achieved its defined In-Service Date in March 1999 on delivery of the twelfth aircraft. Production continues and deliveries are scheduled until March 2002 when aircraft number 44 is due.

  Following the recent accident involving a Royal Navy Merlin Mk 1, military flying of Merlin was suspended pending the results of the accident investigation and Board of Inquiry (BOI).

  A combined Ministry of Defence and industry review team has completed a thorough analysis of airworthiness and recommended an early resumption of flying, subject to the successful completion of the current programme of checks and inspections. A phased resumption of flying is expected to commence this week once individual aircraft are cleared for flight through a process of physical and documentary checks.

  The temporary suspension of flying activities has delayed the achievement of the required training flying rate and introduced a six week delay to the aircraft clearances issued by the Defence Evaluation Research Agency (Boscombe Down). Both delays are at present manageable.

  The Merlin Mk 3 met its In-Service Date in June 2000 on delivery of the sixth aircraft and is currently undergoing a programme of Military Aircraft Release trials. As a result of the accident involving the Merlin
  92W
  Mk 1, the official handover ceremony at RAF Benson that was planned for November 2000 has been postponed and will not rescheduled until the resumption of military flying. However, it is currently assessed that the Merlin Mk 3 will enter operational service with a basic military capability in June 2002, as planned.

  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if the Merlin helicopter can provide sufficient sea-to-land lift capability for future amphibious operations. [143333]

  Mr. Spellar
  The Royal Navy's Merlin Mk1 aircraft is primarily an organic Anti-Submarine Warfare variant of the Anglo-Italian EH101 helicopter. Although it offers some lift capability, it is unlikely to be tasked for amphibious operations. The Mk 3 aircraft, designed to carry troops or a range of vehicles or underslung loads, will provide a major element of the Joint Helicopter Command's support helicopter capability. However, it is designed for use in battlefield, and not amphibious, operations. The UK's current amphibious lift capability is provided by the Sea King Mk 4, with occasional support from the RAF Chinook Mks 2 and 2A, while a small-scale lift capability is provided by the maritime Lynx Mks 3 and 8.

  It is currently planned that the Support, Amphibious and Battlefield Rotorcraft (SABR) programme will provide the UK's future medium and heavy amphibious and battlefield lift capability from 2009. A Merlin variant is one of a number of possible solutions to this programme.

  Aircraft Fuel
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how much the RAF has spent on aircraft fuel in each of the past five years; and what the RAF fuel budget is for(a) this year and (b) next year. [143051]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The amount that the RAF has spent on aircraft fuel in each of the past five years is shown in the following table:

  Year

  £ million

  1995–96

  130.98

  1996–97

  142.86

  1997–98

  119.81

  1998–99

  101.06

  1999–2000

  132.55

  93W
  The RAF fuel budget for (a) this year and the interim fuel budget (b) for next year is:

  million

  (a) 2000–01

  132.69

  (b) 2001–02

  111.71

  The amount spent on fuel varies from year to year depending on the level of flying activity, particularly on out of area (OOA) operations, changes in the numbers of aircraft, the unit price of fuel and variations in the level of stock held on stations and in the Government Pipeline and Storage System (GPSS).

  HMS Fearless
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) when he plans to withdraw HMS Fearless from service; [143072]

  (2) what the estimated cost is of the repair work to HMS Fearless; and when he expects her to return to service. [143044]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The cost of the repair work to HMS Fearless, needed as a result of the fire damage to her after machinery space, is under negotiation with Fleet Support Ltd. (FSL), the company that will undertake the work. I am therefore withholding this information in accordance with Exemption 7a(1) of the Code of Practice on Access to Government Information, which relates to the competitive position of a Department. HMS Fearless is expected to return to service in the first half of 2001. The exact date will not be known until a more accurate assessment of the work is completed by FSL by the new year.

  On current plans, HMS Fearless is due to be withdrawn from service in 2003.

  Precision-guided Munition (RAF)
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the cost is of the contract for his Department's Staff Requirement 1248 programme for a precision-guided munition for the RAF, when the contract is due to be awarded; what time scale has been set for development and production of the precision-guided munition; and if he will make a statement. [142173]

  Dr. Moonie
  The Staff Target (Air) 1248 Precision Guided Bomb project is currently in the Concept Phase and it is not possible as yet to give reliable estimates of the total programme cost. Contract award is expected to be towards the end of financial year 2000–03, or shortly thereafter. Development and Production is likely to last some three to four years depending upon the complexity of the chosen solution.

  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what guidelines his Department have set Raytheon for the integration of satellite-based global positioning system guidance into the RAF's Paveway II laser-guided bomb system; and if he will make a statement. [142174]

  Dr. Moonie
  Enhanced Paveway II bombs from Raytheon company have been selected to meet the all-weather precision guided bombing capability which 94W
  was announced in the House on 24 July as one of the immediate enhancements being made in the light of our analysis of operations in Kosovo. The company has been set accuracy requirements that the systems must achieve in all weathers, as well as a delivery schedule for the supply of equipment. The company has also been asked to demonstrate basic compatibility with the host aircraft in advance of contract signature.

  Air Defence Systems
  Mr. Quentin Davies
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what research he has(a) undertaken and (b) promoted into the integration of radar, electro-optic and acoustic seismic sensors into an air defence system; and if he will make a statement. [143340]

  Dr. Moonie
  I will write to the hon. Member and a copy of my letter will be placed in the Library of the House.

  HMS Intrepid
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the state of readiness is of HMS Intrepid; and how long it will take for her to be returned to operational service. [143050]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: HMS Intrepid is being held at a low readiness state commensurate with force levels endorsed within the Strategic Defence Review (SDR). She could, if necessary, be returned to operational service within the timeframe similarly agreed through the SDR process.

  Tornado F3
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence when he expects the whole fleet of the RAF's Tornado F3s to be equipped with AMRAAM; and how many aircraft will be so equipped. [143028]

  Dr. Moonie
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: 100 Tornado F3 aircraft are being modified to carry AMRAAM. So far 60 aircraft have been modified. The modification programme will be completed by May 2002.

  Nuclear Fleet Submarines
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if all nuclear fleet submarines currently withdrawn from service will be returned to full operational duties. [143045]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: We plan to repair all Swiftsure and Trafalgar class submarines currently withdrawn from service and return them to full operational duties.

  Commercial Airlines (Recruitment)
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what meetings he has had with the commercial airlines in the past year to discuss recruitment of former RAF and Fleet Air Arm pilots. [143026]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: My colleagues and I have had no such meetings this year. However, there is on-going contact with the airlines under the Royal Air Force Civil Airline Recruitment Scheme. In

  95W
  the light of the continuing shortage of pilots, the Government are considering a range of options to address the problem.

  Parachute Battalions
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what the(a) manpower establishments and

  1 Para

  2 Para

  3 Para

  Establishment

  Str

  Establishment

  Str

  Establishment

  Str

  Infantry:

  558

  499

  615

  575

  615

  590

  Other Infantry Cap Badges

  —

  4

  —

  8

  —

  1

  Royal Logistic Corps

  23

  19

  23

  18

  23

  18

  Royal Army Medical Corps

  4

  2

  4

  2

  4

  3

  Queen Alexandra Royal Auxiliary Nursing Corps

  1

  —

  1

  —

  1

  —

  Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers

  11

  11

  21

  21

  21

  20

  Adjutant General Corps (Staff and Personnel Support)

  22

  21

  22

  25

  22

  21

  Adjutant General Corps (PRO)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Army Physical Training Corps

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  1

  Total UK Trained Army Personnel (UKTAP)

  620

  557

  687

  651

  687

  654

  GURTAM (Gurkha Reinforcement Company)

  —

  —

  —

  117

  —

  —

  Full Time Reserve Service (FTRS)

  —

  —

  —

  1

  —

  —

  Total whole Army

  620

  557

  687

  769

  687

  654

  HMS Sheffield
  Mr. Duncan Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list HMS Sheffield's deployments over the past 12 months and the planned deployments for the next 12 months. [143031]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: HMS Sheffield only had one main overseas deployment during 2000. This was to the Baltic region between 26 May to 26 July in order to participate in Exercise BALTOPS and to conduct a series of port visits in the region to support UK's Outreach and NATO's Partnership for Peace Programmes.

  During the next 12 months, HMS Sheffield is scheduled to deploy between February and August as the Atlantic Patrol Task (North) ship. Her programme after August is still under consideration.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and the total cost to the Department of each publication. [141472]

  Dr. Moonie
  [pursuant to his reply, 13 December 2000, c. 163–64W]: The cost of producing Britain's Defence Booklet in Financial Year 1997–98 is £728 and not £728,000, as previously stated.

  Disability Living Allowance
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what action his Department is taking to improve access to Disability Living Allowance for those with a history of mental illness. [143180]
  96W
  (b) actual manning levels are for each of the three regular parachute battalions. [143030]

  Mr. Spellar
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The establishments and actual staffing levels for each of the three Regular Parachute battalions, as at 1 November 2000, are shown in the table. The figures exclude Locally Employed Personnel and Royal Irish (Home Service).

  Mr. Bayley
  We recognise that it can be difficult accurately to asses the needs of people with mental health problems, and that for some of these people the process of claiming itself can be difficult to understand and stressful. That is why people claiming Disability Living Allowance (DLA) are given six weeks to return the claim form to the Benefits Agency. Claimants with mental health problems are also encouraged to ask others, for example their carer or Community Psychiatric Nurse, for help in completing the claim form or to add comments on their behalf. In DLA/Attendance Allowance (AA), as with all benefits, claimants who are not able to manage their own affairs can have someone appointed to act on their behalf.

  When gathering information to assess a claim for DLA, decision-making staff are encouraged to contact Community Psychiatric Nurses or other healthcare professionals who may have a good understanding of an individual's personal care and support arising from their mental health problems. As part of the Disability Benefits Modernisation programme we are always considering improvements in the taking of DLA/AA claims to provide all claimants, including those with mental health problems, with the necessary support to ensure they receive their correct entitlement.

  Following recommendations from the Social Security Select Committee, we are looking at the possibility of assessing entitlement to DLA and AA in a different way—using a set of daily activities undertaken by disabled people in managing their lives as a means of assessing need. We are looking for an approach which would be more transparent, easier for disabled people to understand and could be administered with greater consistency. Clearly, we would not wish to make such a major change without clear evidence that it would lead to better assessments. Any changes would be made only after their impact on disabled people, including those with mental disabilities, had been thoroughly tested and

  97W
  discussed with the representative organisations. The new system is being developed in consultation with disability organisations.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what the average cost in administration is of(a) reviewing life awards for Disability Living Allowance and (b) appeals against the outcome of reviews of Disability Living Allowance; [142998]

  (2) how many reviews of life awards for Disability Living Allowance have been conducted in (a) Scotland and (b) the UK in each year since 1993. [142997]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is not available.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people in(a) Scotland and (b) the UK are in possession of a life award of Disability Living Allowance, broken down by rate. [142996]

  Mr. Bayley
  The information is:

  People in receipt of an indefinite award of disability living allowance in Scotland and Great Britain1

  Great Britain

  Scotland

  All awards

  1,564,100

  181,600

  Care component2

  Higher rate

  286,800

  34,500

  Middle rate

  394,400

  48,100

  Lower rate

  375,500

  41,100

  Mobility component3

  Higher rate

  1,147,500

  136,400

  Lower rate

  264,800

  30,600

  1 Figures relate to 31 May 2000. A clarification, introduced by the Welfare Reform and Pensions Act 1999, means that awards are now made "for an indefinite period" instead of "for life".

  2 Includes people who also receive the mobility component.

  3 Includes people who also receive the care component.

  Source:

  DSS Information Centre: 5 per cent. data.

  Social Security in Northern Ireland is the responsibility of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland.

  Benefit Fraud
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London Borough of Waltham Forest. [143662]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate report was published today in respect of the London Borough of Waltham Forest and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors found that Waltham Forest had clear aims to provide high quality benefit service, but this aim is not always being met. Waltham Forest had contracted out benefits administration in 1999. Since then, a backlog of work had developed on a number of occasions which meant that the requirement to process benefit claims within 14 days is not now being met and there are frequent breaks in payment.
  98W
  Weaknesses were also found in the verification of information and the testing of the accuracy and quality of the work being done. The report notes that while there were some good counter fraud practices in place, this good work is undermined by a failure properly to establish fraud, resulting in weekly benefit savings being incorrectly claimed. Inspectors consider Waltham Forest also needs to do some work to increase the levels of deterrence offered to those committing fraud.

  The report notes a number of positive aspects to Waltham Forest's performance. It provides good services for new claimants, has a good claim form and makes sure claimants make further claims at the right time.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of the London Borough of Newham. [143660]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of the London Borough of Newham and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors found that Newham had some good working practices, but the efficiency, responsiveness and security of the benefits system was compromised by a substantial backlog of work and lengthy delays. The report notes that after Newham contracted out the benefits administration in 1999, customer dissatisfaction increased sharply, remedial expenditure outweighed any savings that might have been made, and benefits work fell badly into arrears. These arrears caused further deterioration of Newham's service and prompted it to defer the introduction of the Verification Framework, leaving it at greater risk of making incorrect benefit payments.

  Inspectors found the lack of a counter fraud manager in the past and an ineffective prosecution policy have limited Newham's counter fraud work. BFI notes Newham's fraud investigations were poor and needed considerable improvement in the preparation and quality of work undertaken.

  The report notes that Newham is keenly aware of the deficiencies in the current benefits operation and has recently introduced significant improvement programmes. It has had some success working with the contractor to clear backlogs and address inefficiencies and has developed an action plan to tackle the weaknesses in countering fraud.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.
  99W
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security when he will publish the inspection report of the Benefit Fraud Inspectorate in respect of Leeds City Council. [143659]

  Mr. Rooker
  The Benefit Fraud Inspectorate (BFI) report was published today in respect of the Leeds City Council and copies of the report have been placed in the Library.

  The report provides recommendations aimed at helping the council address weaknesses and to improve the administration of Housing Benefit and Council Tax Benefit, as well as its counter fraud activities.

  Inspectors report that there is no doubting Leeds' desire to provide a good service to benefit claimants and at the time of the inspection the council was processing new claims quickly, an important component of the quality of service available to claimants. The council has, to its credit, implemented the Verification Framework; however, inspectors found that there were weaknesses in verification and consider that the council could strike a better balance between clearance rates and the need to verify claims.

  Although Leeds has implemented the Verification Framework (VF), Inspectors found there were weaknesses in verification. At the time of inspection, Leeds processed new claims quickly, which contributed significantly to the quality of service offered to claimants. Nonetheless, inspectors considered that the council could strike a better balance between clearance rates and the need to verify claims.

  Inspectors found that Leeds makes effective use of management information to manage the workload, resulting in no significant arrears of new claims. However, the report notes that the council did not renew any claims for most of 1999 as it was changing its IT system to support the implementation of VF. This created significant backlogs, contravened regulations and has potential subsidy implications for the authority.

  The BFI notes the council's commitment to tackling fraud but reports that the standard of fraud investigations is inadequate, with most investigations only scratching the surface. The report recommends that Leeds should improve the quality of its investigative work and develop a corporate counter fraud policy and strategy.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is now considering the report and will be asking the council for its proposals in response to the findings and recommendations of the BFI.

  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will publish the responses to the consultation document 'Safeguarding Social Security: Getting the information we need'. [143661]

  Mr. Rooker
  We have placed a summary of the responses in the Library and have arranged for copies to be sent to all those who replied.

  Pension Entitlement
  Mr. Drew
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) what discussions he has had with organizations 100W
  concerned with pension reforms on the subject of widows and divorcees who in remarrying are disadvantaged in terms of their pension entitlement; [143570]

  (2) what plans he has to review the system whereby widows and divorcees can be disadvantaged in terms of pension entitlement by remarrying. [143569]

  Mr. Rooker
  Pension entitlement is determined when a claim is made at state pension age. An individual's contributions do not constitute a personal fund either for themselves or a spouse. The rules on remarriage do not, therefore, cause disadvantage.

  Minimum Income Guarantee
  Mrs. Curtis-Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many(a) women over the age of 60 years and (b) men over the age of 65 years were in receipt of Income Support in each month since May 1997; [143391]

  (2) how many (a) women over the age of 60 years and (b) men over the age of 65 years were in receipt of the Minimum Income Guarantee in each month since its introduction. [143392]

  Mr. Rooker
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The information is in the table.

  Income Support/Minimum Income Guarantee recipients by age and gender, May 1997 to August 2000

  Quarter

  Men aged 65 and over

  Women aged 60 and over

  May 1997

  358.7

  1,173.9

  August 1997

  357.9

  1,168.7

  November 1997

  354.2

  1,159.5

  February 1998

  350.7

  1,146.3

  May 1998

  341.5

  1,131.5

  August 1998

  338.7

  1,125.9

  November 1998

  336.4

  1,118.2

  February 1999

  331.3

  1,101.7

  May 1999

  334.6

  1,102.2

  August 1999

  337.7

  1,101.1

  November 1999

  338.0

  1,098.4

  February 2000

  333.5

  1,082.2

  May 2000

  338.3

  1,087.0

  August 2000

  346.0

  1,100.6

  Notes:

  1. Figures are based on a 5 per cent. sample and are therefore subject to a degree of sampling error.

  2. Figures are rounded to the nearest hundred.

  3. Pensioner figures refer to male claimants aged 65 and over, and female claimants aged 60 and over.

  4. Minimum Income Guarantee commenced in April 1999.

  Source:

  Income Support Quarterly Statistical Enquiries, May 1997 to August 2000

  The table shows a downward trend until May 1999 due to pensioners receiving higher average retirement incomes. The down yard trend was halted at this point due to the introduction of the Minimum Income Guarantee and its more generous uprating formula.

  Mr. Willetts
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many pensioners have applied
  101W
  (a) successfully and (b) unsuccessfully for the Minimum Income Guarantee since the start of the take-up campaign in each Benefits Agency area. [143524]

  Mr. Rooker
  The effect of the Minimum Income Guarantee take-up campaign will not be known until it comes to a conclusion. There are thousands more claims in the pipeline, and the effects of the last stage of the campaign will impact on claims processed up to January next year.

  Winter Fuel Payments
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many calls have been received by the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline since the Chancellor's pre-Budget statement; and if he will estimate the maximum number of people who were on hold during such calls at any one time. [143093]

  Mr. Rooker
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 18 December 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many calls have been received by the Winter Fuel Payment Helpline since the Chancellor's pre-budget statement, and to estimate the maximum number of people who were on hold during such calls at any one time.
  As of 13 December, 179,050 calls have been received where the customer has spoken to an adviser. A recorded message and extended opening hours were introduced from 8 December.
  Numbers of callers on hold fluctuate from second to second, it is not possible to give an estimate of the number of people on hold at any one time.
  I hope this is helpful.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how many people have contacted the Benefits Agency this year regarding(a) overpayment and (b) underpayment of winter fuel payments; and of these, how many were from widows who have received only half of their entitlement. [143092]

  Angela Eagle
  The administration of benefits is a matter for Alexis Cleveland, the Chief Executive of the Benefits Agency. She will write to the hon. Member.

  Letter from Alexis Cleveland to Mr. Steve Webb, dated 18 December 2000:
  The Secretary of State for Social Security has asked me to respond to your recent Parliamentary Question asking how many people have contacted the Benefits Agency this year regarding (a) overpayment and (b) underpayment of winter fuel payments; and of these, how many were from widows who have received only half of their entitlement.
  The information requested is not available, as detailed information on the types of queries received is not recorded.
  I am sorry I cannot be more helpful.

  Social Security Conferences
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security how frequently senior civil servants in national departments of social security in English-speaking countries meet together in conference; when and where the last three such meetings were held; which of his officials attended those meetings; and at what cost to 102W
  public funds; what subjects were discussed; and if he will place a copy of the minutes of those meetings in the Library. [141341]

  Angela Eagle
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Meetings between the heads of social security departments in the UK, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, the United States of America and Ireland take place every 18 months. The last three meetings took place in the UK (September 2000), New Zealand (March 1999) and Ireland (September 1997).

  The Department's Permanent Secretary generally attends the meetings outside the UK, together with two senior officials who hold responsibility for the areas of work to be discussed. The UK hosted this year's meeting and additional officials attended relevant discussions. The subjects discussed vary but are generally wide-ranging.

  The cost of hosting the UK meeting was just under £60,000, which is broadly in line with the costs incurred by other countries for these meetings.

  Due to the informal nature of the meetings, and to promote frankness and candour during discussions, formal minutes are not published. This falls within Exception 2 of the Code of Practice of Access to Government Information.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  Student Finances
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when he will publish the triennial survey of student finances; [143183]

  (2) what independent academic studies his Department has commissioned into sources of student financing and student response to changes in the public student funding support package since the introduction of changes and abolition of grants following the 1997 Dearing report; what studies of this nature have been received by his Department; and when they will be published. [143184]

  Mr. Wicks
  "Changing student finances: income, expenditure and the take-up of student loans among full and part-time higher education students in 1998–99" by Claire Callender and Martin Kemp of South Bank University is due to be published on 20 December. This is the fourth in a series of roughly triennial reports on students' income and expenditure, and the first since the Dearing report. A copy will be placed in the House of Commons Library.

  The Department has also published "Students in the labour market—nature, extent and implications of term-time employment among University of Northumbria undergraduates" by Dr. Mike Barke, Paul Braidford et al of University of Northumbria in July 2000. In addition, two studies are currently under way and are expected to be completed in early 2001—"Participation in higher education by mature students" (together with Universities UK, Higher Education Funding Council for England, Higher Statistics Agency and Universities and Colleges Admissions Service) and "Participation in higher education by students from lower socio-economic groups".
  103W
  The Department is currently developing its research programme for 2001–02 which may include further research on students in higher education.

  Education (Voluntary Provision)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many voluntary sector providers of education there are. [142827]

  Jacqui Smith
  The responsibility for educating pupils who are unable to attend school rests with local education authorities. They are increasingly working with a range of both national and local voluntary sector partners in order to ensure that pupils unable to attend school receive a suitable education. We welcome this partnership approach and see it as an important element in meeting the target for providing a full-time education for all pupils excluded from school by 2002. We do not collect information centrally on the number of voluntary providers.

  School Transport
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of implementing a school bus transport service applicable to all children living more than one mile from their school. [143140]

  Jacqui Smith
  My Department has made no estimate of the cost of providing transport for all children who live more than one mile from their school.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what the cost per issue is of the magazines(a) "Catalyst", (b) "Voices", (c) "Teachers" and (d) "Parents and Schools"; how many issues there have been; how many civil servants are employed full-time or part-time in work on each of them; what the circulation of each is; and what is total cost to date of each. [141430]

  Mr. Wills
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Details of cost per issue, number of issues, number of civil servants employed full-time, circulation, and total cost to date of each of the four magazines are as follows:

  (a) "Catalyst"

  A magazine for employers who have shown interest in or signed up to New Deal.

  Average production cost per issue: £33,606

  Number of issues: three (English, and Welsh bi-lingual versions)

  Number of Staff: one part-time

  Circulation: 80,000

  Total cost to date: £100,820.

  (b) "Voices"

  A magazine for women giving details of the support available to them from Government, commissioned by the Women's Unit at the Cabinet Office, not by DfEE.

  Average cost per issue: £87,208

  Number of issues: 2

  Number of Staff: 2 part-time

  Circulation: 30,000 for first edition, 190,000 for the second edition

  Total cost to date: £174,416.

  104W
  (c)"Teachers"

  A magazine for teachers containing examples of good practice from schools across the country.

  Average production cost per issue: £50,400 (including receipts for advertising)

  Number of issues: 12

  Number of Staff: 1 part-time

  Circulation: 360,000

  Total cost to date: £1,231,000 (including production, distribution and receipts for advertising).

  (c) "Parents and Schools"

  A magazine for parents, to enable them to have a clearer understanding of what is being taught in schools and how to deal with every day problems. It is distributed on request, and through schools, supermarkets and other retailers.

  Average production cost per issue: £41,000 (regional trial), £209,900 (national issue)

  Number of issues: two (one regional trial, one national issue)

  Number of Staff: one part-time

  Circulation: 270,000 (regional trial); 2,000,000 (national issue)

  Total cost to date: £2,312,000 (covering the regional trial and the national issue and including advertising, production, distribution, research and website).

  Wandsworth
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what funding has been provided by his Department to the London Borough of Wandsworth in each of the last three years. [143147]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  I refer my hon. Friend to the reply I sent on 18 December.

  Class Sizes (Secondary Schools)
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of average secondary school class sizes in Yeovil constituency for each of the last 10 years; and if he will make a statement. [143314]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  The available information for the parliamentary constituency of Yeovil on average class sizes collected it January is shown in the table. Information on average class sizes by parliamentary constituency is not available prior to 1997.

  Average class sizes1 in maintained secondary schools in Yeovil parliamentary constituency

  January each year

  Maintained secondary

  2000

  24.8

  1999

  24.1

  1998

  24.2

  1997

  23.2

  1 Classes taught by one teacher

  The size of the average secondary class nationally, at 22, is still five below the average primary class. Secondary headteachers are receiving on average £50,000 this year in direct grant to spend as they choose. If this were spent on recruiting teachers, the average secondary class size could be reduced by up to 0.8.
  105W
  In the meantime, we have secured early delivery of our infant class size pledge in Yeovil. The most recent figures show that in September this year there were no infant classes in the constituency with more than 30 pupils.

  Tuition Fees
  Paddy Ashdown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what his policy is on the level of tuition fees over the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [143315]

  Mr. Wicks
  Tuition fees for students at publicly funded institutions are uprated each year to take account of inflation.

  Correspondence
  Sir Brian Mawhinney
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment (1) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 20 September on behalf of his constituent, Reverend Matthews; [143576]

  (2) when the right hon. Member for North-West Cambridgeshire will receive a reply to his letter of 2 October on behalf of Mr. G. Mitchell. [143577]

  Mr. Wills
  The Department has no record of receiving the original correspondence from the right hon. Member, but has now been made aware of the outstanding reply and the content requested and will be supplying a substantive response by the end of the week.

SOLICITOR-GENERAL

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Solicitor-General if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142227]

  The Solicitor-General
  My hon. Friend's constituency falls within the geographical area covered by Fylde and Lancaster Branch of the Crown Prosecution Service. At the beginning of November 1999, in line with national policy, and in liaison with the police and Lancashire Magistrates' Court Service, the Crown Prosecution Service implemented the Narey recommendations. All defendants charged with a criminal offence now make their first appearance before Blackpool Magistrates' Court within 48 hours.

  In the coming year 2001, the structure of the Crown Prosecution Service in Lancashire will be altered in line with the recommendations in the Glidewell Review. This will include the establishment of a Trials Unit for the Crown Court currently dealt with by Fylde and Lancaster casework. It will enable the Crown Prosecution Service to place greater emphasis on the conduct of more serious cases.

  The Crown Prosecution Service, together with other agencies, has also helped to draw up an action plan and associated procedures to speed up youth justice, particularly in relation to persistent young offenders. The latest published figure for Lancashire, as a whole shows
  106W
  an average of 74 days from arrest to charge for persistent young offenders. This compares with 91 at the same time in 1999 and the national target of 71 days. The most recent indications are that the figure is further improving.

  Neither the Treasury Solicitor's Department nor the Serious Fraud Office has policies which directly affect the hon. Member's constituency.

  Crown Prosecution Service
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Solicitor-General what plans he has to review the working of the Crown Prosecution Service. [141602]

  The Solicitor-General
  I meet regularly with the Director of Public Prosecutions and the CPS's chief executive to discuss current issues, the working of the CPS and its performance.

  The Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate conducts regular inspections of CPS areas. The CPS Inspectorate works on a two-year cycle so that each area will be inspected once every two years. Additionally, there will be thematic reviews of aspects of area performance such as advocacy and case presentation.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  St. Helena
  Mr. Austin
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had regarding the provision of an airport on St Helena; and if she will make a statement. [142472]

  Clare Short
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) on 13 December 2000,Official Report, column 135W.

  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what financial help has been given during the last 12 months to assist towards helping young people from St. Helena to study in the United Kingdom. [143149]

  Clare Short
  In 1999–2000 (the last financial year for which complete figures are available) £65,000 was provided to support the Student Scholarship Programme. This provides support for St. Helenian students who have completed their A-level studies to undertake higher education in the UK.

  In addition, £267,000 was provided in 1999–2000 through (i) the Technical Co-operation Training Scheme, (ii) a teacher training programme and (iii) a nurse education programme to support St. Helenians studying in the UK. These schemes are not disaggregated by age.

  Female Education
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development in what ways her Department supports the education of girls in poorer countries; and if she will make a statement. [143124]

  Clare Short
  Education of girls is probably the single most effective investment in development that any country can make. We are strongly committed to the international development targets of achieving universal
  107W
  primary education by 2015 and gender equity in primary and secondary schooling by 2005. Our three-fold strategy involves (i) contributing to the development and co-ordination of international policies and programmes designed to achieve education for all; (ii) strong, well-targeted country programmes—with priority to sub-Saharan Africa and South Asia—which will provide assistance to Governments and civil societies committed to universal primary education and gender equality; and (iii) research strategies that will contribute to the ability of the international community, to share experience and monitor progress. Over the last three and a half years, we have committed over £400 million to support primary education programmes, all with a strong focus on gender equality. We will do more.

  Kenya
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what action the Government have taken to assist Government and non-Governmental organisations in Kenya to tackle the environmental and economic problems resulting from the drought in that country. [143384]

  Clare Short
  This financial year, we are spending a total of £15.5 million on drought relief in Kenya. Of this, £12 million has been contributed to the World Food Programme's Emergency Operation for the purchase of food and nutritional supplements for distribution by NGOs to the worst-affected communities. The balance is being given to the Food and Agricultural Organisation, UNICEF and NGOs to distribute agricultural inputs including seeds; for emergency water supplies and environmentally friendly borehole and waterpoint rehabilitation; for further child nutritional support, and for livestock vaccination and other assistance to pastoralists affected by the drought.

  Fluconazole
  Mr. Worthington
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what assessment she has made of the South African Government's policy on authorising the generic version of fluconazole in the treatment of Aids related infections. [142196]

  Clare Short
  Fluconazole is a useful drug in the treatment of certain opportunistic infections associated with HIV/AIDS. The Government of South Africa has given permission for the generic version of fluconazole to be administered in exceptional circumstances on a named patient, named condition based. This limited use will be reviewed once its brand name version, Diflucan, donated to the Government of South Africa by Pfizer, is available to the public health sector. Its registration and availability in the public health sector in South Africa is a matter for the Government of South Africa and its licensing authority.

  Education Facilities
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what her policy is on the provision of education facilities in the United Kingdom for talented young people from Third World countries. [143148]
  108W
  Clare Short
  Our educational priorities are universal primary education and support for key skills for the development of poorer countries including building local capacity for skills training. Our focus is the development of, and better access to, education and skill training facilities in developing countries. We support training in the UK when it helps take forward these priorities.

  Conflict Resolution
  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for International a Development what consultations her Department has undertaken with non-Governmental organisations on the development of the Government's cross-departmental initiative on conflict resolution. [143370]

  Clare Short
  A formal consultation on conflict in sub-Saharan Africa was held in November 1999. We have maintained regular contacts with NGOs and academic institutions and envisage publishing a paper outlining our thinking in Spring 2001.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) her Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment she has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142718]

  Clare Short
  The Department for International Development has not carried out any advertising campaigns since 1996–97.

PRIME MINISTER

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Corbett
  To ask the Prime Minister what the membership of each Cabinet Committee is. [143837]

  The Prime Minister
  I have placed a copy of the current list of Cabinet Committees, their membership and terms of reference in the Library of the House. Details will also be updated on the Cabinet Office website.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Prime Minister when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 19 October concerning the internet. [143434]

  The Prime Minister
  I did so on 15 December.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what his Department's spending on official publications was for
  109W
  (a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01 and the planned expenditure for 2001–02. [141456]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The following figures for spending on official publications include the costs incurred by the Department in publishing, preparation, production and purchase of copies for official use. Where the Department makes use of a private sector publisher the publishing, printing and design costs are generally met by the publisher as part of their acceptance of the risks of publication.

  (a) The former Department of the Environment spent £1,178,754 in 1996–97; no figures are available for the former Department of Transport, which had no central management of publications production.

  (b) to (d) Expenditure for subsequent years was:

  1997–98: £2,007,506

  1998–99: £2,280,993

  1999–2000: £3,449,439.

  (e) Expenditure from 1 April to 12 December 2000 was £2,794,622.

  DETR does not make specific plans for future expenditure on publications, as this is only one of the media used in public information work. The balance among media is decided on a case-by-case basis for each information project.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997 and what the total cost to the Department is of each publication. [141459]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding at answer 11 December 2000]: DETR has a very wide range of policy responsibilities and therefore publishes a large number of publications. The cost of tracing and listing the total costs of each individual publication would thus be disproportionate. A list of the titles of the main publications produced through DETR's Directorate of Communication between February 1997 and November 2000 has been placed in the Libraries of the House.

  Departmental Policies (Blackpool, South)
  Mr. Gordon Marsden
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the, Regions if he will set out, including statistical information relating as directly as possible to the constituency, the effect on the Blackpool, South constituency of his Department's policies and actions since 2 May 1997. [142233]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The constituency of Blackpool, South has benefited from a range of Government initiatives since 2 May 1997 including:

  Capital allocations for housing

  Year

  £million

  1997–98

  2.880

  1998–991

  4.803

  1999–2000

  4.946

  2000–01

  7.204

  2001–02

  8.314

  1 Including Capital Receipts Initiative

  110W
  The resources made available from Government to support the authority's housing capital investment programme will have nearly trebled by next year since the Government came to power.

  Neighbourhood Renewal Fund

  Blackpool will receive about £6.016 million over the next three years as part of the Neighbourhood Renewal Fund announced in October. The fund will help local authorities meet their Public Service Agreement targets in areas such as raising schools standards, and reducing unemployment—reducing burglary, narrowing the health gap between deprived areas and the rest of the country and improving the standard of social housing.

  Single Regeneration Budget

  SRB Round 2—Blackpool Challenge Partnership

  This is a seven-year strategy to halt decline of an area of need in the town centre behind the promenade. This scheme is linked to the opportunity to create employment parks. SRB total is £19.4 million.

  SRB Round 6—Blackpool Challenge Partnership

  This seven-year scheme was approved on 2 August 2000 and the programme will start in April 2001. This scheme links support for growth of the tourist industry and improving the quality of life for Blackpool's most deprived communities. It was allocated £20 million SRB funding.

  This schemes covers the wider Blackpool, South area.

  Blackpool Foyer

  Non-delegated project (ie SRB Grant request over £250k). This fits in with Blackpool Challenge Partnership SRB by way of and linked allied to the First Step Centre (vocational guidance). This project is part of the National network of Foyers in the UK and Europe and is a full member of the National Foyer Federation for Youth.

  Project costs—£3,488 million total costs over six years. SRB Support of £0.45 million (13 per cent.) over five years—1997–2003. Contribution of £1.038 million (30 per cent.) Housing Corporation, £0.77 million Manchester Methodist Housing Association (contracting organisation), £0.65 million private and £0.586 million revenue (rental income).

  Local Transport Plans

  Year

  £million

  1997–981

  9.5

  1998–99

  0.383

  1999–2000

  0.862

  2000–01

  2.168

  2001–02

  2—

  1 This figure is for Lancashire County Council before Blackpool became an Unitary Authority. Of the £9.5 million, £240k was allocated specifically for the Blackpool tramway, although other money would have gone into Blackpool.

  2 Figure not yet available

  Note:

  All other figures are for the whole of Blackpool.

  Local Government Finance Settlement

  The following figures show the Government Grant to Blackpool as part of the Local Government Finance Settlement.
  111W

  Total external support (Revenue Support Grant, National non-Domestic Rates and damping grants)

  Year

  £ million

  1997–98

  15.646

  1998–99

  93.226

  1999–2000

  97.219

  2000–01

  102.542

  2001–021

  105.307

  1 Provisional settlement under "floor" and "ceiling" option.

  Note:

  Again the difference in figures of 1997–98 is due to the unitary authority in 1999.

  Bus Tokens
  Mr. Oaten
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he will announce the allocation of funds for the free bus token scheme. [141347]

  Mr. Hill
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: As I announced in the House on 15 November 2000, Official Report, column 1029, we have allocated an annual injection of £54 million to cover the additional cost of the guaranteed half-fare concessionary travel scheme under the Transport Act 2000. I confirm that that amount was included within the lower tier of the Environmental Protection & Cultural Services block in the Standard Spending Assessment, and has been taken into account in the calculation of Revenue Support Grant to individual local authorities in the settlement announced on 27 November 2000, Official Report, columns 648–62.

  Capital Project Loans
  Mr. Colman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to make available interest-free money for loan by local authorities and regeneration agencies for major capital projects. [142295]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]: The Department currently has no plans to make such loans.

  South West of England Regional Development Agency
  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the regeneration targets to be met by the South West Regional Development Agency. [142693]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The information the right hon. Gentleman requested is contained in section 5 of the South West of England Regional Development Agency Business Plan 2000–01. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. The Business Plan sets out the range of Agency's key targets, many of which are cross-cutting and involve regeneration objectives.

  Sir Peter Emery
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the projects(a) being undertaken and (b) completed by the South West of England Regional Development Agency. [142688]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The South West of England Regional Development Agency has undertaken and completed many projects. Their Annual Review 1999–2000 112W
  gives details of those projects undertaken and completed up to March 2000. I am arranging for copies to be placed in the Libraries of the House. I am also listing the main projects that have been given Board approval since March 2000 to date.

  Principal Approvals (over 25k) since February Board Meeting Eden Project, St Austell, Restormel
  Application for additional funding of £1 million to cover additional works.
  Funding: £3,960,000
  Total project cost: £79,626,000
  Bradford On Avon Gasworks, West Wiltshire
  Reclamation of a contaminated former town gasworks site, owned by the LA, for future hard end development.
  Funding: £141,915
  Total project cost: £141,915
  Treleigh Industrial Estate to Extension, Redruth, Kerrier
  Acquisition and servicing of 5.26 hectares of industrial development land adjacent to existing estate.
  Funding: £1,005,000
  Total project cost: £1,005,000
  Avon Valley Greenway, Bristol
  Reclamation of an overgrown and derelict riverside site, in the centre of Bristol, to create a 2 km cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £126,540
  Total project cost: £504,844
  Cornish Way: Section 2—Newlyn to Mousehole, Penzance, Penwith
  Reclamation of a redundant Quay and slipway, formerly used for loading granite from Penlee Quarry, to create a cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £69,000
  Total project cost: £69,000
  Polmarth Park, St Austell, Restormel
  Reclamation of a derelict former tin-streaming site, situated between two housing estates, to create recreational areas and a cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £221,625
  Total project cost: £246,625
  Tavistock Cycleway, Tavistock, West Devon
  Reclamation of a former railway line, along the edge of a steep sided valley, to create a cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £92,385
  Total project cost: £126,813
  Bristol Harbourside—Additional Public Realm Works, Bristol
  Excavation and disposal of existing surfacing and provision of new paving, lighting, street furniture and planting on three areas at Harbourside.
  Funding: £632,585
  Total project cost: £175,361
  St Agnes Park Lodge, Bristol
  Refurbishment and extension of a former park keepers house to provide a community building offering training and employment facilities.
  Funding: £101,000
  Total project cost: £160,092
  Contact Centre, Southmead, Bristol
  Refurbishment and extension of a derelict building to provide an additional training facility and seven small community business units.
  Funding: £100,000
  Total project cost: £224,424

  113W
  Bensons Lot, Stroud

  Refurbishment of a derelict warehouse to provide seven young persons flats and three workshops.
  Funding: £100,000
  Total project cost: £131,299
  Tolvaddon Business Park, Camborne, Kerrier
  Acquisition and servicing of 6.07 hectares of industrial development land and construction of 2,787 sq m of quality office units of 70 to 465 sq m in size.
  Funding: £2,998,818
  Total project cost: £2,998,818
  Penrose Farm, Indian Queens, St Columb, Restormel
  Acquisition of 4.84 hectares of industrial development land, demolition of derelict farm buildings, site servicing and infrastructure.
  Funding: £1,439,696
  Total project cost: £1,439,696
  Cornish Way: Section 4 Bude Phase 2, North Cornwall
  Reclamation of a section of disused railway, between Bude and Helebridge, to create a cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £83,500
  Total project cost: £115,500
  Yeo Bridge, Barnstaple, North Devon
  Reclamation of a section of disused railway to create a cycleway/footpath including the constriction of a new swing bridge over the river Yeo.
  Funding: £172,723
  Total project cost: £718,665
  Lower Pengegon, Camborne, Kerrier
  Additional phase of reclamation works, to a former mining site, including knotweed eradication, building consolidation and landscaping.
  Funding: £125,713
  Total project cost: £125,713
  Marine Projects, Stonehouse, Plymouth
  Reclamation of an area of mudflats to create hard standing and construction of a 3,716 sq m factory for the manufacture of very large powerboats.
  Funding: £696,252
  Total project cost: £2,321,325
  Saltash Parkway Site F, Saltash, Caradon
  Construction of a 1,490 sq m employment unit on a serviced site.
  Funding: £370,142
  Total project cost: £812,309
  Combined University for Cornwall, Penryn, Kerrier
  Development of the first phase proposed at Tremough to include demolition works, construction of new access road, servicing of the whole site and construction of new digital media centre.
  Funding: £1,500,000
  Total project cost: £5,200,000
  Old Town Quarry, Weston Super Mare, North Somerset
  Conversion of a derelict building to provide eight managed workshop units and two training and exhibition spaces.
  Funding: £100,000
  Total project cost: £124,500
  Devon Coast to Coast Cycleway—Derriton viaduct, Nr Holsworthy, Torridge
  Reclamation of a section of former Ilfraeombe to Bude railway line to create a cycleway/footpath.
  Funding: £174,164
  Total project cost: £520,700
  114W
  Cabot Community Sports Centre, Bristol
  Construction of a multi-purpose sports complex within the boundaries of a Primary School in the inner city area of St Pauls.
  Funding: £260,000
  Total project cost: £2,784,000
  Safe and Warm Phase 2, Bristol
  Housing improvement project on three Local Authority estates on the northern fringe of the city, covering heating, insulation and security measures.
  Funding: £615,346
  Total project cost: £1,578,304
  Theatre Royal Production and Education Centre, Plymouth
  Development of a new centre to cater for the simultaneous production of in-house drama productions and large-scale music theatre.
  Funding: £453,500
  Total project cost: £6,618,004
  Plymouth Job to Job Wage Subsidy, Plymouth
  Project to support Intermediate Labour Market initiatives for two years through the provision of a wage subsidy for the long-term unemployed.
  Funding: £174,700 Total
  Total project cost: £707,038
  Youth Link, Penwith and Kerrier
  Three-year project to provide advice and support for young people not participating or making progress through established programmes.
  Funding: £330,100
  Total project cost: £825,198
  Rural Counselling Programme, Devon Priority Areas
  Provision of a comprehensive rural business support service in rural Devon prior to the introduction of the Small Business Service.
  Funding: £57,234
  Total project cost: £124,969
  Devon & West Somerset Key Fund
  Provision of a block capital grant to provide accessible funding support to small-scale community projects.
  Funding: £213,575
  Total project cost: £1,041,400
  Bream Community Centre, Bream, Forest of Dean
  Acquisition and refurbishment of former community building to provide enhanced facilities and improved access to additional facilities.
  Funding: £116,000
  Total project cost: £277,325
  Kimmeridge Marine Education Centre, Purbeck
  Provision of an education resource for the community to learn about the marine environment and promote coast-related tourism.
  Funding: £35,349
  Total project cost: £230,029
  Ladock Parish Hall, Ladock, Carrick
  Construction of a new hall to replace the existing dilapidated timber building used by various community groups.
  Funding: £41,450
  Total project cost: £205,450

  115W
  Spanning the Century, Camel Trail, North Cornwall
  Improvements to ten miles of the trail by widening at the iron bridge near Padstow and enhancements to the Guineaport and Padstow entrances.
  Funding: £32,750
  Total project cost: £846,925
  Business Information Service (Enterprise Edge), Cornwall
  To provide up-to-date business information to Cornish SMEs for one year via a gateway website and 0800 helpline.
  Funding: £30,000
  Total project cost: £268,991
  Chacewater Village Hall, Chacewater, Carrick
  Demolition of existing premises and construction of a new building to serve the local community.
  Funding: £40,339
  Total project cost: £323,022
  Cornwall Objective One Technical Assistance
  Contribution towards the costs of establishing and operating the Objective One partnership office and implementation of the Team's work programme, including setting up and managing Task Forces and Priority Management Groups.
  Funding:£175,000
  Total project cost: £1,797,358.

  Telephony Masts
  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many outstanding planning applications there are in England and Wales for base station masts for mobile telephony; how many are in(a) areas of outstanding natural beauty, (b) national parks and (c) national forests; and how many applications have been given consent in the last (1) three months and (2) six months. [142728]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department does not hold such information.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what representations he has received from health and other academic experts about the distance between(a) settlements and (b) dwellings and the location of a base station mast for mobile telephony. [142563]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  In response to public concern about the possibility of health effects from mobile phone base stations, the Government set up the Independent Expert Group on Mobile Phones (chaired by Sir William Stewart). The Group considered health effects from the use of mobile phones, base stations and transmitters. In carrying out the review, the Group gathered a wide range of views and a call for evidence was placed in the national daily newspapers and the scientific press. A comprehensive review of relevant research was carried out as part of the review and this helped to inform the Group's conclusions and recommendations. The Group published its report on mobile phones and health on 11 May 2000.

  The Group's report, which took into account evidence from health and other academic experts, recommended the establishment of clearly defined physical exclusion zones around base station antennas, which delineate areas within which exposure guidelines may be exceeded. Operators have a duty under the Health and Safety legislation to ensure that their work activities, which includes the
  116W
  operation of their apparatus, do not present a risk to employees and the general public. The Health and Safety Executive would therefore expect operators to have measures in place to prevent access by members of the public to areas where they might exceed exposure guidelines. The report did not recommend the introduction of a minimum distance between masts and settlements or dwellings.

  Mrs. Organ
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will make a statement on planning and safety guidelines for the siting of base station masts for mobile telephony. [142568]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  Telecommunications operators have a duty under the Health and Safety at Work, etc. Act 1974 and the Management of the Health and Safety at Work Regulations 1999 to ensure that so far as is reasonably practicable, their work activities—which would include the installation and operation of their equipment—do not expose people to risks to their health and safety.

  The Government's statutory adviser, the National Radiological Protection Board, has published guidelines on limiting exposure to electromagnetic radiation. All mobile phone transmission equipment should meet these guidelines. Following publication of the Stewart report on mobile phones and health in May 2000, the Government accepted that, as a precautionary measure, the emissions from mobile phone base stations should meet the International Commission on Non-Ionizing Radiation Protection (ICNIRP) guidelines for public exposure as expressed in the EU Council Recommendation of 12 July 1999 on the limitation of exposure of the general public to electromagnetic fields (0 Hz to 300GHz). Most base stations already meet the ICNIRP guidelines and all new base stations will do so.

  Health considerations and public concern can in principle be material considerations in determining applications for planning permission and prior approval. Whether such matters are material in a particular case is ultimately a muter for the courts. It is for the decision-maker (usually the local planning authority) to determine what weight to attach to such considerations in any particular case. However, it is the Government's view that if a proposed development meets the ICNIRP guidelines it should not be necessary for an authority, in processing an application, to consider health effects further.

  Railways
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when he expects commuter rail services in the London area to return to the timetables in operation before the Hatfield crash. [142697]

  Mr. Hill
  The industry is working hard to achieve a steady improvement in rail services across all parts of the country. Railtrack estimate that nationally by the end of January 85 per cent. of journeys will be back to normal, with a tail end of work through to Easter by when all services should be, fully back to normal. The Rail Recovery Action Group, chaired by the Minister for Transport, has been formed to help to get services back to normal as soon as possible.

  Heathrow
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions when the decision was taken to hold an inquiry into the fifth terminal at Heathrow Airport. [142703]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  On 15 March 1993, when the main application for the development of a fifth terminal complex and associated facilities was called in by the Secretary of State for the Environment for joint decision by the then Secretaries of State for Environment and Transport. Related applications were similarly called in on various dates between 20 May 1993 and 5 May 1998 for consideration by the Terminal 5 public inquiry.

  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) what has been the cost to date of the inquiry is into the Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport; [142706]

  (2) what his latest estimate is of the cost of the inquiry into the building of the Fifth Terminal at Heathrow Airport. [142704]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  The Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and its Agencies has spent approximately £11.8 million on the Terminal 5 (T5) Inquiry to date. The total costs of the T5 Inquiry to all participants is estimated at over £83 million of which the private sector is estimated to have spent some £64 million with the rest borne by central and local government.

  Waste Disposal
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what percentage of landfill waste has been diverted to unlicensed sites in the last 12 months; and what action the Government are taking to address this. [142526]

  Mr. Mullin
  Data on the percentage of waste diverted from licensed landfill sites and disposed of unlawfully are not held centrally. However, the issue is the subject of a research report which the Government commissioned—"The Effects of Landfill Tax—Reduced Disposal of Inert Waste to Landfill." A copy of the report has been placed in the Library of the House.

  The action being taken by the Government on unlawful waste disposal was set out most recently in our response to the Environment, Transport and. Regional Affairs Committee's Report on the Environment Agency (Cm 4832—paragraphs 55–60).

  Unlicensed Vehicles
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the average cost was for a prosecution brought against the owners of unlicensed vehicles in each of the last three years. [142542]

  Mr. Hill
  The average cost for a prosecution against VED offenders in 1997–98 and 1908–99 was £30 per case. This was recalculated in 1999–2000 and is now estimated to be £45. Costs are always sought by DVLA in all court cases.
  118W
  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action his Department is taking to improve the arrangements for receiving revenue lost as a result of road vehicles not displaying road tax licences. [142543]

  Mr. Hill
  DVLA will take action against VED evaders in increasing numbers. In addition to offering out of court settlements and prosecutions the Agency will induce increasing numbers of evaders to relicense voluntarily through publicity campaigns.

  Recent initiatives include the introduction of a scheme to wheelclamp and impound unlicensed vehicles. Over the past three years the scheme has encouraged over 325,000 motorists voluntarily to relicense bringing in some £38 million in additional revenue.

  Motorists are now required to notify DVLA if their vehicle is taken off the road unlicensed under the statutory off road notification scheme. Dispensing with a 'do nothing' option when a vehicle licence expires dissuades evasion and also helps to create a more accurate vehicle record.

  DVLA is shortly to trial the use of digital camera technology to detect and deter VED evaders, and a nationwide roll out of automatic number plate readers is planned for the early summer of 2001. In addition, the Agency is working closely with police forces to make use of police cameras in the same way.

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many people were sent notification of intended prosecution for failure to display a road vehicle tax disc; and how much revenue was recovered as a result, in each of the last three years. [142541]

  Mr. Hill
  The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency takes enforcement action against vehicle keepers for VED evasion. Most are offered the opportunity to pay an out of court settlement (OCS) while more serious cases, and those who fail to pay an OCS, result in prosecution. Figures for the past three years, including total revenue collected from all enforcement action, are as follows:

  OCS

  Prosecution

  Total Revenue (£ million)

  1997–1998

  268,163

  233,036

  72

  1998–1999

  218,786

  256,332

  79

  1999–2000

  209,678

  239,291

  86

  Mr. Stephen Twigg
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of unlicensed vehicles being used on UK roads; and what estimate he has made of the revenue lost as a result in the current financial year. [142540]

  Mr. Hill
  A roadside survey conducted by departmental statisticians in June 1999 estimated that 1.5 million vehicles were evading vehicle duty (VED) in GB. The level of evasion was calculated at 3.9 per cent. of revenue due, equivalent to a loss of £183 million in the current financial year. The 1999 survey indicated a drop in the VED evasion level for the first time and represents a saving of £17 million a year from the previous estimate of 4.1 per cent.

  Planning Powers
  Mr. Waterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what action he proposes to take in the light of the High Court decision on his planning powers and their relationship to the Human Rights Act 1998; and if he will make a statement. [143432]

  Mr. Raynsford
  On Wednesday 13 December the Divisional Court gave judgment on four test cases brought in relation to the compatibility of certain aspects of domestic legislation with Article 6(1) of the European Convention on Human Rights (ECHR) concerning the right to a fair hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal. The Convention right was incorporated into UK legislation in the Human Rights Act 1998, which became operative in England and Wales on 2 October this year.

  The legal challenges related to cases involving the Secretary of State's ability under the Town and Country Planning Act 1990 to call in and determine applications for planning permission and to recover and determine appeals, the confirmation by him of Compulsory Purchase Orders and related Orders under the Highways Act 1980 made by one of his departmental agencies and the making of orders under the Transport and Works Act 1992.

  The Court concluded that the processes involved in each of the cases were not compatible with Article 6(1) of the ECHR. In particular, the Court concluded that:
  The Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions is not 'an independent and impartial tribunal' for the purposes of Article 6(1), but is a judge in his own cause as both policy maker and decision taker;
  Judicial Review is not sufficient to remedy the defects in the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions' decision-making role—the scope of Judicial Review is not sufficiently wide and the Court is not prepared to enlarge its power of review.

  However, the Court held that the Secretary of State could not have acted in any other manner and will not act unlawfully in processing the cases that are the subject of the proceedings, because section 6(2) of the Human Rights Act applies.

  Application was made, and the Court granted, leave for appeal to the Court of Appeal. The question whether an application can be made for the cases to be referred direct to the House of Lords is still under consideration by the Court. If the cases can be referred direct to the Lords, an application will be made for expedition.

  The Court will make a "declaration of incompatibility" under section 4 of the Human Rights Act that the provisions of the relevant primary legislation are not compatible with a Convention right. However, such a declaration does not affect the validity, continuing operation or enforcement of the provision in respect of which it was given (section 4 (6) HRA). If the decision of the High Court is upheld on appeal, the Government will have to decide how to deal with this incompatibility. In the meantime, the existing primary legislation continues to apply and the Secretary of State has a duty to continue determining cases which have been called-in and appeals that have been recovered, and to fulfil his statutory functions in relation to orders made, for example, under the Transport and Works and Highways Acts and under Compulsory Purchase legislation. He will
  120W
  continue to exercise his discretion—for example, as to whether to call in planning applications—as before. In all cases, he will proceed in accordance with his usual practice. Pending final decisions on the appeals, in deciding whether to call-in or recover cases for his own decision, he will take account of the fact that call-in and recovery, although lawful, have been declared incompatible with the Convention by the Divisional Court.

  Concessionary Bus Fares
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions from what date his Department will require local authorities to provide older people with a free bus pass allowing them to purchase bus tickets for no more than half-price; and if he will make a statement. [142762]

  Mr. Hill
  The requirement to offer at least half-fares on buses to pensioners and disabled people will come into effect from 1 April 2001 (London) or 1 June 2001 (rest of England). The appropriate Commencement Order was made on 7 December. We are in touch with local authorities and the bus industry about the implementation of the mandatory scheme, and are at present consulting about the terms of Guidance.

  A46/A36
  Mr. Don Foster
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what further studies he intends to commission on the problems experienced in Bath by North-South A46/A36 traffic, and their wider implications, before determining whether to de-trunk the A46 and A36. [143574]

  Mr. Hill
  The Secretary of State announced on 14 December 2000 that the A36/A46 should remain part of the non-core network. We recognise that there remain traffic problems within Bath and we will work with Bath and North East Somerset to identify appropriate measures which we will urge them to progress through their Local Transport Plans. He has no plans for further studies on the problems experienced in Bath.

  Local Transport Plan
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions following the announcement of the Local Transport Plan capital settlement on 14 December, what money has been unallocated and kept in the LTP Reserve Fund for(a) 2001–02, (b) 2002–03, (c) 2003–04, (d) 2004–05 and (e) 2005–06. [143437]

  Mr. Hill
  As announced by my right hon. Friend the Deputy Prime Minister on 14 December 2000,Official Report, column 202W, £8.43 billion has been made available for local transport over the five years from April 2001.

  Amounts have been held back for each of the five years covered by the settlement. A large portion of these reserves are made up of resources that will be made available to authorities in respect of:

  (a) the integrated transport block—for which 10 per cent. of the total available for each of the years between 2002–03 and 2005–06 has been held back;

  121W

  (b) highway maintenance—for which for the three years from 2003–04 to 2005–06 the indicative allocations made to authorities are currently only 75 per cent. of their 2002–03 allocations. The unallocated provision will allow the distribution of highway maintenance funding from 2003–04 onwards to reflect improved condition data.

  In addition, resources have set aside for major local transport schemes which are defined as those with a gross cost of over £5 million. The resource; will be used to fund fully accepted schemes. We have given a total allocation for these schemes but precise annual allocations depend on progress with each scheme and cannot be accurately forecast at this stage; provisionally accepted schemes, for which we have in some cases earmarked resources which will he made available once outstanding issues, such as completion of appropriate statutory Procedures have been addressed; and possible additional major schemes on which we do not yet have sufficient information to make a decision since authorities have not yet completed full appraisals or which may become necessary, for example arising from the reports of Multi-Modal Studies.

  Each year, as part of the annual settlement, the indicative allocations will be confirmed or revised, reflecting the use to be made of the reserve and decisions made on funding for major schemes.

  In addition, for 2001–02 small amounts have been held back to fund capital works necessary to prepare for charging schemes in cases where authorities have endorsed a decision to introduce congestion charging and put forward a set of costed proposals; emergency works, particularly given the damage caused by this winter's flooding; and schemes under the Industrial Development Act 1982.

  Taking all of these elements into account the total sums yet to be allocated are:

  £ million

  2001–02

  125

  2002–03

  482

  2003–04

  754

  2004–05

  1,013

  2005–06

  993

  Byelaws (Railways)
  Mr. Gareth R. Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's proposals are regarding the byelaws submitted by the railway companies, London Underground and other light rail operators. [143836]

  Mr. Hill
  The national railway operators, London Underground, the Docklands Light Railway and Nexus Metro have submitted byelaws to the Secretary of State for confirmation. These byelaws, and the formal representations received from person affected by these byelaws, have all been considered by the Secretary of State. I can announce that the byelaws, with a number of modifications, have now been confirmed, and 18 February 2001 has been set as the date that the new byelaws will come into force.

NORTHERN IRELAND

  Victim Support
  Mr. Hesford
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland if he will make a statement about Government programmes for the support of victims in Northern Ireland. [142810]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Government have put in place a number of programmes of support in line with the recommendations in Sir Kenneth Bloomfield's report "We Will Remember Them", which considered ways of recognising and acknowledging the suffering of those who have become victims of events in Northern Ireland during the last 30 years. To date over £6.25 million has been allocated to programmes and further significant funding will be made available from April 2001, which in total will represent a substantial package aimed at alleviating the financial hardships and suffering inflicted on many by violence during the Troubles.

  Initiatives that have been put in place include:
  The establishment of a Family Trauma Centre for young people, and their families, affected by the Troubles. The Centre provides a comprehensive therapeutic service to families experiencing trauma and aims to meet the psychological needs of families and individuals who have been affected by the Troubles;
  A £225,000 Victim Support Grant Scheme for groups and organisations with proposals to take forward recommendations in the Bloomfield Report. This fund was administered by the Community Relations Council and closed on 31 March 2000;
  The establishment of the Northern Ireland Memorial Fund, which is an independent charitable fund that provides assistance to victims and their families through practical means. The fund which is chaired by Professor George Bain, Vice Chancellor of the Queen's University of Belfast, has received £2 million from the Government. To date it has launched three schemes—a Small Grants Scheme, a Respite Break Pilot Scheme and a Chronic Pain Management Scheme;
  An educational Bursary Pilot Scheme for individuals whose education was directly affected by the Troubles. Over 500 applications were received with 352 individuals who met the criteria being offered bursaries totalling just over £300,000;
  The independent review of Criminal Injuries Compensation for Northern Ireland. The Government accepted the majority of the recommendations made by the review team and in addition, but outside the remit of the new compensation theme, will make a significant amount of funding available from April 2001 for the implementation of the Bloomfield Report "We Will Remember Them", and payments of up to £10,000 for the families of the disappeared;
  The establishment of the Core Funding for Victims/Survivors Groups Grant Scheme providing £3 million for core funding to victims groups for an initial period of two years from 2000–01. This fund is administered by the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust and to date over £2.1 million has been allocated to groups;
  A capacity building programme for those working with victims of the Troubles has also been developed. The programme will help to train those who work with victims so that they are able to deal effectively with the issues which arise for victims and victims groups. The programme is co-sponsored by the Victims Liaison Unit, the Northern Ireland Voluntary Trust and the Community Relations Council.
  Research. The Government have supported research including financial support of up to £40,000 to the Community Conflict Impact on Children Project.

  Equality Commission
  Mr. McNamara
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what discussions his Department has had
  123W
  with the Equality Commission for Northern Ireland and the Foreign and Commonwealth Office on the inclusion of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. [142318]

  Mr. Ingram
  There are currently no plans to designate the FCO under section 75 of the Northern Ireland Act 1998. However, the issue of designation of Government Departments is kept under review. In the course of these deliberations we will consider whether it is appropriate to designate the FCO as a public authority for the purposes of the Act. My officials keep the Equality Commission informed of our thinking on this and other matters.

  Saville Inquiry
  Mr. William Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland what the average daily cost of a sitting of the Saville inquiry has been; and what have been the(a) maximum and (b) minimum daily costs to date. [143355]

  Mr. Ingram
  This information is not readily available and could be obtained only at disproportionate cost.

  Kosovo
  Mr. John D. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland when he plans to visit the officers of the Royal Ulster Constabulary in Kosovo; and if he will make a statement. [143354]

  Mr. Ingram
  The Secretary of State has no immediate plans to visit Kosovo. In my role as Security Minister, I visited Pristina in December 1999 with the Chief Constable to meet 60 officers from the Royal Ulster Constabulary working with the United Nations Mission in Kosovo. It was evident then that the RUC contingent would play a key part in the executive policing role pending the establishment of a new Kosovan police service. The RUC has currently 62 officers in Kosovo where they continue to provide outstanding support.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Sexual Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will commence the Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 and Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act 2000. [143685]

  Mr. Straw
  We are implementing both these important measures as quickly as possible because of the important equality and child protection measures they contain.

  The Sexual Offences (Amendment) Act 2000 will be commenced in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, on 8 January 2001. Commencement in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Part II of the Criminal Justice and Court Services Act will be commenced in England and Wales, and Northern Ireland, on 11 January 2001.

  Mr. Cotter
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what percentage of convicted sex offenders have been treated with cognitive behaviour therapies over the past 10 years; and what proportion of those(a) treated and (b) not treated have re-offended subsequently. [142938]
  124W
  Mr. Boateng
  Information is available on the number of sex offenders in prison in England and Wales who have completed a cognitive behavioural Sex Offender Treatment Programme since 1992. This is shown in the table. It is not possible to calculate what percentage this is of all convicted s offenders but for comparison the population of sentenced sex offenders in prison each year is shown.

  All Sex Offender Treatment Programmes in English and Welsh prisons are evaluated by the Prison Service's Offender Behaviour. Programme Unit (OBPU) with additional input from independent external researchers.

  OBPU has made an analysis of all sexual offenders released from prism, between 1992 and March 1996. The results showed that treated offenders had slightly better reconviction rates after two years than untreated offenders except for the very highest risk category. The number of reconvictions were small however, which made it difficult to attach significance levels to the results.

  More detailed evaluations of Prison Service's later prison treatment programmes are now being carried out by a team of independent researchers—but it is still too early for reliable reconviction studies.

  Numbers completing Sex Offender Treatment Programmes (SOTP) and population of sentenced sex offenders in prison since 1992–93 England and Wales

  Year

  Numbers completing SOTP

  Sentenced sex offenders in custody (30 June each year)

  1992–93

  284

  3,156

  1993–94

  439

  3,180

  1994–95

  554

  3,279

  1995–96

  439

  3,668

  1996–97

  680

  3,951

  1997–98

  736

  4,077

  1998–99

  664

  4,795

  1999–2000

  669

  4,946

  Note:

  This information is also available in "Prison Statistics England & Wales" 1999 CM 4405 (tables 1.7 and 7.2), a copy of which is in the Library.

  Road Traffic Offences
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when tie will publish the consultation paper following the recent review of penalties for road traffic offences. [143684]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am pleased to announce that the consultation paper to which my hon. Friend refers has been published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  Correspondence
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam of 27 November concerning the internet. [143435]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The hon. Member's letter raises a number of issues which are currently being investigated. A reply will be sent shortly.

  Beer Smuggling
  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the impact of illegally imported beer on levels of crime and disorder. [142830]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  We do not know precisely the extent to which illegally imported beer is a factor in other crime, but we do know that alcohol misuse generally is often associated with crime and disorder. It is likely that illegally imported alcohol, including; beer, will play a part in some cases, particularly where the alcohol ends up in the hands of under-age drinkers. The illegal importation of beer and other alcohol is primarily a matter for Her Majesty's Customs and Excise. It is an issue that will be addressed further within the overall context of the Home Department action plan on alcohol-related crime. This set out a forward programme to address all aspects of alcohol-related crime and disorder, including the problems associated with under-age drinking.

  Mr. John M. Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to prevent the sale of illegally imported beer to children. [142864]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Tackling under-age drinking is a priority for this Government. It is one of the key objectives of the Home Department action plan on alcohol-related crime. In taking forward the programme set out in that action plan, we shall in consultation with Her Majesty's Customs and Excise and the police, look at whether more can be done to address the availability of illegally imported beer and other alcohol, in particular to young people. In addition, to go further in tackling under-age drinking more generally we shall be asking Parliament to approve measures which will strengthen the requirements on licensees and their staff to satisfy themselves that customers are at least 18 before selling alcohol to them, and to establish clearly the ability of the police and local authorities to arrange for the test purchasing of alcohol by children under this age.

  Custody Deaths
  Mr. Cohen
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what response his Department has made to the report of the Police Complaints Authority on deaths in custody; and if he will make a statement. [142796]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The Home Department welcomed the report of the Police Complaints Authority (PCA) and the statistics which show a decline in the number of deaths in police custody. The fall in deaths occurring at police stations is particularly encouraging. These reductions reflect the efforts of police forces implementing good practice, much of it identified through work done by the PCA. Key initiatives include safer custody facilities, improved training, Closed Circuit Television observation and an emphasis on better care, assessment and monitoring of detainees.

  The Home Department published its bulletin containing statistics on deaths in police custody during 1999–2000 on 15 December. This will also show a decline in the number of people dying in police stations. The bulletin will also set out a range of current action aimed at achieving further reductions.

  Prisoners' Mail
  Mr. Fearn
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to amend the provisions of the Prisoners Act 1952 relating to the opening and examination of letters to and from prisoners to search for enclosures. [143152]

  Mr. Boateng
  Powers to examine prisoners' communications are set out in the Prison Rules 1999 (SI 728 as amended), which are made under section 47 of the Prison Act 1952. The rules were amended on 23 September 2000 (SI 2641) among other things to specify more clearly the grounds on which interception could take place. We have no further plans to amend the Rules in this respect.

  Drug Referral Schemes
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to extend drug referral schemes to include referral for alcohol abuse; and if he will make a statement. [142609]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  The drug arrest referral schemes, promoted and supported by the Home Department, with £20 million from the Crime Reduction Programme, encourage the referral worker to assess the needs of those who have been arrested. While the focus is on drugs, the assessment will identify alcohol and other issues with which the individual has problems. The arrestee is referred to appropriate services, including those which can respond to alcohol abuse where they exist.

  The Home Department is committing some £140 million over the next three years to help meet the treatment needs of drug misusers. This will include those referred through arrest referral schemes.

  Public Disorder
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many public disorder incidents and how many such incidents per 1,000 of population have been recorded since 31 March. [143009]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: Information for this year is not yet available but will be published in due course.

  Powers of Arrest
  Mr. Lidington
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what powers a constable in England and Wales has to arrest, without warrant, a person on the grounds that he is about to commit a criminal offence; and in respect of which criminal offences such powers exist. [143016]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Under section 24 of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 (PACE) a constable in England and Wales has the power to arrest, without warrant, a person whom he has reasonable grounds for suspecting to be about to commit an arrestable offence. Arrestable offences are defined in sub-sections 24 (1) and (2) of PACE. I am aware that there may be other offences outside the PACE definition which attract the relevant power and I will write to the hon. Member once that aspect has been researched.

  Pensioners Gatherings
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on the policing of the recent Pensioners' Rally at Central Hall, Westminster, with particular reference to the(a) clothing worn by the police and (b) use of surveillance cameras. [143159]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I am advised by the Metropolitan police that the 'National Pensioners Convention' held on 7 November at Westminster Central Hall was policed by 14 officers wearing normal uniform. No surveillance cameras were used.

  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will call for a report from the Chief Constable of Sussex on the policing of the pensioners' meeting held at Hove on 24 September and subsequent march to the Labour Party Conference, with particular reference to(a) the clothing worn by the police and (b) the use of surveillance cameras. [143158]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Sussex Police are not aware of a pensioners' meeting and rally on 24 September. On that date, a meeting and march were held in Hove under the banner of the "Alternative Conference". As some people within this march were found to have items that could be used to cause injury, some officers were available fully equipped with public order equipment and protective clothing.

  On 25 September, some pensioners joined in the marches organised by the Countryside Alliance and the East and West Farmers and these demonstrations were policed by officers in protective order jackets and trousers but wearing ordinary headgear.

  Surveillance cameras were used during the party conference and facilitated the gathering of intelligence which may have later supported the investigation of offences.

  Political Parties (Regulation)
  Miss Widdecombe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans there are for the European Union to regulate(a) pan-European political parties and (b) national political parties; how the regulations will be justiciable; if it is the Government's policy that such regulation should be subject to qualified majority voting; and if he will make a statement. [141476]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The InterGovernmental Conference (IGC) at Nice agreed that Article 191 of the Treaty establishing the European Community shall be amended so as to require the Council to lay down regulations governing political parties at European level, and in particular the rules regarding their funding. Such regulations will be subject to qualified majority voting under Article 251 of the Treaty. The IGC in addition, issued a declaration reaffirming that the provisions of Article 191 do not imply any transfer of competence to the European Community and do not affect the application of the relevant national constitutional rules. The declaration further stated that the funding for political parties at European level provided out of the Community budget may not be used to fund, either directly or indirectly, political parties at national level.
  128W
  This Treaty amendment will ensure transparency in the status of, and funding arrangements for, federations of political parties operating at European level. In accordance with the principle of subsidiarity, the regulation of national political parties, including controls on their funding am expenditure, properly remains a matter for member states.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Prince of Brunei
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what communications were made to(a) Magdalen College and (b) Oxford University by Government officials in relation to the application of the Prince of Brunei to Oxford University. [142518]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office received from the British Council an application from Brunei and forwarded it to Oxford University. Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials were in touch by telephone with the University, and were informed that the application would be considered by Oxford as any other application.

  Universities
  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what his Department's policy is on facilitating applications to British universities by foreign nationals. [142520]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister made clear in his speech at the London School of Economics on 18 June last year, we wish to encourage more students from overseas to study in he UK. The FCO, other Government Departments, devolved Administrations and the British Council have introduced a package of measures to this end. We are increasing the number of Chevening Scholarships available.

  We are working with the Home Office to ensure that bona fide students obtain visas with minimum delay and on first arrival are normally granted permission to stay in the UK for the whole duration of their course. With the help of the Home Office and DfEE, restrictions on international students taking work during their time in the UK have been eased. A new UK Education Brand has been created, and underpins a marketing campaign overseas. All decisions on applications and admissions to British universities are taken by the universities themselves.

  Dr. Harris
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many applications from overseas citizens to British universities his Department has forwarded in the last 12 months. [142988]

  Mr. Battle
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: On behalf of the FCO, the British Council and the Association of Commonwealth Universities forward or place approximately 1,850 applications per year to British Universities under the Chevening and Marshall Scholarship Programmes.
  129W
  The FCO does not keep a central record of other applications it forwards direct to British Universities.

  British Council
  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the offices closed by the British Council in the past year. [143291]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The British Council has closed the following offices since December 1999: Cali and Medellin in Colombia, Minsk in Belarus and Las Palmas in Spain.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many staff will be relocated as a result of the new strategy of the British Council. [143294]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Figures are not yet available. The British Council expects the new strategy to have some effect on the timings of the regular moves of the UK-appointed staff; locally appointed staff do not in general relocate.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent assessment he has made of the contribution to his Department's objectives made by the regional offices of the British Council in Germany. [143299]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The Foreign and Commonwealth Office considers that the regional offices of the British Council in Germany have made a useful contribution to its objectives over the years. However, we agree with the Council's assessment that infrastructure costs, running at some 80 per cent., are unacceptably high and that, given the potential of IT services, our mutual objectives would be furthered more effectively by redirecting funding into programmes for the Laender.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (1) how many in-country staff the British Council plans to make redundant as a result of its new strategy; [143292]

  (2) how many staff in each country the British Council plans to make redundant as a result of its new strategy; and what percentage this represents of total British Council staff. [143293]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Plans for staff changes as a result of the new strategy are not yet finalised. The British Council's decisions on redundancies will be taken year by year and country by country after discussion with locally appointed staff. Current planning assumptions are that 800 posts for locally appointed staff will be cut (equivalent to about 20 per cent. of locally appointed posts) though some of the staff involved may be transferred to new posts.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what sums in grant in aid will be allocated to each British Council operation in spoke countries for each of the next five years under its new strategy. [143290]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The figures requested, supplied by the British Council, are given in the table.
  130W

  Grant in aid (real terms)

  £000

  Namibia

  Malawi

  Zambia

  2001–02

  117

  366

  374

  2002–03

  96

  310

  343

  2003–04

  96

  246

  290

  2004–05

  96

  213

  260

  2005–06

  73

  200

  250

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how much the British Council plans to spend on redundancy payments for staff made redundant as a result of the new strategy. [143295]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Over the next five years, the British Council plans to spend a total of £18.6 million, equivalent to 1 per cent. of its expected turnover over the period, on staff restructuring in the United Kingdom and overseas. This amount incorporates all payments to staff whose posts may be affected by the new strategy, including redundancy, contributions to pension arrangements, career counselling and retraining.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what studies have been undertaken by(a) his Department and (b) the British Council to evaluate the effectiveness of information technology for cultural diplomacy; and what the findings of such studies were. [143300]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The British Council commissioned MORI to research attitudes towards the United Kingdom among young people overseas in 1999 and 2000. In 2000, the percentage of respondents saying they had been influenced by the internet was 21 per cent. as against 4 per cent. in 1999. These figures reflect the increased use made of the Council's own internet services, which now supply two million pages of information each month.

  Ad hoc research undertaken by the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in a range of countries also confirms the popularity of the internet as a source of information. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office, like the British Council, monitors the usage and feedback on its sites on an on-going basis.

  Mrs. Gillan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the planned annual grant in aid allocation is under the new strategy for British Council country directorates in France, Germany and Italy for each of the next five years in real terms. [143298]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The figures requested, supplied by the British Council, are given in the table:

  Grant in aid (real terms)

  £000

  France

  Germany

  Italy

  2001–02

  1,711

  3,109

  2,392

  2002–03

  1,515

  2,646

  1,871

  2003–04

  1,379

  2,054

  1,584

  2004–05

  1,379

  2,054

  1,451

  2005–06

  1,379

  1,952

  1,389

  Europe Houses
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many Europe Houses there are in the United Kingdom; and what is their purpose and their cost. [142968]

  Mr. Vaz
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I refer the right hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 24 January 2000, Official Report, column 34W. There are no Europe Houses in the United Kingdom.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Osborne House Convalescent Home
  Mr. Peter Ainsworth
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he plans to legislate for the closure of Osborne House convalescent home. [141536]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The Culture and Recreation Bill, which received its First Reading in the other place on 14 December 2000, includes a provision to end my obligation to use parts of Osborne House and grounds for the benefit of members of the armed forces and the civil service. In practice, this obligation has been met, until recently, through the provision of the King Edward VII Convalescent Home for Officers which closed on 31 October 2000. The exterior of the accommodation is currently being repaired and refurbished, which excludes an immediate alternative use.

  Athletics Events
  Mr. Randall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what assessment he has made of the United Kingdom's capacity to stage major athletics events. [141889]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: The United Kingdom has a number of venues capable of staging major athletics events. Our past success in hosting major events is one of the reasons why, in April this year, the International Amateur Athletics Association (IAAF) awarded the 2005 World Athletics Championships to London and the 2003 World Indoor Championships to Birmingham.

  National Lottery
  Mr. Wyatt
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport who the Lottery Commissioners met on their visit to the USA; if he will instruct the Lottery Commissioners to request a Standard and Poor analysis of all of the respective partners of(a) Camelot and (b) The People's Lottery bids for the National Lottery. [142567]

  Kate Hoey
  I have asked the National Lottery Commission to write to my hon. Friend, setting out who the Commissioners met on their visit to the USA, and to place a copy of its letter in the Libraries of both Houses.

  The National Lottery Commission has carried out extensive checks on both applicants for the National Lottery licence. The Government will not direct the Commission to carry out specific checks: we believe that the Commission is best placed to determine what checks
  132W
  are necessary, in line with its statutory duties to protect the interests of players, to ensure the Lottery is operated with all due propriety, and, subject to meeting those two criteria, to maximise the returns to good causes.

  Digital Terrestrial Television
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when he will make a statement on his conclusions concerning his review of the statutory requirements for the provision of subtitling, signing and audio description services on digital terrestrial television. [142807]

  Janet Anderson
  "A New Future for Communications" (Cm 5010), published on 12 December, stated that the Government's aim was to extend and improve provision for subtitling, signing and audio description. We are considering the detailed responses to the consultation paper about these services, issued in July, and we expect to announce our full conclusions shortly.

  Leisure and Recreation Facilities
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what plans he has to review the adequacy and availability of leisure and recreation facilities to young people in all areas of the United Kingdom. [142832]

  Kate Hoey
  Sport England assists local authorities in assessing the need for facilities via its Facilities Planning Model and its statutory role in the planning system in relation to disposals of playing fields. Discussions are continuing between my officials, Sport England and the Local Government Association on the most appropriate means of drawing together information on sports facilities.

  The provision of sport and recreation facilities in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland is a matter for the devolved Administrations.

  EU Declaration on Sport
  Ms Dari Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport for what reasons he requested that the scrutiny reserve be lifted on the EU Declaration on Sport. [143663]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  The European Scrutiny Committee have recommended that the Declaration on Sport be debated with the Helsinki Report on sport, and the Community Support Plan to combat doping in sport. It is planned that the debate be held in the new year. I believe that it was important for the Prime Minister to be able to agree the Declaration at the Nice European Council Meeting, particularly as it would have been viewed as a reversal of our position should the UK not have been in a position to support it. We have argued long and hard to secure the changes which meet the Government's objectives.

  The declaration fully acknowledges the prerogatives of sports organisations; it underlines that while commercial sport should be subject to EU regulations, those regulations must be applied in a way that recognises the special nature of sport; and it does not envisage any expansion of the role of the Commission in relation to

  133W
  sport. The declaration creates no new obligations for the UK and in essence reinforces the message of previous statements at Helsinki and Feira.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  BSE
  Mrs. Browning
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will identify the procedure for the retention and identification of carcases of bovines while post-mortem BSE tests are carried out in other EU countries. [141721]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]: Post-mortem tests for BSE on bovine carcases aged more than thirty months and entering the food chain will be a Community requirement from January 2001.

  We are not yet aware of the details of the arrangements for retention and identification of carcases which the member states will introduce when they implement the Community requirement for testing.

  Live Calf Exports
  Mr. Prosser
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what action he is taking to persuade(a) the European Commission and (b) European Union member states to lift the BSE-related ban on the export of live calves from the United Kingdom; and if he will make a statement. [142948]

  Ms Quin
  The proposed European Union Council Regulation on Transmissible Spongiform Encephalopathies, currently under discussion in Brussels, holds out the prospect of a return to live exports of bovine animals once BSE incident in the UK has reduced to a lower level. We believe this is the best route to achieving a return to live exports, but progress will take some time.

  Pig Industry
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when he will lay the statutory instrument to implement the proposed pig welfare levy; and when he expects the first payment to be made to producers affected by classical swine fever. [142891]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: The Government have already paid out over £3.7 million under the Pig Welfare (Disposal) Scheme to producers caught by movement controls brought in to prevent the spread of classical swine fever. As matters stand currently, over £8.5 million will be paid to producers under this scheme. The only vehicle available to introduce a producer levy to provide funding for an industry top-up to these Government payments is a development scheme under the 1967 Agriculture Act. The formal consultation period on a development scheme began on 24 November and will end on 23 January 2001. If, after examining any objections, the industry decides to ask Agriculture Ministers to proceed with a scheme, we would aim to lay the statutory instrument before this House very quickly after receiving the request.
  134W
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how much will be available for payment in the Pig Farmers Outgoers Scheme in financial years(a) 2000–01, (b) 2001–02 and (c) 2002–03. [142892]

  Ms Quin
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: While it may be possible for some payments under the Pig Industry Restructuring Scheme 2000—Outgoers to be made in the financial year 2000–01, we expect all payments to be completed in financial year 2001–02; at least £20 million will be available for this purpose.

  Fisheries Council
  Mr. Jim Marshall
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on the outcome of the Fisheries Council held in Brussels on 14 December. [143617]

  Mr. Morley
  I represented the United Kingdom at a meeting of the EU Fisheries Council in Brussels on 14–15 December, together with Rhona Brankin, Deputy Minister for Rural Affairs in the Scottish Executive, and Mrs. Brid Rodgers, the Northern Ireland Minister for Agriculture and Rural Development.

  The Council agreed by qualified majority, with Belgium and Greece voting against and Italy abstaining, on total allowable catches (TACS) and quotas to apply in 2001 EU Waters and for EU vessels fishing in waters where catch limitations apply. Details of the agreed TACs will be made available in the Libraries of the House.

  Following from the advice of fisheries scientists in the International Council for the Exploration of the Sea (ICES), the Commission proposed severe cuts in many TACs, notably for cod and hake, reflecting the poor state of stocks and the need to hold fishing effort at a level which will assist the recovery of depleted stocks. In addition, the Commission proposed cuts of 20 per cent. for a large range of stocks which may be caught with cod and hake, including prawns (nephrops) and flat fish.

  I successfully argued that these cuts went beyond the science and would be excessive in their application. Taking measures to enable cod stocks to recover was a key priority, but this should be done by carefully targeted measures to reduce fishing effort, protect spawning and juvenile cod and improve the selectivity of fishing gear. I am pleased to report that such measures will be developed in close consultation with fishermen and scientists under the Cod Recovery Plan, which the Council agreed would be adopted early next year. There is also to be a corresponding Hake Recovery Plan.

  By acting to protect the cod and hake stocks through recovery plans, it was possible to secure smaller cuts than the Commission had proposed, while still respecting the scientific advice. This particularly applies to flat fish and nephrops. For these, the agreed cuts are now generally 10 per cent. or less. Also, it will be possible to increase nephrops and other TACs if it can be shown that the cod or hake bycatch in these fisheries is low. Improvements were also secured in megrim, haddock and monkfish TACs and the cut in hake TACs was reduced from 74 per cent. to 41 per cent. Our quotas were also improved because Hague Preference was applied on all those stocks

  135W
  on which I judged that it was in our national interest to seek it. As a result of these changes the total UK quotas agreed were some 4,000 tonnes higher in cod equivalent tonnes than in the Commission's proposals. This means that the estimated loss of quota value to the industry in 2001 is reduced by £35 million to £72 million.

  There is an urgent need for action to protect stocks of deepwater species and the Commission had made proposals for the introduction of TACs and Quotas on nine such species. However, the impact of the proposals would have been of limited value because the stocks are fished by non-EU states whose activities would have been unaffected. Also, the scientific advice suggests that other management measures may be appropriate. Accordingly, the proposals were not adopted, but the Council committed itself to address the question of how protection for these vulnerable and over-exploited stocks could most effectively be improved in early 2001.

  The Commission also presented a communication on the possibility of setting TACs on a multi-annual rather than annual basis under precautionary management strategies. This approach will apply first to cod and hake. The Council agreed that the Commission will continue its work in this area.

  The Council reached agreement in principle on the funding of fisheries control activities and on the consolidation of technical measures for highly migratory species like tuna and swordfish. The Council adopted a decision provisionally applying from 1 January 2001, the recently negotiated Fourth Protocol to the EU-Greenland Agreement; Portugal abstained. The Commission reported that negotiations were continuing on a new EU-Morocco Fisheries Agreement, though with little progress so far.

  In bilateral discussions with Denmark I agreed that we would have joint discussions in early 2001 on the North Sea sandeel fishery. These will cover possible reductions in the size of the TAC and adjustments to the bycatch arrangements which would reduce the allowance for bycatches of fish for human consumption.

  The outcome of the Council represents a balance between the need to conserve fish stocks for the future and the avoidance of disproportionate cuts in fishing opportunities in 2001. I recognise that the fishing industry faces a difficult period in responding to the poor state of stocks and we will be having discussions with them early in the new year to evaluate the situation.

  Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee
  Mr. Campbell-Savours
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food when the 1999–2000 Spongiform Encephalopathy Advisory Committee annual report will be published. [143682]

  Ms Quin
  The 1999–2000 SEAC annual report was published today, and will be available in the Libraries of the House. The report will also be released on the MAFF website www.maff.gov.uk.

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Access to Information
  Mr. Cawsey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when he intends to publish regulations on access to information under local authority executive constitutions. [143688]

  Ms Armstrong
  I have been asked to reply.

  I have today laid before the House the Local Authorities (Executive Arrangements) (Access to Information) (England) Regulations 2000. These regulations govern meetings of the executive under new local authority constitutions, recording of executive decisions and access to papers relating to executive decision making.

  The regulations introduce a rigorous new regime of accountability. For the first time, the public will have a right to more than three days' notice of key decisions which will affect the local community. For the first time, key officer decisions will be notified to the public in advance and be open to public scrutiny afterwards. In addition, the regulations are clear that where these key decisions are to be decided collectively by the executive or its committees, the public has a right to see those decisions being taken or discussed in advance with officers.

  I have also today published the revised chapter of the statutory guidance under Part II of the Act, which deals with access to information. This reinforces the intention of the regulations to ensure that there is a proper culture of transparency and accountability around executive decision making.

  Modular constitutions for local authorities are also published today. These are designed to assist local authorities who are drawing up proposals for new constitutions. Councils who follow the proposals in this document will be able to design a constitution which meets the aims of efficiency, transparency and accountability of decision making which underpin Part II of the Local Government Act.

  I am also publishing a direction under s37 of the Act today. This sets out what a council's new constitution must contain and a revised chapter of the guidance has been issued to accompany the direction.

  Copies of all these documents are available in the Library of the House.

  Employment Regulations
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list those organisations that(a) have replied to his Department's consultation on the Employment Agency Regulations and (b) he has met to discuss the regulation of 'temp to perm' contracts and the regulation of employment agencies; and if he will place all responses to this consultation in the Library. [143173]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I will write to the hon. Member listing the organisations and place a copy of that letter in the Libraries of the House. In the last 12 months I have met the Recruitment and Employment Confederation, Manpower, Adecco, Blue Arrow, Brook Street and Hewett Recruitment to discuss the regulations. Copies of

  137W
  e-mailed or written representations received will be made available on request except where the correspondent has indicated they wish their representation to remain confidential.

  Arms Sales
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what procedures the ECGD follows in order to ensure that commission payments on arms sales covered by ECGD guarantees to United Kingdom companies are declared to it. [142808]

  Mr. Caborn
  When completing applications for ECGD cover exporters are obliged to declare any commission payments. In addition to existing procedures for identifying and controlling agents commissions, ECGD has recently introduced provisions in all its facilities aimed specifically at combating bribery. These provisions, among other things, enable insurance policies to be avoided in bribery situations and allow ECGD to seek to recover any loss it may suffer under its facilities following the conviction of either the exporter or the bank for corruption in connection with a contract or its financing.

  Miners
  Dr. David Clark
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of the extra £100 million announced in October for miners suffering from chronic bronchitis and emphysema has been paid to former miners residing in(a) South Shields constituency, (b) the North East of England and (c) nationally. [142633]

  Mrs. Liddell
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: £100 million was an estimate of the offers that might be made once spirometry results had been reviewed.

  As at 13 December the Department had made in excess of 11,000 revised and new expedited offers totalling £54 million, further offers continue to be made. Of these, the value of payments made, following acceptance by the claimant, are as follows:

  (a) South Shields—£62,366;

  (b) North East—£1,053,659; and

  (c) Nationally—£9,548,233.

  Many thousands of new offers will be made before Christmas. However, payments will depend on how quickly claimants and their solicitors respond. Once an offer has been accepted, payment is usually made within 10 days.

  Petrol Prices
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations his Department has received about anti-competitive pricing practices in the petrol supply sector. [143151]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department has received a number of representations from petrol retailers.

  The Director General of Fair Trading is responsible for monitoring markets. He completed a review of differential pricing within this market in November. He concluded that differential pricing has not resulted from anti-competitive behaviour by the major oil companies.

  Postal Services
  Dr. Stoate
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he has issued consultation documents in relation to implementation of the Postal Services Act 2000; and if he will make a statement. [143686]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Under the Postal Services Act 2000, the Secretary of State has today published consultation documents on the definition of turnover for the purposes of financial penalties (section 30), free postal services for blind and partially sighted persons (section 41), and social and environmental guidelines (section 43). These consultation documents are available on the DTI website and hard copies are available from the Postal Services Directorate at the Department of Trade and Industry. Responses should be submitted by 31 January. Hard copies are also available in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

  Royal Mail
  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what representations he has received from(a) individuals and (b) organisations on the Royal Mail services in London NW1. [142952]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: In the last six months, my Department has received representations about Royal Mail services in London NW1 from five individuals, one Member of Parliament and one business.

  Compensation (Industrial Injuries)
  Tony Wright
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if solicitors are entitled to take part of the compensation awards to claimants under the Vibration White Finger and the Chronic Bronchitis and Emphysema litigation schemes. [142187]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a complex area. The Department's position is set out in a letter dated 26 July to hon. Members with direct coal mining interests, including my hon. Friend. A copy has been placed in the Library of the House for all hon. Members, and I am sending a copy of the letter to my hon. Friend. The Department believes that it is inappropriate for solicitors to take a proportion of a claimant's compensation.

HEALTH

  Child Asylum Seekers
  Ms Kelly
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many children seeking asylum were placed in the care of local authorities in each of the last three years; and how many children seeking asylum are accommodated in care homes in(a) Britain, (b) each region and (c) Bolton. [142041]

  Mr. Hutton
  Figures on the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum (UASC) who were placed in the care of local authorities are not available for the year 1997–98. Only those local authorities spending in excess of 5 per cent. of their children's personal social services standard spending assessment were eligible to claim grant in this period. Figures for weeks commencing 2 April
  139W
  1999 and 31 March 2000 are set out in the table. Comparable figures for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland are not available.

  Claims for payment of the 1999–2000 UASC special grant were submitted by local authorities in February 2000 based on actual expenditure from 1 April 1999 to 28 January 2000 and estimated expenditure from 29 January 2000 to 31 March 2000. The numbers of unaccompanied children for week commencing 31 March 2000 are estimated and subject to final audit and adjustment. Figures are only available for local authorities that submitted claims for the 1999–2000 special grant.

  In 1999–2000 there are no records of any unaccompanied children seeking asylum in Bolton and no claim for special grant was made by Bolton Metropolitan Borough Council for this period.

  Statistics showing the number of unaccompanied children seeking asylum accommodated in care homes are not held centrally.

  Local authority

  Total number of unaccompanied children at week commencing 2 April 1999

  Total estimated number of unaccompanied children at week commencing 31 March 2000

  Barking and Dagenham LB

  170

  166

  Barnet LB

  54

  48

  Bath and North East Somerset CC

  0

  1

  Bedfordshire CC

  1

  35

  Bexley LB

  24

  81

  Birmingham CC

  11

  40

  Brent LB

  117

  79

  Brighton and Hove

  0

  7

  Bristol CC

  4

  15

  Bromley LB

  33

  31

  Buckinghamshire CC

  2

  5

  Bury

  0

  2

  Camden LB

  94

  55

  Cheshire CC

  0

  1

  Cornwall

  0

  1

  Corporation of London

  0

  1

  Croydon LB

  134

  144

  Darlington BC

  0

  1

  Derby City C

  0

  1

  Dorset CC

  0

  1

  Dudley MB

  3

  2

  Ealing LB

  44

  112

  East Sussex CC

  1

  2

  Enfield LB

  15

  62

  Essex CC

  19

  25

  Gateshead MBC

  0

  1

  Gloucestershire CC

  3

  19

  Greenwich LB

  24

  68

  Hackney LB

  35

  55

  Hammersmith and Fulham LB

  123

  157

  Hampshire CC

  1

  6

  Haringey LB

  184

  353

  Harrow LB

  24

  49

  Havering LB

  3

  60

  Hertfordshire

  8

  65

  Hillingdon LB

  196

  412

  Hounslow LB

  14

  32

  Islington LB

  191

  398

  Kensington and Chelsea RB

  74

  113

  Kent CC

  112

  712

  Kirklees MBC

  2

  0

  Kingston upon Hull CC

  2

  2

  Kingston upon Thames RB

  7

  11

  Lambeth LB

  163

  176

  Lancashire CC

  1

  1

  Leeds CC

  1

  3

  Leicester CC

  6

  6

  140W

  Local authority

  Total number of unaccompanied children at week commencing 2 April 1999

  Total estimated number of unaccompanied children at week commencing 31 March 2000

  Leicestershire CC

  1

  12

  Lewisham LB

  69

  118

  Lincolnshire CC

  7

  15

  Liverpool CC

  2

  10

  Medway CC

  3

  8

  Merton LB

  23

  47

  Milton Keynes MBC

  0

  2

  Newcastle Upon Tyne

  2

  5

  Newham LB

  16

  25

  Norfolk CC

  4

  7

  Northamptonshire CC

  3

  79

  North East Lincolnshire

  2

  13

  North Somerset CC

  0

  3

  Nottingham CC

  2

  10

  Nottinghamshire CC

  2

  6

  Oxfordshire CC

  20

  40

  Peterborough

  0

  2

  Portsmouth CC

  0

  2

  Redbridge LB

  20

  194

  Redcar and Cleveland CC

  2

  4

  Richmond Upon Thames

  73

  204

  Rutland CC

  0

  1

  Sandwell CC

  4

  4

  Sheffield CC

  5

  13

  Shropshire CC

  2

  0

  Slough Borough C

  2

  5

  Solihull CC

  0

  2

  Somerset CC

  0

  2

  South Gloucestershire

  1

  3

  Southampton CC

  0

  5

  Southend on Sea BC

  4

  14

  Southwark LB

  89

  198

  Staffordshire CC

  18

  15

  Suffolk CC

  1

  18

  Sunderland

  0

  1

  Surrey CC

  9

  14

  Sutton LB

  15

  58

  Swindon BC

  4

  16

  Thurrock CC

  11

  41

  Tower Hamlets LB

  8

  13

  Trafford MBC

  0

  1

  Wakefield MDC

  3

  13

  Walsall MBC

  0

  2

  Waltham Forest LB

  12

  32

  Wandsworth LB

  38

  33

  Warrington BC

  0

  3

  Warwickshire CC

  14

  20

  West Sussex CC

  39

  77

  Westminster CC

  167

  156

  Wiltshire CC

  0

  3

  Wolverhampton MBC

  0

  1

  Worcestershire CC

  0

  6

  Total

  2,597

  5,193

  Dentistry
  Mr. Blizzard
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what his estimate is of the annual cost of providing free dentistry for people aged 75 years and over. [142387]

  Mr. Hutton
  Providing free dental treatment for people aged 75 and over would result in an annual reduction in patient charge revenue of about £30 million within the General Dental Service, in England.

  The total cost of making the change would exceed the reduction in patient charge revenue, as some additional demand would be stimulated for dental treatment.

  Detained Patients (Deaths)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he expects to receive the report of the Mental Health Act Commission into deaths of detained patients. [142495]

  Mr. Hutton
  The report into deaths of detained patients will be published by the Mental Health Act Commission early in the new year.

  Restraint Procedures
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the dangers of prone restraint and the possibility of positional asphyxia. [142497]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department is working with key organisations including the Royal College of Psychiatry and the Royal College of Nursing on a consultative document making recommendations in this area. The document will be published in the spring. In the meantime National Health Service trusts are expected to ensure safe systems of care in line with established good practice and provide adequate training on the recognition, prevention and management of aggression and how to assess and respond to respiratory distress.

  Deaths (Police Investigations)
  Mrs. Brinton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidelines he issues on the timescale of completion of expert medical reports in relation to deaths being investigated by the police and for coroner's inquests. [142496]

  Mr. Hutton
  The Department does not issue guidelines on these questions; they are matters for the police and coroners courts.

  Hospital Appointments
  Mr. Sheerman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what guidance he issues on best practice to encourage patients to keep their appointments with hospital consultants; and what steps NHS trusts take to ensure that patients attend such appointments. [142527]

  Mr. Denham
  The Department has issued three publications giving advice on reducing "do not attend" (DNA) rates.

  "Getting Patients Treated: The Waiting List Action Team Handbook" was published by the Waiting List Action Team in August 1999. This can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/wtactionteam.htm. It proposed the use of a "fail safe appointment system" to improve communication with patients before their appointment was due.

  "Variations in NHS Outpatient Performance" was published in November 1999. "A step by step guide to improving outpatient services" was published in July 2000. Both can be found at www.doh.gov.uk/pspp. These publications advised National Health Service trusts, health authorities and primary care groups/trusts to implement outpatient partial booking systems. These systems have been shown to reduce the number of DNAs. They enable patients and NHS trusts to agree a mutually convenient date and time for appointments. All NHS trusts have been asked to introduce partial booking systems in outpatient clinics with waiting times in excess of 13 weeks.
  142W
  NHS trusts are implementing this guidance. Individual NHS trusts also take additional steps, such as writing to remind patients of their appointments and providing patients with a central telephone number for changing or cancelling appointments.

  In addition, as part of the national booked admissions programme, every acute NHS trust will offer booked appointments to at least some patients by the end of March 2001. Development of the national booked admissions programme is being supported at individual project level by the National Patients Access Team.

  The NHS plan target is that by the end of 2005 all patients will be able to pre-book their appointments and hospital admission dates.

  Secure Accommodation
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many places in local authority secure accommodation have been(a) provided and (b) planned for since 1 May 1997. [142623]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]: At 31 March 1997 there were 328 approved places in local authority secure accommodation in England. A further 113 approved places have since been provided. Of these 113 places, five were planned since 1 May 1997 and a further eight more places are due to become operational in the new year.

  Child Migrants (Zimbabwe)
  Mr. Coaker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what representations he has received regarding former child migrants in Zimbabwe; and if he will make a statement; [142821]

  (2) what assessment he has made of the situation of former child migrants in Zimbabwe. [142820]

  Mr. Hutton
  We are not aware of any particular issues regarding former child migrants in Zimbabwe and have received no representations on this subject.

  Social Services Expenditure (Cambridgeshire)
  Mrs. Anne Campbell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how much was spent per head of population by social services in Cambridgeshire in each year since 1990–91 at current prices. [142868]

  Mr. Hutton
  The gross amounts spent per head of population on social services in Cambridgeshire in each year from 1990–91 to 1999–2000, at 1999–2000 prices, are given in the table.

  Gross amount spent per head of population per year on social services in Cambridgeshire at 1999–2000 prices1

  Year

  £

  1990–91

  105.19

  1991–92

  109.01

  1992–93

  111.56

  1993–94

  122.71

  1994–95

  145.20

  1995–96

  150.59

  1996–97

  149.86

  1997–98

  157.42

  1998–99

  172.22

  143W

  Gross amount spent per head of population per year on social services in Cambridgeshire at 1999–2000 prices1

  Year

  £

  1998–992

  181.34

  1999–20001

  178.78

  1999–20001,2

  194.20

  Notes:

  1Source of population data is the Office of National zStatistics. Finance data is derived from revenue outturn figures supplied by local authorities on form RO3 (1999–2000 finance data is derived from the Key Statistics return made to the Department by local authorities and must be regarded as provisional until confirmed by revenue outturn figures).

  2Including Peterborough. Peterborough became a separate unitary local authority from April 1998. Therefore, the amounts shown for 1998–99 and 1999–2000 which include Peterborough are those directly comparable with the previous years.

  Primary Care Centres
  Mr. Breed
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the one-stop primary care centres in rural areas will open; and where they will be located. [143262]

  Mr. Denham
  We are committed to developing 500 one stop primary care centres in England by 2004. As part of this development, over 100 primary care centres or mobile service units will provide better access to services for the majority of rural people. The final location of the centres/units will be determined by local service planning with national guidance and support.

  Relenza and Lysovir
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the costs to the NHS of(a) Relenza and (b) Lysovir are; and if he will make a statement. [142812]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]: The latest available figures on the costs of National Health Service prescription items for Relenza and Lysovir dispensed in the community in England are shown in the table. Information is not available for prescriptions dispensed in National Health Service hospitals.

  The net ingredient cost of prescription items for Relenza and Lysovir dispensed in the community for the period January 2000 to June 2000, England

  £000

  Drug

  Net ingredient cost

  Relenza

  4.0

  Lysovir

  0.4

  Notes:

  1. The data are from the Prescription Cost Analysis (PCA) systems and are based on a full analysis of all prescriptions dispensed in the community, i.e. by community pharmacists and appliance contractors, dispensing doctors, and prescriptions submitted by prescribing doctors for items personally administered in England. Total prescriptions include not only prescriptions originating from general practices in England but also from nurses, hospital doctors and dentists provided they were dispensed in the community. Also included are prescriptions written in Wales, Scotland, Northern Ireland and the Isle of Man but dispensed in England. The data do not cover drugs dispensed in hospitals or private prescriptions.

  2. The net ingredient cost (NIC) is the basic cost of a drug and does not take account of discounts, dispensing costs, fees or prescription charges income.

  Patient Advocate and Liaison Service
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what will be the cost under the National Health Service Plan of establishing the Patient Advocate and Liaison Service structure; [143131]

  (2) what the additional cost, over the costs for Community Health Councils, will be of establishing the Patient Advocate and Liaison Service structure. [143269]

  Ms Stuart
  An additional £10 million has been included in the NHS plan to fund patient advocate and liaison services and the related forums.

  Community Health Councils
  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what has been the change in the funding of community health councils from 1997 to 2000. [143128]

  Ms Stuart
  The information requested is as follows:

  £ million

  1997–98

  21.659

  1998–99

  22.55

  1999–2000

  22.561

  2000–01

  23.324

  Mr. Laxton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the consultation period on the future of community health councils(a) commenced and (b) will end. [143130]

  Ms Stuart
  Chapter 10 of the NHS plan proposed that community health councils be abolished and new structures set in place to increase patient and citizen empowerment across all sectors of the health service. Following the launch of the NHS plan in July a public undertaking was given to involve national and local stakeholder groups in developing the detail of the new structures. A series of seminars through November and December have been held. These seminars focused on the various elements of the new arrangements and involved key representative groups. A clear statement of the outcome of the exercise will be given in the new year.

  Mr. McDonnell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what representations he has received on his proposals to abolish community health councils. [143386]

  Ms Stuart
  Chapter 10 of the NHS plan proposed that community health councils be abolished and that new structures set in place to increase patient and citizen empowerment across all sectors of the health service. A number of representations have been received about the future of CHCs and the new structures.

  A series of national and regional seminars focusing on the various elements of the new arrangements and involving key national and local representative groups have been held in November and December. A clear statement of the outcome of the exercise will be given early in the new year.

  Autism
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will detail the services and provision made available by his Department in England to those diagnosed with autistic spectrum disorder. [142846]
  145W
  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: It is the responsibility of local statutory authorities to determine the pattern of services in their area in the light of their knowledge of local needs and priorities.

  The Department has issued guidance to encourage the development, at a local level, of a range of well co-ordinated health and social services for people with learning disabilities and autism and their carers.

  Meat Inspection Charges
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of state for Health what assessment he has made of the effect on abattoir numbers of increased meat inspection charges scheduled for introduction in April 2001. [143178]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that it has not made any official assessment of the impact on abattoir numbers of any increase in overall inspection charges arising from the planned introduction of full veterinary inspection supervision in full throughout abattoirs from April 2001. However, the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force, which reported to the FSA in June this year, concluded that this, in conjunction with the existing meat inspection charging arrangements, would lead to the
  serious decimation of the small and medium sized abattoir and cutting plant sector.
  The Task Force also considered that in some cases this would result in
  a near doubling of inspection charges for certain individual plants, particularly those in the small and medium sized sector, removing a substantial proportion of their profit and threatening many businesses.

  Against that background, on 28 November, we announced in the Rural White Paper that it would be providing £8.7 million in additional new aid in 2001–02 to offset meat inspection costs in order to secure the future of small and medium abattoirs.

  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he will publish his response to the report of the meat inspection charges task force. [143177]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Our response to the report of the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force was made on 28 November when, in the context of the publication of the Rural White Paper, it announced new additional aid worth £8.7 million in 2001–02 to offset meat inspection costs in order to secure the future of small and medium sized abattoirs.

  I am advised that, as a consequence, the Food Standards Agency will consult early in the new year on the secondary legislation necessary and on how it proposes to implement with effect from April 2001 the Task Force's main recommendation to change the basis of the meat inspection charges system.

  Special Hospitals
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many women patients are awaiting transfer from special hospitals. [142636]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: There are currently 20 women patients awaiting transfer from the special hospitals. These are patients for whom
  146W
  potential receiving clinicians have agreed that transfer is appropriate and in respect of whom my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has, where necessary, consented to transfer.

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what progress has been made in developing a national strategy for women in need of secure hospital accommodation; and if he will make a statement. [142637]

  Mr. Hutton
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: Work is under way on the development of a strategy aimed at providing safe, appropriate and secure services that meet the needs of women patients. The strategy should be completed by October 2001 at the latest.

  Abattoirs
  Mr. Paice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what assessment he has made of the impact on the future of small and medium sized abattoirs of(a) the resources announced in the Rural White Paper and (b) the proposals of the Maclean Committee. [142889]

  Ms Stuart
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]: I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that the Meat Inspection Charges Task Force (the Maclean Committee) concluded that the Government should provide some degree of financial support in order to prevent the closure of large numbers of small and medium sized abattoirs and cutting plants. It therefore recommended that the current method of charging for meat inspections on an hourly rate basis should be changed and that, instead, all abattoirs and cutting plants should be charged the lower of either the standard (headage/throughput) fees laid down in the EU Charges Directive or their actual inspection costs (subject to the minimum charge of 45 per cent. of the standard headage/throughput charges, as required by the Directive).

  We have accepted this recommendation. The additional aid announced on 28 November in the context of the publication of the Rural White Paper (£8.7 million in 2001–02) together with the existing subsidy on meat inspection charges (£9 million in 2001–02) will help to fund implementation of the new method of charging. Any shortfall in the funding will be met from within Food Standards Agency resources.

  The Task Force considered that acceptance of this recommendation by the Government would ensure that Meat Hygiene Service inspection charges were not the main reason for plants going out of business, which appeared to the Task Force to be the case under the existing charging system. However, the Task Force also considered that implementing its recommendation would not in itself keep uncompetitive meat plants in existence.

  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Mrs. Gilroy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when he intends to publish the Fourth report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme. [143751]

  Ms Stuart
  The Fourth Report to Parliament on the Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme (PPRS) was published today. Copies have been placed in the Library.

  The PPRS: Fourth Report to Parliament covers both the conclusion of the 1993 scheme and the operation of the first year of the new scheme from October 1999. It provides an insight into the running of the PPRS; reports

  147W
  on the Government's broad objectives for the 1999 scheme; and describes the principal features of the new scheme, including the benefits for the National Health Service and the British pharmaceutical industry.

  Mid-Essex Hospital Service NHS Trust
  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will publish the most recent figures for the number of people waiting for in patient treatment in the Mid-Essex Hospital Services NHS Trust Area. [143110]

  Mr. Denham
  In October 2000, there were 9,375 patients waiting for inpatient treatment at Mid-Essex Hospital Services National Health Service Trust.

  Source:

  Monthly waiting list returns

  Overseas Nurses
  Mr. Burstow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide a support package to help overseas nurses taking up positions in the NHS; and if he will estimate the cost(a) in total and (b) per overseas nurse of such a package. [143575]

  Mr. Denham
  The National Health Service Executive issued guidance on international recruitment to the service in November last year. The guidance gives NHS employers clear and authoritative policy on the pursuit of international recruitment, including the provision of support for new recruits. Copies are available in the Library.

  NHS Continuing Care
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) what plans his Department has to ensure that health authorities whose eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care fail to meet the requirements of Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 (or as amended) act to comply with these requirements; [143358]

  (2) if he will list by region the dates at which health authorities whose eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care had failed to meet the requirements set out in Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 (or as amended) acted to comply with these requirements; [143360]

  (3) if he will list by region those health authorities whose eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care fail to meet the requirements set out in Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 (or as amended); [143361]

  (4) if he will list by region, the health authorities whose eligibility criteria for NHS continuing care failed to meet the requirements set out in HSC 1999/180. [143364]

  Mr. Hutton
  Health authorities were instructed to satisfy themselves that their eligibility criteria were in line with the Court of Appeal judgment in the case of R.v. North and East Devon Health authority ex parte Coughlan and other guidance, taking legal advice as necessary. Where health authorities revised their criteria, they were requested to consider what action needed to be taken to reassess service users against the revised criteria. The regional office of the National Health Service Executive contacted health authorities to confirm they had taken this action.
  148W
  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when the Regional Authority of the NHS Executive last discussed the compliance of the eligibility criteria of the Southampton and South West Hampshire Health Authority for NHS continuing care with the requirements of Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 (or as amended); and if he will make a statement. [143359]

  Mr. Hutton
  The South East Regional Office of the National Health Service Executive is in regular contact with Southampton and South West Hampshire health authority about NHS continuing care. The health authority assessed their eligibility criteria in light of the Coughlan judgment and was satisfied these were in keeping with the advice in the circular issued following the judgment. The health authority and social services are working together to deliver effective continuing care services.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 was last updated; and what changes have been made to it since 11 August 1999. [143362]

  Mr. Hutton
  This circular has not been updated or changed since 11 August 1999.

  Mr. Chidgey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health when health authorities were last contacted by the Regional Officer of the NHS Executive to confirm that they had taken action as required by Health Service Circular HSC 1999/180 (as amended). [143363]

  Mr. Hutton
  This activity is part of the regular performance management of health authorities by the eight regional offices of the National Health Service Executive.

  Locum Allowance
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will provide the analysis of general medical service non-cash limited expenditure for locum allowance in England 1999–2000. [143182]

  Mr. Denham
  The general medical services non-cash limited expenditure for directly reimbursed locum allowances for 1999–2000 for England is shown in the table.

  For 2001–02 we have accepted the Doctors and Dentists Review Body's recommendation, which means the maximum weekly directly reimbursed locum allowance should increase by 67 per cent.

  General medical services non-discretionary expenditure for locum costs for 1999–2000

  £

  Locum allowance

  England total

  Single handed rural Gps attending training courses

  831,539

  Sickness

  4,057,199

  Confinement

  2,737,848

  Prolonged study leave (including educational allowance)

  1,845,548

  Note:

  The data provided in this table are provisional tin-audited accounts data for 1999–2000

  Nurses
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health how many nurses have(a) joined and (b) left the nursing profession in the NHS in each of the last 10 years. [143565]

  NHS hospital and community health service nursing, midwifery and health visiting staff by qualification (excluding agency staff and project 2000 students) in England as at 30 September each year

  Whole-time equivalents

  Numbers (headcount)

  Total staff

  Qualified

  GMS practice nurses

  Total staff

  Qualified

  GMS practice nurses

  1990

  250,000

  242,340

  7,740

  298,970

  285,360

  13,610

  1991

  252,030

  243,250

  8,780

  309,780

  293,770

  16,010

  1992

  255,690

  246,570

  9,120

  313,980

  297,350

  16,640

  1993

  251,450

  241,850

  9,600

  310,900

  293,380

  17,520

  1994

  247,880

  238,780

  9,100

  305,780

  289,280

  16,500

  1995

  256,560

  246,820

  9,740

  316,890

  298,650

  18,240

  1996

  257,890

  248,070

  9,820

  319,150

  301,250

  17,900

  1997

  256,090

  246,010

  10,080

  318,860

  300,470

  18,390

  1998

  257,600

  247,240

  10,360

  323,450

  304,560

  18,890

  1999

  261,340

  250,650

  10,690

  329,390

  310,140

  19,250

  Notes:

  1. 1990–94: based on payscale estimates.

  2. 1995–99: based on new occupation codes.

  3. A new classification of the non-medical workforce was introduced in 1995.

  4. Information based on this classification is not directly comparable with earlier years.

  5. All figures are rounded to the nearest ten.

  6. Due to rounding totals may not equal the sum of component parts.

  7. Figures exclude learners and agency staff.

  8. GMS Practice nurse data as at 1 October each year.

  Sources:

  Department of Health Non-Medical Workforce Census

  General Medical Practitioners Census

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  Family Friendly Policies
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what support he plans to give to improve family friendly policies and facilities in the House. [141612]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  Much has already been done. The recent changes to sitting hours will help those hon. Members who are also parents.

  I understand that the Administration Committee is considering ways of helping hon. Members with their child care responsibilities.

  Nursery Provision
  Mr. Corbyn
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to make provision for an on-site nursery in the Palace of Westminster. [141615]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  None at present. Evidence to the Commission suggests that staff for whom it is responsible are very satisfied with the existing childcare voucher scheme.

  Security
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, what plans he has to review the security arrangements in the Palace of Westminster. [141618]
  150W
  Mr. Denham
  The Department does not collect data on the number of nurses leaving the NHS. The table gives net changes in the number of nurses employed in the NHS over the last 10 years.

  Mr. Kirkwood
  It has been the long-standing practice not to comment on matters of security within the Palace of Westminster. I can assure the hon. Member that security matters are regularly reviewed.

  Portcullis House
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, when he expects to place in the Library a copy of the report by Sir Thomas Legg on Portcullis House. [141609]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  The Commission has no plans to place the report of Sir Thomas Legg in the Library since it dealt with matters of commercial and personnel confidentiality.

  House of Commons Commission
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, if he will place in the Library a detailed account of the Commission's approach to the defence case pursued in the Harmon v. House of Commons Corporate Officer case. [142133]

  Mr. Kirkwood
  [holding answer 13 December 2000]Throughout the case of Harmon v. The House of Commons Corporate Officer, the Commission has defended the House's position vigorously, guided in its decision taking by high level legal advice. When it became clear that even if finally successful the House would recover nothing in the damages action because of Harmon' s insolvency, and in the face of mounting legal costs, the Commission settled out of court as I indicated in my reply to the hon. Member for Broxbourne (Mrs. Roe) on 2 November 2000, Official Report, column 575W.

PRESIDENT OF THE COUNCIL

  People's Peerage
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council if the applications from those seeking a people's peerage will be lodged in the Library. [141613]

  Mr. Tipping
  No. The Appointments Commission made it clear in its material that it would treat all nominations and supporting information in confidence.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. David Heath
  To ask the President of the Council what guidance is given to Ministers on transferring questions tabled to them which lie(a) wholly and (b) partly within their area of responsibility. [141614]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No central guidance is issued as such, beyond that in 'Erskine May', questions fall to the Minister who is primarily responsible. Departmental parliamentary branches are expected to take account of the list of ministerial responsibilities issued by the Cabinet Office and rulings from the Chair, such as that given by the Chairman of Ways and Means on 18 July.

  Parliamentary Year
  Mr. Gapes
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her plans for earlier public announcements of forward planning of the parliamentary year. [141616]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I am happy to have been able to give the House early notification of the Christmas Adjournment and the February half-term break. I hope to continue such early announcements.

  Electronic Voting
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on her proposals for electronic voting in the House. [141617]

  Mrs. Beckett
  I refer the hon. Gentleman to the answer I gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart) and the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 201.

SCOTLAND

  Voting Rights
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the President of the Council on changes to the rights of Scottish hon. Members to vote on purely English legislation. [141567]

  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the President of the Council on the rights of Scottish hon. Members to vote on purely English legislation. [141579]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. The Government do not support the suggestion that there should be different classes of MP in Parliament with different voting rights.

  Country Sports
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the pursuit of country sports in Scotland; and if he will make a statement. [141568]

  Mr. Wilson
  None. This subject is devolved and is a matter for the Scottish Parliament.

  Fishing Industry
  Mr. Doran
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of the fishing industry; and what matters were discussed. [141569]

  Dr. Reid
  I met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry on 24 June 1999 to hear their concerns about the Scottish Adjacent Waters Boundaries Order 1999.

  Mr. Andrew George
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish Executive's fisheries Minister on the future of the Scottish sea fishing industry. [141582]

  Dr. Reid
  I meet Ministers of the Scottish Executive on a regular basis to discuss a wide range of matters of importance to Scotland.

  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the procedures for representing the interests of the Scottish fishing industry in discussions within the EU. [141562]

  Dr. Reid
  Relations with the European Union are the responsibility of the UK Government and the UK Parliament. The procedures for representing the interests of the devolved Administrations in relation to devolved matters, such as fisheries, are set out in the join Memorandum of Understanding and the relevant Concordats on Co-ordination of European Union Policy Issues. Scottish Executive Ministers attend Fisheries Councils as part of the UK team.

  Military Bases
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will estimate the gross financial benefit for the Scottish economy of having UK armed forces based in Scotland. [141570]

  Dr. Reid
  On the basis of the most recent figures available, defence expenditure in Scotland is estimated at approximately £1.8 billion and supports, directly and indirectly, approximately 60,000 jobs. Clearly, defence expenditure is both substantial and important to the Scottish economy.

  Job Action Teams
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of job action team pilots in Scotland. [141571]

  Mr. Wilson
  Early indications are that action teams are proving a success in helping unemployed people back to work. By finding local solutions to local problems action teams in East Ayrshire, West Dunbartonshire, Glasgow and the Highlands and Islands have helped an additional 222 long-term unemployed people find work.

  Dounreay
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement about the progress of discussions on the Dounreay site restoration plan. [141572]

  Dr. Reid
  The Nuclear Industries Inspectorate, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry are continuing their assessment of the UK Atomic Energy Authority's Site Restoration Plan for Dounreay, which was published on 9 October.

  Fuel Prices
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the current level of fuel prices on the economy of the highlands and islands. [141573]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government view the economic impact of fuel prices within the context of their pursuit of fiscal and economic policies, which are leading to economic stability and steady growth.

  The measures announced by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget Report to raise the limit for the lower rate of Vehicle Excise Duty for cars up to 1500cc will benefit over 40,000 motorists in the Highlands and Islands. Hauliers will benefit from the reform of the Vehicle Excise Duty and farmers will benefit from the freeze in duty on red diesel and the abolition of Vehicle Excise Duty on tractors and other agricultural vehicles.

  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the impact of the current level of fuel prices on the Scottish economy. [141581]

  Mr. Wilson
  The Government view the economic impact of fuel prices within the context of their pursuit of fiscal and economic policies, which are leading to economic stability and steady growth.

  The measures announced by the Chancellor in his pre-Budget Report to raise the limit for the lower rate of Vehicle Excise Duty for cars of up to 1500cc will benefit over 750,000 Scottish motorists, over 40 per cent. of the total. All Scottish motorists will benefit from the freeze in duties on road fuels in Budget 2001 and from the cuts in duty for ultra low-sulphur petrol and diesel.

  Mr. Burns
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer regarding fuel prices in Scotland. [141583]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer on a wide range of issues affecting Scotland.

  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor and I agree that the price of fuel is only one factor in any consideration of motoring costs. Independent research commissioned by my Department has shown that the taxation costs of private motoring are lower in Scotland than in European countries such as the Netherlands, Finland, Ireland and even Portugal. The average Scottish driver pays £1,000 a year less than in Denmark.

  Al (Dualling)
  Mr. Cousins
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Transport Minister of the Scottish Executive on the dualling of the A1. [141574]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have regular discussions with the Minister on a wide range of transport issues. I understand that the Scottish Executive also have frequent contact with the Department for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in order to discuss issues of common interest, including improvements to the A1.

  Trade Unions
  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland when he last met representatives of Scottish trade unions; and what matters were discussed. [141575]

  Dr. Reid
  I meet representatives of Scottish trade unions regularly to discuss a wide range of matters of importance to the Scottish economy.

  New Deal
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many employers in Scotland have signed up to the new deal. [141576]

  Dr. Reid
  Employers have made an important contribution to the success of the new deal in Scotland, which has helped 29,200 young people into work since April 1998. As at November 2000, 12,530 employers in Scotland had signed up to the new deal.

  Winter Fuel Payment
  Miss Begg
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about this year's winter fuel payment to pensioners in Scotland. [141577]

  Mr. Wilson
  The amount of the winter fuel payment has been increased to £200 for households that qualify—double the amount that was paid last winter. This is excellent news for the majority of people aged 60 and over in Scotland. Latest information shows that around 1 million people in Scotland will benefit from payments totalling almost £150 million, including over £2.2 million in Aberdeen, South constituency.

  Mr. Savidge
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish pensioners will benefit this year from the increased winter fuel payment. [141580]

  Mr. Wilson
  Around 1 million people in Scotland aged 60 or more will benefit from the increased winter fuel payment this winter. Latest information shows that almost £150 million will be paid out in Scotland, including over £1.7 million in the Aberdeen, North constituency. This is part of our work to help Scottish pensioners. Other areas are the minimum income guarantee, free TV licences for pensioners aged 75 or over, and the increase in the state pension.

  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received about the winter fuel payment for households in Scotland. [141584]

  Mr. Wilson
  The winter fuel payment has been increased to £200 for households that qualify—double what was paid last winter. This is excellent news for the
  155W
  majority of people in Scotland aged 60 or over. Latest information shows that payments totalling almost £150 million will be made to over 700,000 households in Scotland, including over £2.2 million in Dundee, West constituency. All automatic payments have already been issued and should be received before Christmas—as should payments in respect of claims determined before 9 November.

  Rural Post Offices
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of rural post offices in Scotland. [141578]

  Mr. Wilson
  This Government recognise that post offices form a vital part of the rural community, and are fully committed to maintaining the existing size and shape of the rural network. We have asked the Post Office to ensure that it prevents any avoidable closures of rural post offices. This obligation will be written into the social and environmental guidelines under the Postal Services Act 2000. Where necessary, there will be funds available to back it up.

  Rural Economy
  Mr. Nicholas Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the First Minister about the future of the rural economy in Scotland. [141585]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with the First Minister on a wide range of issues.

  The Government are committed to the sustainable development of the rural economy and rural communities. Overall development of the rural economy in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive. However, recent announcements made by the Chancellor in the Pre-Budget Report to abolish Vehicle Excise Duty for tractors, extension of reduced VED for cars under 1500 cc and hauliers, and proposed reductions in duty on low sulphur diesel and petrol will help to address the issue of high transport costs in rural areas. This Government also recognise that post offices form a vital part of the rural community, and are fully committed to maintaining the existing size and shape of the rural network.

  McDermott Employees (Pension Plan)
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has received from former McDermott employees at the Ardiersier oil fabrication yard on the winding up of their pension plan. [141586]

  Dr. Reid
  I refer my hon. Friend to my written answer of 18 December 2000,Official Report, column 39W.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Rights Convention
  Miss McIntosh
  To ask the Advocate-General in how many cases her advice has been sought on the implementation of the Human Rights convention; and if she will make a statement. [141589]
  156W
  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I am frequently asked for, and give advice on, matters relating to the application in the UK of the European Convention on Human Rights.

  Human Rights Act 1998
  Mr. Baldry
  To ask the Advocate-General what discussions she has had with the Home Secretary about the impact of the Human Rights Act 1998 on Scottish law. [141590]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Buckingham, (Mr. Bercow) on 19 December 2000,Official Report, column 195.

CABINET OFFICE

  Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission
  Mr. Page
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list the members of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and the names of the environment organisations to which they belong. [143122]

  Mr. Ian McCartney
  A full list of the members of the Agriculture and Environment Biotechnology Commission and a copy of the register of interests has been placed in the Library of the House. Members are appointed on a personal basis and not as representatives of environmental or other organisations.

  Ministerial Correspondence
  Mr. Ian Bruce
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her assessment is of the progress of ministers in replying to letters from hon. Members more promptly. [141611]

  Mr. Stringer
  The prompt and efficient handling of Members' correspondence is an issue to which I and ministerial colleagues attach the greatest importance. I know that Departments are working hard to improve their response times, and I hope that the forthcoming annual report on Departments handling of Members correspondence (which is due to be presented to Parliament in the Spring) will show that real progress has been made.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office if she will list each new publication issued by her Department since 1997 and the total cost to the Department of each publication. [141474]

  Mr. Stringer
  I refer the hon. Member to the answer provided on 1 November 1999,Official Report, column 51W. A list of official publications issued by the Cabinet Office since May 1997 was placed in the Library. This list will be updated in the new year with information for 2000–01. I will write to the hon. Member with this information when it has been provided.
  157W
  Spending plans for Cabinet Office management units in 2001–02 are currently being discussed and are not available in the format requested.

  Official Correspondence
  Mrs. Virginia Bottomley
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office what her policy is on authorising ministers and officials to reply to letters from(a) privy councillors, (b) hon. Members and (c) members of the House of Lords; what distinction she makes between members of the opposition and Government supporters; and which categories of correspondents the Prime Minister replies to himself. [142980]

  Mr. Stringer
  There are long-established conventions governing the handling of correspondence from Privy Councillors and Members of both Houses. These are set out in various guidance documents issued by the Cabinet Office. The most recent guidance document, "Handing Correspondence from Members of Parliament: Guidance for Departments", was published in July 2000. Copies have been placed in the Library of the House.

TREASURY

  Prostate Cancer
  Dr. Kumar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many men died from prostate cancer in each health authority in the last year for which figures are available. [142837]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 15 December 2000]The information requested falls within the responsibility of the National Statistician. I have asked him to reply.

  Letter from Len Cook to Dr. Ashok Kumar, dated 19 December 2000:
  As National Statistician I have been asked to reply to your recent question on deaths from prostate cancer in each health authority in the last year for which figures are available.
  The information requested is provided in the attached table.

  Number of deaths from Prostate cancer1 by Health Authority, men, England and Wales, 1999

  Health Authority

  Number of deaths

  Avon

  174

  Barking and Havering

  63

  Barnet

  40

  Barnsley

  36

  Bedfordshire

  74

  Berkshire

  114

  Bexley and Greenwich

  54

  Birmingham

  135

  Bradford

  67

  Brent and Harrow

  47

  Bromley

  51

  Buckinghamshire

  123

  Bury and Rochdale

  66

  Calderdale and Kirklees

  90

  Cambridgeshire

  103

  Camden and Islington

  33

  Cornwall and Isles of Scilly

  112

  County Durham

  99

  Coventry

  46

  Croydon

  54

  Doncaster

  48

  Dorset

  167

  Dudley

  60

  158W

  Number of deaths from Prostate cancer1 by Health Authority, men, England and Wales, 1999

  Health Authority

  Number of deaths

  Ealing, Hammersmith and Hounslow

  65

  East and North Hertfordshire

  59

  East Kent

  142

  East Lancashire

  88

  East London and The City

  72

  East Riding

  106

  East Surrey

  67

  East Sussex, Brighton and Hove

  163

  Enfield and Haringey

  68

  Gateshead and South Tyneside

  47

  Gloucestershire

  91

  Herefordshire

  46

  Hillingdon

  38

  Isle of Wight

  28

  Kensington, Chelsea and Westminster

  50

  Kingston and Richmond

  44

  Lambeth, Southwark and Lewisham

  77

  Leeds

  105

  Leicestershire

  143

  Lincolnshire

  124

  Liverpool

  53

  Manchester

  49

  Merton, Sutton and Wandsworth

  92

  Morecambe Bay

  64

  Newcastle and North Tyneside

  62

  Norfolk

  173

  North and East Devon

  134

  North and Mid Hampshire

  91

  North Cheshire

  41

  North Cumbria

  59

  North Derbyshire

  65

  North Essex

  180

  North Nottinghamshire

  71

  North Staffordshire

  68

  North West Lancashire

  93

  North Yorkshire

  131

  Northamptonshire

  98

  Northumberland

  42

  Nottingham

  104

  Oxfordshire

  86

  Portsmouth and South East Hampshire

  89

  Redbridge and Waltham Forest

  62

  Rotherham

  41

  Salford and Trafford

  77

  Sandwell

  47

  Sefton

  64

  Shefield

  73

  Shropshire

  82

  Solihull

  29

  Somerset

  94

  South and West Devon

  118

  South Cheshire

  106

  South Derbyshire

  64

  South Essex

  107

  South Humber

  60

  South Lancashire

  43

  South Staffordshire

  82

  Southampton and South West Hampshire

  99

  St. Helens and Knowsley

  42

  Stockport

  39

  Suffolk

  135

  Sunderland

  38

  Tees

  87

  Wakefield

  38

  Walsall

  55

  Warwickshire

  84

  West Hertfordshire

  82

  West Kent

  160

  West Pennine

  66

  West Surrey

  118

  West Sussex

  187

  Wigan and Bolton

  62

  Wiltshire

  104

  Wirral

  42

  Wolverhampton

  38

  Worcestershire

  99

  England

  8,048

  159W

  Number of deaths from Prostate cancer1 by Health Authority, men, England and Wales, 1999

  Health Authority

  Number of deaths

  Bro Taf

  113

  Gwent

  69

  Dyfed Powys

  90

  North Wales

  112

  Morgannwg

  85

  Wales

  479

  1 Prostate cancer deaths are classificated according to the International Classification of Diseases, Ninth Edition and are selected using ICD9 code 185

  Company Cars
  Mr. Jenkin
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer (1) if he will assess the benefits of charging the benefit in kind taxation paid by an employee in receipt of a company-provided car on the cost of purchasing the car by the employer; [142740]

  (2) for what reason the benefit-in-kind taxation paid by an employee in receipt of a company-provided car is calculated on the retail price of the car; and if he will make a statement. [143566]

  Dawn Primarolo
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]The company car tax charge is based on the car's list price at first registration as this is easily obtainable and is the fairest figure on which to base the charge. Introduced from April 1994, this was the preferred option of the majority of those who responded to the 1992 consultation on the reform of company car taxation. It ensures that employees driving identical cars of the same age pay the same tax. List price will therefore continue to be used when the company car tax system is reformed from April 2002.

  Basing the tax charge on the cost to the employer of providing the company car would create inequities between employees driving identical cars. However, in recent weeks most car manufacturers have reduced their list prices. This means company car drivers will accordingly pay less tax as their cars are replaced.

  Scotch Whisky Industry
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what proportion of energy used by the Scotch whisky industry he estimates will be exempt from the climate change levy. [143455]

  Mr. Timms
  In common with other sectors, the proportion of energy used by the Scottish whisky industry which is exempt from the climate change levy will depend upon the extent to which the sector chooses to make use of renewable energy or combined heat and power.

  Greenhouse Gas Emissions
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the total reduction in greenhouse gas emissions as a result of agreements concluded with(a) business sectors and (b) individual firms in connection with the introduction of the climate change levy. [143456]
  160W
  Mr. Timms
  Table 6.2 of the November 2000 pre-Budget Report provides estimates of the environmental impact of the elements of the climate change levy package.

  Euro
  Mr. Heathcoat-Amory
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is the cost for 2000–01 of the network of regional forums to help firms prepare for the euro. [142466]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]Regional Euro Forums budgets are published in the Government's Expenditure Plans for the Department of Trade and Industry.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how many enterprises in the United Kingdom horticulture industry have benefited from capital allowances in respect of thermal screens for glasshouses as a result of the extension of the list of investments qualifying for capital allowances following the introduction of the climate change levy; and what is the value of the allowances made. [142622]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 14 December 2000]None. As announced in Spending Review 2000, energy efficiency funding from the climate change levy will be administered by a business-led, not-for-profit, limited company, the Carbon Trust, which is currently being set up through the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what his most recent estimate is of(a) the number of businesses which will engage in self-certification for the purpose of claiming relief from the climate change levy and (b) the compliance costs for the businesses concerned. [143454]

  Mr. Timms
  The number of businesses taking part in self-certification is not expected to exceed 30,000.

  Compliance costs will vary from company to company depending on the complexity of their activities and the extent to which the climate change levy relief can be claimed.

  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what is his most recent estimate of the cost of the climate change levy expressed in terms of cost per tonne of carbon emissions saved. [142421]

  Mr. Timms
  [holding answer 12 December 2000]The climate change levy package will be revenue neutral for the private sector. Estimated emissions savings are shown in Table 6.2 of the pre-Budget report 2000.

  Official Publications
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list each new publication issued by his Department since 1997; and what the total cost was to the Department of each publication. [141469]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 11 December 2000]HM Treasury's Public Enquiry Unit maintains the 'HM Treasury—Publications in Print', which is a list of
  161W
  the Department's publications and also gives the dates of publication. It is extensive and includes publications produced before 1997. I am today placing copies of this document in the Library of the House.

  Non-departmental Public Bodies
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what directions overriding a note of dissent by an accounting officer have been given by the boards of non-departmental public bodies within his Department's remit since May 1997; and if he will place details of such directions in the Library. [143542]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  There were no such directions in respect of Treasury non-departmental public bodies.

  Official Meetings
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will list the organisations which he met in his official capacity during November, indicating the number of occasions on which he met each organisation. [142538]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  My right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer had a number of meetings with representatives from a range of organisations.

  Equitable Life
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the performance of the FSA in regulating the insurance sector, with particular reference to Equitable Life. [143169]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  [holding answer 18 December 2000]The Government have noted the statements from the Financial Services Authority (FSA) and Equitable Life on 8 December that Equitable Life would close to new business with immediate effect. We welcome the fact that the FSA and the Society are working closely together to protect the interests of policyholders.

  The FSA intends to prepare a report on the events leading to the closure of Equitable Life to new business. The report will cover both the FSA's role as prudential regulator and its exercise of its functions under the Financial Services Act 1986. The report is likely to take some months to complete and will be published.

  Office of Government Commerce
  Mrs. Lawrence
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if the review of the Office of Government Commerce, including the quinquennial reviews of the Central Computer and Telecommunications Agency and Property Advisers to the Civil Estate, has been completed; and if he will make a statement. [143687]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  The review of OGC which I announced on 12 July 2000,Official Report, column 595W, which also encompassed the quinquennial reviews of CCTA and PACE due by the end of this year, has now been completed, and its recommendations have been agreed by Ministers after endorsement by the OGC's Supervisory Board.

  The objective of the review was to recommend an organisational structure which would best align the resources of OGC and its three executive agencies—
  162W
  CCTA, PACE and The Buying Agency (TBA)—to deliver successfully its vision and strategies. It involved an extensive consultation with Departments and other customers, as well as with suppliers and other stakeholders including staff and trade unions. The review proposes a more cohesive organisation, with a greater focus and capability for working with Departments to achieve substantial value for money improvements in the Government's procurement budget.

  From 1 April 2001, OGC will incorporate PACE and a number of CCTA functions, to provide a more unified organisation, working to a common purpose. In addition, there will be a single trading fund, and executive agency of OGC, based on TBA together with the catalogue and managed services activities in CCTA. This will mean ending the executive agency status of CCTA and PACE, and incorporating some CCTA functions within TBA. To reflect this, subject to the laying of the necessary resolutions before this House, TBA's name will be changed to "OGC buying.solutions" from 1 April 2001.

  The result will be a more efficient and effective organisation which, while building on current strengths, will add and support new capabilities to meet Ministers' and Departments' requirements. It will also have the flexibility to respond to new requirements. This more unified organisation will improve OGC's ability to lead and support the procurement community.

  TBA's financial year, which currently runs from 1 January until 31 December, is being brought into line with OGC. For this year only, TBA will operate an extended 15 month accounting period ending on 31 March 2001. Thereafter, they will operate on an April to March financial year. The Agency's financial target has been extended to cover the 15 month period, and it will be expected to achieve a return on capital employed at an annual rate of 8 per cent. over the full 15 month period.

  I have arranged for copies of the review to be placed in the Library of the House, and the review is also available on the OGC website www.ogc.gov.uk.

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Trial by Jury
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the change in the work load of(a) magistrates and (b) judges as a result of the proposal to restrict trial by jury. [141595]

  Mr. Leigh
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the effect on the administration of the court system of restricting trial by jury. [141596]

  Mr. Lock
  The proposal to restrict trial by jury will increase the magistrates' current work load of nearly 2 million criminal proceedings a year by about 14,000. The work load of the Crown court will consequently decrease significantly, even if account is taken of a number of appeals on mode of trial and an increase in appeals against conviction from defendants previously electing for trial in the Crown court.

  Enforcement Procedures Review
  Mr. Illsley
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations he has received regarding the report on the first phases of the Enforcement Procedures Review. [141597]

  Mr. Lock
  I have had representations from the debt advice sector and some Members regarding charging orders. The proposal was, of course, subject to public consultation, but now some new points have been raised. Following these representations, I will be looking at this proposal in more detail and will be consulting further before any changes come into effect.

  Commonhold
  Mr. Gardiner
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department for what reason his Department's proposals for the introduction of commonhold do not make commonhold the default tenure for all new-build apartments. [141598]

  Mr. Lock
  Commonhold will be a new way of owning property in England and Wales. We believe it would be irresponsible to force buyers into commonhold before the new market has had a chance to develop and prove itself.

  Access to Justice
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on access to justice in Worcestershire. [141599]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor's aim is to provide a fair, swift and effective system of justice. There are five magistrates' courts in Worcestershire, four county courts and one Crown court.

  The Department is currently supporting Private Finance Initiative schemes to provide new magistrates courts at Worcester and Kidderminster and to refurbish the courthouse at Redditch.

  At Worcester combined court £1.1 million has been spent over the last four years, the majority of this expenditure on roof repairs.

  The Community Legal Service Partnership has been formed in Worcestershire and there are now 104 firms of solicitors and advice agencies in the latest Community Legal Service Directory.

  Proscribed Drugs
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what guidance she has issued on sentencing policy for those dealing with intent in proscribed drugs. [141600]

  Jane Kennedy
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave him on 25 July 2000,Official Report, column 538W.

  Sentencing is a matter for the courts. Parliament lays down the parameters within which sentencers must work. It is then for the courts to decide on the sentence in the light of the facts of the case and after taking into consideration the circumstances of the offence and the offender. The Government cannot issue guidance to sentencers as it is a fundamental principle that the Executive does not interfere with judicial discretion.

  Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Chope
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what representations she has received about her proposals to change the funding regime for magistrates courts. [141601]

  Jane Kennedy
  In response to the consultation document outlining proposed changes, the Lord Chancellor's Department received responses from 39 Magistrates courts committees (of the 42 Committees which will exist from 1 April 2001) and from 21 of the local paying authorities. Comments were also received from the magistrates courts representative bodies and Local Government Association.

  Judges' Lodgings
  Mr. Dismore
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department, if she will make a statement on the cost and usage of judges' lodgings. [141603]

  Jane Kennedy
  As my hon. Friend is aware, an internal review of judges lodgings is currently taking place which encompasses both cost and usage. It will:

  1. review the current location of lodgings, bearing in mind their degree of use and the maximum acceptable travelling times to the Court Centres they serve;

  2. compare the value for money provided by lodgings (including past and future capital, running, incidental and opportunity costs) with alternative forms of accommodation providing appropriate standards of security, privacy and comfort (including necessary provision for out-of-court work);

  3. make recommendations concerning the most cost-effective means of managing and staffing lodgings.

  The Lord Chancellor has already begun consultation with the Judiciary on the review. When he makes his decisions, which will be as soon as possible, he will publish them along with the review.

  Magistrates Court Closure (Lewes)
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what criteria she will apply in deciding an appeal against closure of the magistrates court in Lewes. [141604]

  Jane Kennedy
  My only role is in deciding appeals. There are no set criteria. Every appeal is dealt with on its merits and much depends on the grounds of the particular appeal lodged.

  Common themes to many appeals are: accessibility for all court users; the facilities available, costs of necessary renovations to bring the court up to standard. The provision of courtrooms and work load, extra travelling distances, additional costs and overall efficiency.

  Departmental Advertising
  Mr. Clappison
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will list for(a) 1996–97, (b) 1997–98, (c) 1998–99, (d) 1999–2000 and (e) 2000–01, (i) his Department's total spending on advertising campaigns, (ii) the cost of each individual advertising campaign and (iii) the criteria that were established to gauge the effectiveness of each campaign; and what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of each campaign based on these criteria. [142720]
  165W
  Mr. Lock
  There have been two advertising campaigns since 1996 and a third is planned for January 2001.

  In 1998–99, total spending was £333,253 on a national campaign to develop awareness of the magistracy. Effectiveness was gauged by the number of requests for further information about the magistracy: 15,000 people responded. (This figure cannot be related directly to eventual recruiting of magistrates which is on a regional basis and is also supported by ad hoc locally arranged advertising and publicity.)

  In 2000–01, the total cost of advertising campaigns and associated publicity will be £4.2 million.

  A total of £3.45 million will be spent on a rolling campaign of regional and local advertising and other publicity work including door-drop leaflets to raise awareness of the Community Legal Service (CLS) in those areas where CLS Partnerships have been formed.
  166W
  The campaign began when the CLS was launched on 3 April 2000 and is continuing. Effectiveness is gauged by public awareness of the CLS. Market research linked with the campaign indicated that by mid-September 2000 general public awareness had reached 23 per cent. A further £0.5 million is committed to national newspaper advertising for the CLS in February 2001.

  In January and February 2001, a national newspaper advertising campaign is planned to raise awareness of mediation services in connection with family disputes. This is also linked with the CLS. The cost will be £0.25 million. The effectiveness of the campaign and evaluation of its results will be gauged by the number of requests which result for new information leaflets on family mediation.

  All figures include VAT, Central Office of Information fees and all associated research, production and distribution charges.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock (Prayers having been read earlier at the Judicial Sitting by the Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells): The LORD CHANCELLOR on the Woolsack.

Supermarkets: Competition Commission Report
Lord Bowness Lord Bowness asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they agree with the recommendation of the Competition Commission, in its report on supermarkets, that no action should be taken against pricing policies found to be against the public interest.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry accepted the Competition Commission's recommendation that no action be taken against below-cost selling and price flexing.
Lord Bowness: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that Answer. But can he tell the House the point of investigations and findings against the public interest if no action is to be taken just because it is too difficult? Where does that leave the Government's policy of trying to ensure the survival of shops in the high street and of village shops if no action is to be taken on matters of this kind?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Competition Commission recommended that no action be taken on two counts. The first is not particularly because it is difficult, but because the results would not be effective and, indeed, may be counterproductive. Secondly, there is evidence from France and Ireland, which have restrictions on below-cost selling, that it leads to higher prices and higher margins. There is also evidence that supermarkets can drive down supplier prices to avoid such restrictions and that they use promotions, temporary offers and limited stock offers to get round them. The Competition Commission therefore concluded that such restrictions would not work. Regulating price flexing would ignore the fact that there can be genuine regional cost differences which would be outlawed by a prohibition. That would be to the disadvantage of consumers.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, will the Minister indicate whether the implication of what he has just said is that Her Majesty's Government have no policy whatever with regard to the current problems in relation to regional and local monopolies of supermarkets in certain areas of the country?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that certainly does not follow from what I said. I was
626
describing our reaction to the Competition Commission report. A whole range of issues relate to the comparative advantage of supermarkets and high street shops. Such matters may include planning issues or issues relating to parking in the high street on a Saturday. The noble Lord, Lord Razzall, cannot draw the conclusion he did from what I said about the Competition Commission.
Viscount Waverley: My Lords, taking the noble Lord one step further, was thought given in the report as to the consequences of cavalier buying practices whereby suppliers are paid less than the cost of production? If not, what is the Government's view of such practices?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I set out that argument in some detail in response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Bowness. The danger, from the point of view of suppliers—I believe that that is 'what the noble Viscount is concerned about—is that a prohibition on below-cost selling would drive down supplier prices so that they would no longer be below-cost selling. That would be to the disadvantage of suppliers to supermarkets.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, I declare an interest as a former member of the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was the predecessor of the Competition Commission, and as someone who continually goes across the Channel to buy in Calais where the prices of many articles are much cheaper than in our supermarkets. Perhaps I can change tack slightly. Can the Minister say whether the higher prices charged in British supermarkets have anything to do with fuel and vehicle taxes being higher here than in Europe? Also, will that make a difference to the smaller shops in this country and cause problems for them?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I looked carefully into such evidence as is available on comparative costs in supermarkets in Britain and in continental Europe, but they are extremely difficult to interpret. They are affected not only by the quality of the information gathered—in other words, by whether a sufficient sample of supermarkets is being checked and whether it covers a suitable range of high quality and low cost supermarkets—but also by changes in exchange rates and according to the basket of goods chosen. I refer, for instance, to whether they reflect British buying habits or the buying habits of continental Europe.
All the evidence indicates that, although transport costs may be a factor, they are not the most significant factor. I remind the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that although our fuel prices are higher, our other

627
commercial transport costs make us competitive in that respect with continental Europe.
Lord Marlesford: My Lords, does the Minister agree that if it was not for supermarkets, we would all be paying a lot more for our petrol and would have to pay the crazy prices charged on motorways?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Marlesford, is not recommending that we travel many miles to supermarket petrol stations in order to save 1p or 2p on the price of petrol. That would not only be damaging from an environmental point of view, but would also cause a great deal of road congestion.
Lord Elton: My Lords, is the Minister aware of whether the practice of below-cost selling has had any effect on the farm gate prices of such products as British lamb?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, first, the Competition Commission report on below-cost selling, although it recognises that there is a problem in that regard, does not say that it is a universal problem or anything like it. Secondly, as I have already said, the danger of a prohibition on below-cost selling is that it would force down supplier prices and that would not be to the benefit of farmers.
Lord Mackie of Benshie: My Lords, can the noble Lord say whether he has any evidence of the suppliers—the primary producers—being able to force up prices? Is it not a fact that, in the case of Milk Marque, for example, any attempt to combine forces has been frustrated by legislation which forced the break-up of that body which might have kept the price reasonable?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food has a number of food chain initiatives in place to help farmers. I agree with the noble Lord, Lord Mackie, that it is extremely difficult for farmers to get together to exercise collective market power since they are necessarily fragmented. But they have task forces, which were recently announced by MAFF, to deal particularly with the case of milk, taking forward the recent work of the Food Chain Group. There has been continuing recognition of the need for a viable, competitive UK farming industry and the importance for that of the whole food chain. The difficulty is that the food chain is fragmented and there is little vertical integration.

Swimming Tuition in Schools
2.38 p.m.
Lord Harrison Lord Harrison asked Her Majesty's Government:
What is their response to the Ofsted report Swimming in Key Stage 2.
The Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Baroness Blackstone): My Lords, we welcome the generally positive report. It shows that four out of five children can swim 25 metres at the end of Key Stage 2. We need to work with schools to make better opportunities available for even more children so that they acquire this important life skill, and to ensure that the proportion of children who cannot swim when they leave school is reduced from the current 20 per cent. Extra funding is being provided which will lead to improved opportunities for swimming where needed. We will also work with swimming associations to develop an action plan to do more.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for that reply. Does she agree that, while it is a generally supportive report from Ofsted, nevertheless there are concerns that half the schools reported a cut in swimming tuition over the past three years? Indeed, the cost to schools of providing tuition has risen from £1,000 to £9,000. Can that differential be explained? Finally, does she agree that children in our inner city schools are more affected by the recent cuts than those in rural schools?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the Government welcome the Ofsted report because it helps us to identify both the strengths and weaknesses in school swimming provision. There are some weaknesses which we want to acknowledge. That is why we shall be discussing the report further with Ofsted and with the Amateur Swimming Association and shall put forward an action plan in the new year.
As regards the differential costs, the vast majority of schools spend between £1,000 and £3,000 on swimming provision but it is unusual for schools to spend as much as £9,000. However, where that is the case the report will help them to investigate ways of reducing those costs.
As regards the difference between the number of children living in rural areas and in inner cities who can swim, the Government will support inner city schools because it is important that children living in cities should learn to swim as well as those in the countryside.
Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I have listened to the debate with great attention. However, will the Minister tell me what is the overwhelming importance of swimming in Key Stage 2 to children and education? What is it all about?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, from the point of view of safety, and perhaps even of health, it is important that all young children should learn to swim. For that reason, the Government, Ofsted, the Amateur Swimming Association, most teachers and, I suspect, nearly all parents attach a great deal of

629
importance to it and expect good results in terms of the number of children who can swim 25 metres by the age of 11.
Baroness Sharples: My Lords, does Key Stage 2 mean 75 yards or 25 yards?
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, Key Stage 2 refers to a stage in the educational process. It is the second stage in primary schools for 7 to 11 year-olds. It has nothing to do with the distance which children are supposed to swim.

London Stock Exchange
2.43 p.m.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury Lord Phillips of Sudbury asked Her Majesty's Government:
What responsibility they and the Financial Services Authority have for the ownership and future effectiveness of the London Stock Exchange.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the London Stock Exchange is a commercial company. Subject to its complying with regulatory requirements, its ownership and running are matters for the Exchange and its shareholders.
Lord Phillips of Sudbury: My Lords, can a government who are ready to intervene in almost all other walks of life be satisfied that an institution which is crucial to the future of the City and, like it or not, to the commercial future of this country can safely and adequately be left to a group of private shareholders whose understanding of the long-term strategic issues involved—if judged by the recent attempted Swedish take-over and the botched merger with the Frankfurt exchange—lead one to have little hope as regards dealing with their future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I reject the noble Lord's original premise that the Government are anxious to intervene in almost all walks of life. But even if I did not, I believe that he over-exaggerates the role of the London Stock Exchange. It provides a market for share trading—and there are many ways of providing markets for share trading. If it were providing a market which was defective in that it had problems such as barriers to entry, it would be potentially subject to investigation by the Office of Fair Trading. However, neither of the incidents to which the noble Lord referred—neither the iX incident nor the bid by OM—led the OFT to believe that there might be competition considerations worthy of further investigation.
Lord Taylor of Blackburn: My Lords, does my noble friend believe that the noble Lord, Lord Phillips, is speaking on behalf of the Liberal Democrat Benches or not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that always puzzles me. A group within the Liberal Democrat
630
Party likes to position itself to the Left of the Labour Party. However, whenever it comes 1 o the crunch, the more moderate and capitalist wing of the Liberal Democratic Party reasserts itself and the radicals retreat to the sidelines.
Lord Razzall: My Lords, does the Minister agree that there is no evidence whatever in the proceedings of this House that my noble friend Lord Phillips of Sudbury has ever positioned himself to the Left of the Labour Party?
The Earl of Northesk: My Lords, after that exchange between the Liberal Democrat and Government Benches, perhaps we may return to the Question. Will the Minister confirm that it is a statutory duty of the FSA to have regard to the competitiveness of the UK financial services industry? In that context, is it not desirable that in so far as it may not already exist machinery is put in place to enable the Treasury and FSA to be proactively involved in discussions with the London Stock Exchange as to its future?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Earl has gravely disappointed me. In asking such questions, his usual tactic is to call attention to what I said in the past in order to seek to find a conflict with what I am saying at the present. He failed last week—and on a number of other occasions. I thought that he would refer to my Answer to his Written Question dated 24th May this year; indeed, I took especial care to anticipate such a question. However, I imagine that he discovered that there was no change of government policy and no conflict.
Of course, the Financial Services Authority has regulatory responsibility for the London Stock Exchange, as I said in my Answer to the original Question. If the London Stock Exchange fails to meet the requirements for recognition as an investment exchange, the Financial Services Authority will step in. It is incumbent on the London Stock Exchange to maintain an orderly market for share trading. to have sufficient financial reserves and so forth. All of that is the responsibility of the Financial Services Authority, which in turn is accountable to Parliament through Treasury Ministers.
Lord Hooson: My Lords, is the Minister aware that there is little room on the Right of the Labour Party? However, does the attitude he has expressed today mean that the Government would regard with equanimity the taking over almost entirely of control and ownership of our service and manufacturing industries without any sign of government intervention?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the reckless breadth of that question leads me to wonder whether I ought to make any assumptions about the Liberal Democrat point of view on any subject. Of course, there is no suggestion that the Government regard with equanimity any mergers or acquisitions in any part of the economy. As I have made clear, we have a

631
regime which provides for regulatory control through the Financial Services Authority and competition control through the Office of Fair Trading and the Competition Commission.
Returning to the London Stock Exchange, which was the subject of the original Question, none of the incidents which took place in recent months drew the attention of either of those authorities to problems in the London Stock Exchange.
Lord Newby: My Lords, does the Minister accept that if the single market is to work efficiently there must be a consolidation of stock markets across the EU? In those circumstances, does it not make sense to have a common EU regulatory regime? Will the Government take a leading part in bringing forward discussions to ensure that that takes place, thus enabling the single market to work more effectively?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, in this case I have some sympathy with the noble Lord's premise. It appears inevitable that in the longer term there will be a move towards global market trading which will affect not only the European Union but also the United States and the Far East. However, the need for a central regulatory regime in Europe is not a conclusion that appears to follow from that premise, and I am not sure that it is a line which the Government wish to follow. However, in general, European regulatory authorities have sought to emulate the regime which we introduced under the Financial Services and Markets Act.

UK Steel Industry
2.50 p.m.
Lord Islwyn Lord Islwyn asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they have had any recent discussions with the Corus company concerning the future of the British steel industry.
The Minister for Science, Department of Trade and Industry (Lord Sainsbury of Turville): My Lords, government Ministers and officials maintain close and regular contact with Corus on a number of issues and will continue to do so. The Government were deeply concerned by the job cuts announced by Corus earlier this year and they are playing their part in assisting the steelworkers affected by helping them to find new jobs. The Government are fully aware of Corus's announcement on 5th December that further restructuring was inevitable. Ministers are maintaining a close dialogue with the company and will continue to monitor the situation closely.
Lord Islwyn: My Lords, does the Minister appreciate that since British Steel merged with the Dutch concern Hoogvens about 14 months ago to form Corus there has not been much harmony or business success? Thousands of British Steel jobs have
632
already been lost, with not a single job loss in the Netherlands. That rationalisation to be nearer European markets is being carried out under the subterfuge that Britain is not in the euro. Does the Minister appreciate that steel has always been regarded as a basic industry of strategic importance to the nation? Does my noble friend also agree that if Corus closed the steelworks at Llanwern it would be little short of a national scandal?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, as far as I am aware the current problems of Corus have nothing to do with the fact that it joined the Dutch company a few years ago. There have been 680 redundancies in the Netherlands, although more have occurred in the UK, due to the structure of the plants in the two countries. Although the steel industry is going through a difficult period, it remains one of the most efficient in the world and is a key part of the British economy.
Lord Brookman: My Lords, I declare an interest as someone who for many years represented those whose jobs are currently at risk. Does my noble friend agree with me and Members of another place as well as trade unions that it is imperative that a round table conference be convened to thrash out a strategy to save both jobs and communities that are under threat? Does the Minister also agree that the items on that agenda should include electricity prices, the climate change levy and local rates which are a tremendous burden on the steel industry? Does my noble friend agree that that would be looked upon favourably by those whose jobs are currently threatened?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry and the Prime Minister, who recently met MPs representing the steel group, are very well aware of the concerns of both the industry and its employees. I am not certain that a round table would contribute anything to the process. There have been detailed discussions about all the issues which have been raised: the climate levy, electricity prices and the euro. As I hope I indicated in my first Answer, government Ministers and the Prime Minister are very well aware of the serious situation in this industry.
Lord Elton: My Lords, can the Minister confirm or deny the allegation made in this Chamber about a fortnight ago that Railtrack is ordering replacement rail in lengths which cannot be produced in this country and, therefore, must be imported? Does that not bear on this situation?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, while everyone may have doubts about Railtrack's purchasing requirements, where it purchases its rail must be its decision. Presumably, Railtrack does that to obtain the highest quality and the best price.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, does the noble Lord agree that the steel sector is not the only part of manufacturing that is being assailed at the present time

633
and that the car industry and many others have been going through a very difficult period? Therefore, is it not appropriate that this House should look in greater depth at the whole manufacturing sector? If the usual channels agree, can that not be done by setting up a Select Committee?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is true that some parts of manufacturing industry are going through a difficult time, but other parts, which tend to be the higher value added sectors, are doing quite well. The most recent figures show that manufacturing output has increased. Manufacturing industry is a key part of our economy, and it is appropriate for this Chamber constantly to review its performance and what action should be taken upon it. I am sure that the usual channels will take that into account.
Lord Hoyle: My Lords, does my noble friend agree that he should not dismiss so lightly the idea of convening a round table conference on this vital industry? Will my noble friend undertake talks with the company about the fact that, surely, in future we should produce long, not short, rail?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I shall pass on to the Secretary of State the view that there should be a round table conference. He has already considered the matter and does not believe that it would add to the current discussions. However, I shall ask my right honourable friend to reconsider the matter.
The Viscount of Oxfuird: My Lords, does the Minister accept that, as explained in The Times some months ago, in manufacturing a decline in the machine tool industry is the first indicator of a serious problem in steel consumption? The machine tool industry is the first to suffer at the hands of accountants in any company. Does the Minister agree that that area should be looked at very closely?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, it is already clear that in the past year or so there have been problems about the demand for steel, and that is part of the current troubles that face the steel industry. That situation is due in part to the low level of demand by some of the other industries which make great use of steel products.
Lord Stoddart of Swindon: My Lords, will my noble friend look closely at the suggestion of the noble Lord, Lord Ezra? Is it not a fact that manufacturing industry as a percentage of GDP has fallen from 32 per cent in 1973 to under 20 per cent today? Is the Minister also aware that in 1985 this House set up a Select Committee to look at the state of manufacturing industry, which has declined even further since then? Does my noble friend agree that it is about time another Select Committee considered what can be done to resuscitate that sector?
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, the falling proportion of total GDP represented by
634
manufacturing industry is not only a problem for this country; it is a universal fact for all developed countries where there has been a consistent decline in manufacturing. There are good reasons for that. The two main ones are: first, increasing productivity of manufacturing; and, secondly, as people's incomes rise they spend proportionately less of it on physical goods. Therefore, in every country, including the most successful at manufacturing, there has been a decline. The situation in this country is not very different from that in every other developed country of the world.
We should continue to look at the position of manufacturing industry and what we can do to help, but it is quite wrong to think that there is something wrong about the proportion of manufacturing going down or that we are in some way in a different position from other developed countries.

Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill [H.L.]
3.1 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I beg to move that this Bill be now read a second time. At the heart of the Government's agenda is the wish to have an inclusive society and a recognition of the importance of education for all. We are committed to a fairer, more tolerant society where every individual is valued and appreciated for what he or she can do, not labelled for what he or she cannot do. It is for all of us as citizens to work to break down the barriers that some members of our society have to overcome to gain access to services that the majority of us take for granted.
The Bill covers two topics—special educational needs and disability in education. The Bill is about moving the legislative landscape forward, building on the best of existing law and practice.
Part I of the Bill covers special educational needs in England and Wales and amends Part IV of the Education Act 1996. Of course the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, played a key role in establishing the original special educational needs framework through the Education Act 1993, and I would like to pay tribute to her for her role. Part I of the Bill builds on the strong legislative background which she helped to put in place. In October 1997 we published our Green Paper Excellence for All Children: Meeting Special Educational Needs in England and the parallel Green Paper in Wales The BEST for Special Education. Our vision of excellence is for all. Our commitment to raising standards of achievement for children in schools encompasses children with special educational needs.
In November 1998 we published Meeting Special Educational Needs: A Programme of Action in England and Shaping the Future for Special Education was published in January 1999 in Wales. Those documents set out action that would be taken to maintain the momentum of progress in relation to special educational needs.

635
Part I of the Bill fulfils the commitments made in the programme of action that require primary legislation and covers England and Wales.
The Government's commitment to inclusion has been strong and constant. We are committed to ensuring that children with special educational needs are included wherever possible. The potential social, moral and educational benefits are significant. Clause 1 of the Bill delivers our commitment to strengthen the right to a mainstream place for children with special educational needs, where parents want that. That is in line with the Disability Rights Task Force's recommendation. Our approach is pragmatic and practical, recognising that inclusion is not always easy. Equally, we are clear that there is a continuing and vital role for special schools.
Inclusion is clearly an emotive issue. I want to use this opportunity to set out our objectives and the principles behind this first clause. First, we want an inclusive education service to offer excellence and choice. Secondly, inclusion must be based on sound foundations. The interests of all pupils must be safeguarded. All children have a right to an appropriate education that affords them the opportunity to achieve their personal potential. Thirdly, where parents want a mainstream place for their child the education service should do everything possible to try and provide one. Equally, where parents want more specialist provision their wishes should be listened to.
Finally, inclusion does not mean that every child should be placed in a mainstream school irrespective of their needs or circumstances. There will be cases, particularly where there is severe challenging behaviour, where a mainstream place is not appropriate. But that will be a small minority of pupils. We believe that many more pupils could and should benefit from a mainstream place where this is what their parents want. But we also believe that pupils should be protected from those whose inclusion would adversely affect either their learning or their safety.
Supporting parents is a theme of the Bill. Clauses 2 and 3 place duties on LEAs to provide parent partnership services and arrangements for resolving and preventing disputes respectively. Even the most articulate of parents can find the system confusing. All parents should feel empowered and able to play a full and active part in their children's education.
All LEAs have been encouraged to set up these services in advance of the statutory duty. We have published practical guidance to help them based on existing good practice. We have also provided the funding to enable LEAs to run them. This year £12 million has been provided, which is double what was available in 1999–2000. Next year the resources will increase again to £18 million.
Clauses 4 to 9 amend the existing legislative framework with a view to streamlining the SEN process for parents and maximising the benefit for children. Those clauses take forward specific commitments in the SEN programme of action.
636
In conclusion, Part I of the Bill seeks to enhance significantly the rights of children with special educational needs to high quality education that meets their needs. It strengthens the rights of parents to a mainstream place and promotes a strong partnership between parents, schools and LEAs for the benefit of children with special educational needs.
These are themes which the Bill shares in common with the revised SEN code of practice. I want to use this opportunity to say a few words about our recent consultation on a draft revised code. Over 1,000 responses were received. Similar consultation on a draft revised code of practice has recently been completed by the National Assembly for Wales, which will be responsible for approving a revised code in Wales. The majority of these were positive. In particular, people liked the emphasis on identifying needs as early as possible; improving partnership with parents; taking account of the views of the child; promoting strong school-based provision; and, reducing unnecessary paperwork for teachers.
Concerns were expressed about some aspects of the revised code. We made clear from the start that we would listen carefully to views. We have done that. My department has just issued a short document updating interested parties on our thinking as a result of this consultation. It covers a number of issues. But I will focus here on the issue that has caused most debate—the changes we proposed to the guidance on specifying special educational provision in statements of special educational needs.
Let me make absolutely clear that we have no intention of weakening the legal protection for children with statements. Vague statements do nothing to secure the right kind of help for a child with SEN; nor do they help a school to know what is required of it in helping the child to learn and progress. We will make clear that LEAs are required to specify provision in statements, as they always have been. We will retain the requirement in the SEN regulations for provision to be specified, matching the terms of the duty on LEAs set out in the Education Act 1996. We will stress that statements should be clear and specific about a child's special educational needs; the special educational provision required to meet those needs; and, the objectives that the special educational provision should aim to meet. We will recognise that that provision should be quantified as necessary.
I turn to disability discrimination in education. Part II of the Bill deals with disability discrimination in the provision of education. The Social Attitudes Survey of 1998 told us that 75 per cent of people in Great Britain believe that there is a prejudice against disabled people. There are some 8.5 million disabled people in Great Britain. They continue, regrettably, to suffer discrimination on a daily basis. There is still some way to go if activities which the rest of society takes for granted are not to be denied to some disabled people.
Legislation of itself cannot secure a change in culture or attitude but it can provide certain rights and a means of redress if those rights are infringed and it can provide leadership and a framework which

637
encourages changes of attitude. The Disability Discrimination Act represented a step forward in tackling disability discrimination, but it is flawed in a number of respects. It omitted the establishment of a Disability Rights Commission and it did not cover the provision of education.
In our 1997 manifesto we pledged,
"to support comprehensive and enforceable civil rights for disabled people developed in partnership with all interested parties".
It was with great pleasure, therefore, that almost exactly two years ago I opened the Second Reading debate on the Disability Rights Commission Bill and have subsequently seen the commission formally open its doors in April of this year. The Disability Rights Task Force, established in December 1997, reported in December 1999 through the publication of its report From Exclusion to Inclusion. The Government welcomed that report and since then have been committed to taking forward the education recommendations of the task force. We announced in another place on 20th November that we hoped to publish a response to the task force report around the end of February next year.
In addition, we will have invested £195 million in the New Deal for Disabled People. So far nearly 4,000 disabled people have found jobs and many more are making progress towards getting jobs. The "See the Person" campaign, launched in June last year, was a hard hitting campaign which our research revealed most people found easy to understand, informative, provocative and relevant.
Lord Campbell of Croy: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. But it sounded as though she was being a little critical of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. I am sure that she did not intend to be. She is quite right to say that it did not include education. However, at that time the bodies most concerned were in tremendous disagreement about what education provisions should be in the Act. The whole of the rest of the DDA which had been agreed in principle would have had to wait until the education part was dealt with. Now, six years later, the correspondence I am receiving shows that there are still differences of opinion among those concerned with the education of disabled people which our consideration of the Bill will try to iron out. The whole Disability Discrimination Bill would have been held up while the education part was being dealt with.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, the DDA was an enormously important step forward in establishing rights for disabled people. All I wished to set out was the fact that education had been omitted and that that is now being rectified. It has been recognised that that needed to be changed and I am delighted that there is enormous consensus in the education world for moving forward in this way.
Perhaps I may return to what the Government have done in recent months. A disabled person's tax credit was introduced in October of last year to give a minimum guaranteed income for disabled people
638
moving from benefit to work. We have increased the disabled student's allowance and we have extended eligibility to part-time and postgraduate students. Access to a high quality education—whether as a child, a young person or an adult learner—is essential if disabled people are to be empowered to live independent, fulfilling lives.
The exemption of education from the access to goods and services provisions of the DDA must now be put right. In looking to provide rights against disability discrimination, the starting point is clearly the Disability Discrimination Act 1995. The DRTF recognised that applying disability discrimination provisions to education was not, as the noble Lord, Lord Campbell of Croy, has just indicated. entirely straightforward. Education is a unique service and needs to be covered in a unique way. In framing its recommendations, the DRTF took the best of the DDA and applied it in a practical way to education. The DRTF also recognised that a different approach was needed for schools and for post-16 education providers, reflecting the existence of the SEN framework which already operates in schools.
I turn now to the provisions of the Bill on disability discrimination in schools which are covered by Clauses 10 to 24. This chapter places new duties on LEAs and schools, including independent schools and non-maintained special schools, in England and Wales and on local authorities, independent schools, self-governing schools and grant-aided schools in Scotland.
In England, Scotland and Wales the new duties are not to treat disabled pupils less favourably, without justification, than pupils who are not disabled; and to make reasonable adjustments so that disabled pupils are not put at a substantial disadvantage to pupils who are not disabled, but not where this requires them to remove or alter a physical feature or to provide auxiliary aids or services. Additionally, in England and Wales, there is a new duty: to plan strategically and make progress in increasing physical accessibility to schools premises and to the curriculum.
The DRTF considered in some detail whether a duty on individual schools to alter physical features was a practical way forward. It concluded that it was more sensible to have a strategic planning approach which would allow LEAs and independent schools to look across their building stock and to make changes as necessary within the context of an overall strategic plan. We have already announced a significant increase in the money to be made available through the schools access initiative in England—some £220 million over a three-year period—to support this duty. That planning duty, which is covered in Clauses 13, 14 and 21, applies only to England and Wales. While the provisions are clearly designed to help disabled children, they are more about the organisation of schools and as such are matters devolved to the Scottish Executive.
A key feature of the reasonable adjustment duty is that it is anticipatory. It will not be good enough for a school or LEA or local authority in Scotland to wait

639
until a disabled child arrives on the doorstep. The approach must be to think ahead—always to have the rights of disabled children on the agenda. The anticipatory nature of these duties is an example of taking the best of the existing DDA and applying it here.
Where there has been discrimination on the grounds of disability, a remedy is essential. Clauses 16 to 20 and Clause 22 provide these rights of redress. The DRTF was impressed with the work of the SEN tribunal, which has been working since 1994, and recommended that the role of the SEN tribunal should be expanded to deal with such cases. The SEN and disability tribunal, operating in an informal and non-confrontational manner, will have wide-ranging powers to order LEAs and schools to take certain action as a remedy for discrimination. For example, a school or LEA might be ordered to change a policy that prevented visibly impaired pupils from going into a science laboratory and, additionally, ordered to provide extra tuition to enable a child to catch up on things that he or she may have missed due to discrimination. In Scotland, where no SEN tribunal operates, the Bill provides for these cases to be heard by the sheriff courts.
Clauses 25 to 33 cover the disability duties in relation to post-16 and non-school education. We are committed to lifelong learning and we have made a particular commitment to helping people who face barriers in gaining access to learning to overcome those barriers. This Bill will make a reality of that commitment for disabled people by placing new anti-discriminatory duties on the main providers of post-16 education. Those duties will bear on colleges, universities and LEAs in relation to adult education, community education and the youth service. They will mean that providers will not be able to treat disabled pupils less favourably, without justification, than students who are not disabled. They will have to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that people who are disabled are not put at a substantial disadvantage to people who are not disabled in accessing post-16 education.
Once again, the duties are anticipatory. The Bill will make it unlawful for institutions to discriminate against disabled people, not only in the way in which they carry out their main business—which is, of course, the provision of education—but also in the wider services that they provide for students such as accommodation, welfare services, careers advice, as well as leisure, recreation and entertainment.
Recently I have been made aware of instances where unreasonable behaviour by an institution has meant that a student cannot participate in a programme of further or higher education at a college or university. For example, in one case, a young deaf student was unable to hear her lecturer because he refused to clip on a radio microphone. In another instance, a student at an FE college who uses a wheelchair was denied access to the upstairs library because the only lift in the building was designated for staff only. The Bill places the responsibility firmly on educational institutions to
640
deal with unacceptable cases such as these. Providers must meet the needs of all their learners by taking reasonable steps to put in place policies and procedures capable of providing learners with a disability with fair access to all opportunities. In practical terms, this means that students with disabilities will have much greater access to necessary teaching facilities, classrooms, lecture theatres, laboratories and so forth, as well as to general facilities such as libraries and canteens. Providers are required to do what they reasonably can to avoid disabled students being placed at a substantial disadvantage to their peers. This will require them to take an inclusive approach.
In further and higher education institutions all over the country, a great deal of good work is already being done to provide a more inclusive environment, but while significant progress has been made, there is still a long way to go. Too many people are excluded from the great benefits that learning at any age can bring. The Bill will mean that many more people with disabilities can take part in lifelong learning. Adult and community education, together with the youth service, is by far the most informal part of the spectrum. They provide a huge variety of learning opportunities, often recreational, which are closest to local communities. Participating in learning at this level can act as a crucial bridge to more formal and organised education. Furthermore, it can improve health, in particular for older people. It is therefore important that both sectors should be covered by the Bill.
Cases of disability discrimination will be taken to the county court in England and Wales and to the sheriff courts in Scotland In all cases, a financial remedy will be payable. Chapter III of Part II deals with miscellaneous provisions. Clause 34 extends the role of the Disability Rights Commission, giving it similar powers and duties to those in respect of Parts I and III of the Disability Discrimination Act.
I look forward to debate on this Bill. The issues covered by it are always of great interest to this House. Indeed, they are of interest to everyone who is committed to fairness and social inclusion. I commend the Bill to the House.
Moved, That the Bill be now read a second time.—(Baroness Blackstone).
3.25 p.m.
Baroness Blatch: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for explaining the proposals as set out in the Bill. We welcome the Bill. As has already been said, it builds on the 1981, 1993 and 1996 Acts which all deal with special educational needs. I know that it will receive its customary diligent scrutiny by Members of this House. I can also promise that the aim of the contribution to this Bill by myself and my colleagues on these Benches will be to make the Bill work for all children.
My starting point, and that of my noble friends, is that the education system should address the educational needs of all children from whatever

641
background, whatever their mental and/or physical needs, and from whatever point they are placed on the ability scale. At this stage, I wish to put on the record our thanks to those schools and their staff which provide for children with special educational needs, and especially those which exercise much patience—sometimes to the point of exhaustion—with behaviourally disturbed children.
In the 1999 gracious Speech, the Secretary of State for Education and Employment made a commitment to legislation on special educational needs. However, that was dropped from the legislative programme and replaced by a promise of a draft Bill. As we all know, that was never published. On reading the Bill before us, one wonders why the delay.
There are some in the field of special needs who would have preferred more time to have seen a draft Bill as promised, in order to allow for consideration of the detail before its passage through Parliament. Although there will be much discussion on this Bill, the test of its success will be in its implementation. To that end, the Bill reveals little about how these proposals are to work in practice. That, I believe, will form the focus of much of the debate on the provisions.
We know, for example, that the Government plan to modify the code of practice. If, as a result of those changes—and the passing of the Bill—many more children with special educational needs are transferred to mainstream school provision, then the support to mainstream staff will have to match the additional burdens placed on our teachers.
In a press release issued on 17th November 1999, the Secretary of State stated that:
"This Bill will improve the quality of education for children with special needs by making it easier for parents and children to secure the type of education they want. It will strengthen the right to a place in a mainstream school for those with special needs who want it, in all cases where it is appropriate. This Government is making a reality of parent power and meeting the individual needs of pupils in a more coherent way—putting equality into practice".
I hope that it will also strengthen the right of parents to choose a place in a special school as long as it is consistent with the educational needs of their child. There should be no imposition of inclusion into mainstream education against parents' wishes for those children for whom it is not appropriate.
In response to the Bill, the NASUWT has said:
"The Bill appears to be premised on the assumption that all parents want their children educated in a mainstream school regardless of their child's particular needs. This is not always necessarily the case".
It is important that, when parents receive information about the options for their child, they understand the advantages and, sometimes, the limitations of both mainstream and specialist school education. The quality of the information on which they will make those choices is absolutely crucial.
However, special school places are decreasing. Ofsted put the decline, during last year alone, at 30 per cent. Furthermore, there is evidence that local educational authorities are under pressure from government to promote inclusivity. The NASUWT, speaking for teachers, is concerned that parents could
642
be faced with no alternative but mainstream education which, despite even the best efforts of the school and the local education authority, might not be the most suitable placement for the child.
In so far as it went, I welcomed the statement by the Secretary of State in the debate in another place on this year's gracious Speech when, in answer to a point raised by my honourable friend Theresa May, he said:
"I want to make it absolutely clear that the inclusion agenda is not a wholesale closure of specialist facilities and schools that meet particular needs of youngsters and their families. That is why we want a regional structural approach so that facilities are available. We do not want a free-for-all or a closure by clint of resources not being available in a particular borough or local authority".—[Official Report, Commons, 8/12/00; col. 259.]
Will the Minister tell the House whether the parents, children and friends of Thurlow Park School in Lambeth can take heart from those words of the Secretary of State?
I hope that noble Lords will forgive my note of caution about that statement of the Secretary of State. He referred to no "wholesale closure" of special schools, but does that mean a closure of some special schools, giving way to a plan, as yet unseen, of regional facilities? It is important that we know what was in the mind of the Secretary of State when he made that statement. The Minister will know that to provide area-wide facilities in inner-city areas, where the relative distances to be travelled are manageable, is one thing; however, in suburban areas—and more particularly in urban areas—it would present great difficulties with unmanageable costs.
Whenever there is a major debate about the special educational needs of young people, it is important to remember the valuable work of the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, whose report gave rise to the Education Act 1981. The noble Baroness identified about 20 per cent of young people whose learning needs would require additional help over and above the norm. It is important to note that the 20 per cent ranged from children who, for example, had difficulties mastering reading at an early stage right through to those who had severe learning difficulties.
However, suffice it at this stage to make one point on this issue. Ofsted states that approximately 75 per cent of children with learning difficulties are under-achievers in reading and writing—and yet, with all the improvements of formal assessments, testing, school inspections and an emphasis on literacy and the teaching of reading in teacher training colleges, the percentage of children with learning difficulties has not diminished. In fact, it is quite the reverse.
Dr John Marks has recently researched this subject. He reports that from 1991 to 1999 the number of pupils with special educational needs but without statements has risen from 11.6 per cent to 19.2 per cent in primary schools and from 9.6 per cent to 16.5 per cent in secondary schools. The number of pupils with statements of special educational needs has risen from 0.8 per cent to 1.6 per cent in primary schools and from 1 per cent to 2.5 per cent in secondary schools.

643
Of particular interest to all those who wish this Bill to work will be the allocation of funding and, more importantly, the identification of costed and necessary support when a mainstream school is selected for a placement. This is a Bill that cannot be bought on the cheap. There is no requirement for this in the Bill, which could mean a placement being made where a school, in order to meet its obligations under the law to a child with special needs, finds that it is unable to provide fully for the other children. Although the Government have put aside extra funds for special needs—we acknowledge that—there needs to be clarification of where a school would stand in such circumstances.
It is disappointing that more research and information has not been made available to prepare the ground for this Bill. Again, Dr John Marks, in his recent report, posed six fundamental questions, to which, so far, there are no answers. What are the criteria for deciding whether a child has special educational needs? No definitive criteria exist or have been proposed. How many pupils are at the various stages of special educational needs? Again, there are no data available. Who are the children with special educational needs? Some data are available for Wales, but not for England.
Very few data are available about the number of boys and girls who have statements of special educational needs, but there is no information about the numbers and percentages of boys and girls with special educational needs who do not have statements. There is no systematic monitoring of the effectiveness of special educational needs' funding. There are no research findings available to evaluate the teaching or monitoring of reading specifically among children with learning difficulties. Do the Government have any plans for research into these basic questions?
There was considerable disquiet about the draft code of practice. Many respondents saw it as a dilution and a weakening of the education rights of vulnerable children. However, the news from the Secretary of State today promising not to make the change from the word "specify" to "setting out" in relation to defining provision within statements in the regulation is very welcome.
Are the Government satisfied that all children with special educational needs currently in mainstream education have the support for access to all appropriate areas of the curriculum? What has been the response of parents to the decline of special school provision? Have the Government evaluated the tension between the current pressure to reduce the number of exclusions and the difficulties of placing with teachers more demanding children—especially those with behavioural difficulties—without adequate support? Will the Government guarantee that children are not placed in mainstream unless the necessary support is provided? For example, will a school be free to use as a defence for refusing to take a pupil with special educational needs the fact that the support is not also provided?
644
In Ofsted's report on pupils with learning difficulties in mainstream schools, it is recorded that many parents complained about the length of time taken to move to a formal statement. They argue that, in so many schools, if it had not been for the parents' persistence, such diagnoses may not have been made. Early identification and early intervention is the key to tackling learning difficulties.
The Ofsted report goes on to state that there is a tendency on the part of primary schools to move to a statement for a child just before secondary school transfer. Thus valuable time is lost, which all too often gives rise to anxiety for the parents and, worse, great frustration for the child. It is well known that much frustration and disruptive behaviour stems from under-performance and low achievement, particularly in reading and writing skills. What specifically in this Bill will address this issue, other than pressure to retain more behaviourally disturbed young people in mainstream schools?
There are a number of conditions which require the earliest possible intervention, including autism, asperger syndrome, hearing impairment, poor eyesight and dyslexia. What in the Bill will improve early identification and early intervention for children who are so affected?
During the debate on the gracious Speech I asked about the Government's universal neo-natal hearing screening programme. The Minister promised to write to me but I have not as yet heard anything. Can she comment today on the progress to date of that scheme?
Many other questions will need to be explored in further stages of the Bill. In Clause 11, how can there be a charge of discrimination in further or higher education if the responsible authority is unaware of any disability? Who will be responsible in law to inform the institution—or is ignorance no defence for such an institution?
I am sorry that when the Minister gave examples of poor provision in further and higher education—for example, the lecturer who refused to put on a microphone or the lift which was available only to staff, both of which examples, I agree, are deplorable and wholly unacceptable in today's world—they were not accompanied by a recognition of the enormous lengths to which those in further and higher education go to accommodate young people with special and physical educational needs.
What is the position of sport in relation to people with disabilities? If, for example, a mainstream school agrees to take a child with disabilities but is not able to adapt all sports facilities for the child due to physical constraints within the building, would that amount to discrimination?
Time does not allow me to touch on all aspects of the Bill. Seeing the list of speakers, however, I have no doubt that all issues will be addressed during the course of the debate. However, I ought to refer to another Motion that will be addressed by the noble

645
Baroness before the debate concludes. I refer to the proposal for the Committee stage to be taken off the Floor of the House.
I need to make it clear that I am not an enthusiast for the Moses Room procedure. I am not attracted in principle to the idea of taking significant business off the Floor of the House. I believe that the Committee of the Whole House in this Chamber is a distinctive feature of this House which we should do well to preserve. I want to make clear my concern that a Bill of this type should not be scheduled at a time when other important business—such as, for example, the critical issue of legalising human cloning—is being considered in the Chamber. That would be inconvenient to noble Lords on all Benches. I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Carter, the Chief Whip, will take that into consideration when scheduling the business.
However, the Grand Committee is part of our procedures now. We have come under intense and prolonged pressure to put a significant Bill into the Moses Room and we must proceed by agreement. There is no substantial disagreement in the House with the broad objectives of this Bill. Indeed, I believe that there is a large measure of agreement in principle about much of what it has to offer. That is why the Official Opposition have reluctantly agreed with the request from the noble Lord, Lord Carter, for a Grand Committee on the Bill. I only hope that the experiment will prove to be a success. If it does not, or if it is handled in a way that is inconvenient to noble Lords, we shall want to think carefully about again acceding to such a request on so significant a Bill.
Like all those who are concerned about young people with learning difficulties, we welcome the Bill and we want to see it work. It will call for improved teaching, especially in the early years, greater support for teachers, and effective use of resources.
As I said during the debate last week, I remain concerned about the aggressive policy intention towards the integration of children with special needs into mainstream schooling. Where it meets the educational needs of the child and is consistent with the wishes of parents, and where teachers are fully supported, mainstream schooling will be the right choice. However, to remain ideological about inclusion to the point of making inappropriate placements will not only be wrong; it will be damaging to children and will cause great distress to parents. The system should be exclusively concerned with educational needs and specific provision to meet the needs of all children.
3.43 p.m.
Baroness Sharp of Guildford: My Lords, from these Benches, I welcome the Bill. Unlike the Minister and the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I have no previous experience in dealing with Bills of this nature; I am a relative newcomer to this whole area. As such, I am struck by the relative unanimity of view on these issues on all sides of the House. There is a wish on all sides to promote its main objective: access to first-class education for all children, whatever their needs.
646
We on these Benches also have a great deal of sympathy with the Government's inclusion agenda—the inclusion within mainstream education of children with special needs and disabilities wherever that is possible. There are too many cases of ostracism, bullying and stigmatisation of those with disabilities or special needs for us to be happy with the present situation.
There is clear evidence that, in most cases, including children with disabilities and special needs in mainstream schools and colleges brings mutual benefit. Such children benefit generally from the higher level of aspirations and expectations prevalent within mainstream schooling and from the wider companionship that they experience within the school and the wider community. Those without such needs learn that those with disabilities are normal human beings with all the hopes, fears and humours of normal human beings. Where it is possible, therefore, and where the child and the parents want it, it is sensible to try to accommodate such children within the context of mainstream schooling. We on these Benches welcome the provision in the Bill for that purpose.
The Bill moves the agenda forward in two important ways. First, it tidies up a number features in relation to special educational needs, emphasising the option of remaining within mainstream schools, simplifying procedures, increasing advice, in formation and support for parents, and clarifying the respective roles of schools, special schools and LEAs. These provisions are broadly to be welcomed, although, as I shall indicate, there are a fair number of specific points where we have reservations about the lack of clarity in the present proposals.
Secondly, the Bill brings education within the framework of the Disability Discrimination Act, and again that is to be welcomed. Outlawing discrimination on grounds of disability, extending the accessibility requirements to schools, universities and colleges, and placing a duty on governors and LEAs to develop longer-term plans to increase accessibility are all to be welcomed. It also extends the jurisdiction of the Special Educational Needs Tribunal to cover disputes arising over discrimination in relation to the provision of educational services, but not—and I believe that this is right—to the field of further and higher education.
We welcome both these sets of provision. The emphasis is on inclusion. The onus is on parents, schools and other professionals to say why mainstream schooling is not appropriate, rather than vice versa. This does not present a threat to special schools. There will always be a need for specialist support for children and young adults with complex needs. But special schools must increasingly be seen as resource centres for learning communities rather than as stand-alone institutions, isolated and insulated from the world around them.
As I said, we have reservations on a number of particular parts of the Bill. Perhaps too frequently, there are weasel words within it which we shall need to

647
tease out in Committee. A number of examples come to mind. One is the breadth of meaning of the expression in Clause 1,
"incompatible with … the provision of efficient education for other children".
Although it is designed to permit the exclusion of severely disruptive pupils, it could be used to exclude milder cases—for example, an autistic child with unconventional behaviour, or a deaf child who might require a special communications support person who, it might be argued, distracted the other children. We shall need to tease out the precise meaning of this provision and see where the codes of practice cover such issues.
To refer again to Clause 1, the revision of Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 does away with the need to take account of the wishes of the child, replacing it with the wishes of the parents. There is presently no provision in the Bill for the rights of the child. The child, for example, has no standing before the tribunal, even though it is not unusual for a teenage child to have strong views about his or her schooling. Although the Human Rights Act mentions the parents' right to educate the child in accordance with their convictions, the right to an education under the Human Rights Act belongs to the child. Is the Minister confident that the Bill is compatible with the rights of the child under the Human Rights Act?
In Clauses 2 and 3, relating to advice and information for parents, broadly speaking we welcome the requirement on local education authorities to provide the parent partnership information service, and the new independent conciliation service. But we have reservations about resources. Where will the expertise come from to meet the demand of these new services? It is important that existing services are not denuded; many of them are already short-staffed and do not have the key personnel that they need, leading to yet more delays and frustrations. It is important also that the new conciliation service is precisely that, and that it does not add just another layer of delay and bureaucracy between recognition of the problem and the implementation of effective action.
In Clause 4, on compliance and enforcement with regard to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal, while welcoming the new requirement for local education authorities to comply with the tribunal along fixed time-scales, we retain a degree of scepticism as to how this can be achieved when, frequently, local education authorities cannot themselves command the staff to achieve the necessary action. For example, where the services of a speech therapist are required, it is quite usual for a year or even 18 months to elapse before such services can be given to a child. It is, therefore, sometimes difficult to lay down fixed time-scales, unless more resources are put into the whole procedure.
I turn now to disability discrimination. In Clauses 11, 12 and 13 we have these weasel words again of "reasonable adjustments". Clauses 11 and 12 deal with the duty to make reasonable adjustments, while Clause 13 specifies the duty on local education authorities to
648
plan for greater accessibility. As they stand, these clauses seem very weak; indeed, much weaker than Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act, on which they are modelled, or, for that matter, the equivalent clauses in Chapter II of this Bill which deal with the further and higher education sectors. Schools will be able to plead,
"a material and substantial reason",
for not doing what would otherwise seem to be reasonable, while the list of special factors listed in Clause 12 includes the need,
"to maintain academic, musical, sporting and other standards",
which could be a let-out that would undermine the whole purpose of "reasonable adjustments". Is it not contrary to the spirit of tolerance and inclusion that the Bill is designed to foster?
Clause 12 deals with auxiliary aids and services. According to new Section 28C(2), the duty to make "reasonable adjustments" does not extend to the duty to supply auxiliary aids and services, or to make changes to the physical environment. Is this really so? It means that those students for whom such aids and services are crucial—for example, students with sensory impairments or learning difficulties in particular—may get little benefit from "reasonable adjustments". The Government are apparently aware of these issues, but argue that "reasonable adjustments" that are costly are better dealt with through the rational planning procedures of Clause 13. But these deal only with the physical environment. It is important to appreciate that the aim of accessibility is to make the curriculum more accessible. That does not appear to cover the provision of auxiliary services such as communications support; nor will it cover the training of staff. Is this really what is desirable?
Clause 13 relates to the duty to plan. As it stands, the duty to plan applies only to the physical environment. There is real concern from some in the disability lobby that the duty to plan should be extended to access to the curriculum for children with communication and developmental disorders, and those with learning difficulties. For example, access to the curriculum for a child with autism or Asperger syndrome is possible only with trained staff. Training is a critical factor in enabling such inclusion.
A particular concern has been expressed about the lack of cross-reference between the special educational needs and the disability provisions of the Bill. Will parents and teachers be faced with two separate codes of practice that will need to be satisfied—one on special educational needs and another on disability rights? What about the two routes of appeal that do not cross refer? How far will the definition of "disability" adopted in Part II actually include many children classed as having special educational needs? As it stands, the overlap between these two provisions is not clear.
I do not have time today to follow on with the further and higher education sectors of the Bill. We welcome the stronger powers of resort to the courts in relation to universities and colleges. We believe that this is certainly appropriate in their case. It may well

649
provide the incentive to these institutions to make good what I believe to be a very considerable backlog of deficiencies in terms of their buildings. Many of the issues raised in relation to access to knowledge and to the curriculum also arise in the further and higher education sectors. Here, again, too much emphasis is perhaps being placed on the physical environment and not enough on the overall teaching environment.
I should like now to raise a more general point of concern about the Bill. As I understand it, the legal definition of "disability" means that, while not all disabled children will have special educational needs, the overwhelming majority of the 250,000-plus children who have statements of special educational need will fall within the legal definition of "disabled" and, therefore, in the future come within the scope of the anti-discrimination legislation. Children with statements have,
"an enforceable right to the provision specified in the statement".
So far, so good. But what if LEAs are resistant to specifying what is to be provided? As long ago as 1992, the Audit Commission pointed out that there was an in-built incentive for LEAs not to specify what should be provided because they thereby avoided a long-term financial commitment. Many LEAs have done precisely that. The result is that only those parents who have the confidence, ability and financial resources to take their case to the Special Educational Needs Tribunal are likely to win an order that compels the LEA to quantify the amount of support that their child should receive. Others have often been short changed. Indeed, as one parent of a severely disabled child put it to me:
"For LEAs there are three priority categories. Top priority goes to those who know their rights and have pursued it through to actually taking them to the Tribunal. Second priority goes to those who are threatening to take them to the Tribunal. And lowest priority goes to those who know nothing of the Tribunal".
That hardly seems to be an equitable outcome! One would have hoped that all of these proposals for parent partnerships, better advice, information and support for parents with SEN children would have reversed those priorities.
However, I am encouraged today because we have the new statement from the Secretary of State about the code of practice. As it was, the draft code of practice seemed to be extremely weak on this issue. I am most encouraged to see that the Secretary of State has strengthened the provision and that he does require LEAs to specify what is required at the stage of statementing. I am delighted with this development. It is a very welcome strengthening of the Bill.
I turn now to my final point. As an outsider coming afresh to this area, it seems to me that there is created here a fundamental imbalance between rights and responsibilities. Under the provisions of successive education Acts, culminating in this Bill, we have created a series of, as the Disability Rights Task Force described them, "enforceable rights". Schools and LEAs have the responsibility to meet those rights; but, as the Audit Commission made clear, they also have
650
every incentive to skimp on those responsibilities and to make sure that the parents involved do not know the extent of their rights.
The Government for their part, having created the rights, have skimped on the funding. In this very Bill the cost of implementation, which is set out at the end of the Explanatory Notes, is assessed almost entirely in terms of the costs of alteration to the physical structures. The estimates are of some £200 million for schools and £170 million for the university and further education sector. By contrast, the costs to be borne by the schools in terms of extra support staff and extra training for existing staff is put at £12 million for this year and at £18 million for next year. Are such figures realistic?
This is not a trivial issue. I have already indicated that some 250,000 children in this country have statements of special needs and that in many cases we are failing to provide the necessary support. If we extend this to the total population of children with special needs, not just the statemented children, we are looking at approximately one-fifth of the school population—some 1.5 million children, most of whom come from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds. It is our failure to meet their special needs in the past that has endowed us with one of the highest rates of illiteracy and innumeracy among advanced nations.
In this Bill we are endowing these very children with a fundamental right: the right to a decent education. But I fear that, once again, while we may will the end, we have not to date been prepared to will the means. Unless we are prepared to do so, I believe that we shall be raising aspirations but short changing a considerable proportion of the population.
4 p.m.
Lord Rix: My Lords, it is with great pleasure that I too welcome the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill into your Lordships' House. Proposals for this Bill have existed in a number of incarnations over the past 12 months. It is gratifying to have before us a final framework for legislation upon which we can all concentrate. I am also grateful for today's announcement from the Secretary of State about progressive changes to the code of practice.
During last week's debate on the gracious Speech I extended my support to the principles of the Bill. I believe that it is right to update the 1996 Education Act, which was introduced so admirably in your Lordships' House by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, so parents of children with disabilities have a stronger right to choose a mainstream school if they wish. I also believe it is right that the Disability Discrimination Act is updated so it becomes unlawful to discriminate against disabled people in education.
Policy in the field of special education is an emotive and challenging subject, as no doubt we shall hear during the course of this Second Reading. Arguments are frequently polarised by the reality of hard, but often exceptional cases—cases on the one hand where outrageous unjustifiable discrimination has prevented disabled children from having the same life chances as

651
other children, and cases on the other hand where inclusive policies, implemented without adequate support, have been seen to fail that child as well as their peers, their parents and their families.
I believe that it is vital that we approach this legislation with a sense of proportion over its consequences. In education, as in most areas of policy, one size does not fit all, particularly for children with complex needs. There is no doubt that making inclusion work is a challenge. In some cases it can work only with the support of highly professional staff in well resourced schools and while we are a long way from that, experienced teaching assistants are already making huge differences.
I believe that an adversarial debate about the merits of mainstream versus special schools in the context of this Bill is unhelpful. It is a myth to suggest that our education system is divisive in such a way. I hope that your Lordships will permit me a short aside. Mencap's research with the University of Birmingham shows that a number of different models of integration and inclusion exist at this very moment. Some pupils attend mainstream schools with full-time specialist teaching help. Others attend some classes in a mainstream school but are withdrawn for specialist input such as physiotherapy. Some pupils attend a specialist unit as part of a mainstream school; others are on the roll of a special school but attend mainstream schools part-time or for specific practical lessons. I believe that this demonstrates that there is no Berlin wall between mainstream and special schools. They can and indeed they do work effectively together.
The view that this Bill is in some way an ideological nail in the coffin for special schools is also misleading. As we all know, government are putting welcome new money into both mainstream and special schools, while it is important to stress that there is nothing in this legislation to affect policies around school closures or anything that weakens parents' rights in respect of special schools.
Proposals in Clause 1 seek to strengthen the rights of parents to choose a mainstream place for their child if that is what they want. But I believe that this is a fundamental point of principle about choice—principle, not ideology. I am delighted that government have chosen to remove the caveats that limit a right to a mainstream place on the grounds of the efficient use of resources and on the rather vague grounds of the "needs of the child" because both have led to discrimination.
The legislation retains an exception based on the "efficient education" of other children. Interpretation of "efficient education" is notoriously subjective and as a consequence this still leaves open the potential for discrimination. I hope that during the passage of the Bill we shall be furnished with more detail about regulation and guidance in this area and I hope that government will consider further monitoring of the use of this exception. A number of scenarios, assessed by any objective standard, have shown its operation to be deeply unfair.
652
I know of a case at the moment involving a six year-old girl with a moderate learning difficulty. She was successfully included in a mainstream nursery, but is currently being denied a place in a mainstream primary school on the grounds that her inclusion in the school would prejudice the efficient education of other children. She is currently not in school pending a tribunal decision. This means that she has absolutely no access to education. One would expect that if she thrived in a mainstream nursery, she would at least be able to show that she could thrive in mainstream primary education.
Other measures in the special educational needs clauses of the legislation are all for the good. Parent partnership schemes should help to foster more constructive relationships between parents, schools and local education authorities. This is a welcome change of culture and attitude. I should also like the views of the young person to be taken into account. Finally, we are starting to listen to parents; now let us start to listen to the young people themselves. I was glad to note that the press release of the Secretary of State's announcement today mentioned that the views of children with special educational needs would be taken into account.
The second half of the Bill covering disability discrimination also deserves a warm welcome. The concepts of unjustified less favourable treatment and substantial disadvantage offer a practical framework to make discrimination unlawful. I am concerned that this framework could be limited by regard to,
"the interests of other pupils and persons who may be admitted to the school".
This is again rather imprecise and, if drawn too widely, could become a "get out clause". There is need for further explanation during the passage of the Bill and in the code of practice. Perhaps the use of all these limiting conditions will require monitoring.
I welcome the anticipatory duties contained in the Bill to encourage LEAs and schools to plan for greater disability access. Planning is absolutely critical to the success of meeting the needs of disabled children. Ensuring the infrastructure is right should mean, over time, that perceptions of disabled children will change. No longer will they be seen as awkward or as a problem: the right support will be offered as a matter of course. As the Bill is currently drafted, the emphasis is on encouraging schools and LEAs to plan for increased physical access. This is obviously not something I criticise, but I believe that equal emphasis should be placed on ensuring that the curriculum is made accessible. This is particularly crucial for pupils with learning disabilities who can achieve in mainstream schools but who may need a modification of the curriculum in order to fulfil their potential. Learning support assistants have a critical role in making the curriculum accessible. For children with learning disabilities we are concerned about access to learning itself rather than access to the places where education is delivered.
I am worried that overall there is insufficient coordination between the proposals in relation to disability and those in relation to special educational

653
needs. After all, in many cases we are talking about the same children. I also have concerns for children who may not come under the disability definition and will not therefore have their rights protected. Those with mild learning disabilities or communication impairments, particularly those who are young and may not have a confirmed diagnosis, could fall outside this definition. A typical example is a boy called Jamie who has a mild learning difficulty with associated communication impairments. In order for him to have full access to the curriculum there is a need to develop alternative teaching strategies in consultation with his speech and language therapist. Jamie's needs would not meet the criteria of the DDA and his school of choice would not be required to make reasonable adjustments to meet his special educational needs. This is as much a problem in further education as it is in school-based education.
The issue of the powers of the new special educational needs and disability tribunal in respect of discrimination cases will, no doubt, be explored in detail during the Committee stage. My initial reaction is that the overriding objective ought to be to resolve discriminatory situations in order for the child's education to be properly restored. We need to be sure that the tribunal has sufficient teeth to achieve this. There is a lack of confidence based on the difficulties in enforcing current tribunal decisions which I hope we can turn around. I welcome the extension of the Disability Rights Commission's powers to issue nondiscrimination notices. This should help to nip discrimination in the bud. The more that can be done to prevent the need for formal proceedings, the more effective the system will be.
I believe that we need to proceed with caution on the issue of financial compensation. There is a case for offering small sums of money in lieu of the aggravation caused to families—aggravation which should not be dismissed. Whether a workable system can be developed remains to be seen.
To round off, I should like to flag up a few brief concerns regarding the post-16 elements of the legislation. I must declare an interest as the Chancellor of the University of East London where the concept of lifelong learning has been enthusiastically embraced. The professor of lifelong learning gave me lunch only yesterday. As I have said in the past, I believe that the Government's lifelong learning agenda is heading in the right direction, and thanks to noble Lords of all parties joining forces in a constructive manner during the passage of the Learning and Skills Act, provision for those with learning difficulties or disabilities is central to that agenda. This Bill should further enhance those developments, but there are three areas worthy of brief comment.
First, the implementation of parts of the legislation covering physical access should be speeded up. The year 2005 is not acceptable when there are duties under Part III to introduce access to goods and services by 2004. Secondly, work-based training which currently sits under Part III of the DDA should come under this new legislation in order to benefit from a common code of practice. Finally, work placements and work
654
experience should also be covered by the new legislation since they often form an integral part of courses in further education.
I do not wish to dwell on more detailed matters of policy at this stage. That can wait until Committee stage. But I should like to close by expressing my support for this legislation. It offers many more opportunities than threats—opportunities which Members of all parties can extend if we co-operate to improve the Bill. I am delighted that this process of cooperation has already begun with Peers of all parties attending a meeting earlier today to discuss the Bill, and another is arranged before Committee stage. Mindful of the potential restrictions on parliamentary time which could emerge if there is a spring election for those in another place, I hope that Members of this House will use their time constructively and for the benefit of the next generation of disabled learners.
Shortly after our first daughter was born with Down's syndrome some 49 years ago, I received a letter—from the Ministry of Health, mark you—couched in these hurtful and hateful terms:
"You telephoned me on the 8th February about the services available for mentally defective children. I am assuming that the mongol child"—
our daughter—
"you referred to will not be capable of education within the education system and will therefore have to be dealt with under the mental deficiency acts".
In that year, 1952, thousands of parents of newly-born children must also have received such horrendous letters. For those children with physical and sensory disabilities the wording would have been different perhaps but the message would have been the same. They were to be excluded for life from so-called normal society.
Since those dark ages, successive governments have sought to bring forth legislation which would mitigate such draconian exclusion and they are to be congratulated on undertaking the journey. The Bill before us today, therefore, is another significant step along the long, and sometimes lonesome. road to integration and normality.
4.14 p.m.
Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, it was a great pleasure to listen to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, especially in view of his close professional and personal involvement with the issue we are discussing today.
The Government deserve the warmest congratulations on the Bill, in particular David Blunkett, Margaret Hodge and my noble friend Lady Blackstone. It is a vital component in creating the new Britain: one which is prosperous and fair, in which discrimination against disabled people becomes an ugly memory. It fills a deplorable gap in the DDA. It is a Bill greatly to be welcomed albeit one which needs clarification on some points and amendments on others.
I welcome the additional funding of £220 million over three years for the Schools Access Initiative and the £172 million over two years for improving access

655
to post-16 institutions. Such financial allocation illustrates that this is not just government talk but government action. I cannot see how they can talk about the Bill "on the cheap". There is emphasis by David Blunkett on the word "specific" in the code of practice as distinct from the original wording which was vague. These are major advances. They are a clear indication of the Government's aim. It is practical, not ideological. For the life of me, I do not believe that people can say that this is an ideological Bill.
Countless young, disabled people have suffered from discrimination, prejudice and neglect in education. One example of under-performance is that only 14 per cent of deaf pupils in mainstream school achieved five or more A to C grades at GCSE compared with a national average in England of 44 per cent. I declare an interest as president of the RNID. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, I, too, look forward to hearing the report on the neonatal hearing scheme. It is very important. I have no doubt that my noble friend Lady Blackstone will do what she can as soon as she can.
Only 60 per cent of the 22,000 blind and partially sighted children under 16 are educated in mainstream schools. This point involves the deaf and the blind. Many young people are placed at a serious disadvantage. That is the kind of person who will benefit enormously from the Bill.
There are many points to be made. We have all been provided with splendid briefing material from the Special Educational Consortium, the RNID, the RNIB and many others. I do not intend to make a lengthy speech in deference to the many noble Lords who wish to speak in the debate. I should like to move immediately from a very warm welcome for the Bill to my reservations and criticism which I aim to make wholly constructive.
The first issue is whether disabled children of school age who suffer discrimination should receive financial compensation. Of course, I favour the education remedy so that the discrimination is removed. There is no question but that that is imperative. But an important principle is involved here. It is equally imperative that such children should receive financial compensation. Some people suggest that such compensation would deprive the schools of the capacity to pursue an educational remedy. But such a point would be valid only if extravagant compensation were to be paid. I do not suggest that for one moment. I believe that such compensation should be reasonable and limited—not so limited that it fails to deter the local education authority from practising discrimination, but not so high that it would hit education provision. That is a vital deterrent.
Some LEAs are superb on the issue, but some are dreadful and recalcitrant. Any pleading to them without financial sanctions would be brushed aside contemptuously. They would behave like traditional bullies and continue with discrimination unperturbed, as we have seen in the past. They will change their
656
behaviour only when they are penalised. That is why I want compensation for those children who suffer discrimination at the hands of the LEA.
It is also important to ensure that the tribunals that deal with educational discrimination are no less effective than those that deal with race and gender discrimination. For sex and race discrimination, a court can grant an injunction that the discriminatory behaviour should not be repeated and order a financial remedy. I do not understand why everyone else should receive financial compensation—for social security, health or anything else—but not children who suffer discrimination. It does not make sense not to treat them in the same way. There is no argument for not doing so, provided that the compensation is reasonable and does not affect the education remedy. We can deal with the details in Committee, but I want to stress that tribunals should be empowered to award financial compensation. That would avoid having two bodies—the tribunal and the county court—hearing the same case.
I also welcome the Government's clear intention to strengthen the rights of children to have a mainstream education. The changes that they propose are admirable. To my amazement, some people are against the retention of any special schools, on the ground that that militates against the principle of mainstreaming. I do not agree for a moment. There is a specific case for special schools. My noble friend Lady Blackstone is right that in some cases mainstream schooling is not appropriate. The only trouble with the Government's proposals on mainstreaming is that they do not go far enough, because they maintain the caveat that children have the right to a mainstream education except when that would be,
"incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children".
That exemption has been abused in the past and there is no doubt that it will be abused again in the future, to the detriment of the child. We have to be careful.
I was going to call for the abolition of that exemption, but I do not think that I can achieve that. It is designed to permit the exclusion of severely disruptive children. I well understand that. However, it can also be used to exclude minor cases, such as autistic children with unconventional behaviour or a deaf child with communication difficulties. Some argue that the presence of an autistic child or of the communication support would be distracting. That is nonsense, provided that proper provision is made. The priority should be what is right for the child. We do not want excuses to exclude them. We should amend that exception. At the least, we should provide for the efficient education of all children—I underline the word "all".
Finally, I regret that bullying on the grounds of disability is not covered by the Bill, although I am delighted by David Blunkett's decision today to combat school bullying. He is a great Secretary of State and this is a very important step forward. We are complacent about bullying in schools. It is a scandal to allow it to go on. The bullying of disabled children is

657
one of the most fundamental reasons for the damage to their educational standards. It is mean, vicious and prevalent and it should be vigorously tackled. It is damaging to the concept of mainstream education.
Unfortunately, we have to admit, bullying also happens in special schools. The most effective way of tackling bullying, in addition to educational persuasion, is for every school to be committed to abolishing it. That includes bullying on the grounds of physical, sensory or intellectual impairment or special educational needs.
Schools are required to have an anti-bullying policy, but that is not working, so we need to do something more. We need a real, tough and uncompromising commitment that should be carefully monitored by the Government.
Working together with Ministers, we can all make a substantial difference to the lives of disabled children with the Bill. I warmly welcome it and wish it Godspeed.
4.26 p.m.
The Lord Bishop of Bath and Wells: My Lords, I feel humble following the noble Lords, Lord Ashley and Lord Rix, and all the previous speakers in the debate. This is a very important subject. We on these Benches welcome the principle of inclusion for theological as well as educational reasons. It is right that as many children as possible should benefit from mainstream schooling. That is not only important for the progress of the child or young person, but an encouragement for greater integration and understanding with the child's peers, which we hope will spread out into wider society. With the right ethos in a school, it will increase respect for the child and avoid isolation and bullying, as the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, has just mentioned. For me it is one of the great delights to go to a school and see how, with the right teaching methods and the right ethos, children can learn not to victimise or to bully, but to support children experiencing difficulties, to the benefit of both.
However, we have two concerns. First, although we welcome the Minister's assurance, we are anxious that there will be a reluctance to statement, if such a statement were to lead to a special school placement, thus increasing costs. As we have heard, many children need a statement to bring adequate support to them, their parents, their carers and their teachers.
Secondly, as has already been said, the placing of a pupil with a special educational needs statement in a mainstream school must be appropriately funded and resourced for the education of the child or young person concerned and that of his or her peers to be effective.
The old ethical saying, "ought implies can" is helpful when thinking about special educational needs and disability. There can be a tension between the proper desire to include and expect the best that a person can give and the need not to try to exceed that person's capacity. It can be wrong to pressurise by
658
expecting too much, as it is wrong to expect too little. "Ought implies can" is a sound and pragmatic moral principle.
That may be particularly evident and contentious when a school has to propose to exclude a disabled pupil. It may well be argued that the pupil's behaviour derives from their disability. The excluding body would rightly have to demonstrate that such discrimination—and it would be discrimination—was justified and for the well-being of the pupil, the parents, the head teacher and the governing body. Part II of the Bill requires serious scrutiny to ensure that that process is just to the children and young people involved.
That leads me to refer to another concern, touched on by the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp. In the Children's Society, which £ chair, we attempt increasingly to engage children and young people in the matters that affect them. Indeed, at present we are setting up an advisory group of young people in order that they may share in decision-making and in the consultations that we have to carry out in making our major decisions. We believe that the participation of children and young people is important.
However, we learned that such participation is not always easy and that it requires much energy and time. Communication needs to be carried out in an open and generous manner where young people are trying to be involved. That must be the case especially with children who have disabilities. Sometimes their parents, too, find it hard to communicate or to understand what is going on. However, we believe that it is important to go as far as possible in discovering their thoughts and wishes.
Therefore, we welcome the parent partnership—particularly so if it is developed into a parent and child partnership. Consulting with parents and hearing their views is part of the inclusion because so often they are not heard, not understood, nor given the time to make their views known. The bureaucracy of tribunals, and so on, can be awesome for anyone, let alone for those who have poor communication skills. I believe that that is especially true where there is a history of abuse.
Obviously, another concern relates to funding. We are wary of the justice, or injustice, being determined by geography, with varied provision existing between LEAs. In the attempt to produce accessibility plans for schools, will it be ensured that they are consistent in what they provide? Are the financial provisions sufficient? How will the money itself be made accessible? Will successful LEAs receive the money and others not? Perhaps some of the highest needs are to be found in areas where LEAs are not successful and efficient. How will the proposals work for aided schools? Do such schools apply to the department or does the money trickle down through the LEA? Will the £0.7 million a year available for voluntary providers of education include the governing bodies of voluntary aided schools?
The Government are rightly saying that we should and can do more, even if the detail of the "can" or the "how" is not yet totally clear. We know that some

659
schools and LEAs are less sympathetic to those needs because of the changes which they believe will have to be made within the buildings, because of the pressure to achieve high positions in league tables and because of insufficient resources to carry out the changes. The Bill must provide the resources for schools and LEAs to do the right thing.
With regard to church schools, we must also accept responsibility on the grounds of the Christian faith to which we are committed and in which we believe, as well as the law of the land. The Lord Himself had a tremendous ministry of inclusion of those who were excluded and "ghetto-ised" by the rest of society. Two schools that we know of, for example, both have 1,000 pupils. One has 40 pupils on the special needs register; the other has two. That must imply a need not only for more just admission arrangements but for the provision of better opportunities for all. In terms of being civilised and moral, we must learn how to live together and to share the gifts and love that disabled children and children with special needs can give to our society. Such things are essential. We welcome the Bill and hope that it will reach a successful conclusion.
4.34 p.m.
Lord Baker of Dorking: My Lords, I agree with much of what the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells said. For a Conservative to say that to a Bishop of the Anglican Church today is a rare, if not unique, event.
First, I declare an interest in that I am the president of the Royal London Society for the Blind, which maintains and supports one of the leading schools for blind children in our country. It takes in children from the age of two and a half through to the age at which they sit GCSEs. It also has a special education college for some 90 students from 16 to 19 years of age. It is a centre of excellence not only in this country but internationally.
I apologise to the Minister. Later this evening I must take some younger people to a Christmas entertainment. If, by any chance, the curtain on that goes up before the curtain on this debate goes down, I may not be present to hear her reply but I shall read it very carefully.
The Bill has received a general welcome. It gives an enhanced power to parents to decide whether children with special educational needs should be educated in a mainstream school. That is the whole thrust of the Bill and its amendments to existing legislation. Perhaps I may say that, as a Member of Parliament over a period of 30 years, I did not have one case of a parent asking for a child with special educational needs to go to a mainstream school. But I had many, many cases of parents asking for a child to go to a special school because they felt that the provision by the local education authority was neither adequate nor appropriate. One of the Minister's colleagues, a former Member of Parliament, would probably agree that that is the pattern of experience of an MP. It is not that we have experienced cases which are in support of
660
the Bill; it is the other way round. Over the years, parents have felt that education authorities do not provide the degree of training and education required.
The legislation to phase out special schools and to concentrate more on mainstream schools started with the Conservative government in 1980. When I was Secretary of State in the late-1980s, I certainly supported the arguments for that. However, I begin to wonder whether the process has gone a little too far. Over the past 20 years, a huge number of special schools have been closed. In the area of blindness and visual impairment, half the schools have been closed.
One has to ask whether the provision of education to children who have special educational needs has improved. Of course, I understand the argument that it is right to include those children and that they should not be considered outcasts. They should not be considered as children with such special difficulties that they are not included. I also understand the argument that it is good for children in a school to have alongside them children who have special educational needs. They understand the problems and, probably for the first time in their lives, they realise that many of their contemporaries are very disadvantaged. That should provoke some degree of sympathy and involvement and improve the community spirit. That is the whole raison d'être of this policy.
However, we must ask whether it is achieved entirely satisfactorily. Earlier this year a report was published by the Royal National Institute for the Blind, with which I had no particular contact. It is one of the best reports on the provision of special education in our country. Approximately 22,000 children under the age of 16 suffer some degree of visual impairment. One thousand of those children and their parents were interviewed. Some very disturbing points are made in the report. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, talked about bullying. One child said:
"I am getting bullied at school because of my eyes. They called me 'cockeye' and I'm scared of it because it's not fair on all the people who are like me with disabilities".
A parent of a six year-old girl said:
"My daughter K… gets upset when people stare at her and call her names like 'cat eye'.
The report states that half the parents of primary schoolchildren believe that their children were bullied as a result of their disability. Nearly three in five secondary pupils and students in further and higher education said that they had been bullied at some time. That is a disgrace by any standard. One might at least understand, if not forgive, bullying of the normal kind, but this is bullying of people who clearly are at a huge disadvantage in their schools. That is against the whole purpose of the policy.
There is the question of whether local authorities have provided sufficient facilities to deal with children with special educational needs. Perhaps I may refer again to the report; its comments are disturbing. I am sure that there are similar reports concerning the hard of hearing and the deaf. The report states:
"One in three blind and partially sighted pupils in mainstream secondary schools did not always get their school test and exam papers in their preferred format".

661
If pupils are not tested in the preferred format, they cannot take the test. The report goes:
"One in five secondary pupils did not have the necessary specialist equipment to do their homework".
Twenty per cent of the children we are encouraging to go to mainstream schools did not have the equipment to do their homework. That is a disgrace.
"Half of the parents whose children had complex additional needs were not in touch with their local authority specialist visual impairment teaching service".
Such parents had no idea what was happening to their children.
"Two in three parents [66 per cent] of children with complex additional needs who felt their child needed an 'interpreter' said there was never one available".
An interpreter is someone who talks to a child to try to define a problem. In schools they are sometimes called "intervenors".
That is an indictment of the provision of specialist education in mainstream schools. I say at once that I am not making political points. I know perfectly well that some education authorities do well in that area; some not so well. In June this year I wrote to Mr Woodhead, the chief inspector of schools, who has just resigned. I asked whether there was any comparison between the provision of specialist education in mainstream schools and that in specialist schools. His reply was rather extraordinary. He wrote:
"The inspectorate has not undertaken any specific work on the provision of education for blind and partially sighted children but all the special schools catering for such children in the state sector have been inspected and reports have been published. Most schools for Visually Impaired children have had very positive inspection reports. We have not undertaken any specific comparisons between maintained and non-maintained VI schools".
I consider that an indictment of the system, not of the Minister. I thought that the system would throw up a comparison between the provision of special education in local authority services and that in specialist schools. As far as I can see from the letter, no evidence is available. That does not undermine the basic provisions of the Bill, but to some extent it brings them into question. As the debate proceeds, perhaps the Minister will be able to adduce evidence. I do not expect her to do so today, but her officials will now be busy trying to find evidence of comparison.
I should like to make a case for special schools. The right reverend Prelate mentioned them. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, mentioned their importance. Special schools tend now to become the residual teaching facilities for children with manifold disabilities. Dorton House provides not only for the visually impaired but for those with severe behavioural problems. I begin to wonder whether that should be the case. I am not so sure that there is not a case for more special schools. Perhaps that is rather an unpopular thing to say today, but it may be right.
Special schools have a concentration of skills, experience and equipment. Many are supported by charitable foundations. Compared to state provision, we have been able to "over-provide" Dorton House
662
with equipment from money which I helped to raise. Such equipment is necessary for the hard-of-hearing, the visually impaired and the physically disabled.
When parents appear before tribunals which decide whether their children should attend a special school, local education authorities now appoint counsel to protect their position, particularly because of the Human Rights Act. Parents do not have that facility. There is not an even playing field as regards the rights of parents and those of local education authorities. I believe there should be.
Perhaps I may make a further comment about special schools, particularly those for the visually impaired. As I have stated, there are 22,000 visually impaired children in our country. There are 80 different eye conditions. How is it possible for local education authorities to have that information? For some children, large print is important; for others, small print is important. Some children need a bright light; others need a darker light. A tremendous amount of knowledge arid expertise is required, most of which exists in our special schools. The same applies to special schools for the hard of hearing, which are centres of excellence in that area.
I suggest that special schools should be used in many more ways; for example, for the initial training of teacher assistants and support workers; for staff development of teachers, social workers and health professionals, and for collaborative work aimed at early intervention support for parents, which we heard about today. When parents suddenly discover that, for one reason or another, at a very early age their child cannot cope they are adrift in a world about which they know nothing. Where do they go for assistance and help? They become worried and alarmed. There is a real recognition of the role of special schools in our society today.
I do not believe that the Government realise the cost of what they are doing. Perhaps I may stress that I am not trying to make a political point. In the financial memorandum, the Government state that the Bill will cost £1.5 million to £3 million. They also state that over the next three years they will spend £200 million—a point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley. Two hundred million pounds among 30,000 schools is £7,000 per school over three years. That will be for ramps and handrails. It will not cover the cost: of employing one extra teacher; nor even one-third of a teacher. Yet the provision of special education should mean a teacher-pupil ratio of 1:2 or 1:3.
I do not believe that the Government have estimated the financial consequences of what they are doing. When parents have the right to decide that their children should go to a mainstream school, they will say, "I want my child to be taught Braille"; "I want the latest devices because she is half deaf"; "I want special training because she is physically disabled". Perhaps I may say to the Minister that that costs a huge amount of money. I believe that there is a time bomb ticking away in the whole area of special education.
My final point concerns a matter which has been raised before. I refer to those children who have special behavioural difficulties. Here, I believe the

663
Government face both ways. Last week, Mr Blunkett, the Secretary of State for Education, clearly stated that he wanted to take stronger action against bullies. That means first trying to address the question of bullying, but it also means excluding bullies from schools and placing them in special units. It recognises that behavioural difficulties come from anger, impatience, contempt, intolerance, or whatever. That is rather against the whole drift of this legislation, which is inclusion. Here we have a conflict. I do not ask the Minister to address that conflict tonight, but to reflect upon it.
If we decide to act against bullies—not only bullies in the disabled area but bullies generally—we shall exclude children. I am not against that. I am in favour of identifying children with behavioural difficulties in primary school at the ages of five, six, seven and eight. All teachers will tell you that they can identify those children at that level. If we try to identify them at that level and put them into special units or special schools, we have a chance of doing something with them, whereas we have no chance at all when they reach 10, 11, 12 or 13. That has been proved in different schools throughout the country. I know of one in north Oxford which takes primary schoolchildren from Oxfordshire at the age of 6, 7 or 8, who are extremely disruptive. They handle them and try to integrate them back into the state system of mainstream schools. So a conflict exists in the Government's policies. I ask them to address it, but I do not suggest that there is an easy solution.
Finally, the provision of education to those children who have special needs is one of the most important actions we can take. We must try and do it right. There is no standard position. Some will go into special schools—I suspect more will need special schools. But this Bill moves in a direction which could be helpful provided the Government are prepared to fund it. The funding requirements of the Bill will be astronomic in educational terms; much greater than the Government indicated. So I hope that in the course of the Bill passing through its stages in this House we will be able to explore all those matters. At the end of the day we want to ensure that those children who are already burdened with enormous disadvantages are somehow given a leg up in life.
4.51 p.m.
Lord Morris of Manchester: My Lords, it is a pleasure to follow the noble Lord, Lord Baker. We have been fellow parliamentarians for upwards of 30 years and I am always impressed by his abiding skill and sincerity, as well as by his reasonableness, in arguing his case.
I warmly welcome the Bill and commend the Government on giving it such high priority in their legislative programme for this new parliamentary Session. Today my noble friend Lady Blackstone and her ministerial colleagues at the Department for Education and Employment deserve special credit for their crucially important role in bringing the Bill forward. I know from my own ministerial experience
664
that success like theirs does not come gift-wrapped. It has to be worked for. I congratulate my noble friend and her colleagues on an important achievement for disabled children and young people and their families, one that it may be appropriate for me—the House knows of my long involvement in this policy area—briefly to put into its historical context.
This Bill traces back, first, to the enactment of my Chronically Sick and Disabled Persons Bill 1970, Sections 4 to 8 of which were the world's first-ever legislation on access for people with disabilities to schools and places of further and higher education, and thus to mainstream schools and tertiary educational opportunities. Secondly, the Bill is a lineal descendant of the report of the committee of inquiry—the Committee on Restrictions Against Disabled People (CORAD)—that reported to Sir Hugh Rossi, then the Minister for Disabled People, in 1982. Chaired by Sir Peter Large, the committee of inquiry was one I had appointed while I was the Minister in 1979 to consider the case for legislating to end unfair discrimination against disabled people.
The CORAD report emphatically supported legislative action, not least for the purpose of improving the educational opportunities of disabled children and young people; and there were high hopes among their parents in 1982 of better provision in the years immediately ahead.
Sadly, the Government's response to the report was to say that persuasion was preferable to legislation and there was no action on the report, notwithstanding repeated attempts by individual Members of Parliament to give it effect. Some of their Private Member's Bills—the first of which was introduced under the 10-minute rule in another place by my good and noble friend Lord Ashley, who then as now chaired the All-Party Disablement Group—had Second Reading debates; but none made progress into Committee.
While one Minister after another sat on the CORAD report, other countries acted to outlaw unfair discrimination on the model recommended by CORAD, notably the United States where, with huge all-party congressional backing, the Americans with Disabilities Act was signed by President George Bush and became law in 1990. Twenty years earlier we had been a world leader. But now, much to the dismay of all the major disability organisations, we were among the world's followers in a field where quick action on the CORAD report would have kept us in the van.
That was the background to my decision to draft and promote the Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill—for which I had won parliamentary time for a Second Reading debate in another place in the Private Members' ballot of November 1991—to end the delay in implementing the report of the committee of inquiry I had appointed 12 years earlier. But although the Bill, which my noble friend Lady Lockwood presented for me in your Lordships' House where, much to the honour of this House, it twice completed all its stages, it was systematically obstructed by Government Whips in another place; first, when I moved its Second

665
Reading on 31st January 1992, and again when Roger Berry and Harry Barnes used their good fortune in subsequent Private Members' ballots to reintroduce the Bill.
Obstruction of the Bill led to disquiet, not only in the organisations of and for disabled people, but also among MPs of all parties. By 1995, when a clear majority of all MPs declared their support for the Bill, the Government finally changed their policy and introduced the Disability Discrimination Act of that year. But it was a very weak version of my Civil Rights (Disabled Persons) Bill. Without my Bill's provision for a disability rights commission, the 1995 Act was what the equal opportunities legislation for women would have been without the Equal Opportunities Commission—a car without an engine. Again, the total omission of education from the Act blocked the path to equality of educational opportunity for disabled children and young people.
Those two major defects in the Disability Discrimination Act have now been addressed and, while there are still problems to tackle, this Bill is—as James Strachan, chief executive of the RNID has said—"great news" for people with disabilities. He goes on to say,
"Disabled children have finally won the right to be educated on the basis of need not disability. Challenging discrimination in schools and ensuring the right to a decent education will give them the sound start they need to become independent and successful adults".
Like James Strachan, the Disability Rights Commission (DRC) also sees this Bill as rectifying a major weakness of the 1995 Act. It looks forward to producing the codes of practice for which the Bill provides and to setting up a conciliation service to secure the rights of its beneficiaries. The DRC acknowledges, however, that there are some points that will merit detailed parliamentary attention as the Bill proceeds—at high speed, one hopes—to the statute book.
Thus Clause 1 of the Bill states that caveats regarding inclusion under Section 316 of the Education Act 1996 should be retained, in particular one referring to,
"the provision of efficient education for other children".
That applies to children with special educational needs, many of whom are also physically or sensorily impaired. The Disability Rights Commission rejects the need for such a caveat since it presents a potentially negative image of disabled children as disruptive to the effective education of other children; secondly, because there are already sufficient safeguards in place, as the noble Lord, Lord Baker, will know as a former Secretary of State, for excluding pupils who are causing major disruption to the education of others.
Similarly the DRC is concerned about the provision in Part II of the Bill that regard shall be had, when considering including disabled pupils/students and persons who may be admitted to the school/institution as pupils/students. It is felt that this may be seen as implying that the presence of disabled pupils/students is to the detriment of other pupils/students attending an educational institution.
666
Clauses 17 and 22 make it clear that no financial compensation or award of damages is envisaged when discrimination has taken place within schools. Many of my correspondents from disability organisations, all of them held in high regard on both sides of this House, want that questioned and consideration given to reasonable compensation for such discrimination.
Another important issue that merits detailed parliamentary consideration is the omission from the Bill of bodies such as the General Medical Council which thus may still be able to argue that they are outside the remit of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is widely felt that it would be more helpful to achieving an inclusive society if they were brought within the Bill.
But while this is the right moment to put down markers, it is not the day for detailed scrutiny of the Bill. That is for another day, before when I hope my noble friend will liaise very closely with the disability organisations—not least Mencap, Sense, the RNIB, as well as the RNID, the National Autistic Society, the Dyslexia Association, the Special Educational Consortium and the Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education—about their thoughts for improving the Bill.
Today is one for wishing my noble friend Lady Blackstone all possible success in steering this humane Bill through your Lordships' House. It is a Bill, first and foremost, enabling children and young people with disabilities to become a part of, instead of being apart from, our society.
5.2 p.m.
Baroness Brigstocke: My Lords, first, I must apologise to the Minister and to the House because I may not be able to stay until the end of the Second Reading debate. I have a longstanding evening engagement.
Secondly, I must declare my interest. For the past eight years, I have been chairman of Landau Forte College, a large, fully comprehensive school in inner city Derby. It is one of the 15 city technology colleges set up by my noble friend Lord Baker when he was Secretary of State for Education and Science in the previous government.
I also visit secondary schools all over the country on behalf of a large charitable foundation in order to assess the schools' needs for extra funding. I therefore realise how many schools are woefully short of money.
I have two concerns. The first has been mentioned at length today. Of course we all want to ensure that children and young adults who are disabled—whether physically, mentally or emotionally—are given the chance to live life to the full, to have the best possible education and training as well as being able to take part in the many opportunities which now exist in musical, physical and dramatic activities which are such a splendid characteristic of our best schools today.
But the proposed legislation which we are considering is rather woolly. The DfEE means well and the proposals look good on paper, but the

667
practical arrangements for delivering them have not been fully thought out. I want to make it clear that I applaud many of the proposals; for example, for children who are dyslexic or dyspraxic, expert individual help from special educational needs teachers working closely with mainstream subject teachers can certainly do well by them. But—and I echo, perhaps less strongly, what was said by my noble friend Lord Baker—the resources needed are enormous. It is proposed that £220 million will fund the new duties placed on local education authorities, local authorities and schools. All schools in England, Wales and Scotland will receive £50 million in the first year, £70 million in the second and £100 million in 2003–04. That is manifestly not enough, especially when schools with old buildings will have to spend most of their allotted grant on wheelchair access.
My second concern is that the Bill's 42 clauses and eight schedules could well impose a rigid pattern in an attempt to fit everyone into a rigid framework. At Landau Forte we prefer to think in terms of individual rather than special needs. Every single child has individual needs and they cannot all be met by one blanket, complicated framework.
By all means bring into the mainstream schools—and it would be good to have independent schools involved—the children who, with specialist help, can profit from the arrangement. I believe that we already have a good system at Landau Forte, which is a school of just over 1,000 students. We have three full-time and two part-time individual needs specialists. The individual needs specialists teach small groups separately but at other times they teach alongside the individual subject teachers. One member of the subject team is the responsible link between the specialist teachers and those in the team.
The whole arrangement depends on individual fine-tuning to do the best for students with dyspraxia, dyslexia or attention deficit disorder, for which there is the added medical complication of having the drug Ritalin administered by the school nurse. The physically disabled—some in wheelchairs and some with epilepsy, visual or hearing impairment or other hidden medical conditions—are also well and happily integrated. But the badly autistic, completely thrown in on themselves, and those with emotional and behavioural difficulties, will often need very specialised help in a special school. Their parents are at the moment worried that this Bill might cause those children to be placed, against the wishes of the parents, in schools which are not suitable. I am concerned that, despite what the Minister said in her opening remarks, there is a danger that even more special schools will be closed. I think of a girl who last year shouted, screamed and was quite out of control in class. Not only did she disrupt the lessons for everyone else but clearly she was herself deeply distressed. Since moving to a special school she is much calmer and happier.
I also make a plea for bright pupils who are not necessarily academically inclined; often not. Such children have very real individual needs. They do not need to be segregated unless they suffer from
668
Asperger's syndrome, but they need special provision and, most of all, intellectual stimulation and understanding. I hope I was wrongly informed when told recently that these children are known in the DfEE as "severely able".
I ask the Government to reassure schools and parents that the Bill will provide enough money and specialist teachers. There is a chronic shortage of school teachers in almost all disciplines at the moment, particularly male teachers who can do much to help emotionally disturbed boys and those who display laddish culture and have special needs. Please reassure schools and parents that there will be sufficient flexibility and attention to individual needs over a wide spectrum of need, disability and ability. Please also remember that it is easier to sit behind a desk to plan a new framework than for a young teacher, even with modern white board technology behind her, to stand alone in front of a large class of teenagers, several of whom are disruptive and the rest disrupted.
This is an ambitious Bill which contains many good proposals, but if the Government really want to bring into mainstream education all of these very special children and young adults, they will need extra help and equipment to integrate and keep pace with their school fellows. I very much doubt that the proposed funding is anything like adequate for that enormous task. The greatest care must be taken in assessing students and their individual needs. It is essential to continue to make proper provision for those students who cannot be accommodated in mainstream schools because they make the task of young teachers quite impossible. I ask for some assurance about the criteria to be used to decide which students should and should not be in special schools. I also seek an assurance that special schools will be retained and supported for those students who cannot be expected to thrive in mainstream schools.
5.14 p.m.
Baroness Warwick of Undercliffe: My Lords, I congratulate the Government on the introduction of this legislation, which will make possible major improvements in the provision for disabled pupils and students across the whole education system. Its emphasis on inclusion, excellence and choice and lifelong learning is admirable, and I very much support it. I have been enormously impressed by the expertise and passionate commitment of other distinguished speakers in this debate.
I shall be brief because I intend to confine my remarks to that part of the Bill which deals with higher education. In doing so I declare an interest as chief executive of Universities UK. Further and higher education will have a duty under the Bill to do two things: not to treat disabled students less favourably, without justification, than students who are not disabled, and to make reasonable adjustments to ensure that people who are disabled are not put at a substantial disadvantage to people who are not disabled in accessing further and higher education.

669
I was pleased to note that in introducing the Bill the Minister recognised how much the proposals in the Bill confirmed the good practice already introduced arid adopted by many universities which do a great deal of work with disabled students. However, the specific issue to which I draw the attention of the Minister is the need for care in assessing the compliance costs for the higher education sector. I was concerned that no regulatory impact assessment was undertaken during the consultation, which means that we are all somewhat in the dark.
Many institutions have already been working towards the accommodation needs of disabled students and have often made very imaginative use of existing resources. But inevitably the new statutory demands mean new additional costs, particularly in terms of physical facilities and the use of computer, IT and auxiliary aids which have capital and recurrent cost implications. I realise that the Explanatory Notes to the Bill are an attempt to get at those costs but they are not very detailed. The Secretary of State's grant letter to the Higher Education Funding Council for England stated that £56 million would be provided to improve access for disabled students in HEIs over the two years to 2003–04. Although that is very welcome, it is not based on a regulatory impact assessment. Therefore, I hope that the figures can be looked at very carefully during the course of the Bill. Some work undertaken in the sector with a small number of pilot institutions suggests that the costs might be as large as £250 million rather than the £56 million quoted in the Bill. We all want the Bill to work. Therefore, I urge my noble friend to consider this matter. The Bill is so positive that it would be a great pity if it did not achieve the success promised because of pressure on resources.
I hope that the Minister will also look at the question of institutional responsibilities for the services that they utilise. The relationship between the institutions' liabilities under the new legislation and those of other organisations which utilise institutional facilities requires closer attention, as does the provision of work placements, field trips, international exchanges and study-abroad components of courses. Although these are detailed issues, I hope that they can be considered in the statutory code of practice which will accompany the legislation.
The Disability Rights Commission will consult interested bodies, and on behalf of Universities UK I welcome the opportunity to take part in the consultation. I join many other speakers in the debate in giving a very warm welcome to the proposals in the Bill.
5.19 p.m.
Baroness Darcy de Knayth: My Lords, I am particularly delighted by this Bill because during the passage of the 1981 Act I sought to remove the caveats to what is now Section 316 of the 1996 Act and spent the entire passage of the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 in abortive attempts to include education. I extend my heartfelt congratulations to the Government on achieving that. Certain areas of
670
concern remain, and I hope that we can all work constructively to improve the Bill further and ensure that it really works.
The noble Baroness Lady Uddin, who has waited years for this Bill, is extremely sorry not to be here: her youngest child is ill. I am sure that the noble Baroness will be back at full strength in Committee.
It is most welcome that in Clause I the reference to the efficient use of resources has gone. Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, l would have hoped that new Section 316(3)(b)—the provision of efficient education for other children—could also have gone, because that could be used as a get-out by some LEAs. Therefore, I hope that the code will clearly advise LEAs against that.
I am delighted that the extension of anti-discrimination legislation covers pupils and prospective pupils with disabilities. Not all disabled children have SEN, but the vast majority of the 250,000 plus children with statements will fall within the legal definition of disabled. I am concerned that not all will be covered—my noble friend Lord Rix gave the example of the child with a mild learning disability—particularly if he or she is young and the condition is, as yet, unconfirmed. I hope we can ensure that all children who need protection are covered by the legislation.
The Independent Panel on Special Education Advice (IPSEA)—I should declare that I am a member—welcomes extension of the DDA as a significant advance. IPSEA has advised on cases where children have been discriminated against on the grounds of their disability, left out of school trips, left out of class photographs for image reasons, and even excluded from school because of their needs. IPSEA says that instances of this kind of discrimination are few in number in comparison with the number of children who are denied the special education that their needs call for.
As the Bill stands, it will not address the problem of a denial of special educational provision because it will not create a duty on schools or LEAs to provide aids and services. These are excluded under new Section 28C(2)(b). A denial of provision will not constitute discrimination under the Bill. We need to explore how we will ensure that protection. Why are they excluded? The post-16s are covered. I understand that the Disability Rights Task Force recommended that it was unnecessary because the Education Act 1996 already provided the protection needed.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, has removed magnificently a huge chunk of my speech, for which I am grateful, by referring to the Disability Rights Task Force and the conclusion of the 1992 Audit Commission and making the point concerning the LEAs failure to specify provisions in Part III of the DDA. I am delighted also with the announcement today of the Secretary of State, Mr Blunkett, that the word "specify" in the code of practice will stay. That will make the most enormous difference.

671
I am grateful to the Minister for sending me a special edition of the SEN update. I have not had time to digest it, so some of my anxieties may have been addressed. But it appears that children with statements will have a stronger chance of getting the help they need. I remain slightly worried about the children without statements who come under the DDA but who do not have protection in the face of the denial of aids and services. Perhaps the Minister can assure me that the SEN policy will give them sufficient cover. It would be regrettable if people had to revert to statementing in order to be sure of securing the provision they need. I hope that the Minister can reassure us, or that we can explore the issue further in Committee.
I welcome the very positive move to further inclusion by strengthening parents' right to opt for a mainstream school place for their child. It will lead to greater inclusion if parents are assured that their children will receive the provision and service they need. The excellent news today will go a long way towards including children with statements. I hope the Minister can offer us the same assurance for those without statements.
I turn now to post-16 issues. It is a great pleasure to follow the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick. I am afraid that noble Lords will find my contribution a bit of a comedown after listening to her. However, I was delighted that she did not touch on the same matters as I shall. I was praying that I would not have to change my speech at half a second's notice.
The legislation is extremely welcome, but there are some points of concern and some that need clarification. I consulted SKILL, which is the National Bureau for Students with Disabilities, for its view. I should declare that I am the president of SKILL. The timescale, mentioned by my noble friend Lord Rix, is of great concern to the organisation. It feels that 2005 is too late for the implementation of those parts of the legislation covering physical access. Education institutions already provide many non-educational services which are covered by Part III of the DDA—catering provision, careers services, sports facilities. They have been preparing for better access by 2004. They will be transferred to the provision under the new legislation and therefore given a new date of 2005. Why should students have to wait an additional year for the service that other service users will get in 2004? Why not keep the deadline of 2004? It is correct that institutions would have to take immediate steps to ensure the education provision was ready by then, but many of them have already taken such action because of the requirements of the inspectors and, in higher education, the quality assurance agencies. Therefore, it should not be too much of a problem.
It is a matter of concern that, as with the under-16s, because of the definition of disability not all students will be covered. Their impairment may not have a substantial adverse effect on normal day-to-day activities. It would exclude perhaps the student with dyslexia who could only concentrate for short periods
672
of time. To compete fairly with others, that student might need some accommodation in order to do a three-hour exam.
My noble friend Lord Rix mentioned work-based training. When the learning and skills council is established in April 2001, further education and training will come under a single funding body. The distinctions between work-based training and FE will become increasingly blurred. SKILL believes that work-based training is more akin to FE than to other services under Part III and should come under the new legislation and benefit from the accompanying code of practice.
There is great concern in HE about students who receive no external support. Institutions do not receive funding to cover the students who do not receive a disabled student's allowance. They think that the DSA covers all students, but nursing students, midwifery students, post-graduate students in Scotland, and international students are not covered. I hope that the Minister will undertake to look at that—not necessarily now—to find some solution.
I turn to the role of professional bodies. Educational providers are justified in discriminating against disabled students where professional requirements prevent someone entering a profession with a particular disability. But some professional bodies unnecessarily restrict access to disabled people who would be able to practise a particular profession with appropriate adjustments. SKILL recommends that the DDA be further amended to lay a duty on all public bodies, including professional bodies which are completely outside discrimination law at the moment, to promote equal opportunities for disabled people. Therefore, this discrimination can be outlawed.
Finally, I turn to work placements, which the noble Baroness, Lady Warwick, touched on. SKILL feels that this issue is very important. Many students in further and higher education are expected to attend work experience placements during their studies. Vocational courses such as nursing, social work and teaching require it. I am sure the Minister knows that research has shown that work experience is one of the most crucial factors in finding a job. I see that the noble Lord, Lord Davies of Oldham, sitting beside her is nodding.
Under the Bill institutions are to be made responsible for the accessibility of courses, including any placements, to the individual student. But it is not always possible for the institution to control what goes on on the outside. I hope that the Minister can give some thought to solving that. Probably the education provider should be the principal party responsible for the overall planning and organisation of the supported placement, but the work provider should also have some legal responsibility on a day-to-day basis. SKILL suggests that perhaps one should have a named person on site who has built up a relationship with the education provider and student in advance and is aware of the potential issues. That is a matter which I hope can be sorted out.

673
What I have suggested is only a tweaking and a fine-tuning of an extremely welcome Bill. I hope we can ensure that it works really well to enable pupils and students with special educational needs and disabilities to flourish in an inclusive environment.
5.30 p.m.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, I am pleased to participate in a debate in which we have already heard so many important and expert contributions. I cannot lay claim to the expertise of those noble Lords who have already spoken but I declare an interest as the chairman of the development committee of a school for children with autistic spectrum disorder and a member of the All-Party Group on Autism. I also declare a strong interest in children with ME and membership of the All-Party Group on ME.
My noble friend Lady Sharp has comprehensively laid out the approach of these Benches to the Bill. I certainly hope that we can build consensus on the improvements that can be made as the Bill passes through the House. I welcome very many aspects of the Bill. I suppose that it would be churlish to say that the Bill was somewhat delayed. On the other hand, one can only be impressed by the fact that the department has managed to secure a non-political Bill of this nature in a pre-election period.
First, I particularly welcome the general philosophy of inclusion. I interpret the thrust of the Bill as providing parental choice as to whether children should have mainstream schooling. Inclusion is all very well, but there must be adequate support. It cannot be used by education authorities as an excuse to save money on special schooling if that schooling is appropriate for the child. It certainly cannot be used as an excuse to close special schools. There is quite often a lack of support in mainstream education. More learning support assistants are needed and adequate training of class teachers must be secured. I was very heartened by the Minister's assurance—I think I quote her correctly—that there will be a continuing and vital role for special schools. I welcome that assurance.
Secondly, I welcome the new duty on LEAs to provide parent partnership services and independent conciliation. I certainly welcome the new duty on LEAs to comply with the decisions of SEN tribunals. However, as a number of noble Lords have said, we need to go further and ensure that compliance is monitored through appropriate mechanisms and that there are the resources to do that.
I wish to raise a number of specific issues. New Section 316 provides for the deletion of two of the three conditions which permitted LEAs to avoid inclusion. But, in the view of many of the relevant voluntary organisations, the third condition potentially provides a major loophole. LEAs can avoid inclusion in a mainstream school if it is incompatible with the efficient education of other children. I certainly agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, that that could well be a problem. We should debate the issue further as the Bill goes through the House.
674
I have concerns about the early years. Early years assessment and intervention is vital for conditions such as autism. Assessment provision in early years, however, is voluntary. It is not a duty on LEAs. The code of practice for SEN treats the under-fives quite differently from those above that age. There should at least be a duty to provide assessment and support. As the Government have, to their credit, recognised in programmes such as Sure Start, the early years are crucial. I very much hope that that point will be addressed as the Bill goes through the House.
The Minister and I have not exactly crossed swords on the issue of identification of the various conditions which could be classified under special educational needs but we know that certain conditions are on the increase. Certainly, autistic spectrum disorder comes within that category. As many as one in eight children could be suffering from ASD. Why are schools not obligated to return to the Government a break-down of those children with special needs and a break-down of what those special needs are? I have raised that point with the Minister on a previous occasion. At that time she prayed in aid the report produced more than a decade ago by the noble Baroness, Lady Warnock, which claimed that children would be stigmatised if there was such a categorisation. Surely, we must have gone beyond that stage.
Is it not vital to identify what those conditions are and the kind of facilities and support that those children need? Is it not vital that that should be clone as soon as possible when they arrive at school? Is that not what inclusion is all about? Stigmatisation is surely not an argument in those circumstances. If it can be done in Scotland, why can we not do it in England? In Scotland, the latest census on arrival at school has included all that information.
Another area concerns me. I refer to the importance of quick assessment. Section 329 of the Education Act provides a duty to assess children for special educational needs at the request of a parent only within six months. New Section 329A, which gives to a responsible body—often a head teacher—the same power to request an assessment, still provides only for that assessment to be made within six months. Six months is an eternity for a young person. Six months is an age. Why cannot an assessment be made by LEAs within a much shorter period of time? Should not LEAS have the resources to do that?
There is a thumping great hole in the next part of my speech because the Minister made a welcome announcement about changes to the SEN code of practice. I suspect that other noble Lords who are to speak have been scribbling out great passages of their speeches. I am delighted that at the last minute changes have been made to the code of practice. Those assurances from the Minister are extremely welcome. Therefore, as the Bill goes through the House, we shall not need a great debate about the exact meaning of the word "specify".
Another area of concern to noble Lords is the joining up of issues relating to disability and SEN where they overlap. Another area of overlap relates to

675
sick children. On average, children with ME are ill with it for about four-and-a-half years, which is a horrifyingly long time in the childhood of a young person. At what point do those children become assessable under the code of practice? At what point does Circular 12/94 give way to the SEN code of practice? Who makes that decision to switch across, in a sense, to the code of practice?
Generally, as far as concerns SEN and disability, other noble Lords have referred to the coherence between the SEN and disability provisions, both as regards whether there can be a common right of appeal where there is overlap and also in general terms as regards how the two codes will relate to each other. Why should there not be a cognate duty on those catering for those with SEN to provide for reasonable adjustments? Why should not mainstream schools be obligated to make those adjustments as well?
I turn to Clause 13 and the duty to plan. This is a step forward, but do we not need to plan in order to increase access to the curriculum as well as to the physical environment? I very much hope that we will debate that point as the Bill passes through the House.
Finally, I very much thought that the noble Lord, Lord Baker, and the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, hit the nail on the head when they referred to resources. The Explanatory Notes show that only £18 million seems to be indicated in additional resources for SEN and that that is for parent partnership services and independent conciliation. Without the resources, how on earth will our mainstream schools cater for children who may be coming in from special schools? We are living in cloud cuckoo land if we believe that additional resources are not required. Ironically, it may well be that a great deal of our debate should not be about the precise wording of the primary legislation or the codes of practice. Basically, we should be having, and should continue to have, a resource debate, although it may be that throughout the passage of the Bill we do not address that point.
5.40 p.m.
Baroness Wilkins: My Lords, I join with other noble Lords in giving a heartfelt welcome to the Bill. The Government are to be commended for giving the Bill such a high priority in this parliamentary Session. Many of its provisions have been long awaited and are warmly welcomed, in particular by those who have experienced the restricted education offered within the special school system and have long campaigned to include education in the Disability Discrimination Act.
However, much as I welcome the intention of the Government to put an end to disability discrimination in education, sadly, the Bill fails to achieve it. In its present form, it does not protect or promote the human and civil rights of all disabled children. It still allows for some children to be excluded from mainstream schools on the basis of their impairment. It can be argued that that goes against international
676
human rights agreements. That, I believe, is the fundamental problem with the Bill in its present form. But, as I have already said, there is much to welcome in Part I of the Bill, especially in the wider range of help, information and support which will be made available to parents.
The Bill sets out a range of provisions such as the requirement of LEAs to provide parent-partnership services and the setting of a time limit on the implementation of SEN tribunal decisions. That will help to establish good working relationships between parents, schools and LEAs and will give parents much greater confidence in the appeal system.
Part I of the Bill provides welcome amendments to Part IV of the Education Act 1996, which will strengthen the rights of children with special educational needs to be educated in a mainstream school. As many other noble Lords have already noted, it has removed two of the much-criticised caveats in Section 316 and has put the burden of proof on to a school or LEA to demonstrate that a child should not be given a mainstream place, rather than the current situation in which parents have to try to prove that their child should be included.
My main concern with this part of the Bill is with Clause 1. I shall largely confine my remarks to that clause. This is the clause that retains the third caveat. It states that a child with SEN shall be educated within mainstream provision unless that is incompatible with the wishes of his parent or it prejudices the provision of efficient education for other children. Disabled children do of course have a civil right to education. They also have a human right to,
"active participation in the community",
as set out in Article 23 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child. The problem with Clause 1 of the Bill is that it assumes that some unequal access to education and active participation in the community is justified and inevitable. I believe that that is in itself a prejudicial attitude. Clause 1 explicitly excludes access to human and civil rights for some children on the basis of their impairment.
Retention of the third caveat means that a child with a statement can be excluded from the mainstream without even being given a chance to be in a mainstream school, based on the supposition that their inclusion would be incompatible with the efficient education of other children. In the case of Crane v. Lancashire, it was considered that because Nicky Crane needed to leave lessons some five minutes earlier than other pupils in order to miss the crush in the corridor, this would interfere with the efficient education of other children. Lancashire LEA was relieved of the burden of duty to integrate him in a mainstream school.
What other reasons will be used to invoke this exclusion—if children make noises or need more support than other pupils? Will it be invoked if they need work to be translated into braille or BSL, or need food in lessons because they are diabetic; or will it be only when they are disruptive and constitute a danger to themselves or to others?

677
Why should children with SEN be treated differently from all other pupils when all schools have clear procedures for dealing with disruptive pupils, ending in the right to exclude permanently in the last resort? I believe that this is a discriminatory clause and will, I hope, be removed or least considerably tightened during the passage of the Bill.
The effect of retaining this third caveat will undermine the expressed intentions of the Bill—to promote the greater inclusion of all pupils in mainstream schools. It will continue to give licence to those LEAs which are only too ready to exclude children who are difficult to accommodate. As the latest statistics published in November by the Department for Education and Employment show, the most segregated LEAs are increasing the number of pupils in segregated provision and are doing so at a faster rate than inclusive LEAs, which are steadily reducing the numbers of children in segregated schools. Of the 30 worst segregators, 24 had increased the percentage of pupils in segregated provision compared to a year previously. It cannot be justified that a pupil in Lambeth has eight times more chance of going to a special school than one in Newnham. I hope that the Government will reconsider this clause.
Moving on to Part II of the Bill, this gives welcome effect to many of the recommendations of the Disability Rights Task Force made in its report of November 1999. One concern is that there are no targets or requirements in the Bill to monitor progress towards the increased mainstreaming of disabled children. Furthermore, significant resources are being made available to meet special educational needs and to increase access for disabled children. Much of the money is delegated directly to schools, and with it much of the responsibility. However, the Bill does not make it clear how schools and LEAs will be held accountable for those resources. Greater clarity will be sought during the passage of the Bill about the monitoring and accountability mechanisms.
Cases of disability discrimination in schools will be heard by the SEN tribunals, to be renamed the special educational needs and disability tribunals. I join with the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, in his concern that whereas financial compensation is available for young people who win a case on race or sex discrimination, there will be no financial compensation for pupils under the age of 16, even if they do win a case. This appears discriminatory in itself and removes a major incentive for change. It will also fail to address the "hurt" caused to a young person, for whom it will often too late to find an "educational remedy".
In conclusion, there is much to welcome in the Bill, which sets out to redress the sorry exemption of education from Part III of the Disability Discrimination Act. Its provisions will make a significant improvement in the educational opportunities available for disabled children and those with special educational needs. I hope that, during, the passage of the Bill, the Government will find themselves able to send a clear message that segregating on the grounds of disability is against
678
human rights. If segregation continues to be a legal option, schools will continue to find ways of excluding children who, for whatever reason, do not fit particular arrangements. It will exacerbate the tendency that exists in all institutions, including schools, and in human relationships of all kinds, to discriminate and exclude difference rather than to make changes to accommodate it.
5.48 p.m.
Baroness Fookes: My Lords, before this debate began, I feared that I might be a lone, heretical voice in querying the universal assumption that the greatest good must come from integrating every child with special needs into mainstream education. I am sorry to disagree with the noble Baroness who has just spoken in her view that the greatest evil is the segregation of children.
I am worried by Clause 1 of the Bill, but for entirely different reasons from those of the noble Baroness. My concern is the lack of any wording to make clear "the best interests of the child"; in other words, that the best interests of the child might be served not by going to a mainstream school but by enjoying the benefits of a specialist education. I shall not dwell on those benefits. They were set out clearly by my noble friend Lord Baker when he referred to the admirable schools which deal with those without sight or the partially sighted. The same would be true of many other schools which cater for specific needs. I hope that, as the Bill goes through the House and on to the statute book, we retain our appreciation of the continuing value of specialist schools for many children.
Surely these children will not necessarily have to go to either one or the other. In the course of a child's school career it may well be possible for the child to be educated, first, in the mainstream or in a specialist unit and then to transfer, a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. It seems more sensible to keep the valuable specialist units that we have and to transfer children between them—to make them centres of excellence, if you like—than simply to sideline them, which I fear is the thrust of the Bill. Even though the Minister indicated that there will still be a role for such centres, I wonder, when it comes down to implementation by local authorities, whether those special schools will still have the same value.
It seems to me that such schools provide an economic way of providing specialist education. It will be extremely difficult for an ordinary school if it suddenly has to cater for several children with different disabilities. Let us suppose a school has a child who needs a wheelchair, a child with autistic needs and a child who is profoundly deaf. I cannot believe that the school would find it easy to cope. The noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, indicated how the school with which she is associated deals with the situation. It sounded excellent to me, but quite expensive. Even the noble Baroness felt that some needs could not be provided in that particular school. I wonder whether less well endowed schools, with their own difficulties in dealing with mainstream pupils, will be able to cope.

679
I am also concerned, as are other noble Lords, about the issue of bullying of special needs children who may go into a mainstream school. My noble friend Lord Baker mentioned the cruel comments made against children with impaired sight who need to wear special glasses. That could be replicated in many other ways.
I have never taught special needs children but I did teach in a small independent school many years ago. A little girl who came to us had no spleen, which meant that she was very small, very delicate and unlikely to make it to adulthood. She did not. But what struck me as so appalling at the time was that the child had been mercilessly bullied in her previous school. She was rescued by coming to the school at which I taught and, for a few years of her existence on this earth, we were able to give this very bright child a good education and the support she needed. The funeral of a child is very disturbing and upsetting when you have taught that child and have known of the various unhappy experiences she encountered in her short life.
I urge those who want the Bill to be very conscious of the problems of bullying which can occur when a child is different. Even placing such children in a special unit within a general school does not necessarily mean that bullying will not occur.
I turn now to the question of the hard-pressed teachers in mainstream schools. We are all aware of the problems they already face—they have been rehearsed endlessly in various debates and in other forums—but if we are to ask them to undertake these additional tasks, I wonder whether they will be able to cope adequately. I am not sure whether the Government have it in mind to allocate funds for extra training of teachers, either before they go into the schoolroom or as in-service training—I do not recall it being mentioned by the Minister in her opening remarks—but it is a major point which should be considered.
Turning to institutions which are not run by local authorities, as I understand it, independent schools which cater for post-16 young people will have a duty and an obligation placed upon them to ensure that disabled pupils are not substantially disadvantaged. That must have financial implications for such institutions as well as for those in the local authority sector. I trust I am right in assuming that they will not be in receipt of public funds. I am not sure where they will get those funds or whether the obligations will be so onerous that they cannot continue. I shall be interested to know what is the position.
Like other noble Lords, I am extremely disturbed by the resource implications of the Bill. If it is to amount to more than pious platitudes with which we can all agree, it is extremely important that sufficient money is made available. Perhaps I have become cynical after many years in politics, but I am not sure that that amount of money will be made available in the foreseeable future.
I conclude with a cautionary tale. Many noble Lords will remember years ago the enthusiasm for bringing to an end the long-stay mental hospitals. Of course it
680
is true that many of the patients had become institutionalised, that some should never have been there in the first place and that others no longer needed to be there—but there was a hard core of patients who needed specialised care and attention. Care in the community sounded wonderful. Who could possibly disagree with such a humane, kind and caring concept, especially having regard to some of the grim wards of the old large mental hospitals? But what happened? Were sufficient funds made available to deal with the situation? No, they were not. We now find that many people with mental problems are insufficiently cared for and quite a number of them walk the streets and have become part of the homeless problem. We should be very careful before we embark on something which seems so splendid, so reasonable and so humane; we should ensure that we do not get caught again with inadequate resources to back up what otherwise seems a good idea.
5.57 p.m.
Baroness David: My Lords, I had decided that I would not speak in debates again, but when this Bill on special education was brought forward I felt that such a step had been made that I really should welcome it and congratulate the Government on it. I have always had a very strong interest in the subject and I have been involved with many earlier Bills. I thank the Minister for her clear exposition of the Bill.
There will need to be a significant change in the thinking of everyone working in education to ensure that the new civil rights being given to disabled people are achieved. Professional development and increased training will be necessary for everyone working in the field.
The Government have done well in bringing together in one Bill two of the definitions in legislation for children in need—the disabled person in the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 and the child with special educational needs, now in the Education Act 1996. The noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to this. There is a third definition in the Children Act 1989. One day, we hope, all children in need will be covered by the same legislation.
Having said that, the time is not right to join up the definitions. The then government developed the definition of disability without thinking of the implications for education. That definition is now in use throughout public and private life for all bodies that wish to provide services to the public. Similarly with the definition of special educational needs, which was confirmed by Parliament in 1993, just two years before the Disability Discrimination Act went through.
I think that the then government in 1995 felt that they had done their bit for children, and that was it; perhaps they did not want to think through the financial implications. I recall that in the summer of 1995 the House got the Government to concede that the Disability Discrimination Act could not leave education entirely aside. The Government were persuaded to think again and to come forward with a

681
minor amendment which required school governing bodies to say what they were doing for disabled pupils. I congratulate the Government on having the courage to come forward with this Bill that says what they intend to do for disabled pupils. I hope in the course of debate we can develop the Government's thinking and, in all humility, provide leadership to the education profession about how we can best help young people in need with these two definitions.
Part I of the Bill deals with special educational needs and amends the 1996 Act. I applaud all that the Government are doing to promote the inclusion of disabled children in mainstream institutions and to limit compulsory segregation in special schools. But I have two questions. First, it is very welcome to see that Clause 1 of the Bill amends the law to remove some of the current justifications for segregating children with special educational needs outside the mainstream system. But it seems unfortunate that parents should be given what appears to be an absolute veto on mainstream school placements for children with statements. This seems incompatible with other aspects of government policy and with the Convention on the Rights of the Child, which require children's arid young people's views to be ascertained and given due consideration. I was glad to hear the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, raise this question; it was mentioned also by the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the right reverend Prelate.
I should be grateful to hear the Minister's justification for allowing a parental veto where a local authority believes that a mainstream placement is in the interests of a child and the child wants one. Also in Clause 1, subsections (5) and (6) of new Section 316 require LEAs which believe that a mainstream placement is impossible because it is incompatible with the provision of efficient education for other children to show that there are no reasonable steps it could take to prevent incompatibility. Surely, given that all children have a basic human right to inclusion in mainstream institutions, parents who insist on a special school placement against the views of a local education authority should also have to show why mainstream placement is not possible.
There will be a need for substantial new funding to allow the new plans to go forward, and the Minister has said that there will be these funds. But will there be enough—as a number of noble Lords have asked? I hope that the Minister will say something about that in replying to the debate. I know that the Local Government Association hopes that the Government will fund the new duties through the revenue support grant rather than the Standards Fund. Will the Minister give a reassurance about that?
Will the additional powers the Secretary of State is seeking to require authorities to take account of guidance be necessary? The LGA hopes that there will be a commitment that all guidance is contained in the code of practice. The press notice that arrived on my desk this morning encouraged me, as it has many other speakers. The Secretary of State said that, after full consultation, he would strengthen the code of practice for special needs. I was particularly pleased that there
682
was a focus on taking account of the views of children with special educational needs and that another focus was on reducing unnecessary paperwork for teachers.
I turn to disability. Here the Government make considerable welcome changes to the Disability Discrimination Act. At the moment, it covers a range of services but not education. That is not to be so in the future. I was rather surprised by what the noble Baroness, Lady Brigstocke, had to say about disabled children in mainstream schools. It seemed to me that she was rather prejudiced. I am afraid that she is no longer in her place, so she will not hear what I say.
Schools will have to make reasonable adjustments to their policies, practices and procedures and the Bill would require schools and LEAs to plan strategically to increase access to education. This includes not only buildings but also the curriculum. Disabled pupils are not to be substantially disadvantaged compared to other pupils. More than £200 million will be provided for this over the next three years.
Like the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, I should like clarification from the Minister. Will she say what "reasonable adjustments" might be, particularly in relation to the curriculum? I am a bit mystified. I hope that the Minister will not merely say that I should read Clause 12.
I come to Chapter II, on further and higher education. This is a part of the Bill that I am enormously pleased to welcome. For far too long, children with special educational needs, particularly those in special schools. really had no provision for them to continue their education after the age of 19. That was something that a number of us struggled hard to change over the years, but without much success. Now, the change has come. Disabled students—and that includes adults, those in continuing education and in the youth service—must not be discriminated against on admissions, exclusions and on the services provided. They must not be placed at a substantial disadvantage compared to non-disabled students. If they have complaints, they will have a right of redress through the county court system in England and Wales and the sheriff court system in Scotland.
I have not touched on the special educational needs and disability tribunals. All I will say is that the tribunal should offer a relative swift and informal resolution of those claims. The range of remedies seems appropriate. What is important is that the consequences of discrimination are redressed.
We have an excellent Bill. No doubt adjustments and improvements can be made in Committee and questions can be asked. A Committee stage in Grand Committee seems to me appropriate for this Bill, although I understand the fears expressed by the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, that there might be other things going on in the Chamber which one would not want to miss. Huge strides forward have been made, as most noble Lords seem to think. I congratulate the Government on the Bill.
6.7 p.m.
Lord Swinfen: My Lords, I must begin with an apology to the House and in particular to the Minister. Owing to a long-term commitment, I shall not be able to stay to the end of the debate. If the points that I raise are not answered by the Minister in replying to other speakers, I hope that she may find a little time over the Christmas Recess—possibly after she has opened her stocking—to drop me a line.
I welcome the Bill. The education of children with disabilities with their able-bodied peers will in the long run make those who are able-bodied far more tolerant of people with disabilities once they leave school and go out into the wider world. Most of us had to wait until we were well on into our adult years to appreciate the difficulties faced by many people with disabilities. I think that helping people with disabilities and understanding their problems is of benefit to society as a whole.
However, despite that, there will be occasions when children with disabilities need to be educated in schools specifically set aside for those with special educational needs. This not a one-shop Bill. We must bear in mind that there are those who need at times to go to special schools so that they are taught the particular skills that they need to go through life and to make life safe for them in the wider world. But, on the whole, I welcome the Bill. It may need a little improvement as it passes through the House, but I am sure that this Chamber, in its best traditions, will ensure that that takes place.
According to Clause 11, there can be no discrimination if the responsible authority,
"did not know and could not reasonably have been expected to know",
that a child is disabled. That puts the onus on the child's parents to disclose the disability to the school. It changes the emphasis from being a responsibility of the local education authority to plan for inclusion to that of responding when a disability is known. It may affect anticipatory action such as staff training or the amendment of policies, practices or procedures.
It will be important for parents to have the opportunity to present that information to the school. But, as I read the Bill, there seems to be no duty on the school to ask for the information. However, if one member of staff is aware of the likelihood of a disability, is that sufficient for the school to be held responsible? How much knowledge of disability should teachers of children have? Further, will such issues be addressed through the code of practice?
I have considerably shortened what I intended to say because many speakers have already raised those subjects. As the hours draw on, I am sure that noble Lords would not wish me to repeat those points. However, there is one matter that I must raise. The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, from the Front Bench of the Liberal Democrats mentioned this issue in her speech. I refer to compliance with the Human Rights Act, or with the European Convention on Human Rights.
684
There is no provision in this Bill for the rights of children. In particular, a child has no standing before the tribunal. It is not uncommon for a teenage disabled child to disagree with his parents about appropriate education. That is particularly the case where the choice is between oral or bilingual education for a deaf child. Even though the Human Rights Act mentions a parent's right to educate a child in accordance with his or her convictions, the right to an education under the Human Rights Act belongs to the child.
New Section 28C(7) is designed to safeguard confidentiality. It gives the parent the right to request confidentiality. This, too, may be the subject of dispute between the parent and the child, especially as the child grows older. Therefore, is the Minister confident that the Bill is compatible with the rights of the child under Protocol 1 Article 2 (the right to an education) of the convention on human rights? I ask that question in particular because I see from the Bill that the noble Baroness has given an undertaking that, in her opinion, the Bill is "compatible" with those rights.
I have one further point to make, which was originally raised by my noble friend Lady Blatch. Although I am talking about screening for deafness, it is also appropriate for screening for other disabilities to be carried out as early as possible. The sooner that such disabilities are detected, the sooner proper provision can be made by the parents, the schools and education authorities for the education of the child.
I believe that a national programme of screening for deafness in new-born babies would complement many of the Bill's objectives. I realise that that falls under the remit of a different department from the one that the Minister represents, but the noble Baroness answers for the Government as a whole. I know that she is aware of that fact because, from these Benches, she raised that point before the last election; and, indeed, I suspect that she may have done so on more than one occasion. However, I do not expect the noble Baroness to answer me verbally on the matter this evening.
The Government's welcome initiative on Universal Neo-natal Hearing Screening (UNHS) has the potential to ensure that the educational achievements of deaf children match those of hearing children. Each year I understand that some 840 children are born deaf in the United Kingdom and that, up until now, the only way of identifying this group of children was through a haphazard system known as the "Health Visitor Distraction Test" (HVDT). However, only 400 babies are detected by this test before they reach the age of 18 months, and around 200 remain undetected until they reach the age of three and a half. That is quite unacceptable.
With the HVDT, the hearing of babies is not tested until they are seven or eight months old. Professionals accept that the test can be inaccurate and that it does not detect deafness or hearing loss in all deaf babies tested. Undetected deafness in new-born children has a significant negative impact on the development of speech and language. There is evidence that children whose hearing losses were identified before six months of age are reported to have expressive and receptive

685
language development quotients significantly higher than children whose hearing losses were identified after six months. Therefore, earlier identification of deafness through UNHS delivers: earlier development of communication, language and speech; earlier fitting of hearing aids; earlier identification of candidates for cochlear implantation; and earlier introduction of sign language. All of those factors will have a beneficial effect on the education of such children.
I hope, therefore, that the Minister will ensure that her department chases the Department of Health to make certain that it makes her task much easier with regard to the education of children with disabilities. I know that that is not strictly part of this Bill, but I make no apologies for raising the subject because I believe it to be extremely important for the education of those children with disabilities.
6.16 p.m.
Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I should like to speak to the first part of the Bill on special educational needs in schools. The Bill is welcome, building as it does on previous Bills, reports, research and good practice, as well as raising the profile of special educational needs and disability. I am aware that, over many years, special educational needs have been transformed, thanks—at least in part—to the efforts of several people in this Chamber. We can now further improve opportunities for children. I have in mind those 20 per cent of children who will have special needs at some time in their career and the 3 per cent who need special provision.
Special educational needs is a multifaceted issue and one that touches many aspects of legislation and delivery in schools. As the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, pointed out, it is a growing issue and needs a whole school approach, linking with parents. Of course, as many noble Lords have said, funding is a key issue. Learning difficulties can be caused by what one head teacher described as a "viewing culture" rather than a reading culture. Boys appear to be more affected than girls. That can have serious implications for behaviour and achievement and needs tackling early with its many ramifications.
The Bill deals with several loopholes in existing provision; for example, that relating to the education of children without statements. But I believe that more detail is needed on certain aspects that I know are of concern to parents and schools. Like my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke, I wish to be constructive. I should like to look at some of those concerns in relation to school governors, to parents and to schools, and then to give some practical examples from my own experience and that of others.
I turn first to governors. They have a duty to oversee special educational needs in schools, yet this is a highly specialised area that relates not just to learning needs but also to the much more complex issue of emotional and behavioural difficulties that can impinge drastically on teachers and pupils. I wonder how much training is provided by LEAs for governors in dealing with special educational needs. I wonder how many
686
schools have a governor with designated responsibilities in this area. That is particularly important as chairs of governors and head teachers have to be consulted if a statemented child is assigned to their school, and an appeal may have to be arranged.
Secondly, there are the parents. In Clauses 3 to 8, the Bill addresses in a most positive way the processes by which parents receive advice and information, and by which disputes might be resolved with the help of an independent person. All this is most welcome, and I do not intend to cover other aspects of the Bill that have been discussed by other speakers.
I wonder whether there still remain potential problems, examples of which have arisen in the school where I am a governor and which have caused distress and confusion. This is where the parent does not accept that the child has a special educational need. In the case of physical disability this is not usually a problem, but it can be difficult for parents to accept that their child has a learning difficulty or an emotional or behavioural difficulty. If the parent is from a cultural or linguistic minority, this problem may be intensified. In the school where I am a governor we have recently had two such cases. When, I wonder, does it become an issue for child protection. What best benefits the child? Like other noble Lords. I am concerned about the rights of the child as well as the rights of parents.
Thirdly, I turn to schools. Of course, improving programmes for all children should improve the lot of children with special educational needs. I do not mean simply in terms of numeracy and literacy but in relation to behaviour such as bullying through programmes of personal, social and health education and citizenship. This is happening. Information technology has also helped enormously with some learning difficulties. Many schools can identify need and provide for it. But I find the funding mechanisms complex, especially if there are in a school a number of children with SEN. For example, it seems that an LEA is under no obligation to provide cover for a learning support teacher if he or she is on sick leave.
According to many head teachers, at least the ones I talk to, children with special educational needs tend to achieve more if they are integrated, but designing a curriculum for all is a tall order. Many schools do it superbly with support from their local education authority. There is plenty of good practice around. The whole thing, of course, requires good management and creative thinking, as the noble Lord, Lord Rix, described. I understand that LEAs can make their own rules about SEN funding, even when actual needs within LEAs are the same. Some LEAs become overspent as they include, for example, transport for SEN within their budgets. The whole area of financial management and funding for SEN requires attention, so do any delays in implementing decisions by the Special Educational Needs Tribunal.
A few other questions remain for me. In my own school, for example, in Wandsworth, an educational psychologist can do Stage 3 work with children from

687
neighbouring Lambeth, but not Stage 4 work because Lambeth will not accept it. Neighbouring Merton on the other side of the borough will. I am not sure but I suspect that this is happening on the fringes of many boroughs. It is especially complex when there is a change of staff or even premises in adjacent boroughs. Roles and responsibilities of educational psychologists and therapists need examining and clarifying for they are key players.
I am also concerned about gifted and talented children. That was touched upon by the noble Baroness, Lady Blackstone. I know that they do not officially come under special educational needs provision, but many of these children end up in all kinds of trouble, perhaps especially on transfer to secondary school, because they are not adequately dealt with. I understand that money is being provided under the Excellence in Cities Programme for local co-ordinators and policies for gifted and talented children. Does this link with special educational needs in schools? In my primary school the SEN co-ordinator has gifted children under her remit and under her performance management targets, but money to support gifted children does not come under the SEN budget. Is this a widespread issue?
Other noble Lords are concerned about, and will speak on, league tables and children with special educational needs. In my school the attitude to such children is not one of low expectations but of different expectations. Most children with special educational needs in my school will not achieve Level 4. We need to look at the achievement of these children in a different way. Yet the whole cohort of children is included in league tables without any value added system.
As I said earlier, this Bill is welcome and supportive to parents and children. It needs, of course, to be integrated into other educational initiatives. There are issues which need clarifying, but I am sure that we can do this at later stages.
6.25 p.m.
The Earl of Mar and Kellie: My Lords, I am generally content with the principle of the Bill. It extends to Scotland in part and it is on that issue which I must dwell. I am content that the Bill relies on the Scottish Parliament to make suitable legislative arrangements. I never have a problem with legislative splits stemming from home rule. That, therefore, is not the issue which concerns me.
I believe that the Bill must be more specific about how it will be implemented in Scotland and about what else must happen before commencement in Scotland. First, I believe that a Scottish code of practice must be drawn up. The historic differences in the education systems make it impractical to write a composite Anglo-Scottish code of practice, which leads so often to Scotland being referred to in brackets. Such a Scottish code of practice must be clear and must be written specifically for the regime to which it will be relevant so that it can be relied on by everyday citizens.
688
Secondly, there is already confusion about the definitions used in Scottish social work legislation. For example, the Education (Scotland) Act 1980, as amended, mentions special educational needs. The Children (Scotland) Act 1995 refers to "children in need" and to "children affected by disabilities". The Disability Discrimination Act defines disability differently yet again.
There is a need for legally based clarification of the terminology. For example, will social, emotional and behavioural difficulties be covered by the Bill or not? Will the school for "educationally fragile" children of my noble friend Lady Linklater of Butterstone come within the ambit of the Bill or not?
Thirdly, there is no Scottish planning duty. Scotland is excluded from Clause 13. I believe that it would be wrong to implement the Bill in Scotland until the Scottish Parliament has made its own legislative decision about the need for such a duty to plan for access or otherwise.
Fourthly, Scottish schools are exempt from having to make physical alterations under Clause 12. I am content that this duty is imposed on Scottish further and higher education establishments. One of the overarching principles is that there should be choice for children with disability between special facilities and integration. That is relatively easy to achieve in a city or large brugh but it obviously becomes more difficult to achieve in a small brugh and rural area. Of course, in a remote area such as an island, there will probably be no choice whatsoever. So, once again, the Scottish Parliament must enact complementary legislation before commencement.
Fifthly, there are insufficient rights of redress. There are to be no financial remedies for discrimination in school education. The possibility of a financial penalty will act as a useful lever for change and probably be of practical help for pupils. As this could be seen as a form of age discrimination, I wonder whether there are ECHR implications.
Sixthly, rights of redress are to be heard in the sheriff court. I do not have a problem with the sheriff deciding upon such a civil matter, but many families will not countenance action in the sheriff court. What is required presumably is a conciliation process. That is more likely to find a way forward which everyone understands. I believe that the Disability Rights Commission in Scotland could provide such a conciliation service. It would seem to be a more user-friendly process than a prosecution in the sheriff civil court, albeit it that it would probably be heard by the sheriff in chambers. Allied to that, perhaps I may ask whether legal aid and advocacy support will be available when seeking redress for discrimination in the sheriff court. I note that there will be much work to do on the Scottish aspects during the Committee stage.
My final plea is this. Please may we have a clause in Part III which lays out precisely which clauses apply in Scotland? The Bill is clear about its application in Northern Ireland. Can it not also be clear about its application in Scotland? For the Bill to be a success in Scotland, it must start by being immediately understandable.
6.31 p.m.
Baroness Andrews: My Lords, I am delighted to have the opportunity to contribute to this Second Reading debate. It is the first Second Reading debate at which I have been fully conscious. During my maiden speech on a Second Reading debate, I achieved a state of nervous trance. I did not realise that a t this stage of the debate much that I would have wished to say would have been said.
However, I join with all other colleagues in greeting the Bill with much pleasure. I also share some of the reservations. I look forward to discussing them in more detail in Committee, including the troublesome words "efficiency" and "reasonableness". I am sure that that will give us hours of pleasure.
There are many aspects of the Bill to welcome. It has been a long time in gestation and reaches the House with high expectations and some concerns. There are fewer concerns now that the Government have listened so admirably to the negotiations over the code of practice. I am glad that they stuck to the concept of "specify" rather than "set out".
Many issues have already been raised. I refer, for example, to the relationship between Parts I and II of the Bill and the balancing of rights and resources. Much has to be discussed in detail. However, I hope that it is sufficient to welcome a Bill which for the first time gives disabled children a positive right, not merely a right by default, to an education on the basis of individual need. It makes it easier for all children to have an inclusive education.
Many noble Lords have spoken with great authority, expertise and personal experience. I hope that the Bill will be successful in three critical areas: first, that it will raise the expectation of achievement by every child with special needs and disability; secondly, that the new and positive powers the Bill gives parents will make it easier for parents to ask for, accept, receive and secure the appropriate educational help for their children; and, thirdly, that it will signal a new era, with maintained and special schools being part of a genuinely coherent and inclusive system of education. The Secretary of State said:
"Inclusion is about building on and developing the wealth of expertise and experience within the specialist sector in the interests of the children".
I heartily agree with that. The Government got off to an excellent start in 1997 by making it clear in the White Paper, Excellence in Schools, that the standards for the education of children with special needs are no more and no less than those expected for the education of all children—the very highest. It is only too easy to exempt young people with disabilities from high expectations.
The noble Lord, Lord Ashley, is a campaigner against all forms of bullying. Recently I presented a partially blind young man with a national award for achievement. I assumed that the award was because he had overcome his blindness. He had high standards of academic achievement. In fact he had been bullied and had set up an anti-bullying unit in his school which was hugely successful. The model was copied by other
690
schools. According to his friends who nominated him for the award, he was there for everyone when they needed him. The value of inclusive education is not that children are seen as equal but that they are valued for who they are and what they can do for the whole school. It may be on the school council, in the school play, on the sports field or doing exceptionally well academically. That understanding of human capacity strengthens the basis of our society.
The Bill gives welcome and practical help to parents. There is nothing more frustrating than for parents to watch a child struggling at school, knowing that they cannot help him. They do not know what to do to help the child, especially if he has speech and language difficulties. They do not know what support is available or whether it will arrive. There is nothing more disheartening for a teacher than watching the child grow in frustration and anger, eventually perhaps resorting to destructive and aggressive behaviour.
The Bill strengthens the right of pupils to a place in a mainstream school if their parents want that but it also gives parents access to information, understanding and support when it counts the most. I welcome what has been said about the need to have the voice of the child in these discussions. We neglect that at our peril. We need to listen to children in that respect.
There is no doubt that the experience of many parents over the past 20 years has been of delays and disappointments, followed by a final confrontation with the school or an SEN tribunal. Where the child is rejected by a school or a tribunal, parents are often not in a good position to argue the case. Above all, I hope that the Bill will change the climate of negotiation and reduce the isolation of parents.
I welcome the new duty on all local authorities to provide a parent partnership service, the access to independent parental supporters and the informal arrangement to avoid or resolve disputes. Resources are an undeniable issue which we have to face realistically. As with all other aspects of education, the aim must be to have the very best standards. Recent research suggests that many schools with high levels of statemented pupils are less successful in terms of attainment. That is hardly surprising. However, the same research suggests that schools in the top 30 per cent of attainment are in many cases also in the top 30 per cent of those with children with special needs. Why are those schools successful? The difference cannot be explained wholly by resources but has much to do with professional attitudes, parental involvement, leadership, good teaching and learning and good use of resources.
Comments have been made about insufficiency. Providing £220 million for access is a good start and an indication that the Government are serious about the practicalities. There is a great deal of ground to cover. The noble Lord, Lord Baker, referred to that shocking report. Not only is the supply of basic materials necessary but also new technologies. I have seen children with disabilities using them and profiting

691
enormously. New technologies can make a difference not only in competence but also in imagination and learning.
I am also certain that the Government are right to be ambitious for all children with special needs and disabilities. Inclusion is not a sentimental or simple concept. It has to be properly planned for and funded. Over the past 20 years many children who would have been separated in special schools have taken their place very successfully in mainstream education. The Bill gives a greater chance to more children who will also flourish. But there are many new challenges. For example, 20 years ago we did not have so many competitive pressures on schools. We now have greater delegation to schools and changes in the curriculum. We have many differences now. We also have to secure the right future for special schools to give them the confidence of knowing that their place is to provide an appropriate and inclusive education for all.
The safeguards in the Bill offer the prospect of the right balance between meeting the needs of the individual child with special needs and meeting the needs of all children in the classroom, so that each child will have an equal chance of success. I very much look forward to the next stage of the Bill, when we can pursue some of those issues in more detail.
6.40 p.m.
Lord Dixon-Smith: My Lords, I had a nephew who was born a haemophiliac. By the time that that was diagnosed, he was also brain damaged. About 25 years ago, when my brother discussed the issue with the education authority, he was met with consideration and, ultimately, generosity. Subsequently, like the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, I was a governor of an autistic school. As an independent foundation, its problem was security of funding for the pupils that it took care of. Again, my education authority was very generous and considerate in its handling of the pupils and the school once the problem was identified.
I make that point for two reasons. First, I want to show the noble Lord, Lord Rix, that even 25 years ago the environment had moved forward dramatically from the harsh introduction that he received a relatively short time before that. Secondly, the situation has been developing over a long time. The past is not all ill and the future is not all good.
We are dealing with a very difficult area, particularly for parents, who find themselves in a situation that they would not wish to be in and that they often do not understand and that has implications for their lives as individuals and as families that often confuse and upset their motives. We heard about the consequences of that from the noble Lord, Lord Baker of Dorking, and his comments about his postbag.
Essex, which was my LEA, currently has about 5,000 statemented children in its education system. That is a large number. Of those, roughly 2,300 are in special schools. The number of special schools has diminished over the past 10 or 15 years. There used to
692
be 30 but now they are down to 23. The cost of those special schools is about £18.5 million per annum—roughly £8,000 per pupil per year. They are staffed with dedicated teachers who are well resourced with facilities and do an excellent job. The other 2,700 pupils are supported in mainstream schools. That costs £12.5 million annually—roughly £4,600 per pupil per year. That illustrates the point that supporting handicapped children or those with educational problems in mainstream schools is an expensive exercise and we have to face the implications.
However, that is not the end of it. That deals with the 5,000 statemented children, but the education authority also makes available £8.5 million through delegated school budgets to the schools themselves to support children who are not statemented but who none the less need support. We need to recognise that the boundaries are grey. Some children who are not statemented still need support. For schools to work efficiently and make proper use of their resources, additional money has to be provided. Another £8 million is made available to support children with difficulties who go across education authority boundaries or go to independent schools. A total of £47.5 million is currently made available in Essex.
I asked the LEA for an estimate of the cost of fulfilling the expectations in the Bill. It estimates that the Bill will increase its costs by between 6 and 8 per cent. That is plus or minus £3 million per annum for one education authority. The financial statements made about the Bill cover the problems of capital resources perfectly reasonably, but I have considerable doubts on the revenue support that is required. I hear a, "Hear, hear", from somewhere in the Chamber. Several noble Lords have already made that point.
I am not so starry eyed as to ask the Minister for an assurance that the resources that are required to meet that liability will be made available, if only because I know that it would be beyond her competence to give such an assurance. There are others behind her who will ultimately take control of events.
I shall introduce the House to a simple economic formula that applies to local government funding, of which this is a part. Local councillors and anybody who has been involved with local authorities will be familiar with the formula: the sum of the sums is greater than the sum. The sum of the sums is the sum of the individual demands that are made on local authorities, usually through legislative requirements such as the Bill. We can sit down and calculate what the Bill might cost locally and nationally. When considered in isolation, it looks achievable. However, adding up all the requirements service by service across the breadth of local authority services always produces a figure that is greater than the sum that is provided. That is the dilemma for local authorities.
I am not making special pleading; I am just trying to introduce reality. Local authorities will always have conflicting demands for resources. Not least of the dangers that we face in this debate is an unwillingness to recognise that, when we get down to the level at

693
which the service is provided, local authorities across the land—not Whitehall departments—have a very difficult job. On top of all the human problems of individuals with their own ambitions and purposes, their own jobs to do and their own conflicting emotions, authorities have the problem of not always having all the resources that are considered necessary to do the job properly.
That is the background that we shall always face. I am conscious that out there, across the country, are bands of all types of dedicated professionals to whom we all owe a great debt and, indeed, to whom we owe our thanks. I welcome the Bill. It is a stepping stone in the right direction. We should recognise it as that: a very welcome stepping stone.
6.50 p.m.
Baroness Ashton of Upholland: My Lords, I strongly support the principle behind the Bill of integrated education on the basis that, if it is done properly, the lives of all our children are enriched. There is no reason for education standards to fall; rather, the education experience of all children should improve. Children learn to work alongside each other, to be tolerant and to recognise that they are good at different things. Through their curiosity, children learn about different lifestyles and life experiences. All that makes them better adults—one of the fundamentals of education—and better able to cope with the world in which they live.
I say that as chairman of a state junior school and also as the step-parent of a young man who had a statement of special educational need. As he finishes his college course without the need for extra support, I pay great tribute to the education authorities of Cambridgeshire and Hertfordshire for the support that they gave him in the 1980s and 1990s. Being educated in the mainstream was of great benefit to him, and it was his choice. It made him ordinary and challenged him to cope with his disabilities in real situations. To his credit, he succeeded. His friends and colleagues gained, too, from this interesting and talented young man.
As a step-parent, I remember being very nervous as we approached a new school, wondering whether it would want to take him. I know that that is how many parents in the same position feel now. Children with special educational needs are not always seen as a great catch by schools which are tied up with getting to the top of the league tables and keeping class sizes large enough to afford new equipment.
When this Bill is passed, I shall be looking for three things in particular. To illustrate them, I want to describe two experiences that I had recently as a governor. The first concerns a young child who had multiple disabilities but who had coped well at nursery school and, now rising five, was ready to go to "big school". Our governors were asked whether, in the light of her disabilities, we would be willing to take her. The unanimous, positive reaction of the staff was echoed by the governing body. Only then did we learn
694
that we were the 19th school to be asked and that this child would have a long journey each day. I can only imagine how her parents felt.
The child was a delight. Bright as a button, she succeeded in everything. We were pleased that, during the term before her SATS, the school nearest to her home found her a place. However, because she did not take her SATS with us, the hard work which teachers at my school had put in was not reflected.
My second experience concerns a child who had many problems which were hard to identify and who had already faced difficulties at a previous school. When my school was approached, we considered very carefully having him there. However, there was little information to go on, and in the class into which the child would have been going were a number—over 40 per cent—of children with some kind of special educational need. Disruptive behaviour would have been a negative for those children in particular. Finally, we had to take him because we had a place, despite the strong views of everyone involved that it would be detrimental, especially to him. Not surprisingly, it did not work and we are all the poorer.
Various points arise from those experiences. First, if we are serious about integration, we need to start with children long before they go to school. Other noble Lords have made that point. The director of education in Hertfordshire said to me one day in my capacity as chairman of a health authority that health visitors were always telling him that they could identify children with needs at an early stage, especially those with conditions such as dyslexia, dispraxia, autism or Asperger's, or those with behavioural problems. They would say that they knew those children quite well, certainly by the time they had reached the age of two—yet they were not involved as health professionals in identifying the children and working with their local schools. That is harder to do without catchment areas but, nevertheless, not impossible.
When a child arrives at school with his little rucksack containing pencil, ruler and lunch box, I want to see the beginnings of the special needs package in the rucksack as well: resources, assessments and understanding.
Secondly, if we are serious about integration, we need to tackle what I call the "one-dimensional" nature of league tables. I have nothing against measurement and the raising of standards—far from it. However, I expect to see sophisticated measurement which measures like with like or which recognises what I have come to call "value added". The reality is that some schools which are striving to stay up in the league tables and which enjoy over-subscription have little incentive to take children who might—I emphasise "might"—not achieve the highest standard or who will require additional resources.
Being involved in a school which works with children of all abilities, I am still astonished when parents come to see us, pointing out that other local schools have suggested that their child might do better with us because he has a special educational need and they do not normally take children who have that need.

695
My point is that integration needs careful management to ensure that all children can learn. Put bluntly, it is often better, particularly for those with behavioural difficulties, to spread children across the education sector. That means giving local education authorities the power to ensure that all, and not only some, schools participate in supporting children with special needs. Of course, it also means that Ofsted needs to recognise that participation and to sing the praises of schools which do it successfully. League tables must reflect that.
Finally, the desire for integration for children requires a recognition that it does not always work. That means finding new solutions as to how children move on into other forms of educational experience, other than the route of exclusion—such a negative experience for everyone, especially the child. Yet, exclusion is still often the only way to obtain the support which children need. Teachers are not necessarily trained to deal with a multiplicity of special needs. Some children are extremely challenging.
The dearth of classroom assistants trained to work with such children represents an additional problem. High employment and poor levels of pay make it extremely difficult to recruit people who are willing to work on a one-to-one basis with those children. Where schools are willing to try to work with a child, education authorities should be prepared to accept that occasionally they will fail. They should not see it as bad teaching, ineffective management or anything else. That, too, would make a difference to the willingness of schools to take on children who have complex needs.
This legislation is about improving the education for all our children and improving the experience of children with special educational needs and their families. It should be warmly welcomed and supported. From my position in health and education, I shall be looking most closely for the incentives and rewards that will allow us to succeed. I congratulate my noble friend the Minister on bringing this legislation before your Lordships' House.
6.58 p.m.
Lord Lucas: My Lords, that was a very hard speech to follow. I believe it is the best speech I have heard all day. Given the quality of the debate, that is a considerable compliment, but one that is well earned. I hope that we shall see the noble Baroness on the Front Bench in due course because that kind of talent should not be left to languish so far back on the red Benches.
This is a good Bill. I hope that we can improve it a little in Committee—it will be all the better for that—but it will make a positive impact on the present system. However, it will not get at the root of the problem, which is that local education authorities are charged with promoting the interests of the child, adjudicating what those interests are and being the paymaster at the end of the day. That is an impossible combination to ask of any authority.
696
As a result, over the years all kinds of bad practice have crept into the way that LEAs deal with the problem of special needs. There has been a denial of the need for statements, an avoidance of looking at the problems and providing statements, and, when a problem has been identified, there has been delay in doing anything about it. For parents, getting through the various regulations and tribunals has become an intimidating and endless trial—an exhausting process. When a child most needs immediate help, commonly the delays can last for up to two years at a time when two years is absolutely critical as regards the child doing well.
Surely we all want a system which puts the interests of the child first—a system which allows LEAs to be an active partner in seeking out children who need their help and giving that help. We also want schools which, as the noble Baroness said, seek out children who need their help. By and large, schools that are good at dealing with special educational needs are good at dealing with ordinary kids, too.
All children have individual needs, and all benefit from concentration on and attention to their needs. The very best schools are those which are best fitted to deal with special educational needs. If we can get that into the heads of the schools which throw up their hands at the thought of taking anyone on board with even mild dyslexia, we will have a better educational system for everyone. There is not much we can do about that in the Bill. However, elsewhere, the Government have provided us with a model for which we should aim. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence (NICE) sets out the standard of provision in the health service and bases that on research. If that sort of foundation were available for special educational needs, everybody could judge where a local education authority should be. It would be possible for a body such as Ofsted to monitor what happens.
The difficulty is that we have no research. It astonishes me that a profession whose pinnacle is research at some grand university is so reluctant to admit researchers into its own practices and nostrums. The epitome of that was the former chief inspector of schools who refused ever to allow anyone to assess the effectiveness of the methods of Ofsted. He was therefore extremely reluctant to promote any form of research into educational practice. There were one or two exceptions, but very few. I believe we should look to see whether in the Bill we can produce a duty to research. Indeed, as the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, said, there should be a duty to provide data for research; to collect data so that five years from now, when we are considering this matter again, we shall have a basis upon which we can found a more constructive system.
The noble Baroness lightened many hearts by referring to the end of the proposal to make statements unspecific. However, that is not a great triumph. The practice has become more and more widespread in local authorities under the existing regime. All we are doing is going back to that regime. I hope that we will find a way to sharpen it up so that the sort of

697
statements one commonly sees, which are so vague they can only be interpreted by the LEA, become a thing of the past.
Two references were made to the Human Rights Act, both of which I believe are well founded. It is clear that a child who is nearing the age of 18, and is certainly well aware of what is going on in the world, must be allowed rights before tribunals. The Human Rights Act is specific on that point. The Bill seeks to give those rights only to parents, which I do not think is defensible.
The other aspect, which I find more interesting and which was raised by my noble friend Lady Fookes, is the question of best interests. Other child-centred legislation, such as care legislation, requires authorities to act in the best interests of the child, which is compatible with the Human Rights Act. This legislation does not. If we persist in that, eventually we will he in trouble under the Human Rights Act. It would be better for the legislation and the system as a whole if the child's best interests were central to what authorities do and the decisions they make.
A particular application of that would be the decision concerning mainstream or special schooling. Inclusion is a wonderful thing, but if we dump a vulnerable child into a school in which there is bullying, we will do that child no favours. The noble Baroness, Lady Wilkins, complained about Lambeth. That merely observes the effect of many parents being given the chance to send their children to schools which are not part of the Lambeth mainstream. Under those circumstances, I suspect that many parents would leap at the chance of a special school, many of which are wonderful places.
Many special schools are great centres of excellence. One sees damaged kids in their first year coming in from mainstream schools. They have been bullied, told they are stupid and think little of themselves. They themselves begin to bully and have all sorts of undesirable traits because of what they have been through. At the top end there are inspiring wonderful kids who look one in the eye and are as bright as buttons. That is an example of a special school really doing its job. At the other end, we see special schools which make our hearts sink, and kids we wish could be allowed out to be part of the real world. We need a mixed economy; we need both types of school. The judgment of which type of school a child attends should be made in the best interests of the child. That is a concept which this legislation needs.
Perhaps I may refer to one or two minor points. Progress needs to be made in improving the profession of educational psychology, which is a black art. There are many unsatisfactory practitioners. Many have been bought by their LEAs. They produce reports which are unspecific, extremely unhelpful to parents and allow the LEAs to do almost what they want. I believe they should be strongly regulated and strongly independent. Perhaps we can make a first move in that direction in the Bill.
I should like to see the LEA's duty to advise extended to parents who think that their children might have a special educational need. At present, it
698
kicks in only when an educational need has been established. I should like to see clarity in the definitions of "special educational needs" and "disability". Perhaps it would be a good idea if, for the purposes of education, anyone with a statement was defined as "disabled". That at least would be a simple change to make and would introduce a good deal of clarity, at least on one side of the equation.
I hope that what I read as the scope of new Section 28C(1)(b) means that teaching methods will have to be adjusted to deal with children who have a disability. That will be great progress. Many schools still teach in ways which are profoundly unhelpful to anyone with a mild, let alone a serious, learning impairment. If they are compelled by the Bill to pay attention to modern teaching methods, that will be a good thing, and an unexpected bonus from the Bill.
7.7 p.m.
Lord Addington: My Lords, in a debate of this kind, it is always difficult when one is faced with a great degree of unanimity. Most people would agree that this is a good Bill, which is built on a solid foundation. It works on good practice and includes provisions which everybody has thought for a while should be included. The Minister is to be congratulated on the Bill finally reaching this House, as is her department. It is only a pity that we have had to wait so long. However, that could be said of virtually any Bill which goes back over the long history of this subject. They are always slightly reactive and slightly conservative.
The first major argument which occurs in relation to the Bill is that concerning special schools. Well over 12 months ago, when the Bill was first mentioned to me, I predicted that there would be disagreements on this subject. The major problem we face is that people are frightened. I refer to the comments of the noble Lord, Lord Lucas. I believe that he embarrassed the noble Baroness, Lady Ashton of Upholland, by saying that she would soon be on the Front Bench. I am afraid that he displayed exactly why he was on the Front Bench.
Many people who go to special schools regard them as a rescue service. I refer to the world of dyslexia, with which I am familiar. Often, such schools were there primarily to take people who had failed badly within their schools and often had severe emotional scars. Unless someone is placed in a protective environment in those circumstances they cannot even begin to succeed. That is one of the reasons for the fear which surrounds this subject. Special schools to which pupils have access and which provide no threat must be kept within the system. This is a good Bill but, with the best will in the world, it is not a magic wand. We must have that emergency net.
Having said that, ultimately I should like to see the removal of the need for those schools and for them simply to be there to provide a back-up service. But let us work towards that goal with what we have. We cannot do it overnight. If we are to make any real progress, we must consider the areas involved. So when the Bill says we must respect the wishes of the parents, that is a good thing.

699
The reference to the provision of efficient education for other children produces fear in the opposite direction. What is "efficient education"? We heard about the pressure placed on schools as a result of league tables, and Clause 12(4)(a) relates to standards being maintained. That worries people that possibly children will be forced out of mainstream education. To use my own experience of being dyslexic, and on the ground of it being one of the largest groups—often one of the largest undiscovered groups—when pupils are found to be mildly dyslexic a school may panic because it is not properly prepared and thus excludes them. That is the downside.
The Government have a real problem of calming the fears on all sides and providing a way of ensuring that they are met and properly grounded. That is not tackled in the Bill. As my noble friend Lord Clement-Jones said, it requires sufficient knowledge of teaching, and the training of teachers before they enter schools to enable them to identify the problems. We must also provide back-up services.
That brings us nicely back to the functions of special schools. Surely they can be brought in to advantage. It may mean in-service training. Teachers who are not given the time and opportunity to retrain will carry on doing the job to the best of their ability; but if they are not given the tools they will not be able to do the job—to misquote a rather more famous parliamentarian. If we do not resource the Bill properly to enable the legislation to move forward, we will find that there is nothing behind it.
The easiest part of the new provisions is probably the removal of the exemption under the DDA. That is comparatively straightforward. I understand why it was introduced. I did not agree with it then and welcome this provision now. Discrimination is discrimination. Further, we can go forward here comparatively easily, especially when it comes to exclusion on physical grounds. If we provide resources to get people into schools, then with a little good will most of the problems will disappear. Once again, the in-service training would help. But the human resource aspect is difficult and we must not lose sight of that. If people were capable of taking this subject on board easily without making cultural changes, there would have been no need for the statementing process in the first place. Indeed, where the culture has changed in certain cases the need for statements has been dropped; for example, Swansea has dyslexia-friendly schools, which has reduced the number of statements required. But that cultural shift is difficult. It requires considerable input and considerable political will. We must bear that in mind.
Before I go into a diatribe on the general aspects of education, I should like to say that, ultimately, this Bill should have a fair wind behind it. The Government will be able to enjoy its passage. If any major Bill stands a chance of surviving the Moses Room process without giving us a Report stage from hell, it is probably this Bill. I believe the noble Baroness has taken that on board. I hope we will be able to take part in discussions so that the Government do not
700
automatically produce a negative response to amendments that are tabled. Most of us agree that the Bill should go forward and should be passed.
However, there is one area in which I have a fundamental point of disagreement with the Government. It was first raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke; that is, that in a case of discrimination there should be some recourse to financial compensation. I agree with him that it is important for the discrimination to be recognised, and that is probably as important as the financial compensation itself. Also, the compensation may provide the opportunity for people to receive specialist help, if it is properly targeted, or for a parent to stop working to give support to a child who is in trouble.
On those grounds I believe we can build an almost watertight argument for compensation. To say that it may take resources away from another area is not acceptable; for example, to say that the money could be better spent on health. The whole idea of compensation would just disappear under that argument. We accept compensation in other areas; why should education be different?
I hope that the Bill goes through your Lordships' House improved and even better than when it starts out. But I must say that it starts out as a much better Bill than most.
7.16 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, this has been an interesting Second Reading debate on the Special Educational Needs and Disability Bill. As usual, and as is only to be expected in this House, we heard well-informed contributions from noble Lords with wide experience on this subject and it was a delight to hear them all. I am not as brave as my noble friend Lord Lucas and will not attempt to say who came top. In any event, I do not wish to add to the embarrassment of the noble Baroness. Everybody spoke well in the debate and it is difficult to choose any one individual, nor indeed should we.
My noble friend Lady Blatch cogently explained our attitude to the Bill. She spoke with the great authority of a former Minister of State at the Department for Education who, as she reminded us in her speech today, was the Minister in this House responsible for taking through the Education Act 1993, Part III of which dealt with special educational needs. In general terms, my noble friend told the House that our party supports the objectives of the Bill, which is founded on the 1993 Act and the Education Act 1996, to the extent that they are to improve the education and facilities available to children with special educational needs.
Special educational needs are defined in the 1996 Act as,
"a significantly greater difficulty in learning than a majority of children of his age … or a disability which prevents or hinders from making use of the educational facilities provided for children of his age".
The aims of the Bill are to integrate those children into mainstream schools. There too, in general principle, we agree that that is a most laudable object. But there

701
are some aspects of the detail and methodology which give us some concern and which, as the Bill goes through its various stages, we shall wish to explore in more detail.
We believe it is a lack of basic reading skills that can lead to other severe learning difficulties and thence possibly to behavioural problems. That in turn could be one of the reasons that there has been such a large rise in the number of children classified as having special educational needs over the past few years. My noble friend referred to research done by Dr John Marks, and I shall not tire the House with reading the details. But from that one can see that there has been an enormous increase recently. Of course, there may be another reason, to which I shall turn later.
However, what worries us about the Bill is that, despite the Government's good intentions, we may be running the risk of damaging the very children we want to help by the theory of inclusiveness. Of course children with special educational needs, because of some disability—whether it is physical, in learning or even behavioural—should be integrated with the rest of their contemporaries whenever possible. The right reverend Prelate said—and I shall read his contribution with care—that he agreed with mainstream education, but he added the caveat, "whenever possible".
There is no place in the system for a kind of educational apartheid. I heard the noble Lord, Lord Rix, read the horrific letter he received more than 49 years ago. To hear the experience of people who have been there, one realises the horrendous impact which that might have on parents and children.
On the other hand, one should temper that with the experience of my noble friend Lord Baker. He is not in his place but I want to comment on the experience he described of children with certain types of blindness. They were treated badly in ordinary mainstream schools when it would have been better for them to have attended special schools.
The Bill requires that a child must—and I stress the word "must"—be taught in a mainstream school unless it is incompatible with, first, the wishes of the parent, or, secondly, the provision of efficient education of other children. It would help the House if the Minister would clarify the meaning of the second provision and explain how she thinks it would work in practice. Other noble Lords have asked the same question.
We have another serious concern over this keystone clause in the Bill. There is one overriding, undisputed principle in every area where children are concerned. It is that the welfare of the child is paramount. My noble friend Lady Blatch commented on a speech made by the Secretary of State for Education during the debate on the Queen's Speech in 1999. It is sufficient for me to quote one sentence from the Secretary of State's press release of 17th November 1999. He stated:
"It will strengthen the right to a place in a mainstream school for those with special needs who want it"—
and I want to emphasise the following words—
"in all cases where it is appropriate".
702
That principle does not appear in the Bill and we want to explore that during our debates to see whether it can be more specifically spelt out.
The current position is that a child may be the subject of a statement which defines him or her as having special educational needs and which up until now has had to be specific, detailed and quantified. I said "up until now", but like other noble Lords we were pleased to see the press release and hear the Minister say that her right honourable friend the Secretary of State has altered that provision and that the code of practice will be different from what we first believed it would be.
A child who has been statemented is entitled to have those special needs ministered to by the local education authority or by some means or another, such as a special school or a school with special facilities, or specialist teachers and so on. But we are worried that the present Bill should not dilute the rights of parents and that the Bill will impose a compulsory regime of inclusion. Again, I want to quote my noble friend Lord Baker. It was worthy of note that during his 30 years as a Member in the other place he was often asked by parents whether he could help to get their children into a special school, but in all those years he was never asked by parents to get their children into a mainstream school. While the Bill is about mainstream education—we believe that to be admirable and will do our best to work with the Government and Members in all parts of the House we must ensure that the wishes and choices of the parents are not taken away in the theory of inclusiveness, thereby losing something which benefits the children.
We want to ensure that local authorities do not utilise the new system for identifying the children with special needs as a means of forcing them into mainstream schools in order to reduce expenses. I shall read carefully what was said by my noble friend Lord Dixon-Smith, but as to the formula of the sum of the sum being more than the sums I could not make out whether he was suggesting that mainstream schools might be more expensive than special schools or vice versa! Either way, the budgetary constraint should not be the principal consideration; it should be what is best for the child.
Equally, there are undoubtedly cases in which parents, with every good intention for their children, insist on special schools when the children would benefit from mainstream education. The noble Baroness, Lady David, was concerned that in such circumstances the parents should be able to make a case for why they want that. That is an important issue. If the parents ask for something different, they should be subject to the same regime that the needs of the child are paramount. Should there be some reasonable doubt, the wishes of the parents should ensure that they receive the benefit of it and that their children receive what is best for them.
Then there is the case in which the child's special needs arise from some persistent disruptive conduct. In that case, there is another element to be weighed in

703
the balance: the needs of the other children in the class and the school that their education shall not be disturbed. Educating as many children as possible in mainstream schools and restricting special school provision for the tiny number with the most extreme emotional disorders could, as Melanie Phillips pointed out in a recent article in the Sunday Times, leave teachers floundering with pupils whose very disruptive behaviour spells chaos in the classroom. The Minister suggested that only a few children would be so badly emotionally disturbed, but perhaps she could give some criteria as regards what would constitute such behaviour.
I mentioned earlier that lack of reading skills could be a factor in the numbers of children classified as having special educational needs. But there could be another reason. It could possibly be the readiness of some schools to label some children as having special educational needs in order to excuse poor league table performance. I do not suppose that that is beyond the ken of some schools, although I would think not many.
It is also a paradox that the more SEN children the school can claim it has on its register, naturally the more money it receives—and so it should. However, that is not just a theory on my part. That point was made emphatically at a meeting earlier this month at the Centre for British Teaching, which is an independent education provider, by Professor Mel Ainscow who is normally a strong supporter of mainstream education. That is why I said earlier that, although the proposal sounds good, and probably is very good, certain matters must be considered with care.
In summary, the Bill's stated intention is to place a new, or rather reinforced, duty on schools and local authorities to plan strategically and to increase access for physically disabled children. It is intended to ensure that pupils, whatever their disability, shall receive fair treatment. In my view, that also includes protection against bullying and taunting over their disabilities. The noble Lord, Lord Ashley of Stoke, mentioned that and my noble friends Lord Baker and Lady Fookes mentioned two horrific examples of the way in which it could occur. We therefore need to be aware that such incidents can happen.
While all of these are laudable objectives, and while we know that the wishes of the parents and the impact on other children are most important, it should never be forgotten that this Bill is primarily to benefit children who have special educational needs. That is paramount. What is provided for the children must be in their best interests, a point made most strongly by my noble friend Lady Fookes.
What happens to the child, which school he attends and the whole ethos of the Bill must not be secondary to the budgetary needs of local authorities or government. During the debate, Members on all sides of the House have mentioned budgeting and resources. I am sure the Minister is aware that these provisions cannot be made on the cheap. I appreciate that the Explanatory Notes give an idea of what can be spent, but all noble Lords with experience have said that all
704
such things cost more than one thinks. If we are to enable children with SEN to have better facilities, we must ensure that we have the money to do so.
To conclude, on the whole the Bill is deserving of support in principle and we shall be examining it sympathetically and, we believe, constructively.
7.30 p.m.
Baroness Blackstone: My Lords, I very much agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, that we have had a useful and wide-ranging debate. I am also extremely pleased that there is so much support for the broad thrust of the Bill. Certainly, our consultation revealed a consensus on the main provisions and basic principles of the Bill. My noble friend Lord Morris of Manchester asked whether the Government would continue to listen. We shall continue to consider the views of experts in this matter: people who run disability organisations, disabled people themselves and all others who are involved in providing education for children and adults who have special educational needs or are disabled.
Until last year the legislative background for those with a disability had two significant gaps: the Disability Rights Commission Act 1999 filled one of them and this Bill fills the other. Providers of education will be required to take reasonable steps to ensure that pupils, students or adult learners are not at a substantial disadvantage in comparison with others.
I shall try to address the main issues raised in this first-class debate, but it will not be possible to answer all the questions that have been put. Where appropriate I shall write to noble Lords. However, some of the details should be left to Committee stage. Many speakers have referred to resources. We have made a number of announcements about resources to underpin the provisions of the Bill, but it may assist if I summarise the significant investment we are making to support children and adults with special educational needs and disabilities. This investment demonstrates our commitment to improving provision in this area. We are spending far beyond the £18 million indicated in the Explanatory Notes, to which one speaker referred.
Earlier this month we announced that the Standards Fund for SEN would be increased to £82 million next year. That represents a 50 per cent increase on the £55 million available this year. It also means that funding will be more than three times higher than in 1996–97 when it stood at £24 million. We have announced that over the next three years schools will receive £220 million to improve access for disabled children. The spending for school access next year will be £50 million, rising to £70 million the following year and £100 million the year after that. Already the schools access initiative has supported work at some 6,000 schools. That increase will have a direct impact on the physical environment of many schools.
I turn to funding for post-16 providers. We recognise that the new duties under the Bill will increase their costs in that they will increase the likely take-up of places by disabled students£I am sure that

705
all noble Lords welcome that—and generate higher demand for support once people get to know their new rights. We intend to make additional money available for this purpose in the period following passage of the Bill to pave the way for its implementation. That will total £172 million in England. The sum will be made available to the FE sector, to LEA adult and community learning provided through the Learning arid Skills Council and to higher education through HEFCE. All of the resources will be ring-fenced and spent entirely on improving access to post-16 education for disabled people. As my noble friend Lady Warwick said, of that £172 million, over the two-year period, £56 million will be made available to the HE sector and £20 million to the FE sector.
Perhaps I may answer one point raised by my noble friend on RIA. That assessment is not made for higher education. It covers primarily the cost of the Bill to the private and voluntary sectors, and HE is in the public sector.
We should remember that not all changes which will be required by the provisions of the Bill will need a large amount of capital investment. There are many simple ways in which we can help disabled people in our LEA, FE and HE institutions, but we believe that, together with the resources that we shall provide, they will dramatically improve access to education for people with disabilities. I accept that we must continue to monitor the need for further funding. It is not true to say that the Government are unaware of the costs of making these changes. However, as the noble Lord, Lord Lucas, observed—perhaps it was the noble Lord, Lord Dixon-Smith—it is worth investing that money in a much improved situation for those with disabilities or special educational needs. As the noble Lord rightly pointed out, special schools are expensive.
I said at the outset of the debate that inclusion was a somewhat emotive issue, and that point has emerged during the course of the debate. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and some of her noble friends accused us of pursuing an over-aggressive inclusion policy. That is not what we intend to do. Some other noble Lords were concerned that the Government had not gone far enough. I have tried to listen carefully to both sides.
In response to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, there will not be a compulsory regime of inclusion. We have always said that we must take a pragmatic approach to inclusion so that we safeguard the interests of all children. We are not interested in dogma or ideology. We believe that this is an area in which we can be bipartisan to arrive at the best solution for those with special needs and others. We must see what works and in that way try to raise standards for everyone. We want an inclusive education service that offers excellence and high standards, as well as choice, to parents. I am delighted that both the Special Educational Consortium and the LGA have welcomed our proposals.
I turn to the question of whether this Bill means that many special schools, or all of them, will close. Inclusion is not an agenda to close special schools of
706
whatever type. I make clear that such schools have a continuing and vital role to play. There will always be some changes to local provision to reflect local circumstances. While some special schools have closed, others have been enlarged and new ones opened. The noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, suggested that the sector had declined in size. The net result is that the size of the sector has remained broadly static since 1996 and still caters for about 1.2 per cent of all children, or just under 100,000 pupils. We do not envisage that that will change dramatically. It can be misleading to look at the number of special schools that have closed. I give the example of Wigan's reorganisation which was brought into effect earlier this year. It closed five special schools but opened six new ones. I can provide plenty of other examples.
Some noble Lords have implied that the Bill will make it harder for parents to get a special school place for their child, but that is not the intention of this Bill. We recognise that one size does not lit all. Some children will continue to need the support that is provided by special schools. The existing right of a parent whose child has a statement to make a positive choice and express a preference for a special school place will be fully maintained. It is very important that LEAs listen to what parents want. Where parents want a special school place and an LEA refuses it, they can, as in the past, appeal to the SEN tribunal. I hope that the new informal arrangements to prevent and resolve disputes will ensure that an amicable solution that is acceptable to all sides is reached quickly without unnecessary conflict. Therefore, I agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, who said that the Bill need not mean a threat to special schools.
The noble Lord, Lord Baker, who is not in his place, is right about the fact that we are educating more children with disabilities. I have no doubt that that will continue. He and other noble Lords who talked about the importance of early identification of disabilities are spot on: the more we can do that, the better it will be.
It may be appropriate at this point to mention that I can assure the House that the Bill will not undermine the very important contribution that the non-maintained and independent sectors play in providing opportunities for children to have their special educational needs met.
Noble Lords spoke about bullying. I agree with my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke that we cannot tolerate it. Unfortunately, bullying can take place in all kinds of schools—mainstream or special schools. It can apply to children with or without disabilities. We must stamp it out. My partner is profoundly deaf. He was bullied in his mainstream boarding school. He wrote home asking his mother whether she would provide him with speech therapy and judo lessons. He got his judo lessons. They helped and the answer was: do not mess with me. But I hope that children will not be driven into that kind of situation because we must intervene as soon as it happens.
My noble friends Lord. Ashley of Stoke and Lady Wilkins and other noble Lords did not go so far as to call for an absolute right to a mainstream place, but, in

707
particular, my noble friend Lady Wilkins was anxious to move close to that position. We have to take care to ensure that inclusion is always based on sound foundations. I do not believe that a dogmatic approach will work. Such an approach could alienate both parents and teachers. Even worse, it could end up sacrificing the interests of all children.
For inclusion to work—I say this to the noble Baroness, Lady Miller, who asked about it—there must be confidence that pupils' needs can be appropriately provided for in the mainstream school without a detrimental effect on other children. An absolute right would jeopardise that. We do not want a headlong dash for total inclusion, because that would undo so much that has been achieved. Therefore, to set targets for inclusion would probably not make a great deal of sense.
Noble Lords, and in particular the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, raised the issue of challenging behaviour. I accept that it is an important question. At the same time I have much sympathy with my noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke who said it was important that allowing schools to decide whether a child would be too challenging is not something that they should be allowed to abuse. To say that a child with autism should not be included, because his or her behaviour is eccentric, is something that we should avoid. The same must go for, say, a deaf child with bad communication skills. We must look at both sides of the argument and reach sensible and pragmatic conclusions.
The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked about training. Inclusion has important training implications. We do not underestimate the challenges here. We need to make good arrangements to ensure that teachers and others receive the support they need.
I start with initial teacher training. In order to attain qualified teacher status, all student teachers must demonstrate that they can identify pupils with SEN, know where to go in order to give positive and targeted support and are familiar with the requirements of the code of practice. Those requirements are reinforced by induction arrangements that specifically require new teachers to demonstrate that they can plan to meet the need of pupils with SEN. We also have to provide further in-service training to consolidate, reinforce and extend teachers' knowledge and skills. We are providing substantial extra funding to support INSET under the Standards Fund 2000–2001 for that purpose.
As well as helping teachers we are keen to support the work of learning support assistants, LSAs as they are known. These assistants play a key role in supporting individual pupils and their teachers. We have devised a new induction training programme for teaching assistants which is offered this year and includes a component specifically about SEN.
I am grateful to the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Bath and Wells and my noble friend Lady Wilkins for their support of what we are doing for parents. Our proposals have received widespread support. The Special Educational Consortium and the Local Government Association have welcomed what we are
708
doing. We know from our consultations that parents want and need more information and guidance on the SEN system. They also want it at an earlier stage.
LEAs will have a duty to ensure that parents know about their services. How they do that will be for each LEA to decide, but it might include, for example, publicising the services in the local press, flyers in libraries, health centres and supermarkets.
Several of my noble friends and the noble Lord, Lord Addington, raised the issue of financial compensation in schools. There have been calls for the SEN tribunal to award that where discrimination takes place. That is not something we intend to do. Disabled children, possibly even more than other children, need the start in life that a high-quality education can give. If, through discrimination, they are prevented from taking part in educational activities, it is vital for their learning and development that the effect of that discrimination be remedied in education terms. That is what really matters. Therefore, we propose that in the Bill the SEN tribunal should have the power to order that an educational remedy be provided. I am pleased that a number of disability organisations accept the importance of finding an educational remedy, although I know they have concerns about cases where remedies may be somewhat more difficult to identify.
We intend that the tribunal should be able to offer an appropriate remedy that offers the pupil educational recompense for the effect of discrimination. I am sure we can discuss the matter further in Committee.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of compatibility with the Human Rights Act. Some speakers suggested that the fact that claims are brought in the SEN tribunal by the parent and not by the child is not compatible with the Act. My legal advice is that this system is compatible with the Act. Article 6 of the European Convention on Human Rights is the relevant article, but it only applies to claims where people's civil rights and obligations are at issue. Civil rights for convention purposes do not include educational rights which fall squarely in the domain of public law. I am advised that all the rights which the tribunal will rule on under the Bill, SEN and disability, are predominantly public law rights so that Article 6 does not apply.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and my noble friend Lady David asked about the concept of "reasonable adjustments". This is quite well understood in the context of the DDA. Let me say a little more about that, but again I shall not go into too much detail today. Clause 12 contains a list of factors to be taken into account when considering whether it is reasonable for a school to take a particular step to comply with the reasonable adjustments duty. A list of that kind is not unprecedented. Section 6 of the Disability Discrimination Act has a not dissimilar list.
The noble Baroness, Lady Sharp, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, referred to the duty to plan and asked whether that covers the curriculum. The planning duty covers both physical access to school

709
premises and the curriculum. We are fully committed to addressing the recommendation of the DRTF on that point. The duty will include a duty to provide aids, such as colour schemes, hearing loops and sound systems if they are appropriate, to enable children to have access to the curriculum.
I turn now to the implementation timetable for disability provisions. My noble friend Lord Ashley of Stoke and the noble Lord, Lord Rix, were a little worried about whether we should wait until September 2005 with regard to duties to alter physical features, particularly in post-16 institutions. The key issue is to ask all institutions to get on with making the changes. We need to give them a realistic timescale. Many capital programmes are planned over a five year period. I have no doubt that many of them will finish this work before 2005, but that is when we intend to implement the legislation.
The noble Baroness, Lady Darcy de Knayth, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and my noble friend Lady Warwick asked whether the Bill will cover work experience for students in FE and HE. The Bill covers it indirectly. If a student is in paid employment, he will be covered by Part II of the DDA. If he is not paid, he will not be covered by the employment provisions in Part II, but the institution is likely still to be providing services which will then be caught by this Bill; for example, by helping the student to organise a placement or because it sets the rules that a placement has to be part of the course. Under those circumstances, education providers will need to comply with their duties in how they carry out these services. For example, a college or university might have to consider helping to find a reasonable alternative placement or altering a course to take out the requirement for a work placement. It may be necessary for colleges and universities to try to take steps to raise employers' awareness about meeting the needs of disabled students. Ultimately, it might be necessary to remove an employer from their lists.
Several noble Lords raised the issue of universal neonatal hearing and the programme already agreed by the Department of Health. In July this year the department announced its intention to pilot the programme. Health authorities have now submitted bids to take part and the successful applicants will be announced in the near future. We are well on the way to introducing this important change.
The noble Lord, Lord Lucas, the noble Baroness, Lady Blatch, and the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, asked about research. A whole range of research is being undertaken, including longitudinal studies of young people with SEN. I am happy to provide details of the research we are currently undertaking.
A large number of individual and particular points were made in the debate which I do not have time to answer. The noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, raised a number of questions about Scotland. I am happy to write to him on those points. However, as he will be aware, part of the Bill does not apply to Scotland—those are matters for the Scottish Parliament—and part of it does.
710
In conclusion, perhaps I may say once again how glad I am to hear so much support for the general thrust of the Bill. I know that in Committee we shall have many interesting and spirited debates about points of detail. But we must never lose sight of our overarching determination, which I know is shared by all those who have spoken in the debate, to work towards a more tolerant and a more inclusive society. The Bill better supports children and their families through the SEN framework and puts right the omission of education from the coverage of the Disability Discrimination Act. It is an essential measure if we are serious about our wish to move towards a more tolerant and a more inclusive society and if we are to show our commitment to children with special educational needs and to pupils, students and adult learners with a disability. I commend the Bill to the House.
On Question, Bill read a second time, and committed to a Grand Committee.

Miners' Compensation
7.56 p.m.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefractrose to ask Her Majesty's Government what progress has been made on compensation payments to miners and miners' widows for bronchitis and emphysema.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I gain no pleasure from finding it necessary to call for this debate. I feel both sad and angry that it is necessary. During the course of the day I read through Hansard of 16th November 1998, which covers a debate on this subject. When I put down Hansard, I thought that all that had been said in that debate could equally be said today—but, I would hope, with more force because events that were suggested during that debate have come about.
The miners were successful in their claim following the decision of Judge Turner, who ruled in the miners' favour on 23rd January 1998. I, along with all the mining fraternity, was delighted when the judge made that ruling. I was rather surprised when I approached the Minister of State at that time, Mr John Battle. It was something of an experience because I met a Minister who was waiting with £2 billion ready to spend to provide the miners with compensation. I was delighted, especially when I compared that with my experience following my campaigns under the previous government for industrial injuries benefits for miners suffering from the same diseases. In fact, I had the bitter experience of receiving a leaked document from one department to another requesting that it did not declare the decision of the industrial injuries tribunal and that it hold on to the decision for as long as it possibly could because by then men would have died. When I heard that the Government had responded so rapidly with this money, I was absolutely delighted.
As time has gone by, the arrangements to implement the scheme have been extremely difficult. I appreciate that. I understand that the Government had to follow

711
the conditions of the judge's decision. Having said that, however, we are now in a situation where 120,000 applicants—miners suffering from disease, with many more to follow—have found themselves in the position of having to wait and wait for a decision. I understand, too, that out of 120,000 applicants, some 40,000 have already died.
I concede that some of those miners died prior to the judge's decision, but nevertheless, they have now died. I do not think that anyone, including the judge when he came to his decision, would want to see such a situation. Obviously I am extremely concerned at the long delays. I believe that the scheme has failed those who have suffered disability as a result of a lifetime spent working in the mining industry. Those men are entitled not only to full compensation but to receive it speedily. They have waited long enough. Having fought and won their High Court case, many of the men have died or are dying without seeing a penny in compensation. It comes down to this: justice delayed is justice denied.
Progress on the scheme was considered in a hearing at Sheffield High Court on 15th November 2000 before the honourable Mr Justice Turner. Consequent on that hearing, I consider that unless greater resources and, indeed, improved working practices are urgently introduced, the scheme will continue to fail those men and increasingly their widows.
At a meeting which I attended only about a fortnight ago, along with my noble friends and colleagues Lord Dixon, Lord Hardy, Lord Brookman and Lord Islwyn, I fully appreciated the Minister's concern. I refer to the right honourable Helen Liddell, herself the granddaughter of a miner. As I have said, she demonstrated great concern. Unfortunately, however, that concern is not speeding up the scheme. It is moving along a little faster but it is not progressing rapidly enough.
In the last debate and during several Questions tabled in this Chamber, I have proposed a suggestion to different Ministers which would at least settle some of these matters. I still believe that I am right about that, but I have not convinced the appropriate powers-that-be. Around 14,000 men have received industrial injuries benefits arising out of the decision reached by the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council recommending that the diseases of bronchitis and emphysema should be prescribed. All those men have been examined and have gone through the necessary tests. They have been awarded appropriate industrial injuries benefits for those diseases. For the life of me, I cannot understand why the Government and their advisers cannot find a way to pay the men without any further examination or any further period of waiting. It is extremely difficult to understand that.
Although the Minister has replied to my long letter containing 23 questions, which I appreciate, one response stated that the difficulty of implementing my suggestion was that that decision was not part of the judgment and does not follow the same criteria. It would require the permission of the judge or solicitors. To that I say: so what? If we have a blockage of 120,000
712
cases and we have an opportunity to clear 14,000 of them—covering men who have been examined and certified to receive industrial injuries benefits—that seems to me to be a simple enough answer. All it needs is goodwill. We need to show that, in fact, we want to solve this problem.
My time is nearly up. I have talked about 120,000 applications. Former British Coal records show that some 450,000 miners are suffering from chest diseases of this nature. The numbers are going to increase. If we do not find a system that sharpens up this procedure, the list will get longer and longer. It has now been agreed, more or less, that it will be five years before the men now included on the list will receive any settlement. I say to this House tonight that that is far too long. If there is a will, there is a way to settle this. I say to our Ministers and to their civil servants: this problem has got to be solved. It is no good sitting back, rubbing our hands and saying, "It's hard lines for those poor miners. They're dead, but we haven't been able to do anything about it". There is no such thing as "we can't". I say this evening that we must.
8.7 p.m.
Lord Mason of Barnsley: My Lords, I should like, first, to thank my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract for once more initiating a debate on this subject. There is no more important issue in the coalfields than this of today.
It is a long time since I started work underground, at 14 years of age in 1938, in an industry that was dirty, dangerous and uncivilised. If the top of a coalmine could have been sliced off and televised, no man would ever have ventured underground. Working conditions were appalling. In 1938, 802,000 men were working in the pits. Coal was mainly hand got, pick and shovel slaving at the coalface. The dust came from shotfiring and blasting at the coalface. But in the late 1940s, mechanisation came into the coalmines and with it the dreaded killer dust diseases of pneumoconiosis, silicosis, emphysema and bronchitis. Clouds of dust were caused by cutting machines, power loaders and rock cutting machines driving the roadways. The numbers working in those uncontrollable dust conditions then totalled over 600,000 men. With the noise and dust, every pit was a hellhole. I doubt whether many of those men realised at the time—nor did I, for I was there until 1953—that they would be subject to a slow, lingering death as their chests began to solidify and as they struggled, gasping for breath. Those are the scenes that we have witnessed happening to thousands of our coalmining colleagues in the coalfields for some years.
At this point, let me once again pay a tribute to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse. It was him, above all others, who led the campaign to get the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council to recommend that chronic bronchitis and emphysema should be listed as prescribed industrial diseases in coalmines. He introduced a Bill in another place way back in October 1982, which was followed by another four attempts to get it on the statute book, none of which received the support of the then government. Even after the

713
advisory council had recommended implementation and thousands of miners had placed claims, the matter had to go to the courts for a final decision. Unfortunately, that was a major diversion which has caused unforgivable delay in the recognition of claims and especially in having to observe the 600-page judgment. As my noble friend said, the ruling in favour of the miners was given on 21st January 1988. Since then the Government have been grappling with this mammoth problem. It is a mammoth problem because more than 123,000 miners have registered a claim.
The Government may well be trying—I believe that they are—but they are failing to rid the complaints and recognition system of its bottlenecks and blockages. That is really the complaint of miners and their representatives. The compensation payments are agonisingly slow. I noticed that the Government went back to the courts to obtain a speeding-up agreement—a fast-track proposal. I ask my noble friend, what has been the outcome? In the meantime, nearly 7,000 miners—all likely claimants—have died. What an appalling picture of misery and death.
What have the plaintiffs' solicitors group to say about this—the group which negotiates on behalf of the many solicitors representing claimants and which handles the arrangements to resolve this mass of claims? There is a great deal of uneasiness that a lot of money is being made by some of these solicitor groups.
I hope that the Minister will bring us up to date on the number of claimants, the payments made to date, the expedited claims and additional payments, and on what knowledge he has of miners and widows who have passed on—who are, dare I say, eligible but dead.
Finally, is my noble friend satisfied that everything is being done to speed up the payments. Perhaps I may ask him—hesitatingly but I believe it is necessary—to state the obstacles in the way of agreeing a set payment for all the claimants. The Minister knows the number of claimants and the size of the kitty; what is the position regarding a major share-out before hundreds die? Whatever the legal objections or union difficulties, we will save some lives. Is this not still possible?
As of now, does my noble friend believe that, in checking the claimants' records, we have enough mobile and scanning teams, assessment centres and consultants? As we know from the numbers that are dying, time is not on our side. I hope, therefore, for the sake of the lives of some of the claimants, that he can give us some heartening news.
8.13 p.m.
Lord Clinton-Davis: My Lords, I support my noble friend Lord Mason and, above all, my noble friend Lord Lofthouse, who raised this issue.
I speak as a member of the profession that has been mentioned more than once—namely, solicitors. I am ashamed of my profession if we have done that of which we are accused. I am ashamed that my Government have taken so long to deal with this issue. I am deeply ashamed that the Opposition Benches are bereft of speakers—apart from the noble Baroness, Lady Miller—exerting their pressure upon the
714
government of the day. Of course, I assume that has something to do with political points, but they did not do a thing when they were in office to ensure that the miners would be properly compensated. Some 40,000 men have died. It is unbelievable that this should have occurred in this day and age.
I was the Minister of State on 29th January 1998, when my noble friends Lord Davies of Coity and Lord Lofthouse again raised this issue in the House. I went to see my colleague, my right honourable friend John Battle, MP, and we were both of the view that the briefing we had from civil servants was defective. We both changed it, and the answers that we then gave were helpful. Little did I realise that almost three years from that date the matter would not be resolved.
I have been a solicitor since 1953. I have never had a case which has involved so many people. Nevertheless, difficult though it may be, I plead with my noble friend who will reply from the Front Bench to ensure that we get a move on. If we do not, it will not be 40,000 who have died; it will be nearly 120,000. That is not acceptable for a Labour government. We shall be blamed—and rightly so—by the people concerned.
I do not blame my noble friend for the travail that has occurred—of course I do not; it is not his fault—but I do blame those who have the conduct of this matter. If they cannot resolve the matter entirely in a year or 18 months from now, it should be taken out of their hands and dealt with by the Government. I expect my noble friend today to issue that challenge to his friends.
Of course we shall not get the support of the Opposition, whatever may be said by the noble Baroness, nor do we expect or want it. It should be our purpose. The people involved are our people; they expect the Labour Party to perform. My right honourable friend should understand that. There is no doubt that every single one of those people expects us to produce the goods—not for 100,000 or 120,000 people to die. They should be compensated in their lifetime. I beg my noble friend to understand that and to do whatever he or the Minister responsible can do to ensure that we get a resolution of this matter that is satisfactory to the majority. Of course it is not easy. If someone is malingering, so be it. We have 100,000 or 120,000 people who have made claims to date, the majority of which should be satisfactorily resolved.
We shall be met, as we were last time, by those who expect us to perform whatever the law demands. I speak as a lawyer. This matter should not be determined only by the law; it should also be determined by human requirements. Every single one of those people deserves to be taken into account. As miners, most served the nation well and all of them should be properly regarded by the Government in return.
I hope that my noble friend will cause to be speeded up the procedures for litigation. I hope that he will ensure that all cases are resolved within the period I have mentioned—namely, a year or 18 months; or the matter should be taken out of the hands of the lawyers

715
who have done so much to advise the Government, and whose advice in some cases has been terribly wrong.
8.21 p.m.
Lord Islwyn:: My Lords, first, I thank my noble friend Lord Lofthouse for initiating this important debate. He brings a good deal of expertise and common sense to the subject. He has been a constant advocate of the miners' case. My noble friend reminded us that justice delayed is justice denied. That is the theme of the debate.
I was among the delegation of noble Lords who met the right honourable Helen Liddell, the Minister for Energy, on 22nd November. The impression I received was that the Minister and her civil servants were anxious to see the compensation process operating speedily and efficiently so that the miners affected, or their widows, can receive the compensation that is due to them.
The truth, however, is that that is just not happening. I appreciate that the Minister has an unenviable task. There are over 20,000 cases in Wales alone. Some of those former miners are critically ill. They are suffering from killer diseases as a result of the years they spent underground. Regrettably, many have passed away without receiving any compensation, and that is a great tragedy. Certain efforts have been made to speed up the assessment process in order that a realistic level of compensation can be arrived at. In some cases there have been difficulties in obtaining proper medical records. There is still a huge backlog of paperwork. Despite the goodwill at the Ministry, it seems that, given the present arrangements, there will be years of delay before justice is done.
But sick miners need money now, if only to ease their suffering. Some have previously had medical examinations and have been awarded industrial injuries benefit. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse mentioned a figure of 14,000. That is a large number of claimants. I have come to the conclusion that the only short-term answer is to provide generous interim payments. I urge the Minister to re-examine that possibility. I do not speak of the derisory £2,000 interim payments that were put through earlier; I am thinking of a sum in the region of £10,000. Surely it is better to make interim payments than to allow miners to die without receiving a penny. The money is ready and available. We should not allow one more sick miner to go to his grave without receiving a penny.
On 10th October, the noble Lord, Lord Sainsbury, told me that the Department of Trade and Industry hopes to make about 4,000 offers in Wales before Christmas, totalling approximately £25 million. We are now within a few days of Christmas. Will the Minister confirm that the pay-outs are being made?
An issue has arisen over the so-called clawback arrangements. A number of cases have been cited in the South Wales Argus, which has led a full-scale campaign on the subject. It is alleged that one miner
716
accepted a payment of £45,000 when he was very ill. The Department of Social Security took back £21,700 by way of recovery of certain benefits that had been paid to him over the years. It was later discovered that a mistake had been made and that the department should have reclaimed just over £6,000. That former miner is dead, but his widow will receive the adjusted sum. Surely mistakes of that kind merely add insult to injury. There is a very strong case for cutting out the clawback altogether.
The issue of compensation payments to former miners suffering from bronchitis and emphysema is heart-rending. Bureaucracy and red tape should not be allowed to stand in the way of early and generous settlements to those who have suffered so much. I warn the Government that this issue is having a profound effect on public opinion in South Wales. People there are wholehearted in their fight for justice for these disabled miners. I urge the Minister and the Government to take that point into consideration.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Dixon: My Lords, I, too, should like to add my congratulations to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract on initiating another debate on this important matter. I dread to think how many miners have died of this terrible disease since we first debated the issue over two years ago, on 16th November 1998. My noble friend Lord Lofthouse fought hard as a member of the Energy Select Committee in another place to have emphysema recognised as an industrial disease. I can say without fear of contradiction that since it was recognised no one has fought harder in this and another place to ensure that those who are entitled to compensation should receive it as quickly as possible.
Like other noble Lords, I joined a delegation to see the Minister for Energy, the right honourable Helen Liddell, in place of my noble friend Lord Dormand of Easington, who, unfortunately, was unwell at the time. He, too, has fought hard in this House to have such compensation paid. Along with my noble friends, Lord Hardy of Wath, Lord Islwyn and Lord Brookman, I was a member of a delegation led by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse. At the meeting, my noble friends£my noble friend Lord Lofthouse in particular£put forward some concrete proposals that we believed would speed up these payments.
The money is available. I honestly believe that my right honourable friend the Minister for Energy wants such payments to be made. A recent article in our local newspaper, the Shields Gazette, stated that the Prime Minister also wants these payments to be speeded up. Incidentally, many of these miners suffering from emphysema live in the Prime Minister's constituency. These delays seem to go on and on. Instead of receiving credit for making the money available, this Government are being criticised in the mining communities for not ensuring that payment is received by the miners who are suffering.
If the present situation had taken place during the time of the previous government, I can well imagine what some of my honourable friends in the other place

717
would have done. Every day Private Notice Questions would have been tabled, demanding emergency debates and complaining about the slow progress of claims.
Perhaps I may give the House an example from the North East, where I have lived all my life. Although no figures have been made available indicating a regional breakdown of claimants, it is estimated that there are 20,000 in the area. In the first six months of this year only 19 claims had been processed—11 in Newcastle and eight in Durham. That is just not good enough.
I worked in the shipbuilding and ship-repairing industry for 35 years before I was elected a Member of Parliament. Like almost everyone in the industry, I suffer from industrial deafness. The GMB union, which my noble friend Lord Burlison on the Front Bench will remember, took the case of six members to the High Court and obtained what is now known as the "Newcastle settlement". A scale was devised by the court, which gave compensation to those who had a loss of hearing. It quickened up the process of such cases. I see no reason why such a settlement cannot be worked out in this case.
Everyone who comes from a mining community knows of cases of former miners who have been assessed as suffering from emphysema. Such men breathe with difficulty; they can hardly walk; and their life expectancy is not good. They require this compensation as quickly as possible, not only to make their lives more tolerable but also to make the lives of their relatives more bearable. Friends with whom I went to school went to work in the mines when I went to work in the shipyards. I used to play football with them. They also used to box at the local gym; indeed, they were built like house ends. But now they can hardly get across to the local pub for a pint and have difficulty in holding dominoes in their hands. These are the sort of people with whom we are dealing today. As my noble friend Lord Lofthouse said, why cannot these people be assessed immediately?
When the delegation went to see the Minister for Energy, we heard the arguments from some of the civil servants who were present about the effects of smoking. I can tell noble Lords that the conditions under which these men worked were enough to drive anyone to smoke. Moreover, we are talking about many years ago when smoking was not considered to be as dangerous as we are led to believe today.
As my noble friend Lord Islwyn said, another concern is the impact of the Social Security (Recovery of Benefits) Act 1997 in relation to these awards of damages. This legislation allows for certain compensation payments to be exempt. It seems illogical to me that one government department, the Department of Trade and Industry, makes payments of compensation and then another department, the DSS, takes it back. Miners have waited years for settlement of their compensation claims. They have had to endure the trauma of court proceedings to settle their claims with the DTI. But now they will have to go through a similar experience with recoupment under the 1997 Act, but this time with another government
718
department; namely, the DSS. The impact of recoupment under the 1997 Act is simply to move money from one government department to another at considerable cost.
Another reason why recovery is unreasonable is the time factor involved, which will affect the final settlement of these claims. If the Government enforce the terms of the 1997 Act and recover benefits from disabled miners, a vast number of appeals will be lodged with the Medical Appeal Tribunal. Due to the complexity and the importance of the issues involved and the number of claimants, it is almost inevitable that the decision of the Medical Appeal Tribunal will be argued before the Commissioners and, thereafter, before the Court of Appeal. This will prevent the final conclusion of many cases for a long time.
These miners have suffered enough from this terrible disease. They have had to wait long enough to get their compensation claims settled. They should not have to go through a second set of tribunals over the recovery of benefits. The one thing that the Government can do immediately is to use that 1997 Act and exempt these payments from recovery by the DSS. I hope that my noble friend the Minister will take that request on board.
8.36 p.m.
Lord Prys-Davies: My Lords, I am also grateful to my noble friend Lord Lofthouse for giving us this opportunity to put points to the Government for them urgently to consider, as they seek to speed up the administration of the bronchitis/emphysema scheme.
To justify my making a contribution to the debate, perhaps I should say that I live in Mid-Glamorgan in the heart of the former South Wales coalfield, where coalminers were exposed to very high levels of coal dust and where emphysema was widely prevalent and recognised before the nationalisation of the mines. I have also had the benefit of discussing the administration of the compensation scheme with the secretary of the National Union of Mineworkers (South Wales) and with the administrator of the Coal Industry Social Welfare Organisation in South Wales.
Perhaps I should point out to my noble friend the Minister at the outset of my remarks that it will be for ever to the credit of the present Government that they accepted the High Court's judgment that the Coal Board had been negligent and that compensation was payable. It has been rightly said that the compensation scheme that was approved by the High Court was greatly welcomed. But, of course, the welcome does not extend to the way that it is being administered.
I hear of cases that have gone badly wrong. Former miners, the widows of deceased miners and members of the public feel very deeply that the scheme is too complex and that it takes far too long to process each claim. If I may say so, that feeling has been movingly and powerfully expressed in your Lordships' House this evening by my noble friend Lord Lofthouse. Of course, the Trade and Industry Secretary and the Minister for Energy have admitted that they, too, are frustrated by the way in which the scheme has worked.

719
I believe that I can possibly best help by concentrating on how we can seek to move forward and avoid some of the difficulties that we have experienced over the past two years.
I was glad to see a month ago that the DTI, with the agreement of the solicitors representing the miners, went back to the High Court to seek its consent to modifications and improvements to the scheme in order to speed up the pay-outs. The judge, Mr Justice Turner, consented. Can my noble friend tell the House how long it will take to settle all the existing claims as a result of these modifications and improvements? Of course I appreciate that progress does not always keep up with forecasts, but I trust that the time-scale will be substantially less than the five years mentioned by the judge at the November hearing.
Hitherto there have been two fundamental causes of delay. First, there has been difficulty in producing the hospital records. Where the claim is made by a widow—about a third of the claims are made by widows—the medical records are, of course, critical. Without them it is difficult to evaluate the claim properly. It has been suggested to me by a colleague in the House of Commons that the best way to overcome this problem where it exists is to pay the hospitals concerned to enable them to employ additional clerical assistance to concentrate on tracing the missing records. Has the department given any thought to that positive idea?
No doubt the most important complaint is that there is a long delay in obtaining an appointment for the medical assessment because of the lack of specialist consultants. I believe that this has been referred to by every speaker in the debate. I am told that a Mid-Glamorgan miner in his mid-80s was informed last week that he had been given a medical appointment in September next. Surely that is appalling.
Will the Minister tell the House how many specialists are in post and confirm the number which are required? How is this gap to be closed? One wonders whether a senior registrar could undertake the testing, or must the specialist be of consultant status? I am attracted by the pilot training scheme of doctors and nurses to enable them to summarise medical records. When will the results of that pilot scheme be known?
Like previous speakers, I shall also be interested to learn why those miners who have been certified by the DSS as suffering from bronchitis and emphysema for the purpose of DSS benefit have to undertake further medical examination for the purpose of this scheme. That must be clearly explained, if there is an explanation. However, in fairness, there are indications that things are on the move. There will be more medical testing centres. Like everyone else, I trust that the specialists will be available to man the new centres. If they are available, this development should herald a great acceleration in the programme.
There is concern that the DSS should be entitled to recover out of the special damages element of the final award a part of the disablement benefit for chronic
720
bronchitis and emphysema which it had paid to the claimant. That complaint has been raised this evening by my noble friends Lord Islwyn and Lord Dixon. It is a criticism which carries considerable weight. If we take the case of two ex-coalminers, one suffering from pneumoconiosis, the other from bronchitis emphysema, we see inconsistency. The bronchitis emphysema award will be reduced by the claw back provision while such a provision does not apply to the pneumoconiosis award. The emphysema claimant finds it difficult to understand that anomaly. He sees unfairness. Is that being looked at by the department?
Another criticism which I hear, but I note has not been raised this evening, is that the criteria for determining eligibility for the bereavement award are too narrow and over rely on the evidence of the cause of death as shown on the death certificate. Is that being looked at?
I return to where I began. It has not gone unnoticed in Wales (where there are currently about 27,000 claims) that the administration of the scheme in Scotland (where there are about 8,000 claims) has been devolved to a Scottish body while in Wales it is being administered centrally from Sheffield. I ask the department, in consultation with the Welsh Office, to urge the Healthcall Services and IRISC to set up offices in Wales to process the cases arising in Wales. Such a move should help to speed up the administration of the scheme by relieving the Sheffield office of some work while bringing decisions on the Welsh cases closer to the solicitors in Wales and cutting out the need for journeys to Sheffield.
I am, of course, pleased that the Welsh Office is setting up a claims monitoring group chaired by the Secretary of State for Wales which will meet regularly to ensure that the activities of all concerned are adequately co-ordinated. That also is an important step forward.
8.46 p.m.
Lord Hardy of Wath: My Lords, the House should be deeply indebted to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse. He has not only presented a case of substance but has also demonstrated his awareness and knowledge of the matter through his long experience in the mining industry and through his efforts in Westminster.
I was privileged to be a sponsor of my noble friend's Bills in the other place. His efforts and the relevant medical advice presented to the previous government resulted in the establishment of the scheme. We were delighted to see it but we soon realised that deficiency, difficulty and high cost were inbuilt into it. Fairly soon we learned, for example, that the X-rays which were supposed to be used were not suitable to identify either emphysema or bronchitis. I recall raising that matter in the other place. The Minister then promised that action would be taken. The months pass and each week scores of applicants die. We are concerned that the number should not rise at that speed for much longer.
The cost of the measure is enormous. The volume of documentation involved is also huge. Some of the documentation in individual applications amounts to

721
7½ kilograms. We should think of the time that it takes to study 7½ kilograms of paper when dealing with just one case.
There is an argument for the more widespread use of statements of truth, especially where records are not available. There is certainly a case for accepting the point made by my noble friends; namely, that recognition of this disability by the Department of Social Security would allow swift processing of thousands of cases. It would certainly bring a great deal of good cheer and reassurance in the coalfields.
Some of the regulations are unjust. Only the other day I spoke to a friend of mine who had submitted an application for compensation for white finger. He has two badly affected fingers on each hand but he does not qualify because the regulations state that to qualify one must have three fingers affected on one hand. I hope that my noble friend will consider that case.
I return to the issue that we are discussing. My noble friend Lord Dixon mentioned smoking. Let us consider the situation of a man born in 1920 who is 80 years of age today. He would have left school at 14 and gone down the pit in 1934. He would probably have started smoking in his teens and retired from the pit in 1980. Let us consider someone born in 1925. He would have gone down the pit in 1939 at the age of 14, as most boys did in the coalfields. He may have started to smoke at a time when it was fashionable and socially acceptable and when no health risks were associated with it. Yet someone who started to smoke as a boy in the 1930s must suffer an enormous financial penalty in the year 2000, 2001 or 2002 if the situation becomes much more protracted. It is not a kindly, sensible or just arrangement.
The House should have been convinced by the arguments applied by my noble friends today. There are few miners and few pits today but the coalfield communities are not separated from their long heritage. Mining in Yorkshire started in 1296. No coal is being produced now, but for 700 years, and particularly from the 19th century, it coloured the attitudes and values of the people. They know that, although we do not have pits, we have that heritage. We expect this Government to respond to that heritage and to simplify the situation as dramatically and swiftly as they can.
We inherited from the previous government a scheme at which, if it were operated by a private charity, the charity commissioners would look askance regarding the proportion of expenditure devoted to administration and operation rather than providing benefit. The Government are not a charity in that sense, but they must recognise that the legal and medical costs of the scheme—thousands of documents are involved, weighing up to 7½ kilograms per case—are enormous. The money needs to go to those who have earned it while they can still breathe. The sooner they receive that money the better.
8.51 p.m.
Lord Elton: My Lords, if your Lordships will permit me to speak for two minutes, I should like to express
722
the outrage that I feel, having heard the description of a scheme which would have been an embarrassment to the ancien rêgime in France before the revolution. It is difficult to express the degree of distaste one feels when hearing the extent of injustice to a class of people who have a nobility of their own and who have occupied a central place in the history and economy of this country for countless generations. It is not right that such people should be cast aside. It is not right that they should be cheated of their compensation until they and possibly their widows are dead.
I am not pointing the finger of blame at anyone. But I say this to the present Government. If they tolerate this situation they will be failing in an obvious moral and public duty. If the scheme as devised does not work, they have the power of legislation to replace it. As the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, there must be a time by which the clock must stop.
I speak intemperately because that is the only way in which to condense the strength of my feeling into the limited time available. I believe that the country at large would not tolerate this scandal if people were aware of it. It is part of the function of this House to make them aware. I believe that noble Lords have done a good job in that respect. I am grateful to the House for allowing me this time.
8.53 p.m.
Lord Ezra: My Lords, this has been a sad and disturbing occasion. I join in the tributes paid to the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, not only for introducing the debate today and speaking so movingly about the problem but also for his years of work in bringing this serious social problem to the notice of the Houses of Parliament and the wider public.
After a judgment as long ago as January 1998—rightly, the Government have been praised for immediately accepting it—and after the procedures were put in place, there is deep and growing concern that, although there are 123,000 claimants. from the information given by the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh of Haringey, on 28th September in answer to a Question from the noble Lord, Lord Dormand of Easington, only 25,000 individual payments were made to that date. Around 16,000 offers were expected to be made before Christmas. The Minister will no doubt confirm whether those figures are correct. If they are anywhere near correct, it demonstrates the fatal weakness of the scheme that so few have been compensated and so few offers are expected to be made by the end of the year despite the large number of elderly, ailing mineworkers who have put in claims.
The Government have taken the issue very seriously. They are as worried as we are that while it is dragging on, tragically, a number of claimants are dying. The figure of 7,000 has been mentioned. Many more have died as a result of the disease. The noble Lord, Lord Prys-Davies, and others pointed out that the Government have recently taken steps to speed up the operation of the scheme. Because the scheme began

723
as the result of a judgment, the new arrangements had to be cleared with the judge. This apparently was done on 16th November.
What does the Minister expect to come out of this speeded-up scheme? Will it materially affect the rate at which offers are being made? I believe that it will not do so sufficiently to satisfy the doubts expressed so vigorously today. The noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse, the noble Lord, Lord Mason of Barnsley, and the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, made specific suggestions. When we have discussed the issue on previous occasions, I have referred to the way in which the pneumoconiosis scheme was dealt with some years ago. The noble Lord, Lord Mason, and others will recall that a lump sum, then considered adequate for the purpose, was set aside. Individual settlements were made rapidly without the procedures which are now taking place. When I raised the issue I was told that the situation is now different; we are bound by a legal judgment; we have to do things according to that judgment. But in the light of the real human suffering involved in these long delays, the deaths that are taking place and the difficulties of these mineworkers in surviving, I wonder whether an accommodation cannot be reached with the judge to speed up the process on the lines suggested so graphically and effectively in today's debate.
8.58 p.m.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract, is not only to be thanked but congratulated on pursuing with other noble Lords and Members of another place this sad and dreadful problem which still has not been resolved.
Many years ago I visited a gold mine in South Africa. It was sanitised and clean. I did not go down deep into the mine but I felt claustrophobic. The smell was awful. It was terribly damp. I wondered then how the miners—many noble Lords have graphically described the situation—could face such work every day. As if that were not enough, they are now victims of horrendous lung diseases which continue to take lives and make their final years ones of constant, debilitating illness with men literally fighting for every breath before their wife and children. And still we wait. The situation is appalling.
To add insult to injury, only recently has anybody accepted that the disease was an occupational one. It was good to hear how hard some noble Lords opposite have worked to get that changed. But is not that often the case? According to the Pavlovian instinctive reaction of Whitehall—I have chosen that non-political word deliberately, because, despite what the noble Lord, Lord Clinton-Davis, said, this is not a political issue—no haemophiliac was given blood contaminated by AIDS, there is no such thing as Gulf War syndrome, organophosphates are not dangerous and beef exposed to BSE was not dangerous to eat. It takes ages for anybody to accept that there is a problem.
In 1992, the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council changed its mind and said that bronchitis and
724
emphysema could be accepted. The Conservative Government accepted them on a no-fault basis in 1993. That change in the compensation regime resulted in 45,000 claims, of which only 10 per cent were successful before April 1997. I am happy to give the present Government due credit for changing the criteria. As a result of that change, a further influx of almost 120,000 claims followed. In co-operation with miners' representatives, the former government encouraged a series of eight test cases to test the issues and to embrace a variety of lung injuries and working histories.
The trial of that complex litigation began before Mr Justice Turner in 1996 and ended a year later. I shall not give all the history because time precludes it, but by 2nd August 2000, an irate Mr Justice Turner demanded to know why the claims were taking so long to process. He ordered the DTI to report to him by the end of September. Despite the two and a half years since the judgment, the DTI has failed to make serious inroads into settling the claims. According to answers given in the other place, of the 120,000 claims, only 5,161 have been fully and finally settled and 26,000 payments, totalling £86 million, have been made to other individuals. Sadly, in 6,341 cases, the claimants died before receiving any compensation. That is a sad reflection on all of us. I cannot congratulate enough those noble Lords who continue to press and press. Nobody should be proud of the sad story that we have heard this evening.
I understand that in response to Mr Justice Turner's demand, the DTI has gone back to court for further directions to speed up the payments. Like other noble Lords, I ask the Minister what proposals the Government have regarding the outcome of that application.
We are told that the claims are being held up by delays in the delivery of medical records by hospitals and by controversy over the fees charged by doctors. There is even reported to be disgraceful conduct by some solicitors, who are demanding success fees, despite the scheme providing for all legal fees to be paid by the Government. We have even had the phenomenon of desperate miners being forced to turn to the claim assessors who advertise on television and take a bite out of the compensation. There are anecdotal reports of less reputable assessors snatching at derisory offers, thereby accelerating the payment of their success fees.
The noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, has called on the Minister of State, who was put in charge of the compensation monitoring group more than 14 months ago, to resign. In a press release last September, Mrs Liddell told us:
"My patience is exhausted with the slow progress".
Only last week, the Leader of the House of Commons said:
"It is a source of irritation to me and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry that something that we sought to get under way as speedily as possible in the early months of this Government is still not going through at the speed that everybody wishes".—[Official Report, Commons. 14/12/00; col. 809.]

725
I do not blame Ministers for the continuing delay, except to the extent that they are now where the buck stops. I do not doubt for one moment the sincerity of the Ministers involved. Why cannot the Government translate their fine sentiments into deeds and get on and make it happen?
In a timely article in The Times last Saturday, Tristram Hunt complained that, despite cosmetic structural changes made since the Government came to power, Whitehall's machinery has been
"left largely unchanged, and too often has acted as an impediment to Labour's programme".
He also said:
"Labour has not turned its fire on Whitehall's great anachronism—the lumbering departments of state. Tony Blair is a Prime Minister notoriously uninterested in the mechanics of government".
I do not expect the Minister to agree with the last sentence of that quotation, but, as a member of the Opposition, I thought that I could continue with it.
One of the Prime Minister's predecessors, Harold Wilson, once urged what he called the "smack of firm government". Will the Minister urge his colleagues, who undoubtedly have good intentions and wish to resolve this hardship to the claimants, to exercise their authority and power and give that smack of firm government, in the form, if necessary, of a boot applied to that part of the anatomy of every person involved where it will do the most good?
9.6 p.m.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I join others in thanking my noble friend Lord Lofthouse for raising this important issue. I welcome this opportunity to update your Lordships on the progress that we are now making on the settling of claims by former miners against British Coal.
There is no Minister in the DTI or the rest of the Government who is not deeply concerned about the issue and desperate to speed up the process. We agree that justice deferred is justice denied, but I urge the House not to blame the civil servants, because there is a dedicated team in the DTI trying to resolve the issue. Neither is it a problem of the machinery of government. I shall attempt to set out the nature of the problems and what we are doing to try to sort them out.
There are two major schemes on health claims resulting from successful litigation against British Coal. In addition to the 129,000 claims received in connection with respiratory diseases, the department has also received more than 115,000 claims in relation to vibration-related diseases. Some 30,000 of those have been registered since the end of August. Progress on those has been reasonably good. To date, the department has settled nearly 19,000 claims and made a further 20,000 interim payments. In total we have paid nearly £200 million in compensation.
The number of claims in connection with respiratory disease also continues to rise. However, we are finding it a great deal more difficult to deal with those claims as speedily as we would wish because the
726
legal and medical issues flowing from the High Court judgments are far more complex than those in relation to vibration-related diseases, and they necessitated a complex agreement with the miners' solicitors. The Government fully accept that progress has been too slow in processing the claims and they are working urgently to speed up matters. Payments are now beginning to flow. In total, some £95 million has been paid out in respiratory compensation. Taken together with compensation for vibration-related diseases in recent weeks, we have been paying out over £5 million per week.
The question of interim payments was raised. We are of course paying interims wherever possible. We have paid nearly £24,000 in total in varying amounts. The figure of £2,000 which was mentioned is based on the receipt of DSS benefit. We are also paying an expedited offer. Where that offer is rejected, we then pay 70 per cent of the offer and the maximum interim payment is over £10,000.
I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Ezra, asked about numbers. In September we said that we would expect approximately 6,000 revised expedited offers, approximately 3,000 ex gratia top-ups and approximately 10,000 new offers, based on reviews of lung tests carried out by respiratory consultants. So far, the numbers are 5,800 revised offers and 3,300 ex gratia payments. To date, we have only 2,700 new offers. We shall not know the total number for a few days as the reviews are still continuing. If we fall short of the figure of 10,000 new offers, it will be because the respiratory consultants have not found in claimants the incidence of the disease that we had expected.
As your Lordships know, within a few weeks of this Government coming into office, the lengthy High Court trial came to a conclusion. Within three weeks of this Government assuming the former British Coal's health liabilities, the judge handed down his judgment. We did not appeal or contest the findings. After years of neglect by British Coal and a blind eye from the previous government, this Government were the first to accept responsibility for the damage caused to our miners.
I believe that the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord Elton, would have been more appropriate if he had pointed out that the current situation is due largely to the fact that, as opposed to the previous situation with regard to pneumoconiosis, in this case the miners had to invoke the legal process in order for action to be taken while, as I said, the government turned a blind eye. Many of the issues which we face today are due to the fact that the legal process has had to be invoked, with all the complexity that that brings.
As my noble friend Lord Lofthouse said, we were waiting as a government to give out the money when we heard of that judgment. Indeed, the money is available to be given out now. I believe that at that time everyone failed to understand the difficulty inherent in applying that judgment in what has been the largest case of its kind.
My noble friends Lord Lofthouse and Lord Mason raised the question of a simple system of fixed payments. I believe that in many ways we all wish that

727
we could sweep away this lengthy, difficult and complex process and move to a system of simple payments. However, I believe that it is often forgotten that the department and the solicitors who represent the claimants must endeavour to settle claims in line with the High Court judgment. As Mr Justice Turner said at the last court hearing in November:
"There is the complexity of the basis upon which compensation in a common law claim is a necessary part and it is not just sheer volumes of numbers. but the complexity of process that has to be completed which, added to the number of claimants, does create the apparent problem of slow progress in the meeting of these claims".
At the same court hearing, the judge went on to comment on the suggestion that the department make flat-rate, one-off payments to all claimants—a figure of £10,000 has been mentioned. He said:
"The purpose of the scheme set up by the Claims Handling Agreement is to evaluate the extent of a claimant's or deceased miner's injury and comparing one miner with another so that the evaluated amount of the compensation will come out of the process at the end … any such evaluated basis of compensation which is fair as between one miner or one deceased and another has to go through the sort of process we have been discussing … to sweep away the evaluated basis of compensation and substitute a lump sum compensation that is totally outside the scheme, is outside anything which is available within the common law jurisdiction in which we operate".
He also said that such suggestions would ultimately cause disappointment to many claimants, who would have dashed expectations.
One has to answer the question: if we now took legal action to sweep away the whole scheme and go back to a simpler system of fixed payments, would that solve the issue? I am afraid to say that it seems to me that it would still leave major issues of unfairness and problems of real equity in this case. Remember that we are in a situation where 30 per cent of the claimants are not, in this case, receiving compensation when their cases have been analysed. As a result of that judgment, we negotiated a handling agreement with the claimants' solicitors which set out the procedures for settling respiratory disease claims. It was designed to ensure that everyone received their fair and proper compensation.
I should like to take this opportunity to outline some of the progress which has been made and the actions we are taking to speed things up. Healthcall, which is carrying out the spirometry programme for the department, has had to deal with probably the largest series of lung tests ever undertaken in the country. Spirometry allows us to assess those most likely to have a disability and enables us to prioritise claimants going forward to the full medical assessment process (MAP). To date, Healthcall has tested over 63,500 miners and contacted a further 13,700 for an appointment. Healthcall will continue to invite people to attend spirometry as their claims are registered and we will continue to offer expedited payments and pay interims if the agreed criteria are met.
The Minister for Energy and Competitiveness in Europe announced at the end of September new fast track proposals that would generate thousands of new and revised offers by Christmas. I am pleased to say
728
that some 12,000 new and revised offers totalling nearly £60 million have been made and more are due to be sent out this week. About £17 million worth of offers have been accepted and paid.
We are presently completing about 400 medical assessment processes per week but we need to get that up to 1,000 per week as quickly as possible. It must be remembered that there has never been a process of assessment of this size in the UK before. Many of those involved had to develop an understanding of the complex procedures very quickly. We have developed a number of initiatives which we hope will speed up the rate of assessments. The main bottleneck is the lack of respiratory consultants needed to get the medical assessments done.
We are urgently trying to increase the number of respiratory consultants. There are now 180 in post. We are trying to speed that up as quickly as possible. However, there is only a limited number of respiratory consultants who can carry out the assessment. That has now been identified as the main bottleneck in the process. We are looking at how doctors are used and paid in order to ensure that we attract as many doctors as possible to take part in the scheme and that we are using them efficiently. We are also looking at using nurses, GPs or medical secretaries to summarise the extensive medical records which are currently examined by the consultant. That will help to free up additional time for the consultants to examine the claimants, which is seen by many of the consultants as the most useful part of the process in assessing disability.
We are doing a number of other things. We are opening two new test centres in South Wales, which will be operational early in the new year. as well as a centre in Stirling. A new centre in Bristol is now operational and the first tests are booked for 9th January.
The question of medical records is another point in issue. As many of your Lordships will know, part of the medical assessment process requires the department to obtain the medical records of all claimants. Those records are held in a number of sources, such as GP surgeries and hospitals, as well as the DSS. Earlier in the year when we started to collect the records, many doctors and hospitals were cautious about releasing records. We sorted out that problem and that is now speeding up.
I turn to the question of compensation recovery by the DSS. The compensation recovery legislation provides for certain types of special damages, such as loss of earnings, cost of care and loss of mobility, to be reduced where an individual has already received compensation for that loss from the DSS. That is effectively to prevent the claimant being compensated twice, once by the state and once by the compensator. I think that everyone will agree that that is fair to other people in similar circumstances. I agree, however, that the sort of mistake described by the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, is intolerable. We shall do everything to ensure that it does not happen again.

729
I have already touched on some of the judge's comments at the High Court hearing in Sheffield last month. But your Lordships will be interested to know that Mr Justice Turner also visited our Claim Handlers and Medical Assessment Centre. He noted that the medical tests were a necessary part of ensuring that claimants received the compensation properly due to them and, while they were not easy to conduct, they were absolutely necessary.
Your Lordships may also wish to know that at the last hearing the department proposed that the February cut-off date for lodging respiratory claims be postponed. That was agreed by the judge and the department will keep all parties informed of any new date.
My noble friends Lord Lofthouse and Lord Islwyn raised the point that DSS assessments are carried out to establish the presence of chronic bronchitis or emphysema, and that those could be used for paying compensation. I can only repeat the consistent advice that we received; that is, that those are not sufficiently detailed to allow us to make an accurate assessment of the degree of disability for which we are liable to compensate.
Lord Lofthouse of Pontefract: My Lords, before my noble friend sits down, perhaps I can ask a question.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, perhaps I can come to the noble Lord's point, which was that we could possibly go back to the judge and the claimants' solicitors group. I am not certain that we could do that, but I shall make certain that the issue is reviewed again and we see whether there is a way in which those records, with the judge's permission, may be used to deal with that situation. I cannot say more on that at this stage. I believe the question has been raised but I shall make certain it is raised again.
A number of specific points were raised by my noble friend Lord Prys-Davies. I have the answers here but perhaps I can write to him because I am running out of time. Also, in answer to my noble friend Lord Hardy of Wath, the judge was quite clear that smoking causes emphysema and it had to be taken into account in evaluating the amount of compensation due.
Perhaps I can deal with the final question of the solicitors' fees. As the Government have previously stated, our aim is to make sure that all claimants receive the full compensation to which they are entitled. We are therefore extremely angry that we continue to hear of claimants whose solicitors are
730
taking a cut out of their client's compensation. As your Lordships will be aware, we agreed a scale of fixed costs, plus reasonable disbursements to be paid to solicitors in respect of all successful cases. We are also paying some solicitors' costs in respect of some unsuccessful claims. In addition we are paying for the lung testing, the records collection and the consultation with the specialist and do not intend to recover any of those costs where a claim is unsuccessful, as would be the normal entitlement of a defendant. Therefore, in the vast majority of successful cases, we anticipate that we shall be meeting most, if not all, of the solicitors' costs.
Lord Elton: My Lords, we are indebted to the noble Lord for all this information on an important matter. But the noble Lord is now 30 per cent over time. I understand that he has 12 minutes. I draw his attention to that fact.
Lord Sainsbury of Turville: My Lords, I wanted to make some of these points because this is an enormously important subject. Let me conclude by saying that we will do everything we can to make certain that those making claims for respiratory disease or vibration white finger receive fair compensation as soon as possible. But we will be prepared to listen to any proposal from your Lordships or anyone else that may help to improve this difficult and complex process.
Baroness Miller of Hendon: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, I raced through my speech in order to ensure that he had plenty of time to reply—it was good that he was able to give so much information—but he made an incorrect comment.
I said that by 1992 the Industrial injuries Advisory Committee had concluded that chronic bronchitis and emphysema was disabling. The Conservative government of the day accepted that report on a no-fault basis. Forty-five thousand applications were received, of which 10,000 were successful before the criteria were changed in April 1997. I gave credit to the present Government for changing the provisions but the Minister suggested that my government had done nothing. That is not correct; we accepted the report. As a result of the no-fault claims, so many claims began that our government brought forward the eight test cases. In fairness, and for the record, I want to mention that to the Minister.
House adjourned at twenty-six minutes past nine o'clock.

  EU: Duty Free and Quota Free Access
  EU: Duty Free and Quota Free Access
  EU: "Everything But Arms" and Sugar Regime Proposals
  EU: "Everything But Arms" and Sugar Regime Proposals
  Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands: Judicial Corporal Punishment
  Bermuda and the British Virgin Islands: Judicial Corporal Punishment
  Bermuda: Abolition of Capital Punishment for Murder
  Bermuda: Abolition of Capital Punishment for Murder
  Overseas Territories: Abolition of Capital Punishment for Treason and Piracy
  Overseas Territories: Abolition of Capital Punishment for Treason and Piracy
  NymIP Project
  NymIP Project
  Complaints against the Police
  Complaints against the Police
  Sexual Offences (Amendment) and Criminal Justice and Court Services Acts
  Sexual Offences (Amendment) and Criminal Justice and Court Services Acts
  Road Traffic Offences: Penalties
  Road Traffic Offences: Penalties
  Government Departments: Software
  Government Departments: Software
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  Personal Incomes: Top Rate of Direct Tax
  Task Forces, ad hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews
  Task Forces, ad hoc Advisory Groups and Reviews
  Defence Spending in Europe
  Defence Spending in Europe
  EU Defence Force: United States Reaction
  EU Defence Force: United States Reaction
  Coal-miners: Compensation Claims
  Coal-miners: Compensation Claims
  Portsmouth Hospitals: Delayed Operations
  Portsmouth Hospitals: Delayed Operations
  Passive Smoking: Departmental Policies
  Passive Smoking: Departmental Policies
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Pharmaceutical Price Regulation Scheme
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Special Areas of Conservation
  Local Authorities: Executive Arrangements
  Local Authorities: Executive Arrangements
  Light Rail Operators: By-laws
  Light Rail Operators: By-laws
  SEAC Annual Report
  SEAC Annual Report
  Millennium City Status Competition
  Millennium City Status Competition
  House of Lords: Public Gallery
  House of Lords: Public Gallery
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees