Sitting of 27 June 2000

Preamble
The House met at half-past Two o'clock
PRAYERS
MADAM SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS
CITY OF NEWCASTLE UPON TYNE BILL [LORDS] (BY ORDER)
Order for Third Reading read.
To be read the Third time on Tuesday 4 July.
GREENHAM AND CROOKHAM COMMONS BILL (BY ORDER) Order for Second Reading read.
To be read a Second time on Tuesday 4 July.

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

  Ferry Services
  Mrs. Ray Michie (Argyll and Bute): What recent discussions he has had with the European Commission about the implementation of the 1992 European regulations on maritime transport (Council Regulation 3577/92); and if he will make a statement. [126336]
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): I recently met representatives of the European Commission to discuss a range of issues relating to transport, including ferry services.
  Mrs. Michie: Can the Minister throw any light on why the tendering of Caledonian MacBrayne ferry routes has come up under these regulations? Why is the Commission suddenly interested? Does the Minister know who alerted the Commission? The regulations have been in place since 1992 and it appears that, when exemptions and derogations were being negotiated by France, Spain, Portugal and Greece, there was no mention of Scotland. That makes me assume that the previous Conservative Government did not send a Scottish Minister to the negotiations. I know that the Minister is concerned that we hold together the Caledonian MacBrayne services because they give a lifeline to our islands.
  Mr. Wilson: I am, indeed, very concerned, as the hon. Lady fairly points out. I am certainly of the view that the best interests of the taxpayer and of the public are served by an integrated ferry operation on the west coast of
  700
  Scotland, with all the flexibility and economies of scale that offers—an operation that is committed to public service and has no other reason for existence.
  I cannot answer as to why the European Commission has recently escalated its interest; I can only point out to the hon. Lady that matters relating to safeguarding the services and consulting on how tendering should take place are now devolved. Certainly, everyone who supports CalMac and agrees that the company is the best answer right along the west coast should be making that case heard and well known—not least in Brussels.
  Mr. Calum Macdonald: Will the Minister confirm that the Government have doubled the operating subsidy to Caledonian MacBrayne? Does he agree that allowing CalMac to bid for the routes to the northern isles would give the strongest possible vote of confidence to CalMac staying in the public sector?
  Mr. Wilson: I agree with everything that my hon. Friend said. He was, of course, a Transport Minister in the Scottish Office before devolution, when most of the increase occurred. We put a load of extra money into Caledonian MacBrayne. That is a vote of confidence. In Opposition, we long demanded for CalMac the right to bid for other routes; I am delighted that, in government, we have delivered it.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): What assessment has the Minister made of the impact of the regulations on the volume of trade and on port state control in the European Union?
  Mr. Wilson: I have made no such calculations, but I shall be delighted to write to the hon. Gentleman.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mr. David Stewart: If he will make a statement on the exclusion of Inverness, East, Nairn, Badenoch and Strathspey from the assisted areas map. [126337]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): Following the publication of the proposed assisted areas map on 10 April, I received representations from my hon. Friend and others on the exclusion of the area. Revised proposals have now been submitted to the European Commission.
  Mr. Stewart: I thank my right hon. Friend for his comments. He will be well aware of the rundown of the Barmac fabrication yards, with the loss of more than 3,000 jobs that are highly skilled and well valued in the highland economy. Does he share my view that that strengthens the case for my constituency remaining within the assisted areas map, as indeed it does under the highlands and islands special transitional programme? Will he undertake to visit my constituency to add his weight to the campaign?
  Dr. Reid: I am, of course, aware of the effects of the developments at Barmac; we all take them very seriously. I recognise the general strength of the arguments that have been expressed by my hon. Friend about parts of his

  701
  constituency. I assure him that, during the consultation process, we listened carefully to the views expressed on the matter. As he will be aware, the final decision is for the European Commission, but he will not be entirely disappointed with the outcome of our reception of his representations nor, hopefully, with the outcome of the review itself.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): Does the Secretary of State recognise that, by no criteria, are the interests and needs of Inverness to be compared with those of the fragile areas on the periphery of the highlands? Those areas are sparsely populated and have long lines of communication. Does he agree that, although a case can be made for Inverness, related to Barmac, it would be no triumph for highland development if moneys for assistance simply drained into the centre on the ground that what is good for Inverness is good for the highlands because it is of pan-highland benefit?
  Dr. Reid: The right hon. Gentleman makes a pertinent and important point. The question by my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber (Mr. Stewart) referred not only to Inverness, but to Badenoch and Strathspey. The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the proposals published on 10 April gave the highlands and islands more than 70 per cent. coverage. We also need to remember that they will still benefit from the special transitional programme, which is valued at 308 million ecu—that is £192.5 million for those Conservative Members who do not like to deal with anything in European terms—and which will run for the period from 2000 to 2006.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): Does the Secretary of State accept that the impact of the job losses at Barmac has repercussions in many areas of the highlands and islands? Although we welcome, for example, the development of Cap Gemini at Forres, does he recognise that the enterprise areas of Inverness and Nairn and of Moray, Badenoch and Strathspey would welcome assisted area status? That would help them in their attempts to attract a variety of jobs into the area to ensure that we can absorb the redundancies that have taken place. Otherwise, we shall lose people from the area.
  Dr. Reid: Yes. I have already said that I appreciate the effect of what has happened at Barmac. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister of State and my hon. Friend the Member for Central Fife (Mr. McLeish), who is on the Scottish Executive, will meet Barmac in the very near future—tomorrow, I think. I have already referred to the highlands and I recognise the strength of the argument of my hon. Friend the Member for Inverness, East, Nairn and Lochaber, which applied to some extent to the area around Strathspey and Badenoch. I hope that that shows that we have listened to the representations that have been put forward.
  I should stress that the European Commission has the final say. The hon. Lady will be aware that our first proposals were targeted in such a way as to get the maximum effect throughout Scotland. Those proposals were not acceptable to the European Commission, so we are going back with a new set of proposals.

  Special Advisers
  Mr. Graham Brady: How many special advisers he has appointed; and what their official duties are. [126338]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I have two special advisers and one unpaid special adviser. They advise on the development of Government policy and its effective presentation.
  Mr. Brady: When it took the Secretary of State a little while to respond, I thought that that might have been because he was trying to think of something for his advisers to do so that he could answer my question. Given that his Department is no longer a policy-making Department, what possible purpose could there be to his having three special advisers to advise him on policy?
  Dr. Reid: The hon. Gentleman should recognise that my Department contributes towards the decision-making process in Cabinet Committees. We have the not unimportant job of helping to transform the governance of the United Kingdom by establishing a relationship between the two Parliaments. If we were to judge expenses and what is paid out only on the basis of what decisions are made, it would be astonishing to find out that the Short money that goes to the Conservative party has been tripled to more than £3 million to allow it to increase its policy and presentational staffs. The House may think that that money has not been well spent, and to spend that sort of money on a group of politicians who decide nothing, influence nothing and contribute nothing raises a far bigger question than the one about my special advisers.
  Mr. Dominic Grieve (Beaconsfield): The Secretary of State will be aware that his departmental budget has gone up by 7 per cent. more than inflation in the past year and that it now stands at about £14 million. He has mentioned his special advisers, but he has not specified whether they advise him or people who are unable to answer parliamentary questions. Is not the number of the Secretary of State's special advisers disproportionate to what his Department does, given the fact that all his Executive functions have been given away?
  Dr. Reid: We have given the Conservative party an extra £3 million for researchers, and it cannot even add up. My Department's budget is nothing like £14 million. The budget, as the hon. Gentleman is probably being advised by his unpaid adviser, the hon. Member for South Staffordshire (Sir P. Cormack), is about £5.8 million. That is to be compared with the budget which we are involved in negotiating with the Scottish Executive of between £16,000 million and £17,000 million.
  I have two advisers and the Government have 79. We are told by the Opposition that these advisers will swamp 460,000 civil servants. Our advisers amount to 0.0001 per cent. of the entire civil service. I think that the hon. Gentleman can sleep easy in his bed at night.
  Mr. Grieve: The Secretary of State's reply is entirely unsatisfactory. He has still not explained what he uses his special advisers for. His comments about Short money are peculiarly specious. Is it not the reality that his

  703
  Department has turned into the first propaganda ministry that the Government have yet put together? The only purpose of his Department is to put out knocking copy against its opponents and beef up Labour Back-Bench Members when their morale slumps.
  Dr. Reid: This is all very churlish. First, my Department does not put out any party political propaganda, any more than any other civil servants under any Government put out such propaganda, as the hon. Gentleman will know.
  Secondly, in the context of the presentation and development of Government policy,
  We believe that special advisers have a valuable role to play, precisely because they are free to act and advise in a way that a politically impartial civil service cannot.
  Those are the words used by Lord Neill in his report, when he considered these matters. To say that there is no role for special advisers or that 0.0001 per cent. of the civil service will dominate the rest of it is surely, even for the present Conservative party, raising nothing other than political propaganda.

  Economy
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): What recent discussions he has had with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and the Scottish Executive concerning the current economic environment for businesses in Scotland. [126339]
  The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. Brian Wilson): My right hon. Friend has regular contact with the Chancellor of the Exchequer and with Scottish Executive Ministers to discuss a wide range of matters.
  Mr. Morgan: Specifically in relation to the effect of the climate change levy on small businesses, the Government have set aside about £150 million to assist such firms. What specific steps has the Minister taken in Scotland to ensure that the take-up among small firms is a fair one and that such firms are aware of the existence of this money?
  Mr. Wilson: It is clear from the wide range of correspondence that the climate change levy has engendered that there is a high level of awareness of it within business. I would welcome any suggestions from the hon. Gentleman or from any other quarter of what we could do more specifically in Scotland to ensure that awareness is heightened.
  Mr. David Marshall (Glasgow, Shettleston): I give a warm welcome to the Glasgow employment zone, which the Minister launched recently. How will the initiative benefit both business and employment in Glasgow?
  Mr. Wilson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Glasgow employment zone is important. It is one of a few zones that have been designated throughout the United Kingdom that contain an increased battery of measures, greater flexibility and additional resources. They are designed to try to crack the tough core of long-term employment. The scheme fully involves employers, who have backed it enthusiastically. It is much
  704
  in the spirit of the new deal, where the maximum resources are provided and the maximum personal needs of the individual are met, to get them back into the labour market. The more that people know about what is available within the employment zone, the better. I pay tribute to the work that the Employment Service and others have done in putting it together.
  Sir Robert Smith: In his
  discussions with the Chancellor of the Exchequer, is the Secretary of State making sure that the concerns that I heard at the royal highland show from both farmers and those in the food processing industry about the delay in getting into the euro and preparing for it are being fully reflected, together with the Scottish economy's dependence on agriculture and on trade with Europe?
  Secondly, will the Minister ensure that the Chancellor is fully aware that the issue is not only a relationship with the euro, and that he should ignore the calls from the Conservative party to pay no heed to the relationship with the dollar? Dollar investment in the oil industry is crucial not only to the economy of the north-east of Scotland, but to the whole of Scotland and the United Kingdom.
  Mr. Wilson: I am pleased to hear a Liberal Democrat acknowledge the dollar's importance—that is a major statement. The Government are committed to Britain entering the euro; we have set five tests and when they are met, we shall put the issue to the British people. That is the proper way in which to proceed. There is a world of difference between us and the Tories: we recognise the importance of the euro to Britain and vice versa. However, the timing and the conditions must be right—we shall not compromise on that.
  Mr. Martin O'Neill (Ochil): When making representations to Brussels about adjustments to the assisted area map, will my hon. Friend take into account that the settlement previously offered for Clackmannanshire, which is part of my Ochil seat, contained an error tantamount to a slip of the pen, whereby the Sauchie-Carsebridge area was denied access to financial support, which could have serious implications for attracting new employment to the area? Will he ensure that that matter is drawn to the attention of Commission officials?
  Mr. Wilson: We have done everything possible to secure the most effective conceivable result for Scotland on the basis of the population allocation and the rules set by the European Union. It simply is not possible to go around Scotland, the UK or any other EU member state cherry-picking every area that has investment potential or unemployment black spots; there has to be contiguity between the selected areas and their populations. Because of that difficulty, our original map was not accepted by Brussels. We have done our best to get the optimum result for Clackmannanshire and every other part of Scotland. I am afraid that that is the only reassurance I can give my hon. Friend.
  Sir Patrick Cormack: How many times in the past six months has the Secretary of State met the Chancellor of the Exchequer? When he goes to such meetings, does he take with him the First Minister—to whom we all send warm good wishes for a

  705
  proper recovery—and, if so, who argues for what? What particular things does the Secretary of State argue for that the First Minister cannot argue for?
  Mr. Wilson: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that meetings take place bilaterally, unilaterally, multilaterally, and every other way, so he can rest easy that there is a sufficiency of meetings with the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The purpose of our meetings with the Chancellor and other ministerial colleagues is to ensure the best possible deal for Scotland—especially in those matters that account for 50 per cent. of all public expenditure in Scotland and are still funded from Whitehall Departments—and to ensure that the Scottish Parliament and Executive are properly funded for the other 50 per cent. of public expenditure in Scotland. In other words, our lives are committed to getting Scotland the best possible deal under a Labour Government.
  Ms Rachel Squire: Does my hon. Friend agree that the recent order for 22 Mega-3 rail freight wagons for Rosyth dockyard is an example of the Government's economic policies and defence diversification policies securing jobs in an area that was devastated by the previous Government? Does he also agree that the greatest risk to the economic regeneration of Rosyth and other parts of Scotland would be the return of a Tory Government and a Scottish National party-style divorce?
  Mr. Wilson: I strongly agree with my hon. Friend. I pay tribute to her for the assiduous interest she has taken in this matter, which has yielded excellent results for her constituents, and for her general work in making Rosyth's future look brighter than it did a few years ago under the previous Administration. I can assure her that every job in Scotland is fought for: we fight to defend jobs and to create them. That the unemployment rate is now less than 5 per cent. for the first time since the mid-1970s provides a pretty reasonable testimony to our efforts.

  NHS Policy Co-ordination
  Mr. Ian Bruce: What role he is playing in co-ordinating NHS policies between the NHS in England and the NHS in Scotland. [126340]
  The Secretary of State for Scotland (Dr. John Reid): I am a member of the joint ministerial committee on health, which enables best practice to be shared across the United Kingdom. I also ensure that there is effective liaison between UK Departments and the Scottish Executive.
  Mr. Bruce: I thank the Secretary of State for that answer. May I bring a particular case to his attention? I had discussions with the agency in the NHS in England that is trying to achieve consistency in information technology and standards across the board, so that patients' records can be transferred between general practitioners and hospitals. The problem is that the NHS in Scotland is doing its own thing. Will the right hon. Gentleman look into that and into the auditing of doctors and nurses, to make sure that the medical services in
  706
  England and Scotland have access to each other's records, and that we do not have three separate services in Wales, England and Scotland?
  Dr. Reid: The whole purpose of devolution is to allow more sensitivity and more efficient government in local areas. There are common purposes and objectives before the British Government and the Scottish Executive, and it is important that we come together to co-ordinate areas in which we gain strength from unity of purpose and practice, through the joint ministerial committee chaired by the Prime Minister. I do not know about the specific issue raised by the hon. Gentleman, which will be the responsibility of the Scottish Executive, but we have an extremely able and effective Scottish Health Minister in Susan Deacon. If the hon. Gentleman writes to me on the matter, I will raise it with the Scottish Health Minister, and I am sure that she will give it her attention.

  The Advocate-General was asked—

  Human Rights
  Mr. Desmond Browne (Kilmarnock and Loudoun): If she has been consulted about the proposal to set up a commission for human rights in Scotland; and if she will make a statement. [126361]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The Deputy First Minister and Minister for Justice announced on 7 June that the Scottish Executive would publish a consultation paper in the autumn and that, following the consultation, a decision would be reached in due course, possibly next year. I will consider in due course whether to make formal representations in the consultation process.
  Mr. Browne: The incorporation of the European convention on human rights into the domestic law of the United Kingdom may in the long term be the most significant and radical constitutional change that the Government have made. In the short term, however, the Scottish experience shows that although there have been a number of very important cases, a plethora of ill-founded and spurious cases has been taken before the courts on the basis of the convention. Does not that suggest that we should await the incorporation of the convention in October and let it settle down, before putting in place the institutions that we need to enforce it?
  The Advocate-General: My hon. Friend makes an interesting point. Decisions about such sensitive matters should not be taken in haste. The consultation that the Scottish Executive is carrying out will no doubt have time to consider alternative models for scrutiny and enforcement of convention rights, taking into account, for example, existing constitutional arrangements, statutory bodies and the best use of limited financial resources.
  Mr. Menzies Campbell: But may we take it that the Advocate-General will press hard for the establishment of a commission to deal with human rights matters in Scotland, and in particular to ensure that that

  707
  commission extends to political parties? How else are we to ensure that the treasurer of the Scottish National party is not the subject of a motion of no confidence moved in his absence?
  The Advocate-General: I am sure that the right hon. and learned Gentleman will press on behalf of his party for whatever policy he considers most appropriate. For my part, I will wait until I see the consultation paper, then I will make representations, if appropriate, taking into account the United Kingdom position.
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent advice she has given on the implications of the incorporation of the European convention on human rights into United Kingdom law on the number of cases brought before (a) the High Court and (b) the Court of Session; and if she will make a statement. [126362]
  The Advocate-General for Scotland (Dr. Lynda Clark): The incorporation of convention rights into Scots law following devolution has resulted so far in about 700 devolution issues being raised under the Scotland Act 1998. To date, the vast majority have arisen in the context of criminal trials.
  Miss McIntosh: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Lady for that answer. Has she given advice concerning the number of cases and the extra number of sittings that will be required? In England, it is estimated that the number of judicial review applications alone will double to 2,800, and that the number of sitting days in the High Court and Court of Appeal will lead to an annual increase in costs of £60 million. Has the hon. and learned Lady made a similar assessment of the costs in Scotland? How will she find the money to cover the additional costs?
  The Advocate-General: The hon. Lady will remember that my role is to advise the UK Government. Obviously, the Scottish Executive have their own officers to advise them about such matters. I have certainly kept UK Government Departments well informed about the types and numbers of cases and some of the implications of experience in Scotland.

  LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT
  The Parliamentary Secretary was asked—

  Judicial Training
  Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What plans he has for further in-service training on sentencing for judges. [126365]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): Judicial training is the responsibility of the Judicial Studies Board. All circuit judges and recorders receive in-service training from the board at three-yearly intervals and locally based training
  708
  each year. All these seminars include sessions on sentencing. Specialist courses are also held for judges who try cases involving fraud or serious sexual offences.
  Mr. Davies: Given the profound and far-reaching impact of the Human Rights Act 1998, what plans has my hon. Friend for training judges in the pending implementation of the Act in October?
  Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising that point. It is an important issue. The Judicial Studies Board has organised a programme of 54 one-day seminars on the Human Rights Act and the European Convention on Human Rights for all full-time and part-time judges in England and Wales. The programme will have been completed by the end of July, well in time before incorporation takes effect in October. Thereafter, human rights issues will be incorporated into the board's core training for judges and form part of their core training from then on.
  Mr. Nick Hawkins (Surrey Heath): Will this in-service training incorporate the more senior members of the judiciary? Following the embarrassment of Lord Hoffmann over the collapse of the original Pinochet case because of his involvement with a charity, followed by the further embarrassment of the Minister's right hon. and noble Friend last week on another charitable matter, is it any wonder that many people are asking in relation to so many of the current Government's friends in another place "Who do these people think they are?"
  Mr. Lock: It is disgraceful for hon. Members to impugn the independence of the judiciary and to cast aspersions on the very good work that its members do. As far as I am aware, there is no suggestion that the rules on disclosure of interests have anything to do with the European convention on human rights. The hon. Gentleman's attempted link is entirely spurious.

  Magistrates
  Mr. Phil Sawford (Kettering): What steps she is taking to encourage greater openness and transparency in the appointment of magistrates. [126366]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): The process is open and transparent. My noble Friend the Lord Chancellor revised the directions to which his local advisory committees work in 1998, in order to establish a national unified system for recruiting magistrates. A copy of the directions is in the Library. The local committees actively seek to encourage applications from all parts of the community by using a range of methods, including advertisements in local newspapers, leaflet drops and local radio and television programmes.
  Mr. Sawford: I thank my hon. Friend for that answer. I welcome all the efforts that are being made to encourage greater openness and transparency, but I fear that in all too many cases there is still a shroud of secrecy over the appointment process through the advisory committees. Will my hon. Friend consider more steps to encourage

  709
  greater openness, not only in that appointments process, but in the manner in which the advisory committees are appointed in the first place?
  Jane Kennedy: I hear the point that my hon. Friend makes, but I repeat that we believe that the process is open and transparent. That is not to say that my noble Friend does not make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the communities from which they are drawn. It might be helpful to the House and to my hon. Friend to know that the Northamptonshire advisory committee, which covers the area of my hon. Friend's constituency, has recently undertaken a number of activities to encourage recruitment and raise the profile of the magistracy. While my hon. Friend raises fair concerns and makes legitimate comments, we make every effort to ensure that the benches reflect the community.
  Mr. James Gray: We of course welcome as broad a variety of people as possible on the bench, but does the Minister agree that it is important for the best calibre of people to become magistrates, and that the sort of tokenism she described is wrong? We should not appoint people because they are women or because they are black. We must have the best calibre of people, irrespective of who they are.
  Jane Kennedy: I find some comments that are made from time to time about the lay magistracy disappointing. The Lord Chancellor defined the personal qualities that an individual must possess to be suitable for appointment as a magistrate as: good character, understanding and communication, social awareness, maturity and sound temperament, sound judgment, commitment and reliability. Candidates for the bench are drawn from people who have all those qualities. However, it is fair to say that every effort should continue to be made to find more candidates who are women, and more candidates from ethnic communities, to be sure that the benches reflect the communities that they are there to serve.

  Judicial Appointments
  Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): If he will make a statement on revisions proposed by the Lord Chancellor to the system for judicial appointments. [126368]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Mr. David Lock): The Lord Chancellor keeps judicial appointments procedures continuously under review. Last year, he asked Sir Leonard Peach to conduct a scrutiny of the procedures, and he is now acting on Sir Leonard's recommendations.
  Tony Wright: How embarrassed is my hon. Friend by the report that was recently published? It was commissioned by the Lord Chancellor's Department and shows that most lawyers would like an independent appointments commission. We know that the Lord Chancellor likes appointing judges—that is reasonable; it is an agreeable occupation—but everybody else, probably including my hon. Friend, believes that an independent
  710
  commission should do it. Instead of endlessly peachifying the system to preserve it, why do we not simply get on with the job of changing it?
  Mr. Lock: I assure my hon. Friend, who remains my hon. Friend, that I am not embarrassed at all. He has misunderstood the point. Press reports were about research into the factors that affect decisions to apply for judicial appointments and silk. The reports were unbalanced because they revealed respondents' perceptions of the system, but did not analyse the extent to which the system worked, or the factors that worked within the system. There is a difference between how the system is perceived from outside—I accept that it is important for the Government to know that—and its perception inside, which is the subject of the detailed report by Sir Leonard Peach. That will lead to the appointment of a commissioner for judicial appointments for England and Wales later this year. The two perceptions are entirely separate.
  Mr. Peter Lilley (Hitchin and Harpenden): Does the Minister accept that, now that judges must interpret the European convention on human rights, they increasingly have to make political decisions about political policies, which were previously made by elected politicians in this place, and to seek a political balance between different rights? In those circumstances, does the Minister acknowledge that the judiciary is in danger of being politicised, that the selection of judges will be considered from a political point of view, and that in most other countries, such as the United States, those appointments become political as the result of such deplorable moves?
  Mr. Lock: I am very disappointed that the right hon. Gentleman believes that giving rights to the British public is a deplorable move. Our judges' decisions under the Human Rights Act 1998 when the European convention comes into force will be no more political than they were when there were judicial reviews of the previous Government's decisions, for example, in the Pergau dam case. It is important that judges judge according to the law and that their appointment and work be entirely impartial.

  Magistrates
  Angela Smith (Basildon): What recent evaluation she has made of the social class of magistrates. [126370]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department (Jane Kennedy): Each local advisory committee tries to ensure that the bench reflects the political affiliation and occupational diversity of the local area. Those conditions are currently used as a proxy for social balance, although a viable alternative is being sought. Returns are made to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor every year in respect of each bench.
  Angela Smith: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for that answer and her recognition that we need people from all backgrounds to give the magistracy legitimacy. However, does my hon. Friend agree that one of the most important factors that deters people from applying is the inability to get time off work? Many people in professions or managerial positions can get time off work, but those in manual work or lower down in their place of work cannot

  711
  easily get time off. That is a major hindrance to applying. Will my hon. Friend consider that matter and meet some of the larger employers to discuss it?
  Jane Kennedy: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for raising the issue, as she regularly does, and for the opportunity to address it once more. We recognise the voluntary nature of magistrates' work and appreciate the commitment that they give to the service. We are committed to the concept of voluntary service but, as my hon. Friend rightly says, without the co-operation of employers, we cannot achieve the balance on the benches which, we all know, benefits everybody.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Will the hon. Lady confirm that quotas, targets and the pursuit of an antediluvian class war should have no role whatsoever to play in the appointment of magistrates, and that the only criterion for such appointments should be merit?
  Jane Kennedy: As I have already said, these days, the use of political balance to introduce proper social balance on benches is regarded as a stereotype that no longer holds true. If we look at the results of the 1997 election, we also have to look seriously at other criteria and we are seeking to do that. Unnecessarily dismissive comments about the need to ensure balance on the benches do not give credit to the work of magistrates, who deliver an excellent service throughout the country and deal with 97 per cent. of criminal cases in their courts.
  Mr. Dennis Skinner (Bolsover): Why not start writing the manifesto for the next election? Why not be ultra-modern and democratic and elect magistrates and judges?
  Jane Kennedy: My hon. Friend, as ever, comes up with a novel solution, which I shall consider carefully. However, we have procedures in place that will address some of the problems that he raises.
  Mr. Robert Maclennan (Caithness, Sutherland and Easter Ross): In the light of experience in Scotland following the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, are the Government satisfied that it is still appropriate for political appointments of judges to be made in England?
  Jane Kennedy: We are dealing with the appointments of magistrates, which are made after local advisory committees undertake an assessment of candidates and make recommendations to my noble Friend the Lord Chancellor.

  Salaried Defence Service
  Mr. David Borrow: What progress the Government are making towards setting up a scheme for a salaried defence service. [126371]
  Mr. Lock: The Government and the Legal Services Commission intend to establish the criminal defence service on 1 April 2001. On 13 June this year, we published consultation papers on establishing a salaried
  712
  defence service within the criminal defence service and on its clients' choice of representative. Responses are due by 22 September this year.
  Mr. Borrow: I welcome my hon. Friend's reply and the progress that has been made in instigating a salaried defence service. What plans does my hon. Friend have to monitor the operation of the defence service once it is up and running, thus ensuring that the good idea that lies behind it is carried out in practice?
  Mr. Lock: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. There are likely to be only six pilot salaried defence services out of a total of about 3,500 firms of solicitors in the criminal defence service, so we must keep the matter in context. The salaried defence service will be an independent stand-alone service within the Legal Services Commission, and there will be a research project following the establishment of the pilots to check that we can learn the lessons and ensure that we get the right quality and value for money from services provided by lawyers employed on salaries.
  Mr. John Burnett: During the progress of the Access to Justice Act 1999, we opposed the introduction of state defenders. How do the Government propose to overcome the inherent conflicts of interest that occur when the state acts both as prosecutor and defender?
  Mr. Lock: That conflict arises in every case in which state funds are used both to prosecute and defend. Whether the lawyer is a salaried lawyer or receives a fee for the case, the paymaster remains the same. Independence is a matter of professional standards, attitude of mind and an impartial approach to the job that the defender has to do. It is not a question of whether the lawyer receives a fee or a salary cheque.
  Mr. Edward Leigh (Gainsborough): We are still waiting for costing of the service: perhaps the Minister would share that information with us.
  May I caution the Minister about the salaried defender scheme, which operates in many American states, such as Texas, and often results in a second-rate service for defendants? Mr. Gary Graham, who was executed last week, was provided with such a salaried defender by the state. He was convicted after a two-day trial on the evidence of just one witness, and many doubts were raised about whether his defence was satisfactory. In fact, it was utterly inept. May I therefore caution the Minister and ask him to insist that defendants get a first-rate defence service?
  Mr. Lock: I entirely understand the hon. Gentleman's point, but poor quality defence services exist in many parts of the world and their quality is totally independent of whether they are salaried or paid by a fee per case. The issue is whether there is proper remuneration for lawyers and proper quality systems. We will monitor the quality of services under the pilots, but we will not accept any special pleading on behalf of existing private practice solicitors or barristers which would prevent us from finding out what benefits can be obtained from a mixed system.

  HOUSE OF COMMONS
  The President of the Council was asked—

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. Geraint Davies (Croydon, Central): What plans the Government have to present proposals to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on making parliamentary adjournments coincide with school holidays. [126380]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The business managers already take school holidays into account when arranging adjournments. Unfortunately, there is at present no common and consistent pattern of school holidays.
  Mr. Davies: Will my right hon. Friend consider proposals to bring forward the summer recess, which is very long, so that, in nearly every case, it would embrace the full school summer holiday? Furthermore, the October half-term holiday could then coincide with a recess. That would entail changing the timetable of party conferences, but I am sure that that could be easily accommodated.
  Mrs. Beckett: I understand my hon. Friend's concerns, as I am sure the whole House does. I have noticed, over the years, an increasing interest in having a different and more certain pattern for the parliamentary calendar, and I understand those pressures. I have to warn my hon. Friend that although he says that it would be comparatively easy to change the timetable of the party conferences, most are arranged a good number of years in advance, so I fear that it might not be as simple as he thinks.
  Mr. Paul Tyler: Can the President of the Council confirm that the Modernisation Committee is seeking to obtain greater certainty for the parliamentary year, which would obviously help the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies)? Will the right hon. Lady also comment on the spate of leaks over the past few days not only on this subject but on others before the Committee? Can she confirm that it is her intention, and that of the Committee, to publish a report before the summer recess?
  Mrs. Beckett: The hon. Gentleman is right to identify the sensitivity about matters being publicised which are under consideration by the Select Committee, although the Committee is in a slightly unusual position, in that its discussions affect the House as a whole. The hon. Gentleman is certainly correct to say that the Committee, as its earlier published reports show, is seeking and has consistently sought to obtain greater certainty. It is mindful of the fact that some Parliaments, albeit ones with traditions and responsibilities different from ours, have a fixed calendar. I hope that I will not be thought to be contravening the convention that governs the work of Select Committees if I say that it is certainly my strong hope that the Committee will publish a report, which I hope hon. Members will agree with, before the summer recess.
  Fiona Mactaggart (Slough): What would the Minister think of a school that published its intended terms and
  714
  said, "But if we haven't finished the A-level syllabus by 29 July, we will go on to 3 August"? That is, to some degree, the way in which we operate in this place. Could the Minister and her Committee put a very high priority on future certainty? I am not arguing for particular times; I am arguing for knowing where I will be on what day next year.
  Mrs. Beckett: I sympathise with my hon. Friend and I know that greater certainty would especially assist the staff of the House in planning their work. As to what I would think of a school that was unable to give greater certainty, I might wonder whether it was full of rather unruly pupils.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): Has the right hon. Lady received any request from the hon. Members for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies) or for Slough (Fiona Mactaggart), or from any other hon. Member who believes that parliamentary adjournments should coincide with school holidays, that the House should sit for as many weeks a year as schools work?
  Mrs. Beckett: Indeed I have received such representations, and I am grateful to learn that the hon. Gentleman would be in favour of that suggestion.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich): Would my right hon. Friend like to tell me exactly which half of her legislative programme she is thinking of abandoning to make it easier for us to have longer holidays?
  Mrs. Beckett: My hon. Friend will not be surprised to learn that I do not propose to abandon any of the legislative programme.

  House Sittings
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: What proposals she has for changes to the times when the House sits. [126381]
  The Parliamentary Secretary, Privy Council Office (Mr. Paddy Tipping): The Modernisation Committee is to review the experiment with Thursday sittings later this Session and other parts of its work may have some impact on sitting hours, but I have no other proposals for change at present.
  Mr. Swayne: Has it occurred to the hon. Gentleman that, with the current pace of European integration and our giving away so many of our powers to other European institutions, we might avoid the inconvenience of having to sit at all?
  Mr. Tipping: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will note that there are lengthy debates whenever European matters are discussed, such are the divisions in his own party.
  Mr. Peter L. Pike (Burnley): Does my hon. Friend think that a considerable change in the hours of the House could be made if, instead of having Divisions after half-past 10 at night, we were to roll them over to the

  715
  following day? Would not those Opposition Members who make us sit ridiculous hours then soon lose their interest in democracy and debate?
  Mr. Tipping: I understand the point that my hon. Friend makes. I simply say that there was a Division last Wednesday at 1.12 in the morning. My hon. Friend was there, together with 177 other Labour Members of Parliament, but only 18 Conservatives.
  Sir George Young: Following the helpful question from the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody), can the Minister give an assurance that he will not support any proposal to reduce the sittings of the House that would compromise its duty to scrutinise Government legislation?
  Mr. Tipping: That is a strong point, and part of the responsibility lies with the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues. Some Opposition Members believe that scrutiny should occur in the other place; the real and effective place for scrutiny is in this House.
  The hon. Member for Roxburgh and Berwickshire, representing the House of Commons Commission, was asked—

  Visitors
  Angela Smith (Basildon): If the Commission will make additional facilities available to visitors to the House for the current year. [126382]
  Mr. Archy Kirkwood (on behalf of the House of Commons Commission): Additional attractions and facilities for visitors this year include the reopening of the Line of Route, on a trial basis, for pre-booked guided tours on Mondays to Saturdays from 7 August to 16 September, as well as free admission to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition in Westminster Hall during the same period. A souvenir shop offering merchandise from both Houses and temporary lavatories are also being provided. In 2001, work should begin on establishing the new Westminster Hall visitors centre.
  Angela Smith: I thank the hon. Gentleman for that reply, but is he not aware that it is difficult for visitors to the House of Commons to go to the toilet or even get a cup of tea? I welcome the fact that the tours were advertised in the national press this weekend and this week, but will not visitors be disappointed with the facilities that we provide for them? Cannot we do better than temporary toilets?
  Mr. Kirkwood: The point is well made. The Commission is well aware of the inadequacy of the current facilities, and they will change next year when the Westminster Hall cafeteria and visitors centre are properly developed. There may be difficulties, but the House took the view that the new trial basis of taking tours on the Line of Route and into Westminster Hall, giving people access to the "Voters of the Future" exhibition, which is part of the "String of Pearls" millennium festival across
  716
  London, was the sensible thing to do. Later in the year, the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association will use Westminster Hall, immediately after the exhibition ends.
  Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown (Cotswold): May I suggest that one of the aspects that is a disgrace in the House is that the only place we can meet our constituents is either in a corridor or at a table outside a Committee Room? There should be proper facilities in this place where one can have a confidential meeting with one's constituents. I hope that the House of Commons Commission will be able to consider that.
  Mr. Kirkwood: Strictly speaking, any new facilities with a catering or refreshment aspect are technically the responsibility of the Catering Committee, so I would refer the hon. Gentleman to the hon. Member for Wolverhampton, South-East (Mr. Turner). However, when Portcullis house comes on stream, Members will see a noticeable difference. They will be able to take people into some parts of Portcullis house. When the new Westminster Hall visitors centre opens—I hope as soon as possible after the work starts in 2001—I think that Members and visitors will be better provided for.
  The President of the Council was asked—

  "Shifting the Balance"
  Miss Anne McIntosh: What recent representations she has received on the first report from the Liaison Committee, "Shifting the Balance" (HC300); and if she will make a statement. [126383]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): A number of Members have made informal representations to me, or raised the issue at Question Time. The Government response to the report was published on 18 May.
  Miss McIntosh: Will the President of the Council and Leader of the House allow a debate in Government time on the issues raised in the report, which concern many of us who are members of important Select Committees such as that led by the hon. Member for Crewe and Nantwich (Mrs. Dunwoody): the Transport Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on the Environment, Transport and Regional Affairs? Will it be possible to have such a debate before the end of term, so that we can consider a structure alternative to the present one and give the Select Committees the real teeth that many of us believe they should have?
  Mrs. Beckett: Of course that is a matter that should be discussed by the House. The hon. Lady may know that the Liaison Committee has invited me to give evidence to it, which I am very prepared to do. I had assumed that the Committee would prefer its debate to take place after that date. I cannot undertake to be confident of finding time

  717
  before the summer recess—if that is what she means—but I anticipate and hope that the matter will be discussed before the current Session ends.
  Mrs. Gwyneth Dunwoody (Crewe and Nantwich)rose—
  Hon. Members: Hear, hear!
  Mrs. Dunwoody: As if I do not have enough trouble.
  My right hon. Friend will be aware that the report is the distillation of a lot of experience of all the Select Committee Chairmen. It is a serious report; I know that she accepts that. I hope that the House will have the chance to look at it because, if we are looking at modernisation, that is the way to go. We can produce some real scrutiny of legislation. It is something that should be supported by every Member.
  Mrs. Beckett: I share my hon. Friend's view that the report is weighty and has considerable implications for every Member. I also share her view that it should therefore be taken seriously by the House. I hope that that will happen in and before the debate to which she refers.

  Modernisation
  Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): If she will make a statement on her future proposals for the modernisation of the House. [126384]
  The President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons (Mrs. Margaret Beckett): The Select Committee on the Modernisation of the House of Commons is examining some further proposals whose consideration flows directly from recommendations and experiments resulting from our earlier reports.
  Tony Wright: I thank my right hon. Friend for that answer. Does she agree that two important questions to
  718
  ask about the modernising programme are: has it strengthened Parliament in relation to the Executive; and has it done something to sort out the ludicrous hours when the House is expected to transact business? Has not progress on both those issues been disappointingly meagre so far; and will not the extent to which the current Parliament comes to be seen as a modernising Parliament be decided by the actions that the Government and the House take over the period ahead?
  Mrs. Beckett: I know that, sadly, my hon. Friend was not able to be with us when we discussed the two principal experiments that have flowed from earlier reports of the Select Committee—the experiments with regard to hours and, to some extent, with regard to greater scrutiny. I am referring to the changed sitting hours with which we are experimenting on Thursdays and to the setting up of the parallel Chamber in Westminster Hall, which has provided 200 extra opportunities to scrutinise the Executive, including examination of Select Committee reports. I am sorry to hear him say that he thinks that that is meagre. It is, after all, more than most Governments have ever done.
  Mr. Michael Fabricant (Lichfield): In answer to the hon. Member for Croydon, Central (Mr. Davies), the right hon. Lady said that she had received a number of representations from her hon. Friends that we should adopt holidays similar to those of schools. I wonder whether any of those representations also concerned hours and suggested that perhaps we should only sit from 9 am till 3.30 pm.
  Mrs. Beckett: I have received no representations suggesting those hours. However, I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken in the notion that all representations about the pattern of holidays and whether they should reflect school holidays come from this side of the House. They come from Opposition Members too.

  Vaccine Damage Payments
  3.30 pm
  The Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Alistair Darling): With permission Madam Speaker, I would like to make a short statement on benefits payable under the vaccine damage payment scheme.
  The Vaccine Damage Payment Act was introduced by the last Labour Government in 1979 in response to the Pearson commission on civil liability and compensation for personal injury.
  The purpose of the vaccine damage payment scheme is to provide a single tax-free payment for people who, on the balance of probabilities, have suffered severe mental or physical disablement of 80 per cent. or more as a result of vaccination against specified diseases.
  The scheme aims to ease the present and future burdens of those suffering from vaccine damage and their families. It is designed to recognise the extra costs falling on the families concerned.
  Under the scheme, claims have to be made within six years of the date of vaccination or of a child reaching two years of age, whichever is later. Payment was initially made at a rate of £10,000. It was subsequently raised to £20,000 in 1985 and to £30,000 in 1991. In 1998, the present Government decided to raise it further to £40,000 for claims made on or after 1 July of that year. Also in 1998, my right hon. Friend Baroness Hollis announced in another place that a review of the scheme would be undertaken. Today I am announcing the outcome of that review.
  First, I have decided that the six-year limit for making claims is too short in respect of young children, who account for the vast majority of claims. I propose to change this limit in line with Law Commission proposals which would have the effect of enabling claims to be made at any time up to age 21.
  Secondly, I have decided that the disability threshold, which at present is 80 per cent. is too high. I therefore propose to reduce it to 60 per cent. The changes both to the time limit and to the threshold require primary legislation. We shall legislate at the earliest available opportunity. I have also reviewed how vaccine damage victims should be supported through the social security system.
  People disabled from an early age at present qualify for severe disablement allowance. This will, of course, include recipients of vaccine damage payments. From next April, as a result of measures introduced in last year's Welfare Reform and Pensions Act, younger disabled people will be able to claim incapacity benefit without having to satisfy the normal national insurance contribution conditions. That will mean that they will be able to claim up to an extra £26.70 a week.
  People with severe mobility difficulties or care needs also qualify for disability living allowance. From next year the Government have also extended help to disabled three and four-year-olds with higher-rate mobility needs. That will again include young children receiving vaccine damage payments. They will be able to claim £37 a week.
  I have also considered the lump sum which is payable under the scheme. The Government recognise that caring for people who have suffered damage puts a considerable
  720
  burden on their families and carers. In 1998, the Government raised the sum from £30,000 to £40,000. That sum is too low, so I propose that the sum payable to each individual should be raised to £100,000 for all new cases.
  However, we must also recognise the situation of families who received lump-sum payments in the past who have not benefited from any of the previous increases. So I can announce that those who have already received lump sums will get top-up payments so that they are put on an equal footing in real terms with new claimants. These payments for the 900 existing recipients will range from £58,000 to £67,000. We will introduce regulations to make these payments as soon as possible. The cost of my proposals is around £60 million.
  Nothing can make up for what has happened to these children, but we have a clear duty to support them and their families. I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the House will welcome the changes.
  Mr. David Willetts (Havant): Hon. Members on both sides of the House do, indeed, welcome the changes, and I pay tribute to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) who has led the all-party campaign on the issue. I also pay tribute to Olivia Price, the chairman of the Vaccine Victims Support Group, who is coming tomorrow to lobby Parliament on the issue, for the fourth time since 1997. The Opposition welcome the statement and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Brentwood and Ongar (Mr. Pickles) has already made clear, we recognise the need for a generous and sensible settlement for the grievance.
  I have one question for the Secretary of State about his proposals. We have read that he has been involved in negotiations with the pharmaceutical industry about the possibility of its contributing to such a scheme, as happens in some other countries. The right hon. Gentleman made no mention of the pharmaceutical industry in his statement, and it would be interesting to know how those discussions proceeded.
  The hon. Member for Eccles rightly observed in a previous debate on this subject that
  good policy is not made on the hoof, but this one has been around the paddock far too many times.—[Official Report, Westminster Hall, 6 June 2000; Vol. 351, c. 1 WH.]
  That is certainly true of this announcement. In December 1998, the then Minister of State said that the Government hoped
  to conclude our review early in the new year.—[Official Report, 2 December 1998; Vol. 321, c. 817.]
  That would have been early in 1999. We were told by the Minister in the Lords that an announcement would be made "as soon as possible."
  Now we are told by the Secretary of State—[Interruption.] I shall remind the House of this, because it is very important. The Secretary of State now says that he will legislate at the earliest available opportunity. I make it clear to the Secretary of the State—and the Leader of the House and the Chief Whip, who are in their places—that we will co-operate in legislation at the earliest available opportunity and if he tables a simple Bill to amend the Vaccine Damage Payment Act 1979, which is a simple Act that should not be complicated to administer, we will ensure that it has full and fair passage

  721
  through the House. The challenge to the Secretary of State, after so much delay and so many promised reviews, is whether he will legislate before the next election.
  Mr. Darling: When we consider the children with whom we are dealing, I do not think that the issue should be the stuff of knockabout politics.
  The hon. Gentleman asked me one question of substance, the answer to which in part explains why the results of the review have been announced today. We did approach the pharmaceutical industry to see whether it would co-operate in part-funding a trust to be set up to make payments to the children affected by vaccine damage. The response from the industry was not enthusiastic and it struck me that it would take several years to resolve the matter. I felt that, rather than wait for discussions that might take months or years, it would be better for the Government to act to improve the vaccine damage payment scheme.
  I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his welcome for the scheme. It was good of him to give it. Arguably, the children concerned have been waiting for 20 years for this statement. I believe that the Government are doing the right thing, and I hope that when we introduce legislation we will receive co-operation from Opposition Members on both Front and Back Benches.
  Mr. Ian Stewart (Eccles): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on his statement today. He has a record of being able to take hard decisions, but when we spoke to him and to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Health recently, I pointed out to them that the hardest decision in the whole matter was the decision that the parents had to take when they chose to have a child born without impairment vaccinated. The first thing that we must say is that the vaccine programme has been a great success. It has reduced the number of cases from several thousand in 1979 to a handful a year now. We must say loudly and clearly to the public that the vaccine programme works—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I realise that the hon. Gentleman has done a great deal in this campaign, but I must remind him that he is not speaking in an Adjournment debate at the moment; he is putting questions. There are other Members who want to ask questions, so I hope that he will put his question right away.
  Mr. Stewart: Thank you, Madam Speaker.
  Will the Secretary of State join me in acknowledging that his statement today will be welcomed by the parents groups and the families? This is not just about the individual who has been damaged; it is a whole-family issue. The proposals go a long way towards providing the immediate help that those families need. Will my right hon. Friend join me in telling the families that the issue is not finished here, and that this statement is about the payment scheme only? The issue of compensation now needs to be addressed, and will be addressed by the all-party group and the parents groups.
  Mr. Darling: First, I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) for the work that he
  722
  has done in the all-party group. Anyone who says that Back-Bench Members cannot make a difference is wrong. My hon. Friend has shown, along with his colleagues in the all-party group, that Members of Parliament can play a valuable role in helping the Government to formulate policy. I am grateful to him also for acknowledging that the Government announcement today will go a long way towards helping families who have lost out in the past. I hope that all the parents concerned will accept that we have made a number of changes which I hope will make a real difference to the problems and difficulties that they face.
  Dr. Peter Brand (Isle of Wight): On behalf of the Liberal Democrats, I welcome the Secretary of State's statement, which illustrates why we worked so hard for a change of Government—although I am sorry that it has taken us a little while to get this far. I join in the congratulations to the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) and thank my right hon. Friend the Member for Ross, Skye and Inverness, West (Mr. Kennedy), who put the issue on the agenda a couple of weeks ago. I particularly welcome the recognition of the need for backdating some of the payments. In many instances, we are talking not about children but about grown people and their carers. The Secretary of State has recognised that there is a need for no-fault compensation in this aspect of public health policy and NHS activity. Will he now explore the possibility of introducing no-fault compensation in other areas of national health concern?
  Mr. Darling: On the hon. Gentleman's last point, nothing in what I said today makes the case for no-fault liability. That was raised by the Pearson commission in the 1970s and rejected by the then Government in 1983. Successive Governments have not changed the position so far as that is concerned. The vaccine damage payment scheme is a separate matter and is focused on a particular problem affecting a particular group of people. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman is mistaken on his last point.
  I am grateful for the hon. Gentleman's general welcome for the statement. The matter has been on the agenda since we came into office. We announced the review in 1998 and, last year, we announced an increase of some £27 a week in the amount of payments that go to severely disabled young people, as well as access for the most severely disabled people to disability living allowance. Today's announcement is a further step along the road to ensuring that we help people who have suffered a great deal over the years.
  I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for reminding us that this is the first time that the payments are to be backdated. Some 900 recipients will receive between £58,000 and £67,000 a year as a result of what I am proposing today.
  Mr. Kevin Barron (Rother Valley): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement. Does he agree that, no matter what is said by Opposition Members today—mealy-mouthed or otherwise—thousands of families will thank the Government for proposing changes to the

  723
  scheme and that families affected by vaccine damage can look forward to better care from the state in the future than they have received in the past?
  Mr. Darling: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for what he said. He is right in saying that many families have waited too long for this scheme to be put on a proper footing, but we have now done that.
  Perhaps I could correct an earlier slip of the tongue, when I referred to an annual payment of between £58,000 and £67,000. I should of course have said that that amount is a lump sum.
  Mr. John Maples (Stratford-on-Avon): At least two families in my constituency will very much welcome the Secretary of State's announcement today. Cases such as theirs are appalling: perhaps it is because they are so few and so random that they are so sad.
  My question concerns the top-up payments. In both the cases with which I am familiar, the families received the £10,000 interim payment in 1979 for injuries that occurred in the 1970s. How will the top-up payment be calculated in relation to the period of time that has elapsed since then?
  Secondly, the child in one of my constituency cases has subsequently died, but her parents spent half their lives nursing her until she was 25. What will happen in cases such as that?
  Mr. Darling: I can help the hon. Gentleman on both points. First, we aim to ensure that people who have received a payment in the past will receive a top-up payment so that they get the equivalent in real terms of the £100,000 total sum that is to be paid. All the relevant provisions will be set out in regulations. The lump sum, unlike the change in the threshold or the time limit for claims, will be dealt with in regulations which I hope to bring before the House at the earliest possible opportunity.
  I shall deal with the point that the hon. Gentleman makes about children who have died. Although there are not many of them, there are a few, and I need to reflect on how to deal with such cases equitably. I certainly undertake to do so.
  Mr. George Stevenson: I wish to add my support for my right hon. Friend's very welcome statement. I am especially pleased that he referred to families who were affected when the scheme began in 1979. Although those families received payments, they have nevertheless felt a serious sense of injustice over the ensuing 21 years—of which this Government have been in power for only three.
  My right hon. Friend has assured the House that the regulations will be introduced and the primary legislation changed at the earliest possible opportunity. May I urge him to use all his endeavours to ensure that the necessary changes are introduced without any further or undue delay?
  Mr. Darling: I want to bring the regulations forward as quickly as I can, as it is important that payments—especially those involving the lump sum—are made as quickly as possible. After waiting so long for an increase
  724
  in the lump sum, most families will want to receive it as quickly as possible. That is what I intend to make sure happens.
  Mr. Tony Baldry (Banbury): As a member of the all-party group, and on behalf of my constituent Hamish Thompson, may I thank the Secretary of State for what he has achieved in terms of removing the time limits, lowering the disability threshold and increasing the top-up payment? However, I have one practical request.
  The Secretary of State will know that many parents will attend a lobby at the House of Commons tomorrow. They will have a lot of questions about the regulations, the primary legislation, the interaction of benefits and top-up payments. Would it be possible for an official in the Benefits Agency to be designated as the person with lead responsibility in this matter? That would mean that there would be someone for parents and hon. Members to contact and deal with. One of the frustrations for parents in this position has been that they feel that there is no particular point of reference for them to contact. That has caused confusion, and it would be very much appreciated by the families if they could get information by telephone from one person at one address.
  Mr. Darling: I take the hon. Gentleman's point, but I am not sure that I can provide by tomorrow an official who could give chapter and verse on the number of matters about which I have just informed the House. Lobby groups and parents have been in contact with the Department. Once we have the details, we intend to write to them and set out the position. That might be the best way to proceed, as hon. Members will know that trying to run what amounts to an information stall is not always a practical response to lobbies in this place.
  Mr. Andy King (Rugby and Kenilworth): I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the welcome announcement that he has made today. I seek clarification on two small matters.
  Two young women in my constituency have now gone into residential care. How will they benefit from what my right hon. Friend has announced? I hope that they will be able to get some protection, so that their families, who cared for them so many years, will benefit. Going back to 1979, some young people affected will now be over the age of 21, but would have been 60 per cent. disabled because of vaccine damage in the intervening period. Will they be able to seek some redress?
  Mr. Darling: On the latter point, I want to ensure that people are not unfairly excluded simply because they do not come within the new scheme. Clearly, the primary legislation that is required will take longer to introduce because of other constraints, but I want to avoid the situation in which someone who would qualify now is barred because of the old rules. Not many people are in that situation, but it would be unfair to exclude them.
  My hon. Friend asked about people who are now in residential care. That would not affect their entitlement to the increased lump sum, as I set out in my statement.
  Rev. Martin Smyth: I join other right hon. and hon. Members in welcoming the statement. Will the Secretary of State underline the point made by the

  725
  hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart)? While we try to help those people who have suffered for reasons that some of us cannot fully understand, we should also be sending out the message that, on the whole, vaccination is helpful and safe. We must assure people that the vaccine programme should be followed through because it has been so positive. Having said that, I plead with the Secretary of State to look again with compassion on those parents who lost children as a result of vaccine damage: they have sometimes been left without any clear guidance concerning the real problem and have been fobbed off with reasons that are not acceptable.
  Mr. Darling: All of us, as Members of this House or as individuals, have come across families who have agonised over that problem, to which there is no easy answer. As I know, nothing that I can say from this Dispatch Box will provide comfort to parents in that position. On parents whose children died, as I said in my statement, nothing can make up for what has happened. As a Government, all that we can do is to ensure that we provide help as appropriate for parents who have been in that dreadful situation.
  On the general point to which the hon. Gentleman referred, I agree that the vaccination programme has brought great benefits to this country and to other parts of the world. The remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Eccles were extremely measured and I support what he said.
  Mr. Tam Dalyell (Linlithgow): In view of the frankly uncalled-for contribution from the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman, in contrast with the contributions of Opposition Back Benchers, I remind my right hon. Friend that David Ennals had made the undertaking—and a Labour Government would have carried it out—on the delicate question of time limits which he has honoured, which was very much open to argument. In particular, I thank my right hon. Friend for generously topping up the lump sum. Will he, the Department of Health and other colleagues reflect, however, because that raises the thorny issue of medical negligence? Will he look sympathetically at the case put forward by Lord Justice Sir Philip Otton on medical negligence because, in one form or another, heaven help us, these problems may well arise again and we ought to tackle that question.
  Mr. Darling: The statement was not about medical negligence, which is a matter for the Lord Chancellor, not for me. On the events of 1979, I understood that the then Labour Government certainly intended to complete the reforms, but unfortunately were not able to do so. I have nothing whatever to say about the comments of the Opposition Front-Bench spokesman to which my hon. Friend referred.
  Mrs. Margaret Ewing (Moray): I too offer a warm welcome to the statement from the Secretary of State. In reducing the threshold from 80 per cent. to 60 per cent. disablement, is the right hon. Gentleman considering altering some of the assessment procedures that are used? He, like all hon. Members, will know that one of the most
  726
  distressing aspects is the definition of the threshold that enables people to be recipients of the benefits. Will that be included in the legislation?
  Mr. Darling: No, I cannot promise that. I appreciate the point that the hon. Lady makes about medical assessments. There will always be some problems with them but, as I said in my statement, I consider the tariff level of 80 per cent. to be too high for the degree of disability, so I want to reduce it to 60 per cent. We always keep procedures under review, but I cannot promise to make specific changes in respect of this particular group of people.
  Tony Wright (Cannock Chase): I thank my right hon. Friend for this act of justice. Labour Members take pride in the fact that, in doing something about this matter, the Government have done what previous Governments conspicuously failed to do. May I say, especially on behalf of those 900 people who are now in their 30s, many of whom are totally dependent, for whom life is a struggle and whose families often live in great poverty, that this action is vastly overdue? It was a scandal that when they had taken part in a public health programme and received a certificate to say that damage was caused by vaccine, they were rewarded with only £10,000. That was a scandal waiting to be addressed, and I am glad that the Government have now addressed it.
  May I simply ask that the top-up payments, for those 900 people in particular, come through as soon as possible?
  Mr. Darling: I certainly hope that they will. Now that the announcement has been made, people rightly want to see the sums that are due to them.
  On my hon. Friend's general point, I believe that the course of action that we have announced today is the right one. I am only sorry that we have had to wait so long for Parliament to have a chance to make those changes. I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his remarks.
  Mr. John Bercow (Buckingham): I welcome the statement that the Secretary of State made and congratulate the hon. Member for Eccles (Mr. Stewart) most warmly on the important work that he has done, but may I suggest that the required legislation could be given greater priority if the Government were to relegate to the circular filing tray their planned legislation against hunting with dogs?
  Mr. Darling: I believe that most Members on both sides of the House have recognised that this is a very difficult matter. We are dealing with children who have suffered serious damage as a result of what has happened to them, and I do not think that this is the time and place for Tory knockabout politics.
  Mr. Nigel Beard (Bexleyheath and Crayford): I welcome the statement. I urge my right hon. Friend to consider extending the principle underlying the scheme by joining forces with the Secretary of State for Health to re-examine the case for a no-fault compensation scheme for medical accidents.
  Mr. Darling: This is not a compensation scheme, and never has been since it was set up in 1979. It exists in

  727
  recognition of the extra burden that families are obliged to shoulder. As I said in reply to some other hon. Friends earlier, the question of no-fault liability is a matter for the Lord Chancellor; it is not the subject of my statement.
  The right thing to do now is to face up to the fact that some 900 children lost out in the past. Today we have an opportunity to resolve some of the problems that they face by increasing the lump sum, making back payments and ensuring that the process by which claims are entertained is much fairer than it was in the past. I am grateful to my hon. Friends and others on both sides of the House for the welcome that they have given today's announcement.

  NEW MEMBER
  The following Member took and subscribed the Oath: David Lammy Esq., for Tottenham.

  Points of Order
  4 pm
  Mr. Edward Garnier (Harborough): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I seek your advice in relation to a written answer, reported at column 373W of yesterday's Hansard.
  I put a written question to the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions that was prompted by an exchange that took place during Report on the Countryside and Rights of Way Bill on 13 June. At that time, the Minister for the Environment said that he had taken advice on the implications on the Bill of the Human Rights Act 1998 and, indeed, of the European convention on human rights.
  I know that one cannot ask a Minister or a Department for the advice itself, but the response of the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Sunderland, South (Mr. Mullin), to my written question was simply that the Government do not disclose the legal advice that they receive
  nor the source of such advice.—[Official Report, 26 June 2000; Vol. 352, c. 373W.]
  It would be helpful, Madam Speaker, if you could advise me whether the source of advice external to the Department should be a matter of disclosure. I do not want to know what was said; I simply want to know who advised the Department so that we may judge the quality of the advice.
  Madam Speaker: I am grateful to the hon. and learned Gentleman for kindly supplying me with the question and answer to which he referred. As he knows, I am not responsible for the responses given by Ministers to questions. I can only suggest that the hon. and learned Gentleman is sufficiently ingenious as to table other questions or to raise the matter through the Order Paper in other ways—by such means he might be able to obtain the information he seeks. I understand and take his point; he does not want to know the advice that was given—he wants to know its source. He may find other methods—in questions or other exchanges on the Floor of the House—whereby his question will be answered.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: Further to that point of order, Madam Speaker. Sometimes, ministerial answers provide a block on further questions of a similar nature. As that answer was unprecedented—as far as I am aware—can we be sure that, until the Government provide some justification, it will be possible for Members to seek information from the Government on this and other issues, and that the Government will not use the answer as a way of blocking similar questions?
  Madam Speaker: The hon. Gentleman has been a Member of the House for a long time. He and I both know exactly what is meant by the Government blocking further questions. I have not dealt with such a situation for some time, although in my early days as Speaker I had to do so. I cannot give him any guarantees, but I am aware of the point he makes.

  Ministerial Conduct
  4.3 pm
  Mr. Andrew Robathan (Blaby): I beg to move,
  That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the ministerial code of conduct.
  I begin with a quotation.
  In issuing this Code, I should like to reaffirm my strong personal commitment to restoring the bond of trust between the British people and their Government … I will expect all Ministers to work within the letter and spirit of the Code. Ministers will find the Code a useful source of guidance and reference as they undertake their official duties in a way that upholds the highest standards of propriety.
  The House will recognise the quotation. It is from the foreword to the ministerial code, written personally by the Prime Minister in July 1997.
  In January, Lord Neill's Committee on Standards in Public Life found that:
  The effect of the foreword is to underline the status of the Code as the Prime Minister's document, written not only as guidance for Ministers but also as a pledge to the public.
  It also said that the role of the Prime Minister should be clarified. It pointed out:
  The Prime Minister remains the ultimate judge of the requirements of the Code and the appropriate consequences of breaches of it.
  Therefore, this is the Prime Minister's code; he is its author. To quote the Cabinet Secretary, it bears the Prime Minister's "personal imprint".
  The Prime Minister, however, declines to enforce the code. As the House knows, the Deputy Prime Minister, somewhat grandly, has four residences—one a flat on Clapham common occupied by his son. That flat is owned by the Rail, Maritime and Transport Union and the Deputy Prime Minister is also the Secretary of State responsible for transport.
  Hon. Members are probably not familiar with all the provisions of chapter 9 of the ministerial code on Ministers' private interests. Paragraph 113 deals specifically with trade unions. It says:
  There is.. no objection to a Minister holding trade union membership but care must be taken to avoid any actual or perceived conflict of interest. Ministers should arrange their affairs so as to avoid any suggestion that a union of which they are a member has any undue influence.
  There can be no question but that the Deputy Prime Minister has failed to do that. I quote again:
  They … should receive no remuneration from a union.
  The controlled rent on the flat is at least £12,000 a year less than the market rate. Although I do not suggest any improper behaviour by the Deputy Prime Minister, most people would see that as a considerable financial benefit.
  Paragraph 114 states:
  Ministers must scrupulously avoid any danger of an actual or apparent conflict of interest between their ministerial position and their private financial interests.
  Can anyone doubt that there is at the very least an apparent conflict of interest between the duties of the Secretary of State responsible for transport and his beneficial tenancy of a flat from a transport union? The principle is stated in paragraph 126:
  It is a well-established and recognised rule that no Minister or public servant should accept gifts, hospitality or services from anyone which would, or might appear to, place him under an obligation.
  730
  Paragraph 109 states:
  Ministers will want to order their affairs so that no conflict arises or is thought to arise between their private interests … and their public duties. Where there is a doubt it will almost always be better to relinquish or dispose of the interest but Ministers should submit any such case to the Prime Minister for his decision.
  Sadly, the Prime Minister is unwilling to tell us whether this case has been put to him for his decision. Nor do we know whether the Deputy Prime Minister has consulted his permanent secretary, as required by paragraph 118. That becomes very relevant in considering the Transport Bill, on which the RMT not surprisingly made representations and on which the Deputy Prime Minister led the debate.
  Even more relevant was the Rent Acts (Maximum Fair Rent) Order 1999, brought in by the Deputy Prime Minister's Department, which specifically capped increases in rent on flats such as his. Under paragraph 110 of the code, the right hon. Gentleman should have declared his interest to ministerial colleagues and
  remained entirely detached from the consideration of that business.
  The Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards said that she would have
  expected Mr. Prescott to have made some mention within his Department of his interest in the subject matter of the order.
  We should remember that this statutory instrument would have had a direct effect on the right hon. Gentleman's personal circumstances. The Parliamentary Commissioner also found that the Deputy Prime Minister
  should certainly have registered the benefit obtained from his tenancy of the flat.
  Unfortunately, the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges overruled the commissioner for reasons best known to itself—a bizarre decision, in my view, especially because it then "invited" the Deputy Prime Minister to register the flat.
  I hope that I have demonstrated that this is a very obvious breach of the letter and spirit of the ministerial code for which the Prime Minister is personally responsible. However, the Prime Minister has seen fit to ignore this contravention of his code.
  In a letter to a Conservative colleague, the Prime Minister deliberately confused the code of conduct for Members—for which the House of Commons has responsibility—and his own ministerial code. He pretended that the decision of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges "vindicated" the breaches of the ministerial code—when the Committee could not even consider the subject.
  Yesterday, I received a letter from the Cabinet Secretary, Sir Richard Wilson. It said:
  It is not for me … to adjudicate publicly on Ministers' conduct. The Prime Minister is fully satisfied that John Prescott has done nothing which in any way, shape or form reflects on his integrity or his ability to do his job.
  I accept that reply, but Sir Richard is, of course, responsible for the conduct of civil servants. I wonder whether and how he would have judged a civil servant who ignored the rules in such a manner.
  The Prime Minister is wilfully blind to this clear breach of the ministerial code. Members must decide for themselves the cause of this blindness. It is not the Nelsonian blind eye which all Britons used to be taught

  731
  to admire. On the contrary, it exposes the dishonesty of the Government, and I hope that hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber might join me in condemning that.
  Since RMT members complained and exposed the position of the Deputy Prime Minister, he has shown breathtaking arrogance. He has treated the parliamentary commissioner with disdain verging on contempt; he has ignored the request of the Select Committee on Standards and Privileges that he register his interest; and he still refuses to concede that the ministerial code might even apply to him. He has made no attempt to distance himself from his benefactor or to put the matter right. Had he been a Minister in the previous Conservative Government, he would have been obliged to resign long ago. He should resign now.
  Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members—
  Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley)rose—
  Madam Speaker: Order. Ten-minute Bills are not usually interrupted.
  Mr. Robathan: Who on the Government Benches recalls the Prime Minister telling all Labour Members a week after Labour's election victory that they were not in government to enjoy "the trappings of power"? Does the Prime Minister believe that this is an illustration of the "highest standards of propriety" which he then demanded? Members may doubt it. This may explain why within the past month the Prime Minister has twice refused to give evidence on the workings of the ministerial code to the Select Committee on Public Administration. The right hon. Gentleman has therefore shown that he is neither fit nor capable to administer his own code.
  Ten-minute Bills can be used to highlight many issues. I hope that the House, including some honest Labour Members, will agree that this is an issue—
  Madam Speaker: Order. I have been listening carefully to the hon. Gentleman. He has kept within the bounds of the motion but he is now going far from them. I ask him to withdraw his last remark.
  Mr. Robathan: I certainly withdraw, Madam Speaker. I hope that all Labour Members will agree that this is an issue of genuine and great concern. I feel that we should
  732
  beware of over-regulating the behaviour of Members, but in the case of Ministers there can be no doubt, as the Prime Minister agrees, that the "highest standards" of behaviour and propriety should be seen to be enforced. This case makes a mockery of the words and spirit of the ministerial code. It can only further undermine public respect for Ministers and other politicians.
  My Bill would leave the day-to-day workings of the code in the hands of the Prime Minister. However, it would provide for a final judgment to be allowed by Lord Neill's committee. I would not envisage that involving many cases, but they would be ones of great importance. The Bill would oblige the Prime Minister to ensure that his Ministers obeyed his own code and that his actions matched his empty rhetoric.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Andrew Robathan and Mr. Martin Bell.

  MINISTERIAL CONDUCT
  Mr. Andrew Robathan accordingly presented a Bill to make provision for enforcement of the Ministerial Code of Conduct: And the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time on Friday 21 July, and to be printed [Bill 147].
  4.14 pm
  Mr. Christopher Leslie (Shipley): On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am genuinely concerned about the use of the ten-minute Bill procedure for individual venting of spleen, especially when the Select Committee on Standard and Privileges has dealt with the matter on behalf of the House. 1 am concerned that Members should be able somehow to circumvent the judgment of that Committee when the procedure should be used for other purposes.
  Madam Speaker: That is not a point of order. As I explained during the speech of the hon. Member for Blaby (Mr. Robathan), I listened carefully to every word he uttered and was ready to stop him if he went too far or failed to remain within our rules of procedure. However, let me say again those wise words of "Erskine May", which I have not repeated in the House for some time:
  Good temper and moderation are the characteristics of parliamentary language.
  I hope that hon. Members on both sides will take those words to heart.

Orders of the Day

  Learning and Skills Bill [Lords] [Ways and Means]
  4.15 pm
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Malcolm Wicks): I beg to move,
  That, for the purposes of any Act resulting from the Learning and Skills Bill [Lords], it is expedient to authorise the making of provision for the manner in which payments to trainees are to be treated for the purposes of the Income Tax Acts.
  This Ways and Means resolution is necessary to ensure that we can give effect to amendments to the Employment Act 1988 by means of the Learning and Skills Bill. The amendments that we shall introduce later this afternoon are necessary, in part, to ensure that money paid to trainees continues to be exempted from income tax. The Secretary of State is currently able to use his powers under section 26 of the Employment Act to ensure that money paid to trainees is not rendered subject to income tax. Money is paid to trainees by the Secretary of State by means of his powers under section 2 of the Employment and Training Act 1973.
  Later today, we propose to amend the Employment Act 1988 by means of the Learning and Skills Bill to allow the Secretary of State to exercise similar judgments over persons who receive moneys in respect of training provided by the Learning and Skills Council and the National Council for Education and Training in Wales. The Learning and Skills Council and the NCETW will become responsible for securing provision for many of those trainees under sections 2, 3, 31 and 32 respectively, and they will be able to pay money to trainees under sections 5(1)(c) and 34(1)(c) respectively. The Ways and Means resolution that covered section 26 of the 1988 Act did not extend to persons who are in receipt of allowances under 5(1)(c) or 34(1)(c) of the Learning and Skills Bill. That is why we have introduced today's Ways and Means resolution.
  Question put and agreed to.

  Learning and Skills Bill [Lords]
  Ordered,
  That the Bill, as amended, be considered in the following order: new Clauses relating to city academies; amendments relating to Clauses 124 to 126 and Schedule 8; New Clauses relating to selective admissions policy; amendments relating to Clause 135; New Clauses relating to Part I; amendments relating to Part I; New Clauses relating to Part II; amendments relating to Part II; New Clauses relating to Part III; amendments relating to Part III; New Clauses relating to Part IV; amendments relating to Clauses 71 to 123 and Schedule 7; amendments relating to Clauses 127 to 134; amendments relating to Clauses 136 to 143 and Schedules 9 and 10; Remaining New Clauses; New Schedules; amendments relating to Schedule 11.

New Clause 20

  CITY ACADEMIES: FINANCIAL PROVISIONS
  'In section 483 of the Education Act 1996 (city colleges: financial provisions) after subsection (3) there shall be inserted—
  "(3A) If the school is a city academy, subsection (3) shall apply with such modifications (if any) as may be specified by the Secretary of State by order."'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  4.18 pm
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Madam Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Amendment No. 84, in clause 124, page 59, line 13, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  '(2) In subsection (2), omit subsections 2(b) and (c) and insert "and either

  (b) provides education for pupils of different abilities who have attained the age of 11 and who are wholly or mainly drawn from the area in which the school is situated, and has a broad curriculum with an emphasis either on science and technology or on technology in its application to the performing and creative arts, or

  (c) provides education for pupils of high ability selected by examination, and has a broad curriculum with an emphasis on such specialisms as the governing body may decide.".'.

  Amendment No. 85, in page 59, line 22, at end insert—
  '() Mathematics;
  () English language and literature;'.
  Amendment No. 86, in page 59, line 23, at end insert—
  '(2B) The city academy or college may select up to 10 per cent. of its admissions by reference to aptitude for each of the subject areas listed in section (2A).'.
  Amendment No. 71, in page 59, line 32, at end insert—
  '() After subsection (3A) insert—
  "(3B) Before entering into an agreement under this section in relation to a school to be known as a city academy, the Secretary of State must consult the local education authorities referred to in subsection (3C) about the establishment of the school.

  735
  (3C) The authorities are—

  (a) the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated, and

  (b) if the Secretary of State thinks a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident within the area of another local education authority, that authority.".'.

  Amendment No. 75, in page 59, line 36, at end insert—
  '(6A) Sections 84, 86, 88, 89, 90, 92 and 99 to 103 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall apply to city academies as if they were maintained schools insofar as they relate to the powers and functions of the Adjudicator.'.
  Amendment No. 79, in page 59, line 36, at end insert—
  '(6A) The Secretary of State may by order prescribe the proportion of pupils entering city academies each year who may be selected on the basis of their aptitude; and (notwithstanding section 139(2) of this Act) an order made under this subsection shall be subject to approval by a resolution of each House of Parliament.'.
  Amendment No. 80, in clause 125, page 59, line 40, at end add—
  (3) The Secretary of State shall make a report to Parliament each year on the operation of the provisions contained in Schedule 8'.
  Amendment No. 81, in clause 126, page 60, line 4, leave out—
  'if the condition in subsection (3) is satisfied'.
  Amendment No. 82, in page 60, leave out lines 12 to 16.
  Government amendment No. 107.
  Amendment No. 72, in schedule 8, page 94, line 31, at end insert—
  '(d) before making the scheme the Secretary of State consulted the authority.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 108 to 123 and 106.
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall try to set an example by being brief, because hon. Members want to raise substantive points relating to the new clause and we have a long day ahead of us.
  The Government amendments relate to land transfer and are technical amendments arising from debate in Standing Committee. They provide a fallback position. Land may be transferred out of an education function, thereby triggering a land value that would have to be paid on purchase, rather than being an education transfer which would allow the land to continue to be used for education purposes if it was transferred back to the local authority. The amendments also require the requisite sum to be raised and provided to the authority should the city academy no longer continue to provide the function for which it was intended.
  Amendment No. 106 is consequential. It relates to the relationship of authorities with the new Connexions service and will ensure that we have the necessary authority and powers.
  Mr. James Clappison: I shall endeavour to follow the Secretary of State's example and be brief. There are important provisions to come and I know that some hon. Members will want to speak about city academies.
  The Secretary of State will be aware from proceedings in Standing Committee that the provisions relating to city academies were introduced at the last minute, long after the Bill had passed through the House of Lords—indeed, when the Standing Committee was on the last lap of parliamentary consideration. It was agreed in all parts of
  736
  the Committee that the way in which the new policy was introduced was, to say the least, far from ideal. We have already commented on that.
  Nevertheless, we share the objective of tackling the problem of underachieving schools, and we are not opposed in principle to city academies. Indeed, it would be difficult to oppose the provision in principle, because its legislative basis is a Conservative Act of Parliament—the Education Act 1996—as the Secretary of State is no doubt aware. There is little difference between city academies and city technology colleges, and they share some of the characteristics of grant-maintained schools as well.
  Anyone who is inclined to try to see a difference between city academies and city technology colleges should consult clause 124, which makes it clear that the legislative basis of city academies is a bolt-on to the city technology college provisions of a Conservative Education Act. We are, therefore, waiting for Ministers to say a big thank you to the Conservative Secretary of State who pioneered city technology colleges—[Interruption.] However, given the reaction from the Secretary of State, we are not holding our breath for that. We are tempted to observe, though, that after three years of efforts by the Government to tackle underachieving schools, they have gone back to a policy first unveiled by Kenneth Baker in 1986.
  Where does all that leave the Government's fresh start policy? We were told in Committee by the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), that city academies were not a replacement for fresh start, but he went on to say:
  The academies are to be seen as one of the fresh start options.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 2000; c. 747.]
  That sounds very much as though city academies will supersede fresh start.
  There are three Opposition amendments in the group, reflecting our belief that a number of questions relating to city academies remain to be resolved. Amendment No. 79 deals with selection, which we apprehend will be of interest to the Secretary of State. City academies, let it be said, are selective schools. They may select 10 per cent. of each new intake on the basis of aptitude, and they may use banding by ability to admit the remaining 90 per cent.
  We have no problem with that extension of selection. Where it leaves the Secretary of State is another matter, but that is a matter for him. Amendment No. 79 would allow the Secretary of State to prescribe the proportion of pupils selected on the basis of aptitude, and ensure that there was an opportunity for that decision to be scrutinised under the affirmative resolution procedure.
  One issue that has not been considered at length—not surprisingly, given the rushed way in which the provision was introduced—is what happens to the pupils of an existing school when it is replaced by a city academy? The city academy prospectus is relevant, as is the revised prospectus, I think, although we received it only today, very shortly before the debate was due to begin, which is in keeping with the way in which everything about the Bill has been produced so far—in a last-minute and disorderly way.
  The city academy prospectus tells us:
  Where an Academy replaces an existing school, suitable arrangements will have been made to provide for the education of all pupils from the school being replaced.

  737
  That is rather vague. It hardly tells us anything at all. Of course, the education of pupils at the existing school must continue. There is a duty for them to continue to be educated. The issue is where are they to be educated?
  We should be most grateful if the Secretary of State could now tell us whether the pupils of the existing school that is to be replaced by the city academy—it is in the nature of the city academies that they will replace existing schools—have the right to continue their education at that school. That is far from clear from the prospectus. If the answer is that not all the pupils of the existing school will have the right to continue their education at the city academy, which is what their old school has become, on what basis will pupils of the existing school be admitted to the new city academy?
  I turn briefly to amendment No. 80, relating to schedule 8, which contains the power for the Secretary of State to transfer existing schools to the promoters of city academies. I pause—and do no more than that—to consider what the then Opposition would have said if the previous Government had brought forward such a measure. It was evident from hon. Members on both sides in Committee that there were a number of questions about how such schemes would operate. The amendment would simply require the Secretary of State to make an annual report on the matter.
  Amendments Nos. 81 and 82 concern the question of children with special educational needs attending city academies, a matter that we were keen to raise in Committee. We note that the revised prospectus for city academies now states that city academies will be expected to admit pupils with special educational needs and with disabilities. There remains the question whether city academies will be regarded as maintained or independent schools for these purposes. This may be of some significance. In Committee, the Minister told us that this would be subject to consultation. Perhaps the Secretary of State will take this opportunity to tell us the timetable for that consultation.
  Finally, I return to the revised prospectus, where the deadline of 7 July for written expressions of interest by promoters of the pathfinder projects for city academies no longer appears. It was in the previous prospectus, and has now been dropped. What is the significance of the Government's dropping their deadline of 7 July? We note in the revised prospectus that the Government still hope to agree the first pathfinder projects by the end of this summer, and presumably they still intend to start them in September 2001. The Government are now working on a tight schedule. They got off to what I have already said, with some justification, was a far from ideal start as regards this policy, and it now appears that the deadline for expressions of interest in the pathfinder projects has been shunted back. Will the Secretary of State explain why?
  Mr. Graham Brady: I am very pleased to be able to speak on this first group of amendments, relating to city academies, because the topic takes us back to a number of debates in which I have participated over the past three years or so when I have tried to understand the real, fundamental meaning of the education policies that the Government have been trying
  738
  to implement. The more I look, the more I have become involved in the debates, and the longer the Secretary of State and his colleagues proceed, the more opaque the Government's destination seems to become.
  One of the first things the Government did in this Parliament was to abolish the assisted places scheme, thereby removing from many children, particularly in inner-city areas, access to some of the better schools, often selective schools, which provided great opportunities that were frequently lacking elsewhere. I think of schools in Manchester in particular, which provided opportunities for Manchester's high proportion of inner-city children with very low-income backgrounds.
  One of the big priorities in the next year of the Government's term of office was, through what became the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, to look at a number of proposals that dealt—although they said "standards", not "structures"—entirely with structures; that was particularly relevant to their views on grammar schools. We shall hear more of that later.
  4.30 pm
  Now that the Government are in their fourth year of office, it is odd that, as my hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said, they are adopting some of the ideas that were central to the previous Government's drive to raise standards in education. That is especially true of the policy on city academies. However, it is regrettable that Ministers do not appear to have the courage to pursue some of their sensible, correct and logical ideas to their logical end.
  If the Government believe that the scheme constitutes a formula for raising education standards in the inner cities, and that the new arrangement of establishing private, independent schools, which are funded by the state, and are able to select pupils on ability or aptitude, is a means of raising standards in some schools, why do they limit that agenda to schools that have failed and are being closed down? I have frequently asked Ministers that question, but I have yet to receive a convincing or plausible response.
  If raising standards can be achieved by giving greater freedom to inner-city schools, allowing them to select at least a proportion of their pupils and to interview all applicants to the school, which means that they exercise a sort of selection over the whole intake, why will not that method raise standards in all schools in the inner cities and perhaps more widely? Why do Ministers believe that the scheme is relevant only to urban areas? Would not it be appropriate to explore its wider application?
  Amendments Nos. 84, 85 and 86 attempt to widen the application of the scheme. I have tabled the amendments in a spirit of hope that Ministers will start to elucidate some of their thinking, and perhaps let hon. Members and the outside world into the secret of their aim. Apparently, they dare not speak its name. They are prepared to establish—[Interruption.] The Secretary of State is chuntering quietly. I hesitate to step into the schoolmaster's role, but if he has something to say, perhaps he will share it with the whole class. I suggest that he does not know what the end result of his policies will be. If he does, he must realise that it has far-reaching implications. He is beginning to lead us down a road that has some attraction. I compliment him on his first steps on the road.

  739
  If the Secretary of State believes that it is appropriate to remove failing schools from the control of local education authorities and that that is a recipe for raising their standards, why does not he accept that the lesson has a far wider application? If he goes further—he seems determined to do that—and provides that not only control of the school, but even its ownership should be transferred from the local education authority, why should the policy apply only to a few failing schools in urban areas? If he believes that it is possible to raise standards in some of our failing schools in inner cities by, like the previous Government, allowing selection on the basis of specific aptitudes or abilities—for example, technological, scientific, artistic or sporting expertise—why will not he tackle the point that I made in amendment No. 85?
  Why does the Secretary of State not believe that it is also possible to raise standards by allowing schools to select 10 per cent. according to their aptitude or ability in mathematics, or English language or literature? There is no logic about why it is possible to raise standards for education in the cities by allowing selection according to some areas of skill and aptitude, but not others. We await the Secretary of State's response.
  Mr. Blunkett: Oh, I will respond.
  Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State promises a response, and it would be nice to imagine that it will be coherent and sensible. He oscillates between saying something that he apparently means and then dismissing it as a joke, so we have not really received any intelligent comments from him on the issue. Apparently, he does not think that these are legitimate matters for debate and he is not prepared to be straightforward and clear with the House or the public about his objectives.
  The Secretary of State's city academies are leading in a clear direction which, as I said, may be positive. However, he must answer my questions if he is to convince anyone at all that he understands the implications of his own policies. To say that it is possible to select 10 per cent. of a school's intake according to aptitude for technology, but not to accept that it is possible to select 10 per cent. for aptitude for technology, 10 per cent. for science and 10 per cent. for sports is illogical. That might not be appropriate for all schools. Indeed, I am sure that it would not be. However, it would be sensible—[Interruption.] I am pausing in the hope that the Hansard Reporters can pick up the Secretary of State's response, as I would certainly be intrigued to hear it.
  Amendment No. 86 puts forward the following option. Why is it possible to improve standards in schools only by allowing selection according to one small defined element of aptitude? Why not two? Might it not be worth pursuing that? How about sport and mathematics, or sport and languages? Those are perfectly sensible combinations which do not necessarily add up to 100 per cent. selection according to general ability. I have yet to hear a cogent explanation of the Government's position.
  I have tabled three amendments which, taken together, would advance the Secretary of State's policy a few years and accelerate it in the direction in which he is already moving. Amendment No. 84 would make it possible to allow 10 per cent. selection in a school predominantly for local children which teaches a broad curriculum. It would also permit an option—not a requirement—which would
  740
  add a further string to the Secretary of State's bow and allow some city academies to select pupils on the fair, not arbitrary, basis of ability.
  The Secretary of State believes that it is possible to assess children's ability on the basis of an interview and to see how suitable they are for a sporting, scientific or technical college. However, apparently he has some difficulty with the idea that one might undertake that selection by means of examination. Again, I fail to see what sets his mind so firmly against the idea of examination. Arguably, given that the Government and Secretary of State speak so much about social exclusion, they might possibly—indeed, logically—take the view that an interview is a more difficult hurdle for someone from a working-class background in an inner-city area to cross than an examination. Indeed, the Secretary of State's right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer apparently thinks that that is the case. Of course that is why he thought that entry to some of our best universities was unfair, and he attacked them partly because of their practice of allowing entry by interview. The Secretary of State was one of the few members of the Government to back up his right hon. Friend on that ill-considered foray into the media.
  If the Secretary of State strongly believes that it is wrong to allow universities to select by interview because that is an agenda for social exclusion, why does he not feel the same about selection to the schools that he wants to set up under the Bill? Why does not he believe that allowing pupils to be interviewed for places at city academies will also involve a form of social exclusion?
  I do not want to be prescriptive or to push schools in one direction or another. I want to allow people to follow another avenue and use another option under amendment No. 84. There may be a need or an opportunity for schools, especially those in some of our bigger cities, which choose to select pupils of high ability by examination—arguably the least arbitrary way in which to assess the ability of applicants—to pursue a less broad, perhaps more academic curriculum. That is only a short step away from the Secretary of State's proposals, and it could be possible under a small amendment that would simply allow another option—additional specialisation in some city academies. I should be interested to know why the Secretary of State thinks that that cannot work.
  I want to hear a sensible response from the Secretary of State on why it is possible to select pupils according to ability in some spheres, but why he thinks it unfair, immoral or elitist—I do not know which—to select them according to their ability in other spheres. Why it is good to select according to scientific or technical ability, but never according to mathematical ability? That is the odd position in which he has lodged himself.
  Why does the Secretary of State believe that it is right to select on some occasions, but not on others? Why does he apparently believe—he was reported as having said this—that the selective system at Trafford in my local authority, where we achieve the best results in the north-west, is reducing opportunities and standards of attainment in local schools? I am sure that even he, in his serious moments, would accept that that is a fairly odd assertion. However, a little way down the road in the centre of Manchester, he would be happy to set up an education system in his new city academies that would replicate some of the elements that work so well in my own area.

  741
  The House has covered some of that territory in considering legislation on grammar schools, which are dealt with in another group of amendments, but the Secretary of State cannot avoid or brush aside many of those matters given that he wants to introduce city academies. There is no real distinction of principle or logic between what he wants the city academies to do and what he apparently objects so vehemently to in other schools. He and his colleagues have given no reasonable, cogent justification for the Government's different stances on those different, but related policies.
  I tabled amendments Nos. 84 to 86 in the hope that the Secretary of State would take the opportunity to explain—
  Mr. Blunkett: I will if the hon. Gentleman gives me a chance.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Alan Haselhurst): Order. May I appeal to the House? It is not helpful if we have sedentary comments from the Secretary of State and then hesitation or, indeed, repetition from the hon. Gentleman.
  4.45 pm
  Mr. Brady: It is not I who seeks to be repetitive in these matters, but the Secretary of State, who insists on revisiting these areas of policy. One day he says that there will be no further selection by interview or examination; the next he is happy to propose new amendments to the Bill which would introduce further selection. It is not I, but the Secretary of State who is inconsistent in these matters.
  Mr. Roy Beggs: Amendment No. 84 refers to children
  who have attained the age of 11.
  Does he agree that if children aged 13 or 14 were given the opportunity to select which subjects they wanted to pursue, selection might be even more effective?
  Mr. Brady: I have considerable sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman says. Of course, coming from Northern Ireland, which has excellent educational results and a very fine selective system of education, he has good reason to understand what he is talking about.
  I do not seek a closed and narrow interpretation of how schools may select according to aptitude or ability, which may be one and the same thing; I seek an open and inclusive approach which would allow all schools some flexibility in respect of selecting from applicants, the means of selection and the age of selection.
  The Secretary of State seems to be on the verge of a breakthrough. He seems to be overcoming the obstacle of the out-of-date ideological obsession that Labour Members have had with the idea of selection. He has now reached the point of understanding that selection can work and that in some circumstances, it can raise standards. He has set out some of those circumstances in the Bill. I am urging him on in that breakthrough to go a little further and to understand the opportunities that he is beginning to offer our educational system. If he is open minded and accepts some of the principles in the amendment, we will make progress a little faster towards the end which he and I apparently share.
  Mr. Hilary Benn (Leeds, Central): I assure the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) that Labour Members do not have an ideological obsession with selection; we have a practical objection, but that is a matter for the next group of amendments and I shall not be tempted to dwell on it now.
  It is fair to say that we had a lively exchange in Standing Committee about city academies, and that all hon. Members share my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's interest in inner-city education. Like him, I represent an inner-city area where raising standards is absolutely central to the opportunities and chances of the young people whom I represent.
  I am sure that my right hon. Friend will be aware of the concerns that have been raised, in particular on the part of schools that think that they might be considered for city academy status, but whose results are affected by the fact that they take in large numbers of refugee children. That applies particularly to one school in the area that I represent. I am grateful for the consideration that Ministers are giving to that very difficult and important question.
  I want to address two of the amendments in the group. The first relates to the need for proper consultation with local education authorities on the establishment of city academies. There is no question whatever about the fact that the proposal will work only if it is a partnership. It would be the worst course of action where local education authorities and local communities were bitterly opposed to innovation in the interest of raising standards. I hope that my right hon. Friend will accept the amendment that relates to the need to ensure that there is proper and effective consultation with local education authorities.
  The second issue that I want to address is the subject of amendment No. 75. In Standing Committee there was considerable discussion about the way in which city academies will operate. Ministers said repeatedly that city academies would be expected to abide by various requirements that also apply to maintained schools of whatever character. In particular, the Under-Secretary of State, my hon. Friend the Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), said:
  It is important to stress that the academies will have admission policies consistent with the codes of practice on admissions.—[Official Report, Standing Committee F, 6 June 2000; c. 747.]
  The prospectus is even clearer on that point; it says:
  admissions criteria must be clear, objective and fair … admissions arrangements should be circulated for comment to other admission authorities … City academies should participate in the local admissions forum and establish independent appeals panels.
  Mr. Phil Willis (Harrogate and Knaresborough): Does the hon. Gentleman agree that part of the admissions code includes dealing with exclusions, and that under the code the local education authority has a duty to find places for young people who have been excluded from other schools? However, the city academies may not be required to play a part in accepting students who have been excluded elsewhere.
  Mr. Benn: I hope that that is not the case, and I am sure that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will address that issue when he responds to the debate. If the

  743
  city academies are to abide by the full spirit of the code of practice on admissions, all the requirements and obligations that come with it should apply.
  One of those obligations, which was not dealt with at length in Committee, is the role of the adjudicator. The purpose of amendment No. 75 is to extend that principle to the functions and duties of the adjudicator as they relate to admissions to city academies. It is not my purpose to discuss at length the role that the adjudicator plays, because—according to Hansard—that was debated at considerable length into the early hours of the morning when the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 was considered. The arguments in favour of the adjudicator system are just as strong today.
  Parents, local authorities and other schools are entitled to be reassured that if a city academy is established in their area—Ministers have confirmed that it will operate according to the law on admissions and the code of practice—they will have the same rights to refer issues to the adjudicator, whose word will be final in the matters over which Parliament has given him control. In other words, city academies will be no different from other schools when it comes to admissions.
  The adjudicator has a particular responsibility to deal with objections referred to him that relate to admission arrangements, including those relating to partial selection, or cases in which selection by aptitude—to which the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West referred—is in fact selection by ability. On that issue, right hon. and hon. Members will have been interested to note that of the 500 or so specialist schools that can select up to 10 per cent. of pupils by aptitude, only about 7 per cent. actually use that power. I have some sympathy with that, because I can see difficulties in interpreting aptitude. Assessing the interest of pupils in the subject might be a better method. I would be grateful if my right hon. Friend, in replying, could assure the House that no aspect of the establishment of city academies will require governing bodies to use the ability to select up to 10 per cent. by aptitude if they choose not to do so. They might choose to follow the pattern of specialist schools elsewhere.
  The adjudicator post exists to provide reassurance that admissions arrangements are fair and within the law. The functions were introduced for good reason, and currently apply to maintained schools. I can see no reason why they should not apply to city academies, too.
  Mr. Willis: It is sad that we spent 20 minutes on the amendments tabled by the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) which deal with the narrow issue of selection. This is a major Bill, and city academies are one of the most important initiatives of the Government's three years in office. The impact of the Bill on the state education system could be profound. I say that not as a criticism, but as a statement of fact.
  There is an argument—as the hon. Members for Altrincham and Sale, West and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) said—that if this form of educational organisation is good enough for children in inner-city schools, why is it not good enough for children elsewhere? The Secretary of State must answer that important question. We must not have another tier of organisation that applies to children in so-called failing schools.
  The amendments on city academies were tabled at a late stage in Committee. There were full apologies from the Government for that, and we do not wish to reopen
  744
  that issue. However, in Committee I asked for the Government's definition of a failing school, as that is important. We need to know whether it means a lack of students getting five grades A to C for three years—the Secretary of State's original definition—or truancy rates, or other criteria that often affect inner-city schools in particular. In order to have a policy that will apply to groups of failing schools, we must have a definition of a failing school. Perhaps the Secretary of State will give us that definition when he responds to the debate.
  I refute the idea that is often peddled by the Tory party—and, sadly, by large numbers within the Labour party—that we have a failing state education system. I do not believe that that is the case. Yesterday, in Islington, Tim Brighouse made it clear that all politicians—particularly Members of this House—should be careful about damning our schools, teachers and children simply because they do not meet the norms in some criteria set by the Department for Education and Employment or anyone else. I am sure that the Secretary of State and the Minister for School Standards would support some, if not all, of those comments.
  I hope that the Secretary of State will reject amendments Nos. 79, 84, 85 and 86, which are an attempt by the Opposition to bring in selection by the back door. Amendment No. 85 would allow schools to select on the basis of maths and English testing. That is what the 11-plus was about. The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is passionate about selection and I admire his tenacity. However, he ought to be honest enough to say that it is Tory party policy to seek to reintroduce the 11-plus at the age of 11—as that is what the amendments say—not for a few children but for all children, and that the Tories want to base their education policy on that.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: With respect, I will not, because the hon. Gentleman spent twenty minutes speaking to the amendments. Hon. Members on both sides of the House have constantly sought reassurance from the Secretary of State and the Government about selection. We were ready to believe that it would be a thing of the past. However, the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West is right to say that creeping selection has been coming in, first through the School Standards and Framework Act 1998, and now through the Bill.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Willis: I do not want to be discourteous.
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has returned to his characteristic good manners. Although I am a strong defender of a school system that works well in my area, the purpose of my amendments has nothing to do with the honesty or dishonesty of my party. I am seeking honesty and openness from the Government.
  Mr. Willis: The Secretary of State is quite capable of answering for the Government's policy, but the amendments are a clear attempt by the Tory Opposition to introduce selection by the back door. I rest my case.

  745
  5 pm
  The hon. Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) spoke to amendment No. 75, and I was delighted when the Secretary of State nodded at my intervention concerning excluded pupils. It was a real anxiety in Standing Committee that a group of schools would be set up that would have the privilege of excluding students while not having to accept excluded students.
  Anybody who has worked in the more challenging areas of education knows that dealing with challenging behaviour and difficult students lies at the heart of the solution to underachievement. Until we deal effectively with that problem, we will not reverse the underachievement of many of our young people. I hope that the Secretary of State, in his response to amendment No. 75, will clarify the Government's position.
  I have two other matters to raise with the Government. The first has to do with finance. In Standing Committee, the Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for North Swindon (Mr. Wills), was not clear about how much state money was to be put into this initiative. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the percentage split in terms of capital will be in the ratio 20:80, and that the private sector partners will have to find the 20 per cent? Will he also confirm that that will be roughly equivalent to £2 million? Does that not mean that each of the new city academies will get £123 per person, as well as the equivalent of £10 million in capital investment?
  If that is the case, may I tell the Secretary of State that many schools in all constituencies—urban, inner-city or otherwise—could do with that money? Would it not be an insult to give so much money to a few schools that have been hand-picked by the Secretary of State, when there are huge areas of deprivation in rural areas?
  Finally, new clause 20 deals with the question of assets. In Standing Committee, I asked a series of questions about what would happen when a school's freehold was transferred to the private sector company running that school. The Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), made it clear that if the school folded for any reason, those freehold assets would simply transfer back to the local education authority.
  I accept that, but a private company that takes over a school may decide to move site. It could then use the value of the real estate, and other resources, to invest in the new site. What would happen to that site in the event of failure? Would it revert in its totality to the local authority, or would the private sector company be able to take out the real value of its investment there? I hope that the Secretary of State will also respond to that important question.
  Valerie Davey: I rise to speak briefly to amendment No. 71, which would include local authorities in the consultation about city academies. I believe that that is crucial if city academies are to be of long-term value.
  Hon. Members who represent city areas know that the challenge to provide all young people with the excellent secondary school education that they deserve has not yet been met. That is not because of any lack of dedication among teachers, or lack of commitment among local education authorities, but because of the huge demographic changes that have taken place. Another
  746
  contributory factor is the lack of long-term investment in school buildings and their surrounding environments, which in some cases has isolated schools from the wider community.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) acknowledged that the first response of the previous Tory Government was to subsidise the private sector to provide places for able children. However, I contend that only a few such places were ever provided. Their second response was the gesture of city technology colleges. The latter solution, in particular, never benefited the wider community of schools. In many cases the colleges were imposed, with largesse of public, rather than private, funding in areas where there were already surplus places. In some cases they were positively detrimental.
  By comparison, this Government have promoted the excellence in cities initiative. In the pilot areas, the project is beginning to meet the aspirations of children and their parents. The collaboration and co-operation that is taking place, which includes local education authorities, schools and the wider community, is bringing new hope to areas where there have been great difficulties, if not a feeling of hopelessness.
  Into that scenario of excellence in cities comes the new idea of city academies. In that context of collaboration, the academies must be seen as an extra, complementary facility; cities can integrate them if they wish, but that will not be done without their full collaboration and support.
  Mr. Brady: Has the hon. Lady received some assurance from Ministers, which I do not think that the Committee received, that no city academy will be established in an area with surplus places in other schools?
  Valerie Davey: I appreciate that intervention. I am sure that that will be a consideration when my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State looks to future city academies.
  In Committee, we reflected on the value of the American charter schools. Indeed, we received evidence that in certain cases they have helped to raise standards. When the Education and Employment Committee visited America, we also learned about pilot schools, which were completely within the local education authority system. although they provided initiatives and were getting sponsorship.
  We are opening up exciting potential for LEAs, and for the community of schools in each city that is trying to make more excellent provision for its students. However, our approach must be for the whole city community, and it must be considered in the long term. Through its strategic planning, the LEA has a key role in ensuring that that is done, so we need the further consultation.
  Mr. Ken Purchase: Education is about the nearest that I get to any religion or belief system—the Labour party is the second nearest. I am most concerned about this add-on to the Bill—a Bill that I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on introducing. It is overdue. For many years, we have endured training schemes and skills development that have been inadequate to meet the needs of Britain in a changing world and certainly to meet the challenge of the global economy.

  747
  The city academy add-on trivialises to some extent the great importance of the Bill, to which we need to give 100 per cent. attention. I hope that this evening's proceedings may improve even further the efficacy that the Bill will bring to the learning and skills base within our regions. That is an important part of the development of regional policy. Through the Bill, we have established the need to ensure that the learning and skills councils link properly, comprehensively and coherently with the regional development agencies and with local authorities.
  Although the provisions could be strengthened to some extent, by introducing this important Bill real progress has been made. I am afraid that I regard city academies—like city technology colleges—as an education gimmick. If someone were to suggest introducing them to the private sector, no one would take the suggestion seriously. The only selection that has ever applied in the private sector has been by the question, "Do you have the money?" Labour Members should be ensuring that the currency of educational opportunity is rooted in social justice.
  In a moment or two, I hope to make a defence of what I regard as the tremendously hard work that many teachers and parents have put into ensuring that our comprehensive system of education is successful. However, I will just say regarding selection that the choice of the figure of 10 per cent. admission by aptitude shows that this is just an add-on—a gimmick. Why 10 per cent? Why concede that there is an argument for setting a benchmark, such as 10 per cent., and saying, "This far and no further"—or, in my case, "Why this far at all?"?
  There is no real intellectual clout behind an arbitrary decision of that type, yet the Labour party's view of education has been rooted historically in intellectualism. It has for years and years produced major thinkers on education who wrestled with the problem of the relationship between a professional teacher and the state and the local authority. It has tried to understand and exemplify and improve that relationship for the benefit of children, who are ultimately in the care of teachers.
  There are many systems of education and I do not deny that the idea of specialisms, such as they are and such as they may be, has found root and progressed to achievement in other countries. One thinks immediately of America, the home of almost every gimmick thought of in the 20th century, such as bubblegum and wurlitzer organs, but also the origin of the "Fame" series. Was it not attractive? Did it not make our heart beat faster? I am sure that that works very well in America, which has a massively diverse population—200 million people living in cities, many of which are systems in their own right, city states in the true sense of the word, cut off by 1,000 miles from the next tranche of civilisation.
  It is not surprising that such a country, diverse as it is, should produce so many diverse ideas, understandings and views about education, but some of them do not travel well. I do not believe that we need a performing arts school, or a technology college, for pupils from the age of 11.
  Almost the whole of Labour party policy has been based on the view of various child psychologists and psychiatrists, not least Piaget, who understood and showed the rest of the world the meaning of differing maturation rates. The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) asked whether it would be better if selection
  748
  took place at 13 and 14. In truth, it would. If there is to be selection, the later the better; it certainly should not take place at 11.
  I previously spoke of the child who at 11 believes that they will be the greatest hockey star, football star or singer that the world has known, but who is fed up with it by the age of 12 and a half. That is the nature of the differing rates at which children mature. Boys and girls mature at different rates. As they grow older, they change, and gain new insights—very often, believe it or not, from teachers in our comprehensive schools—about the value that they should be placing on the education that they receive.
  Years ago, in the 1930s, we were worried in this country because our gross domestic product was not growing as fast as that of other nations. We were concerned that we did not seem to be keeping up, and a famous report produced by Professor Hadow suggested that what we really needed in this country was a three-legged approach. We should have grammar schools for our real high fliers and technical high schools for those who show an aptitude for science and technology. In Britain, we have always considered scientists and technologists second grade compared with academics in English, history and so on—and does that not show in our industrial output? Does it not show in the difference between the salaries paid to technical people and to those who—broadly speaking—come through the arts route? Does it not show in the respect that is not shown to science and technology in this country, compared with other countries?
  5.15 pm
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Purchase: With respect, the hon. Gentleman had long enough to make his case. I would rather not give way.
  The Germans took a technical approach and it worked; it fitted the culture and was helpful, but in Britain it failed. If we measure that approach simply by productive output, we see that it worked in Germany, but not in Britain. We have broadly abandoned the technical approach to education, realising that we also need a broader education.
  Mr. Brady rose—
  Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman is persistent.
  Mr. Brady: I am also grateful to the hon. Gentleman for giving way. I was about to call his attention to the German example. Was not the reason for the failure of the German model in this country the fact that we under-resourced the technical schools, rather than that the grammar schools did not deliver?
  Mr. Purchase: My detailed knowledge of the allocation of resources during the period in question is not sufficient to give the hon. Gentleman a proper answer. I think it was much more to do with the fact that we failed to break the culture of elitism. We have not recognised the arts route for what it is—usually, to produce well-rounded people with excellent understanding. We put those who take that route on a platform; indeed, if hon. Members will forgive me for saying so, we put them in the Treasury

  749
  and the Foreign Office rather than in the Department of Trade and Industry or the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  In Britain, we have always had that elitism and it has held us back. I do not agree with elitism in education—it is wrong. I cannot say that often enough or loud enough. It has not assisted us to make our way in the world as we should have done. That is my honest view, based on much evidence about the economic performance of various countries.
  For more than 50 years, much has been written on the difficulties of selection at the age of 11.
  Mr. Clappison: In the light of the hon. Gentleman's comments, what does he make of the Government's proposals, under the excellence in cities programme, for taking between 5 and 10 per cent. of children out of schools and giving them a different form of education?
  Mr. Purchase: In case I have not already made it plain, I repeat that such matters are trivia added to an important Bill, although such proposals would be improved if the amendments tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) were accepted. I hope that the Secretary of State will accept them—especially the proposals on consultation with local authorities.
  However, my view is that this is not the way to proceed. In Committee, we argued about the late tabling of amendments and we agreed to close the book on that matter. However, we are considering an extremely important and coherent Bill that fits comprehensively with Labour's policies on economic development and learning and skills in education, and this is the wrong place to introduce such proposals.
  Although there is some evidence that specialism in schools from the age of 11 can be effective, there is not a significant body of evidence. If there were, we should have a serious discussion of the matter, because the situation has gone on for 50 years.
  For 40 years of my life, I have done my best to promote comprehensive schools. I believe that entrance at 11 or 13 to an all-ability school, based on a sensible and geographically coherent catchment area, is the best way to attract resources to that school. All children would attend the school and all parents would be involved.
  Parents are the most significant element in educational outcomes. When the late Sir Keith Joseph was Secretary of State for Education and Science, he employed Rodney Lord as a researcher and he carried out an excellent piece of multiple regression analysis work. He identified the individual elements that contribute to good outcomes in schools. Unsurprisingly—most academic exercises fail to surprise—the interest, concern and enthusiasm of parents bore the strongest correlation to pupils' results in school. Although the number of teachers was a factor, the second most important element in achieving successful outcomes in education was experienced teachers. Thirdly, and a long way down the list, came the quality of the buildings and the equipment used. It was clear then and it is clear to a blind man on a galloping horse—[Interruption.] That phrase may be appropriate, but I apologise if it has caused offence. I can sometimes be offensive without wanting to be so deliberately.
  750
  It is clear from the evidence that parents are the most important factor in achieving successful outcomes, and a huge body of evidence supports that view. Introducing specialisms at the age of 11 will barely touch the margins of the serious business of educating our young people.
  Mr. Tim Boswell: Given the hon. Gentleman's real reservations about the Bill, will he be clear on one matter? Does he intend to oppose the Bill on Third Reading?
  Mr. Purchase: The hon. Gentleman should know better than to ask. I told him in Committee that I would not give Conservatives a cheap thrill by voting against a Labour Government. He must be mad; there is absolutely no possibility of my doing that.
  I have described this issue as trivia, because it is at the margins. I want my hon. Friends to realise that the proposal is not helpful and that it is time consuming. It will not add sufficiently to the value of state education and the comprehensive system to justify the time that we have taken away from discussing the other provisions in this vital Bill. I want to spell it out that I believe that the wide view in the Labour party is that the Victorian and early 20th century approach, of selection at the age of 11, is not a sensible policy for us to dabble with. It is contrary to all the evidence. This time, I use the word "dabble" deliberately, and this time I intend to be offensive.
  The proposal prompts an important question about education generally. In the 1970s, Bernstein wrote that education could not compensate for society; it can only play a part. Our teachers have our children for a few hours a day for 40 weeks a year and the part that we play as parents and grandparents, as I am now, is vital to ensuring that young people understand the importance of education in its broadest sense.
  I have referred to the French approach to education and to the baccalaureat. That is too prescriptive for my liking, because we can give teachers more responsibility and freedom to teach than did the previous Government. I hope that this Government will ease up on the curriculum imperatives, because I trust teachers. I believe that they have been trained properly and that many of them have a strong vocation to teach. They should be respected and rewarded. However, I should perhaps declare an interest: one of my daughters is a teacher.
  The issue goes much wider than specialist schools. Specialism is sometimes good on television, and "Fame" was great. I know that some young people will benefit from that sort of education, but as a nation we must opt for a broad education. I accept, however, that there are occasions when it is appropriate to develop the specialisms that many young people show, some at 11 and some at seven. Other people even do so at six or five—we read of children taking O-levels at six years of age. However, these are the exceptions to the mainstream for which we should first be catering. We should cater for those with lower abilities and for those with higher abilities, within a comprehensive system of state education that is administered honestly and with children's welfare and education in mind.
  I respect and admire the many teachers who, if they hear about the debate, will say, "I wonder whether my school will eventually be replaced. I wonder whether we will not quite come up to spec." I urge my right hon.

  751
  Friend the Secretary of State and all who have responsibilities in these matters to stop damning schools. Would the managing director of a huge group of companies who condemned one line of his business—such as the managing director of Ratner—imagine that anyone would want to work for it? Of course not. We need to give more encouragement to education, not less.
  There should be a long period of proper development of education policy. Gimmicks will not do. I welcome the Bill and believe that it is absolutely to be supported. I think that it would be wrong to divide on Third Reading, but no doubt Conservative Members will do so. Overall, the Bill sets out an excellent approach to skills and training. It will give a boost to regional policy and I welcome it in every respect—except for the issue of city academies.
  Mr. Blunkett: I assure my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) that I never use the whip when I am on my galloping horse. I assure him also that much of the policy that he enunciated is held in common by Labour Members. However, we would distinguish between this debate and the issue of excellence in cities, to which I shall turn, in relation to which the "gifted and talented" programme is about children within a school and not outside it. I am sure that, as in so many other areas, Wolverhampton will want to take full advantage of excellence in cities. I hope to be able to expand that approach once the outcome of the spending review is known.
  I shall first respond briefly to the general points that have been raised. I, too, have read parts of Piaget's work, parts of Haddow and a little of Bernstein. I have read also Howard Gardner's work on multiple intelligences. There is a real intellectual debate to be had about how we develop the specialist talents of children, and how, by using the confidence and self-esteem that comes from the development of a particular specialism or talent, we can cascade that into general achievement levels, so that horizons can be broadened and self-belief increased.
  I believe that that is also true of schools. Building on the strength within a school—and the development within it of a particular strength—can be the making or breaking of a school whose reputation and general esteem in the community, along with its status and standing, have fallen to the point at which parents, who have a preference, can vote with their feet. In more than 60 per cent. of schools which have been in special measures or which have fallen into weakness since 1996, rolls have fallen dramatically. In schools that we define as having challenges, we find that numbers fall. Places are available, and as a result children move into these schools, in-year from other areas or because they have been excluded from other schools. Such schools' challenges become more difficult by the moment. The point is reached at which children do not move in from more affluent areas—parents do not exercise their preference in favour of those schools from outside the area. There is neither struggle to gain entry nor over-demand for places—only a decline in the number enrolled, and real problems regarding the school's survival. That is the issue that city academies can address.
  5.30 pm
  City academies are not like the old city technology colleges—15 of them parachuted in like cuckoos in the
  752
  nest, for good or ill. They were not welcomed as a solution to a problem, nor did they complement or replace struggling schools. They took children away from schools that were struggling to survive. Let me make it clear that our proposals are the reverse of city technology colleges. Like fresh start generally, city academies are about taking a school or schools in which the state of enrolment, the problems of education and the failure of parental preference have led to there being only two choices—to do something drastic, or to close the school or schools.
  If schools close, children in the area and the community in general lose a facility and, gradually—as we have seen in cities across the country—the preference for secondary schools in the local neighbourhood is no longer available to those living in the inner city, because secondary school places have been pushed out toward the outer ring: indeed, in some cities, such as Bristol, they have been pushed beyond the city boundary altogether. As it has done in North America, preference moves outward to the point at which the community school no longer exists.
  Hon. Members should look at reality—at the schools that are not in any meaningful sense comprehensive because their intake is not balanced. Many of the schools in my constituency and that of my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Attercliffe (Mr. Betts) struggle not to cope with children referred from other areas of the city but to retain the confidence of parents and children in their own area. In affluent areas, there is over-demand for places, and parents struggle to get their child in. I want to reverse that. If 10 per cent. admission by aptitude will help to get children from the south-west of Sheffield into schools in the north-east of Sheffield, I will go for it, because in Sheffield, a city of half a million people whose south-west area is the size of a London borough, there is currently not a single child from the south-west going to school in the north-east—not one.
  Let us get real. We are talking about a solution for schools that need a transformation. They need changes to their image, status and attractiveness. If aptitude for a particular specialism will help, I shall go for it—although I emphasise that it is entirely voluntary. As my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn) rightly said, most specialist schools that already have the option of 10 per cent. admission by aptitude have not chosen to take it, because they have decided that they can attract and retain children who have an aptitude without going through any sort of interview or making any assumptions about the child.
  Mr. Willis: I hear what the Secretary of State is saying about city technology colleges. I ran a school in Leeds—John Smeaton community high school—which took children from some of the most deprived areas in the city: there was an intake of 301 every year and there was a waiting list. What is the right hon. Gentleman saying to that school's staff, parents and children, who, despite all their hard work, will get absolutely nothing out of his initiative? Communities throughout the country will be in exactly the same position—discarded because of their success.
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman is entirely wrong. I am genuinely angry. We are not disavowing or disadvantaging other schools. I have made it clear that the admissions code will hold, and that schools cannot be parachuted in. They will be welcomed as replacements for

  753
  one or more existing schools. They will not be parachuted in, and will not be established where there are surplus places and where they would damage other schools' intake.
  I assure the hon. Gentleman that the leadership, quality and drive of the school will not be affected. On the contrary, a number of local authorities, sponsors and local communities—including that of his hon. Friend the Member for Southwark, North and Bermondsey (Mr. Hughes)—are clamouring for a city academy in their area, not to knock out success and aspiration but to replace failure and under-achievement.
  That is the purpose of the measure. It may be a flea on an elephant's behind, to paraphrase my hon. Friend the Member for Wolverhampton, North-East slightly. [Interruption.] Elephants carry fleas and a great deal more. Sometimes the elephant can afford to carry the flea. We have 7 million children and 24,000 schools, but in some schools and in some communities, children are not living up to the aspirations and standards that we seek.
  With common admissions, with coherent co-operation, and with a desire to ensure that we put aside the garbage that we have heard this afternoon about selection on the basis of maths and English, we can do something for schools that would otherwise fail and thereby fail their children. We can do it for communities that welcome this initiative.
  I shall deal with some of the remarks made by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison), and in particular the prolonged oration of the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
  Mr. John Bercow: An excellent oration.
  Mr. Blunkett: It was an excellent oration was it? So specialisms should be on the basis of maths and English, should they? Only someone who accepts that a minority of children can excel at maths and English could even begin to suggest that maths and English were specialisms. That is why there were grammar schools: 25 per cent. got in and were tested in maths and English, and 75 per cent. were presumed not to be able to make the standard in maths and English.
  We are reversing that. We have set a target of more than 75 per cent. being able to make level 4 in maths and English, and we will attain it. If we had a specialism in maths and English, we would be well away, would we not? We would be able to say which 25 per cent. of children would not be able to get into the schools specialising in maths and English.
  The hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West did not suggest that as a serious proposition, but as what the shadow spokesman for health might describe as a Trojan horse. In other words, Opposition Members would like to be able to say that they want to bring back the 11-plus, but the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), who purports to be the shadow Secretary of State has not yet worked up the courage to say it. Perhaps she is waiting
  754
  for the Leader of the Opposition to say it, so that she can back in on him. I am waiting for his speech next month, to see whether that is the new—or rather, old—Tory policy.
  Mr. Brady: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Blunkett: I am not giving way. [Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman was only joking, was he? I was paraphrasing George Bush. I do not know who he was paraphrasing, other than himself.
  Let us deal with the idea that all specialisms could be the basis for 10 per cent. of admissions. If we had 15 specialisms, we would presumably get to 150 per cent. admissions. The proposition is so obviously mathematically silly as to be nonsense.
  I want to touch on the issue of aptitude, as opposed to selection. The Education Act 1944 recognised aptitude. The previous Government were so keen to ensure that there was a distinction between aptitude and selection that they commissioned the National Foundation for Educational Research to define it, and accepted the definition.
  I do not know where Opposition Members get the notion that we have been converted to selection; that having converted to selection, we are on their path; and that having taken their path, we are now using aptitude as selection, whereas they themselves commissioned work to show the difference between aptitude and selection. I do not mind them poking fun. I do not mind them having an afternoon out. What I do mind is whether children receive a decent education. If special schools, with opportunity in relation to aptitude, and the city academies can lift their standing and transform the education, I am all for that.
  Mr. Brady: The Secretary of State knows perfectly well that my amendments sought to draw out some sensible arguments from him. One of the most important, on which I should like to know his thinking, is why 10 per cent. is the correct figure. Why not 5 per cent? Why not 15 per cent? My amendments are very unlikely to become law when the Bill becomes an Act, but the right hon. Gentleman must answer some of those questions.
  Mr. Blunkett: I do not have to answer any of them—not least because the answers were given by the previous Secretary of State. These debates were held when the previous Government sought to extend from 10 per cent to 50 per cent. the selection on top of aptitude. That selection is now being dealt with by the adjudicator system, which neatly brings me to the issue of the adjudicator and admissions.
  I have made it absolutely clear that schools will adhere to the admissions code. The issue, then, is how to ensure that there is a right of appeal. I would put the following points to my hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, Central with regard to his amendment No. 75. It is clear—and I shall make it explicit in the funding agreement—that city academies will co-operate with the admissions forum and seek to work in partnership with other schools in the neighbourhood. This is a collaborative, not a competitive, approach.
  In order to ensure that we can meet the intention of amendment No. 75, I will not only stipulate in the agreement that that is the case: I will ensure that, as with

  755
  aided schools, there can be a direct appeal to the Secretary of State in lieu of the adjudicator. We have that at the request of the religious foundations—the Churches—for aided schools. The same approach is right for city academies. I hope that, with that assurance, my hon. Friend will be prepared to withdraw his amendment, since that approach meets both his and the Government's objectives.
  Mr. Willis: What about exclusions?
  Mr. Blunkett: The hon. Gentleman rightly reminds me of that issue. The answer to the question that he raised in his speech is that city academies will be dealt with on the same basis. The hon. Member for Hertsmere asked about children attending a school that becomes a city academy. If a city academy replaces an existing school, they are obviously part of its core entry. That must be so, because the whole objective, unlike that of CTCs, is to transform the life chances and educational opportunities of the very children who have been losing out. That is why the city academy approach is being tried, to ensure that we get it right.
  To those who ask "Why not simply extend it to everybody?" I reply "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  Mr. Bercow: Ah.
  Mr. Blunkett: I don't know about "Ah". I recall the argument that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) raised a few moments ago, which made me angry. If a school is doing well, reinforce it, support it, encourage it, celebrate the work of the head and the teachers. If it needs a fresh start, let it have one, rather than allowing it to close.
  5.45 pm
  Mr. Clappison: On the point about what happens to existing pupils, does the Secretary of State agree that the prospectus is hardly crystal clear? It states:
  Where an Academy replaces an existing school, suitable arrangements will have been made to provide for the education of all pupils from the school being replaced.
  Does the Secretary of State guarantee today that all pupils from the existing school will be able to attend the city academy?
  Mr. Blunkett: We are considering parental preference. When a school is failing, some parents may well wish to send their children to other schools, and I would not preclude them from doing that.
  Let me consider briefly the other topics that have been mentioned. First, I am not sure why the Opposition tabled amendments on special educational needs. Either they, like us, want special needs children to be admitted or they do not. It is an outrage if they do not; if they do, I am not sure why they have tabled the amendments. If they decide to press them, we shall know the answer. I have stated our position on ensuring the admittance of special needs children, and I hope that the Opposition will not press their amendments.
  Mr. Clappison: If the Secretary of State has got the idea that the Opposition do not want children with special educational needs to attend city academies, there is no
  756
  basis for it. We pressed the point with the Minister in Committee. As I hope I made it clear in my opening speech, we tabled the amendment to press the Government on their plans for consultation.
  Mr. Blunkett: Good. I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has been able to press the Government.
  Site value has been mentioned. I want to put it on the record that if the land initially acquired for the city academy was sold as part of a programme of renewal and replacement, the original site value, adjusted for inflation, would be returned to the donor, whether a local authority or a sponsor.
  I want to deal with the points that my hon. Friends the Members for Bristol, West (Valerie Davey) and for Leeds, Central made. I am pleased to accept amendments Nos. 71 and 72. The purpose of our endeavour is to gain co-operation in raising standards. If, through consultation and inclusion, we can ensure that people are engaged with and support the process, that must be the right way forward. In conjunction with that, we must ensure that people are part of and positively engaged with excellence in cities, when an academy exists in an excellence in cities area now or in future. I shall make that explicit in the funding agreement.
  We can therefore put to rest once and for all the idea that we are dealing with a Trojan horse. We are dealing with an endeavour to co-operate with a policy that will transform the standing of a school, the standard of education for the pupils, and the commitment of sponsors and partners to making it work. It will, through a specialism, bring lifeblood into a school that would otherwise be in danger of closing as parents opted to take their children elsewhere.
  We are pleased to take the line that we reinforce aspects that are working well. Intervention must be in inverse proportion to success. However, when schools are failing, we have an obligation to the children to substitute the reality of action for past dogma, to ensure that those children get the education that they deserve.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 124

  CITY COLLEGES AND ACADEMIES
  Amendment made: No. 71, in page 59, line 32, at end insert—
  '() After subsection (3A) insert—
  "(3B) Before entering into an agreement under this section in relation to a school to be known as a city academy, the Secretary of State must consult the local education authorities referred to in subsection (3C) about the establishment of the school.
  (3C) The authorities are—

  (a) the local education authority in whose area the school is to be situated, and

  (b) if the Secretary of State thinks a significant proportion of the pupils at the school is likely to be resident within the area of another local education authority, that authority.".'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

  Mr. Deputy Speaker: It would be helpful if hon. Members were a little more audible when the Question was put. That would assist the occupant of the Chair.

Schedule 8

  CITY ACADEMIES: LAND
  Amendments made: No. 107, in page 94, line 31, at end insert—
  'or the Secretary of State thinks it is about to be no longer so used.'.
  No. 72, in page 94, line 31, at end insert—
  '(d) before making the scheme the Secretary of State consulted the authority.'.
  No. 108, in page 94, line 47, at end insert—
  '(4A) A scheme must be so expressed that it does not come into force while the land concerned is used as mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(b).'.
  No. 109, in page 95, line 1, after first "force" insert "(a)".
  No. 110, in page 95, line 1, at end insert—
  ', or
  (b) on the day it otherwise identifies as the day for it to come into force.'.
  No. 111, in page 95, line 14, leave out from first "to" to end of line 15 and insert—
  'make a disposal in respect of the interest, or to enter into a contract to make a disposal in respect of it, or to grant an option to make an acquisition in respect to it.'.
  No. 112, in page 95, line 21, leave out "to" and insert "in favour of'.
  No. 113, in page 95, line 24, leave out "acquire" and insert "make an acquisition".
  No. 114, in page 95, line 35, leave out "dispose" and insert—
  'make a disposal in respect'.
  No. 115, in page 95, line 37, after "interest" insert "concerned".
  No. 116, in page 95, line 41, after "disposal" insert "in respect".
  No. 117, in page 95, line 43, after "interest" insert "concerned".
  No. 118, in page 96, line 10, at end insert—
  '3A.—(1) For the purposes of paragraphs 2 and 3—

  (a) references to a disposal in respect of an interest are to a disposal of the whole interest or of a lesser interest;

  (b) references to an acquisition in respect of an interest are to an acquisition of the whole interest or of a lesser interest.

  (2) If the disposal referred to in paragraph 3(3) or (5) is a disposal of a lesser interest, the reference there to the interest concerned is to the lesser interest.'.
  No. 119, in page 96, line 10, at end insert—
  'Restriction on appropriation
  3B.—(1) Sub-paragraph (2) applies if—

  (a) a freehold or leasehold interest in land is held by a local education authority,

  (b) at any time in the period of 5 years ending with the day on which this Act is passed the land was used wholly or mainly for the purposes of a county school or community school, and

  (c) the authority proposes to make an appropriation of the land under section 122 of the Local Government Act 1972.

  (2) Unless the Secretary of State consents, the authority must not make the appropriation.
  758
  3C.—(1) This paragraph applies if an authority makes an appropriation in contravention of paragraph 3B(2).

  (2) The Secretary of State may purchase the interest concerned compulsorily.

  (3) Paragraph 3(6) to (9) apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under sub-paragraph (2) above as they apply to a compulsory purchase of an interest under paragraph 3(5).'.

  No. 120, in page 96, line 26, at end insert—
  'and
  (c) the first or the second condition set out below is satisfied. (1A) The first condition is that-'.
  No. 121, in page 96, line 29, at end insert—
  '(1B) The second condition is that, although the school concerned continues to be a city academy, the interest ceases to be held for the purposes of the city academy.'.
  No. 122, in page 96, line 32, leave out "(b)" and insert—
  '(2A) Sub-paragraph (1A) applies'.
  No. 123, in page 96, line 36, leave out "mentioned in sub-paragraph (1)(d)" and insert "holding it".—[Mr. Blunkett.]

New Clause 9

  SELECTIVE EDUCATION POLICY: LOCAL EDUCATION AUTHORITIES
  '.(1) The School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall be amended as follows.
  (2) After section 104(3) there is inserted—
  "(3A) Where the Secretary of State is satisfied that within a prescribed local education authority more than four per cent. of pupils admitted to secondary schools in the year 1999–2000 were admitted to grammar schools, that local education authority shall be designated as having a selective education policy."
  (3) In section 106(3)(a), after "above" there is inserted "(save that where a local education authority operates a selective education policy as designated under section 104(3A), and no ballot under section 105(2)(a) has previously been conducted within that local education authority area, the request for a ballot must be made by a number of eligible parents equal to at least one per cent. of all parents falling within (1)(a) or (b) above).".'.—[Dr. Ladyman.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Dr. Stephen Ladyman: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss new clause 11—Grammar schools: retention of selective admission arrangements—
  () In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  (a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4)

  (b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements) and

  (c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to and selective admission arrangements) omit subsections (3)(b) and (4).'.

  Dr. Ladyman: It is probably appropriate for me to begin by declaring an interest. I live in my constituency, I am a dad and I raise my family in my constituency. What I believe is best for my children I also want to see delivered to all my constituents' children. At the moment, my constituents do not have the best form of secondary

  759
  education system and I very much want to see it improved for them. They should be able to engage in debate about our secondary education system and to have a vote on whether it should continue in its current form.
  The purpose of the new clause is simply this. In local education authorities in which there is nothing apart from a selective system of secondary education and when there has not previously been a ballot on the selective education policy of the local education authority, it should be necessary only to get 1 per cent. of eligible parents to sign a petition in order to have a ballot. That would make it practicable to move towards a ballot on a selective education system in areas such as Kent.
  I shall provide some background to the debate for hon. Members who are not familiar with Kent. There are no comprehensive schools in Kent. We have only grammar schools and high schools. Selection for grammar schools is on the basis of the 11-plus which, in Kent, is called the Kent test. Twenty-four per cent. of children go to grammar schools, and the remaining children go to what are euphemistically called high schools. One or two schools aspire to offer a comprehensive system of education. A laudable effort, for example, is made by the Catholic Church, which tries to encourage Catholic pupils of all abilities to go to the few dedicated Catholic secondary schools. In an area in which 24 per cent. of pupils are selected at age 11 to go to grammar schools, I would argue that, in effect, it is impossible, for any school to offer a truly comprehensive system of education. The size and scale of the selection distorts the process so completely that, practically and economically, it is impossible for a school that does not have access to the 24 per cent. of brightest pupils to provide services to bright pupils.
  In my constituency, and throughout my county, parents who do not believe in the 11-plus may choose for their children not to sit the test. If they make that choice, their children will not go to a comprehensive school, as there are none, but to a secondary modern school. Whatever one calls such schools they are not, as Kent county council tries to describe them, wide ability schools. They are only wide ability in so far as they serve the 76 per cent. of children who do not go to grammar school. They are secondary modern schools. Throughout Kent, it is as if the education system has been preserved in aspic since the early 1960s—as if no one has ever even thought of introducing comprehensive education.
  There is no parental choice—none whatsoever. I shall go further on that subject, as part of painting the background to my amendment. Selection is not just about the 11-plus. As a result of the distorted selective education system in Kent, children are selected, first of all, according to wealth. If one is rich enough, one's children go to one of the public schools that serve the county. Children are then selected according to academic ability at 11. If they fail to get into a grammar school on that test, they are selected by postcode and, if they are lucky enough to live in a middle-class area, they go to a middle-class secondary modern provided in the area.
  Some council estates in my constituency rank among the poorest in the United Kingdom, and have male unemployment approaching 60 per cent. If children happen to live in one of those poorer parts of the community, they go to a secondary modern which, effectively, is a sink school. The day that a child arrives at that school he or she will find that at least 70 per cent.
  760
  of their peers arriving with them have special needs. Is it any surprise that that school then delivers poor statistics in the GCSE league tables? Sometimes, those schools are close to the bottom—indeed, sometimes even at the bottom—of the league tables, which reinforces the impression of their failure. Even though teachers in those schools are highly motivated, may add huge value to those children and be doing their very best for those kids, parents get the impression that those schools are at the bottom of the ladder, so they try to avoid them.
  One of the biggest piles of constituency casework that I get is from all the parents who find that their child has been allocated one of those sink schools, even though they did not include it on their list of preferences as a school that they wished their child to attend. Someone, however, has to go to that school, and parents' first recourse on receiving the letter informing them of that is to contact their Member of Parliament to see whether there is any way of getting out of it. I am afraid that there is not, and I have to sit and explain to parents the realities of living with a system in which selective education distorts the life and educational prospects of all our children.
  Mr. Brady: I am following the hon. Gentleman's speech with interest. Is it not the case that, if those schools were neighbourhood comprehensives, the same selection by postcode would happen? A neighbourhood comprehensive serving a more affluent area will tend to draw its pupils from that area, whereas one serving one of the least prosperous areas will tend to draw its pupils from that area.
  Dr. Ladyman: Of course there are distortions in any education system. There are more distortions in the system than that of intellectual ability. However, if those schools were true comprehensives, had a full range of ability and a full wide syllabus for all their children, at least they would have the opportunity to raise their standards and their pupils would have aspirations higher than getting through their few years of secondary education. They would have the aspiration of trying to go on to further and higher education which, in many cases, they do not have in the distorted system that we must work with today.
  One head teacher told me that the system is evil. He did not say that it is slightly less good than the other system or marginally inefficient, or that it is worth having a debate about changing it. He called the selective education system in Kent evil. He is not an apologist for the Labour Government. Indeed, this particular head teacher is one of the biggest pains in my backside. He frequently objects to funding policies, to the Secretary of State's comments and to Government policies on a range of issues. He was a pioneer of the grant-maintained system and took his school to that status when it was an option. He is not an apologist for the Labour Government, but he calls the system evil. I agree with him. I have not spoken to any head teacher of any high school in my constituency who believes that Kent's selective education system is appropriate. One or two are worried about the disruption that would follow a change in the system, but none agree fundamentally with the system.
  I can tell the House that, although they will not say it in public, support for the selective system is not unanimous even among the head teachers of the grammar schools, of which there are four in my constituency. The Kent Association of All-Ability Secondary Heads

  761
  includes 60 secondary school head teachers who are prepared to say publicly that the system in Kent needs to be changed.
  6 pm
  Mr. Patrick McLoughlin: The hon. Gentleman says that a head teacher in Kent has described the education system as evil. If parents support that view, why was the local authority elected on a policy of not changing the system?
  Dr. Ladyman: Frankly, it was not. We have not engaged in that debate in any depth or with any feeling. I believe that if we were to have that debate and provide the people of Kent with the facts and the figures, the local authority would be instructed to change the education system.
  I am prepared to put that to the test because my new clause does not ask the Government to take away parents' right to choose. I fought the general election on a policy of leaving the choice to parents. My new clause seeks only to make it a practical possibility for parents in my constituency to make that choice. I have said publicly that when we have that debate, I will not play a politician's role in it; I will leave it to parents. I will of course have a voice as a parent, but I will stay out of the debate if other politicians do the same and leave it to parents to make their choice on objective grounds.
  Mr. Bercow: In developing his argument, will the hon. Gentleman concede that he is motivated, at least in part, by the risible failure of Mr. Martin Frey and his colleagues in Kent, who in this academic year have secured only 7,000 of the 45,000 signatures that they require to trigger a ballot, which has caused them to postpone the petition, although sadly not to cancel it?
  Dr. Ladyman: The hon. Gentleman is nearly correct. I shall come on to the reason why Mr. Martin Frey and his colleagues have managed to get only 7,000 signatures. Acquiring that number of signatures took a huge effort and was almost a miracle. Reaching their target of 45,000 signatures is a practical impossibility, given the rules under which they have to work. I shall come on to those rules later in my oration.
  I say to the hon. Gentleman that those people have not abandoned their petition; they have simply postponed it, and they will carry it into next year. The problem that I fear as much as any other is that we will have this discussion year after year, that they will always fail to get the required number of signatures because of the practical impossibility of doing so, and that we shall never have certainty in our local system. I want rules that allow the schools to have the ballot and to get the debate out in the open so that a decision can be made, and then we will all be able to live with what follows.
  Dr. Phyllis Starkey: In view of the comment made by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), my hon. Friend might be interested to know that a paper from Buckinghamshire county council shows that when the council had a consultation on grammar schools, it got a total of 3,644
  762
  responses. Perhaps my hon. Friend would like to reflect on the hon. Gentleman's use of the word "risible" for a total that was twice as high and was reached by a private individual, not a public body.
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend makes her point extremely effectively.
  I turn now to the background of the new clause. If any hon. Members think that the 11-plus, which Kent calls the Kent test, is an objective test suitable for judging people's ability at 11 and determining the rest of their life, I point out that the test was changed a few years ago because not enough boys were passing and local grammar schools could not fill their boys' places. The head teacher of one of those schools came to me to lobby for the Kent test to be made easier for boys. The test had to be changed—a non-verbal reasoning test was included—and more boys are passing now. However, if the test is now fair, it must have been unfair beforehand, and generations of boys were tossed on to the educational scrap heap. If that was not the case, the test must be unfair now.
  Mr. Purchase: Kent's experience of the difficulty of deciding boys' and girls' whole future at age 11 is greatly reflected in inner-city areas, such as mine, with multicultural communities. Does my hon. Friend agree that it is almost impossible to devise an objective, rational test on a one-size-fits-all basis?
  Dr. Ladyman: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. May I say how much I agreed with his comments in the previous debate. I had fellow feeling for him on many of the issues that he dealt with.
  I shall expand a little on what my hon. Friend has just said. Not only was the Kent test changed a few years ago to make it easier for boys, but Dover was not getting enough children through the test to fill all its grammar schools, so it introduced the Dover test. I do not know why, but fortunately for Dover, enough of its children are passing the Kent test this year to fill the town's grammar schools. However, the children who passed the Dover test are also entitled to grammar school places, and they are taking them, so people who would previously have gone to grammar schools in Dover are now being displaced to grammar schools in my constituency.
  Who suffers in the end? It is the people whom the Conservative party is always championing—those who live in rural villages and towns and are furthest away from the grammar schools and therefore last on the list of the schools' admission criteria when they are ticking off which pupils they will take. This week, my desk is covered with letters from people who live in small, rural towns and villages in my constituency, such as Wingham and Minster, and who are being told that their child does not have a grammar school place because of the nonsense of the selective system which is being foisted on the whole area.
  Mr. Brady: Given that the hon. Gentleman has painted a picture of chaos in school applications in his constituency, why does he believe that no one can find 20 per cent. of parents who are prepared to trigger a ballot?
  Dr. Ladyman: If the hon. Gentleman does not mind, I will deal with precisely that point in a moment because it is the thrust of the argument for considering change.

  763
  I turn now to an objective view of which system we should be following. We now have two sets of objective data about the relative merits of the comprehensive education system and the selective education system. York university identified intellectually equal cohorts of children based on their performance at age 14 in standard attainment tests and measured their progress as they went through grammar schools and comprehensive schools.
  The researchers found that for the top 4 per cent. of children, there was no difference between grammar schools and comprehensives, but the remainder did better in comprehensive schools than in grammar schools. That would apply to over 80 per cent. of the children who attend grammar schools in my constituency at this moment. I can put my hand on my heart and say that none of those children would be worse off in a good comprehensive school, and 80 per cent. would get better results in a comprehensive.
  If that was not enough, I have the evidence provided by the Secretary of State and by the Minister for Education and Employment in the other House, who in Lords Hansard on 15 March at column 1546 compared GCSE results for the top 24 per cent. of children in comprehensive schools with the top 24 per cent. in grammar schools, and found that the comprehensive pupils did significantly better. Objective data such as that need to be presented to parents so that they can compare selective education with the comprehensive system. We need to start that debate.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) asked why we did not succeed in getting the 45,000 signatures needed to initiate such a debate in Kent. In saying that, I have almost answered his question. Kent is taken as a huge conglomerate, and we must find 45,000 signatures—20 per cent. of all the eligible parents. It might be easier if just a petition of 45,000 parents was involved and we were given a fair crack at being able to get the data, but we must approach each school separately for the list of parents so that we can contact them. We are not allowed to collect petitions on schools premises, so we have to visit parents' homes one by one. We have to provide multiple pieces of information for every name on the petition.
  Those who are experienced at collecting the signatures tell me that it takes 10 minutes for someone to fill in the form correctly even when that person has already been convinced, is being co-operative and is willing to sign. Before getting that far, people have to go to parents' houses and sit with them for 10 minutes, and probably have a cup of tea and a chat. They then have to visit the next house. All that has to be done in an academic year, and enough time has to be left to hold the debate and ballot. That is simply a practical impossibility.
  With the greatest of respect to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, I have to concede that there has been an error of judgment. I share the blame for that error because I voted for it when the original legislation was framed. I put my hand up and say that I made the mistake as well; I did not spot how difficult the petitions would be. However, the petitions are intended for areas in which there is one grammar school in an otherwise comprehensive education system. They were designed for much smaller scale activities than those in Kent, where they are simply a practical impossibility.
  764
  I shall put some suggestions to my right hon. Friend, who shares many of my concerns about the problems that we face in Kent. We could make the rules for collecting the names on petitions much simpler, which would not require primary legislation, and would allow us to move forward. We could create a mechanism to ensure that the campaigning organisation was provided with the names of all the parents from the various schools so that its representatives did not have to visit every school separately to get all those names. We could make the logistics of collecting the petition more simple, by allowing many more names to be provided on one petition form.
  We could consider how Kent is divided to find out whether it would be possible to hold the ballot at certain locations in Kent rather than across the whole county. That is not beyond the wit of man because Kent avoided going comprehensive in the first place by saying that it was a group of diverse communities that had to be treated separately, that the legislation could not be applied en masse and that schools had to be broken down and dealt with on their individual merits. Kent could say that for a couple of decades to avoid the current legislation. Why cannot we divide Kent into its communities? Some may doubt whether that can be done, but it has been done in Dover, where the Dover test serves local grammar schools.
  6.15 pm
  We could make the ballot a practical possibility by reducing the threshold for the petition to 1 per cent. That is the only part of my proposals that would require primary legislation, which is why new clause 9 deals with that aspect only. I strongly urge my right hon. Friend seriously to consider accepting new clause 9, which would allow us to try to achieve that much more realistic threshold. That would at least make it a practical possibility for us to campaign, and to hold the debate and the ballot. I am not talking about a political dogfight or suggesting that we should all get into our bunkers and start to close our eyes to the merits of good schools, the difficulties faced by bad schools and all other the problems that Opposition Members will certainly mention.
  The subject must be debated properly, after which the decision could be taken and we could then begin to live with it in Kent. I would at least know that there was a fighting chance that I could offer my daughter the sort of education that I believe that she and all my other constituents deserve. I want the educational apartheid that exists in Kent to end and a decent, progressive comprehensive education system to be put in place so that we can start delivering results and dealing with the iniquities that face my county.
  Mr. Bercow: I support new clause 11, tabled by my hon. Friends the Members for Maidenhead (Mrs. May), for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) and myself. When the time comes, my hon. Friends and I will certainly press it to a Division.
  It may be helpful to explain at the outset that new clause 11 is the sequel to two important developments of the past few months, the first of which occurred on 14 March in the other place, when my noble Friend Baroness Blatch successfully pressed for the inclusion of

  765
  amendment No. 138A, which, if I remember rightly, subsequently became new clause 98. The second of the developments to which today's proceedings are a sequel occurred on 23 May in Committee, when new clause 98 was effectively struck down and deleted from the Bill at the request of those on the Treasury Bench.
  New clause 11 represents the latest instalment in a long-running saga. My starting point is that grammar schools and the selective system, where it exists, are successful. The hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) advocated his case eloquently and with sincerity. I respect him for that, but I disagree with him, and he will not be surprised to learn that a copy of the Official Report containing his speech will shortly be winging its way to my long-standing friend, the admirable prospective Conservative parliamentary candidate for South Thanet. I refer of course to Mr. Mark MacGregor, whom I confidently predict will replace the hon. Gentleman in due course.
  Grammar schools are a success. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I regard them as beacons of excellence in our education system. They are renowned for their academic results, their sporting prowess, their cultural achievements, and, indeed, for the equipment for citizenship with which they have successfully provided their pupils for generations. However, the House need not take that from me; it can usefully take the same point from the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field). Sadly, he is not in his place today, but he has contributed intelligently to the public debate on the subject.
  On 12 September 1999, the right hon. Gentleman wisely declared that grammar schools were the outstanding success of public education in this country. Moreover, he was joined by the hon. Member for Wirral, South (Mr. Chapman), who was emboldened during an Adjournment debated initiated by my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady).
  For the benefit of the House, I quote what the hon. Gentleman said:
  If our grammar schools are doing a good job, and in my patch they certainly are, let us leave well alone—"If they ain't broke, they don't need fixing."
  I congratulated the hon. Gentleman at the time, and I reiterate those congratulations.
  The Secretary of State seemed somewhat puzzled when, on an earlier set of amendments, we showed interest in the use of the expression, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." He was arguing that case in a different context, but he talked about the importance of reinforcing and supporting schools where they were doing well. Manifestly and pre-eminently, that same argument, and perhaps even the rhetoric that he deployed, are applicable to grammar schools.
  It is worth noting that in that debate, the hon. Member for Wirral, South went on significantly and helpfully to add:
  The perpetual threat of balloting is corrosive of the sense of security of the school, its staff and pupils.—[Official Report, 20 October 1999; Vol. 336, c. 371]
  766
  He was absolutely right and deserves the warm admiration of all fair-minded Members.
  The evidence is clear.
  Mr. Hilary Benn: If the hon. Gentleman is so confident of the virtues of selection at 11, why is he afraid to let parents decide whether they want that selection through the ballot mechanism?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman is an admirable Member of the House, but impatience is getting the better of him on this occasion. I hope that he will not hold it against me if I say that to that important point I shall in due course and with relish come, but that before I do, I want to say something about the success of grammar schools, from which I know he would not seek to divert me.
  In 1999, 36 per cent. of the top 100 performing schools were grammar schools, even though they account for only 5 per cent. of the total number of secondary schools. In 1998, at GCSE level, eight of the top 10 performing local education authorities were selective education authorities. At A-level, in the same year—
  Mr. Kelvin Hopkins: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Gentleman must contain himself and demonstrate what patience he can muster in the circumstances.
  In 1998, the five top performing education authorities were all selective authorities. I refer to Bournemouth, to Buckinghamshire, to Southend, to Sutton and, perhaps above all, to Trafford, which is in the area of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West—Trafford education authority came top. That happened despite the fact that selective LEAs account for only one fifth of all LEAs. We also know, as Northern Ireland Members can readily testify, of the tremendous academic achievements of the selective system in the Province; it is consistently between 30 and 50 per cent. better than the system in other parts of the UK.
  Mr. Hopkins: Is it not obvious that those education authorities are high performing because of their social composition? It is nothing to do with the education systems that they have. Would they not do even better if they had a non-selective system, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) has pointed out?
  Mr. Bercow: The answer is no. The hon. Gentleman is absolutely wrong. If he studies the evidence and the social composition and make-up of those areas, he can readily be reassured that the facts disprove his prejudice.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I will give way to the hon. Lady in due course if she is patient.
  In debating the issue, we need to take account of one other important factor: the third report of the 1998–99 parliamentary Session by the Select Committee on Education and Employment, which was about highly able children. That report concluded that there was a significant weakness in the provision for highly able

  767
  children in one third of maintained primary schools and in 30 per cent. of maintained secondary schools. It went on to emphasise the need for different types of schools for different categories of highly able pupils. We should therefore be aware that, when we contemplate the possibility of abolishing grammar schools and the selective system, we do so in the face of a Select Committee report that contends that we are already doing too little for the most able children.
  Dr. Starkey: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I will in due course.
  Before the general election, what did the Labour party say on the subject of grammar schools? The House should be reminded of the words of the Secretary of State in his capacity as shadow Secretary of State on 7 February 1997. He declared that as far as grammar schools were concerned, a Labour Government posed no threat—I quote him precisely—
  to their continuance or to their ethos or to their quality …
  The then Leader of the Opposition, now the Prime Minister, wrote in a letter to the electors of Wirral during the Wirral, South by-election campaign:
  A Labour Government will not close your grammar schools. That is my personal guarantee.
  He went on to say, of the grammar schools that exist, "let them remain". "Standards, not structures", he said, adding that Labour was ditching outdated ideology in favour of the principle that what counts is what works.
  Manifestly, grammar schools work. Ministers cannot conceivably object to the standards attained by those schools. It must logically follow that the objection is to their structure.
  Dr. Ladyman: If grammar schools work, how does the hon. Gentleman explain the university of York data, which used normalised, equal cohorts of intellectually similar students, the only difference between them being the secondary education system that they followed, and manifestly showed that comprehensives did better still?
  Mr. Bercow: First, I simply do not accept the hon. Gentleman's verdict. Secondly, I believe that I am right in saying that the basis on which the research was conducted was not made public at the time of the presentation of the paper. It was therefore impossible to conduct a proper intellectual debate about it. The author of the research was requested to produce the assumptions on which he was working. He refused to do so, in defiance of the normal rules of academic debate. If the hon. Gentleman on a suitable occasion wants to furnish those details to the House, as he could credibly and in more detail have done this afternoon, we could have a proper discussion about it. The evidence to which I have pointed demonstrates the continuing success of selective education authorities, including in areas where there is a substantial socio-economic mix.
  I remain convinced of the merits of the selective system where it exists, although it is important to emphasise, contrary to what the Secretary of State implied earlier, that we are not advocating a selective blueprint throughout the UK. It might suit his book to allege that, but that is not the position of my hon. Friends, or the position that I take.
  Dr. Starkey: After the debate, will the hon. Gentleman look at the performance statistics for schools in Milton
  768
  Keynes and the rest of Buckinghamshire when they were under Tory-controlled Buckinghamshire county council, which believed in selective education, and compare those with the results now, when Milton Keynes has an education authority that does not believe in selective education? He will find that Buckinghamshire county council allowed a huge disparity in standards to build up between Milton Keynes schools and schools elsewhere in Buckinghamshire, and that since the threat of selection has been removed from Milton Keynes and we have an education authority that believes in the education of all its children, standards in all schools in Milton Keynes have vastly improved. The improvement has been at a much higher level than any improvement in the rest of Buckinghamshire.
  Mr. Bercow: The hon. Lady is wrong. The record of Buckinghamshire as a local education authority is outstanding. It is comparable with anywhere in the UK. The results improve consistently across the board. I remind my right hon. and hon. Friends that what the hon. Lady says is entirely symptomatic of the Labour party's tendency to decry the achievement of secondary modern and high schools. I bitterly resent the way in which they seek to denigrate the achievements of those schools. I champion not only the grammar schools in the Buckinghamshire local education authority area, but the upper schools, which do an admirable job.
  Mr. David Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  6.30 pm
  Mr. Bercow: I shall make a little progress with my argument and give way to the hon. Gentleman later, if time allows.
  I mentioned Labour rhetoric before the election. What has happened since? Petition and ballot regulations have been put on the statute book and my right hon. and hon. Friends and I believe that there are several cogent objections to those regulations. First, they constitute a one-way ratchet. They allow for the destruction of grammar schools, but they do not permit their creation. Moreover, grammar schools are the only category of schools to which the petitioning and balloting procedure is intended to apply. We are not to have petitions and ballots in relation to technology colleges, comprehensive schools, voluntary-aided schools, single-sex schools or independent schools. Grammar schools have been singled out for this treatment.
  It has been emphasised many times, and I do so again, that there is scope within the petition procedure for fraud. I have said on a number of occasions—and it has not been effectively contradicted—that there is potential for cheating in the collection of signatures for the petitions. My right hon. and hon. Friends and I were not remotely reassured to be told by Electoral Reform Ballot Services last year:
  The checking procedures are in accordance with the ballot regulations and the terms of our contract with the Department for Education and Employment.
  Is that reassuring? No, it is not, when we know that the opportunity for validation of signatures is not what it should be.
  Mr. Blunkett: Will the hon. Gentleman clarify that? Is he or is he not making an allegation that the ballots are

  769
  unfair and that civil servants in my Department seek to undermine their validity? I want an answer to that question from the hon. Gentleman, who purports to want to be a Minister.
  Mr. Bercow: I am happy to answer the Secretary of State. I did not say that the petitions or the ballots so far had been subject to fraud. I am happy to repeat, however, that the scope for fraud and impersonation does exist. The Secretary of State should not affect quite such shock or seem so affronted. The point has been raised with him several times, and we have had no satisfactory response from him or from the Minister for School Standards. I stand by what I have said. I have said it many times before and I shall continue saying it until the Secretary of State is prepared to reconsider the terms of the regulations and the contract with Electoral Reform Ballot Services.
  The ballots ask a loaded question. It does not refer to grammar schools, but simply says, "Are you in favour of the school or schools listed introducing admission arrangements which admit children of all abilities?" That is manifestly a motherhood-and-apple-pie question which invites an affirmative answer. The electorate who are invited to answer the question are perversely chosen by the Government. My right hon. and hon. Friends will agree that it is frankly indefensible that the parents of grammar school pupils, who themselves have a direct vested and continuing interest in the outcome of such ballots, are disfranchised by the Government's regulations in many cases.
  Considerable costs are involved in sweeping away the grammar schools and the selective system. In Kent, in bricks and mortar terms alone, the cost is estimated at £150 million. For the whole country, a figure of more than £500 million seems to err on the conservative side.
  Mr. Blunkett: Is it not a paradox that the amount that Kent claims it would take to alter the system is £6 million higher than the sum that it would need, according to its asset management activity, to refurbish, renew and extend existing buildings to provide a satisfactory solution to its building and construction problems? It seems that Kent is prepared to spend £6 million more on reconfiguration than it would on reorganising its existing buildings to make them fit for current pupils.
  Mr. Bercow: The Secretary of State really does have a brass neck to make such a bogus debating point—to which I shall with relish reply. This is not a question of what Kent county council is prepared to spend; it is a matter of what Kent county council would be obliged to spend in order to secure a reconfiguration of the pattern of local education in that county. The Secretary of State himself has made it clear, albeit only sotto voce, that if parents choose to vote for the abolition of the existing system there will be a price tag, and the bill will have to be met at local level because the Secretary of State has no intention whatever of footing it. So it will mean crippling council tax rises for local residents—a fact that the right hon. Gentleman has been reluctant to emphasise, but which I want to underline tonight.
  Why does the Secretary of State not listen to the authoritative view of the director of education in my own county of Buckinghamshire, Mr. David McGahey,
  770
  who has repeatedly told him that the size and configuration of local grammar schools in Buckinghamshire mean that they would not readily lend themselves to conversion to comprehensive status? The schools are full almost to bursting, the scope for development on the green belt is minimal and the capital costs of reconstruction are prohibitive. It is no good the right hon. Gentleman consistently refusing to allow the facts to intrude upon his declared prejudices in any way, at any time and to any degree. The reality is that it would be costly—and in many cases impracticable—to secure the sort of conversion that many of his hon. Friends envisage.
  Dr. Ladyman: I know that the hon. Gentleman does not deliberately try to mislead the House, so he must allow me to correct him on two points. First, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State is absolutely correct to say that Kent county council has said that it needs to spend £146 million on the existing system of education—only barely less than it would cost to implement a new system. Secondly, the hon. Gentleman implied that parents of pupils at grammar schools in Kent would not get a vote. That is absolutely untrue. All parents with children at feeder schools and secondary schools would get a vote.
  Mr. Bercow: Let me make two points in response to the hon. Gentleman. First, I am grateful to him for confirming that reconstruction would entail substantial additional costs. He has not denied that. Rather, he has acknowledged the truth of the charge that my hon. Friends and I have been making. Secondly, of course I am happy to confirm that in Kent, as he rightly pointed out, grammar school parents do have a vote. The burden of my criticism was directed at the procedure that applies to areas where there are stand-alone grammar schools or groups of grammar schools, where it is an undemocratic outrage that parents of children at grammar schools are not allowed to vote.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: I shall give way just once more and then I must make some progress.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman, who has been most generous in giving way throughout the debate. Does he agree that it is equally an outrage that in the recent Ripon grammar school ballot, 25 per cent. of parents who were eligible to vote had children at private schools?
  Mr. Bercow: I do not think that there is anything remotely outrageous about that. The hon. Gentleman is tempting me to address the subject of Ripon. He can rest assured that I shall not resist that temptation for long, but first I shall focus briefly on the arguments about educational opportunity and the threat of discrimination against people from ethnic minorities, as that is a point of great importance to the Opposition.
  Thirty per cent. of pupils at Henrietta Barnet grammar school in the London Borough of Barnet are from ethnic minorities. As the former head teacher, Jane de Swiet, pointed out many months ago, if that school were to become a comprehensive, its catchment area would be

  771
  based around Hampstead Garden Suburb, which has some of the most expensive housing anywhere in the United Kingdom. Such an arrangement would prevent substantial numbers of bright children from ethnic minorities and from financially modest backgrounds from benefiting from the education that is presently available to them.
  Mr. Hopkins rose—
  Mr. Richard Allan rose—
  Mr. Bercow: I have given way a great deal. The hon. Gentleman would be the first to complain about the length of speeches. He cannot have it both ways, and I am being as fair as I can.
  My second example is the Queen Elizabeth school for boys in the same borough, where 32 per cent. of the pupils speak English as a second language. Let us make no mistake about it; if those schools became comprehensives, their catchment areas would effectively deprive large numbers of bright children without financial means from benefiting from the sort of education that they currently receive.
  A further objection—as if the objections were not manifold already—is that if grammar schools are scrapped on a significant scale, the effect will simply be to increase the size of the private sector. In common with my right hon. and hon. Friends, I strongly support the right of parents to spend their post-tax income as they wish, and that has always been the Conservative position. However, would not it be the cruellest irony if, in the year 2000 under a Labour Government who spout the mantra of support for the many and not the few, the private sector were to expand, not on account of its intrinsic merits but because of the destruction of the grammar schools? That would be wrong, it could not be defended, and we should not allow it to happen.
  Under present legislation, the sword of Damocles hangs over the remaining 164 grammar schools year after year. There is provision for a moratorium on further ballots in the event of an unsuccessful ballot, such as that in the constituency of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry), but nothing prevents those who pursue a failed petition one year from embarking on another the next. That is wrong. It produces the lack of security that was rightly, eloquently and bravely bemoaned by the hon. Member for Wirral, South in last year's debate, and the Conservatives deplore that state of affairs.
  Interestingly, we have heard little in this debate about what grammar schools themselves think—but we have bothered to discover that by conducting a survey of the 164 grammar school head teachers, two thirds of whom responded. Some 91.8 per cent. said that an end to selection would cause extreme disruption to local education, and 86.8 per cent. said that it would have serious implications for bright kids. Some 81.8 per cent. said that despite the controversy over the continuation of grammar schools and the insecurity that many of them
  772
  feel, demand for places at those institutions has continued to rise, and 74.5 per cent. said that their schools enjoy good relations with neighbouring secondary schools.
  Mr. Beggs: Did any of the school principals who responded describe the system of selection as evil?
  Mr. Bercow: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that observation, upon which I shall reflect. I respect the experience that he brings to these debates.
  We wondered whether, following the Ripon ballot which was a triumph for the patient and persistent diplomacy of my right hon. Friend the Member for Skipton and Ripon, the Government might have changed their stance. The signals have been confusing. First, in the immediate aftermath of that triumph of my right hon. Friend and his colleagues, the Secretary of State said:
  Arguments about selection are a past agenda. I am not hunting grammar schools.
  However, we should beware of reading too much into such statements. At almost the same time, we discovered that the Secretary of State was cited in support of a press release issued by the Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions, the hon. Member for Stretford and Urmston (Ms Hughes), who is doing her best to whip up support for a petition and hostility to grammar schools in the borough of Trafford. As if that were not bad enough, we had the decision of the Standing Committee on 23 May—
  Mr. Brady: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way, because I would not wish him to miss an important detail. In the letter issued to all members of the Labour party in Trafford, not only is the Secretary of State claimed to oppose grammar schools and to seek their abolition, but so is the Prime Minister, which is entirely contrary to the promises that he made in Wirral, South shortly before the general election.
  Mr. Bercow: My hon. Friend is simply pointing out that the Prime Minister is a chameleon. His convictions on a Monday differ from those he holds on a Wednesday, which differ from those he holds on a Friday. He is all over the place and subscribes to no fixed principles or philosophy.
  We know that several Labour Members—the hon. Members for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), for Leeds, Central (Mr. Benn), for Vale of Clwyd (Mr. Ruane), for Wolverhampton, North-East (Mr. Purchase) and, apparently, for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman)—want to up the ante and increase the pressure for the destruction of grammar schools. This year alone has seen eight petitions circulating in various parts of the country.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Bercow: No. I am coming to a conclusion and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will have an opportunity to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Earlier in this on-going debate—at the start of the last century—that great socialist philosopher Tawney said that it was important to have the maximum possible diversity of type among secondary schools. Tony Crosland, in language that I could not repeat on the Floor of the House without severe rebuke, declared that if it was the last thing he did, he would destroy every

  773
  grammar school in England and Wales. Those positions have honesty in common. They are straightforward and defensible positions. The Government's position—seeking the abolition of grammar schools through the back door—is duplicitous and mean-minded, and I strongly deplore it.
  6.45 pm
  The regulations are spiteful and vindictive. They set parent against parent, governor against governor, teacher against teacher and even, potentially, pupil against pupil. Thousands of hours have been wasted on the petitions and the ballot campaigns, and no doubt the Government would like to see even more time wasted. The Conservatives will fight, fight and fight again to champion those great institutions and to vanquish those who would destroy them.
  Dr. Starkey: I do not support new clause 11, and I shall cite the example of Milton Keynes and Buckinghamshire. In that regard, I am grateful to someone who passed on to me the useful agenda and report of the meeting of Buckinghamshire county council on 17 February 1995, headed "A grammar school for Milton Keynes? Outcome of public consultations".
  The new clause shows the limits of the Conservatives' commitment to parental choice and democracy. They are keen on local communities expressing their view only when it coincides with the Conservatives' view, and I shall give the example of what happened when the Conservatives were in power in Buckinghamshire. Hon. Members will be aware that Milton Keynes is a special place. It is a growing community and still in the process of an extensive school building programme. During the 1990s, when the area was under Buckinghamshire county council control, it was proposed that the next new secondary school should be a grammar school, not a comprehensive. Not unnaturally, that proposal involved heated public debate over some considerable time. The proposed grammar school would have been highly selective and likely to have taken only one in 20 local children. It would also have taken substantial funding away from all the existing secondary schools in Milton Keynes.
  The county council was involved in public consultations and, in January 1995, the results of one of them was revealed to the council. The parental consultation demonstrated that 59 per cent. were against the grammar school proposal and 39 per cent. were in favour. The proposal that the new school should be a grammar school was opposed by all the other existing secondary schools and primary schools which responded. The proposal was also opposed by the then Milton Keynes borough council and by three out of the four parish councils that responded, not to mention the Roman Catholic diocese, which had invested in a secondary school in Milton Keynes on the understanding that it would be part of a comprehensive system.
  Despite those overwhelming indications of public feeling, Buckinghamshire county council decided to ignore that response and to make the new school a grammar school. The hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow)—who was not active in Buckinghamshire at the time—made a point about the danger of repeated
  774
  ballots, but Buckinghamshire county council held three ballots on the proposals because it did not like the answers it got the first and second time. Unfortunately for the council, the third ballot got the same answer—a majority of parents were not in favour of a grammar school. The Conservatives on Buckinghamshire county council were not against repeated ballots. They simply hoped that, by going on and on, they might change the public's view. They did not. When they failed to change the view of the public, they simply ignored it.
  Mr. Brady: Is not the process that the hon. Lady is describing somewhat analogous to what the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) is seeking to do with his amendments? Recognising that he cannot get the 20 per cent. threshold, he wants to cut it to 1 per cent.
  Dr. Starkey: My hon. Friend is asking about the threshold of a ballot, and I agree that it has been set impossibly high so that it is not possible to get a public consultation. Buckinghamshire county council held a consultation, ignored the results and then had repeated consultation. During this time, the secondary school—which should have gone ahead—was kept on ice.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East (Mr. White) and I have been well aware of the consequences of that decision for the whole school system in Milton Keynes, where a much needed secondary school was held up for a considerable time because of the determination of Buckinghamshire county council to foist a selective system on the people of Milton Keynes, despite their repeatedly expressed view that they did not want it.
  Fortunately, the attempt by Buckinghamshire county council to force the system on people was frustrated by the determined efforts of the Milton Keynes council, which is now the education authority with responsibility for schools. Thanks to the council and the Government, we now have a new comprehensive school that is meeting the needs of pupils in the part of Milton Keynes that is in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, North-East.
  In my intervention on the hon. Member for Buckingham, I said that the consequence for the parents and children of Milton Keynes of the removal, once and for all, of the sterile debate about selection is that we now have an education authority that has concentrated on the needs of all the children and schools of Milton Keynes. In the short time it has been in control, the authority has overseen a substantial improvement in standards across the whole ability range: markedly so for boys. There has been a substantial improvement in the level of achievement in comprehensive schools. I am confident that that improvement in standards will continue.
  That vindicates the expressed view of the people of Milton Keynes that what they wanted were excellent schools for all their children and not the distorted debate that Buckinghamshire county council was attempting to push on them. The council's action exemplifies the view—one that is held, certainly, by the hon. Member for Buckingham—that the way to improve education is to push resources into a small number of schools for which we select the best pupils. Not unnaturally, those schools will turn out good results. It is as if we were to select on the basis of the height of the children and then be surprised that, in selective schools, the average height of pupils was higher than elsewhere.

  775
  The amendment to which the hon. Member for Buckingham spoke is a blatant attempt to ensure that parental choice cannot be operated to express a view that selective education is divisive and does not provide a good education for all children. I do not believe that it even provides good education for those children who are often put into narrowly academic schools where they are unable to fulfil their full potential across a range of activities and where they are channelled into a narrow sort of education.
  Mr. David Curry: This has been a wide-ranging debate which, in many respects, has concerned the very principles of selective as against comprehensive education. I am unique in the House, in that there has been a ballot in my constituency. I wish to speak from experience, rather than from a theoretical position.
  I say to the Secretary of State that Ripon college—the city school, as it was; formerly a secondary modern—will, in the next academic year, benefit from its technology status. I am grateful to the Secretary of State for that award, which was well merited. He will be interested and pleased to know that, recently, the school received two awards for excellence in teaching, demonstrating the commitment of the school to continue to improve standards. He will be pleased to know also that the co-operation with the grammar school—promised at the time of the ballot—is being pursued. We intend that that partnership—formed in the heat of battle, if I can put it in those slightly melodramatic terms—will continue now that, for the moment, the battle is over. I intend to make sure that those important promises are kept.
  I wish to refer to the circumstances in which the ballot took place and how it took place, as they illustrate the difficulties of a Bill that the Government are defending but which has been so roundly attacked by Labour Members today. In my constituency, the electorate was incomplete and, frankly, arbitrary. First, the electorate was confined to feeder schools which had sent five children to the grammar school over the previous three years. However, if the junior school in question had a separate infants department, children at the infants school did not count towards the ballot. If the school was integrated, the children did count. Parents would find themselves in identical situations in different junior schools in Ripon, but some were disfranchised.
  Secondly, the parents of both secondary schools were denied the franchise. I would never suggest that only the parents of those children at the grammar school should have the vote. It is legitimate that the parents of the children at all the secondary schools should have the vote. However, they did not. We had the arbitrary situation that a parent in Ripon with a child in the last year at one of the feeder primary schools had a vote. However, a parent with a child in the first year of either the college or the grammar school—where there is an expectation that that child will spend between five and seven years at the school, right through to university entrance—was denied the vote. I regard that as an arbitrary definition of the electorate.
  The problem with the Bill is that the question is incomplete. The question does not ask the electorate, however it is defined, to vote on a particular scheme of reorganisation. The electorate and parents are canny, and
  776
  want to know what they are voting for. They want to know where the beef is. They do not want just a theoretical debate about education.
  When North Yorkshire education authority—which behaved entirely properly throughout this matter—pointed out to parents that a vote for change did not necessarily mean that a single comprehensive school would be created in Ripon, the parents said that that meant that they were voting for the unknown. They were not voting for a particular proposal whose meaning they understood. It was not clear what the organisation would entail.
  Technically, the ballot was about admissions to the grammar school, and the only question on the ballot paper was a technical one. The question that that opened up—what sort of education we would get if there were a vote for change—was not answered. That was left to the local authority. When the authority put forward its answer in the event of a yes result, the electorate was not consulted on its practical shape.
  I reiterate the words of my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow): the solution in Ripon is only temporary. In five years, those concerned can come back to the matter. It is difficult to manage and run a school knowing that that possibility is constantly looming.
  If they want a definitive solution, the Government could adopt reasonable procedures that would satisfy their own Back Benchers. First, they should require every local authority with selective schools to set out a scheme of reorganisation—except where ballots have taken place already, as the principle of double jeopardy should be maintained. Those local authorities should set out not the principles of reorganisation but how they would reorganise their schools on a comprehensive basis. That would mean that parents knew what they were voting for.
  7 pm
  The Government should then issue an undertaking that, if the scheme necessitated further capital expenditure, they would provide it. As my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham said, it is clear that funding would not be available for capital expenditure consequent on reorganisation. If the Government want to give parents a real choice, on the famous level playing field, they must demonstrate that parents will not, by their vote, penalise themselves or their children in terms of funding.
  Finally, there would be a ballot of eligible parents. For stand-alone schools, parents of all pupils at both secondary and primary schools would participate. Where the present whole-LEA system of education obtains, the ballot would be much wider and would therefore be held broadly in accordance with the principles that have been set out. However, when that decision has been taken, that would be the end of the process. There would be none of the constant returning to the old argument that has been described already in this debate.
  In this Chamber, hon. Members have made it clear that they are fed up with the argument about structure and are more interested in performance, and I agree with much of what the Secretary of State has to say in that regard. He has stated that what matters in schools is individual performance, and he has stressed the importance of head teachers. I echo what the right hon. Gentleman has said, with authority, about the sheer difficulty of running some inner-city schools, where teachers have to combine

  777
  teaching with being police officers and social workers. Their role in loco parentis is the greater because, to be blunt, children often come from deeply inadequate backgrounds.
  The House should focus on those difficulties, so it is important that a term be set to the current debate. In that way, we could take the matter forward: parents would be able to make a definitive choice, and schools would finally know where they stood.
  I believe that the Government need to be got off the hook over this problem. They have proposed a scheme with the wonderful advantage that both sides of the argument believe that the ballot is rigged. That is quite an achievement, and it happened with the ballot in my constituency.
  I must pay tribute to the Secretary of State again, as he gave a judicious and balanced response when he was called upon to adjudicate the complaints. No reasonable person could have objected to his decision. However, the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) showed that he thinks that the scheme does not work effectively. He excoriated the scheme, before announcing—somewhat curiously—that he intended to take no part in any ballot in his constituency that might result.
  Dr. Ladyman: May I clarify that I did not say that I would not vote in the ballot? I simply said that I would not use my position as a politician to make the ballot a political one. In fact, I rather admired the slightly detached approach to the ballot process displayed by the right hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Curry: If the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would not want to make the ballot party political, I would certainly agree, as I sought to exclude that possibility from the ballot in my constituency. However, politics goes far beyond parties, and this ballot process is intensely political. It is one of those few experiments in which ballot papers were delivered to doorsteps. Even then, the turnout of only 70 per cent. could have tempted me to an entirely unauthorised digression on local government election turnouts, on which I do not intend to embark in this debate.
  As I said, the Government need to be let off the hook with regard to the scheme. In the next academic year, as we approach a general election, I look forward to watching Ministers and Labour activists campaigning through Daily Mail territory and encouraging parents to hold ballots on the future of their grammar schools. I have a feeling that the word may go out, quietly, that the Government are not too anxious to incite enemy troops at this particular time.
  I understand that the Government wanted to find a solution to this problem, but their solution involves a formula that is so provisional and so unsatisfactory that virtually no one thinks it sustainable. I suspect that the Secretary of State will argue otherwise, and I said earlier that I am in a relatively comfortable position, as the ballot in my constituency has already been held. However, there is a case for a close examination of the system that has been set up, so that parents can have a genuine choice.
  The Government must ensure that the extent of the franchise should not be open to dispute and that the question is honestly and fully put. A definitive result
  778
  would mean that everyone would know where they stood, and we would all be able to move on and deal with a much more pressing agenda.
  Mr. Chaytor: I rise to oppose new clause 11, moved by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and to support new clause 9, moved by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman).
  Interestingly, the hon. Member for Buckingham spoke for precisely 30 minutes about the selective system, but he focused entirely on grammar schools. Why did he ignore the 75 per cent. of children who fail the test at 11 and are deselected? The hon. Gentleman should answer that question when he speaks on the matter again, as should all Conservative Members. They try to define selection entirely in terms of grammar schools, even though most children in the selective system are not in grammar schools. The Conservative party must address that issue.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham must answer another question. If he were to have children—God forbid, some might say—would he exercise his freedom of choice and send them to a secondary modern school? I look forward to his answer.
  Mr. Bercow: The happy event to which the hon. Gentleman alludes has not yet occurred, and I accept that it might well not do so. I shall have to wait for events to take their natural course. However, I can tell the hon. Gentleman that I should be very happy for children of mine to go to a secondary high school in a number of the selective areas to which I have referred.
  The hon. Gentleman is wrong: I celebrated the achievements of the grammar but, as my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) will know, I pointed also to the success of the high schools.
  There it is: a straight question from one politician gets a straight answer in the affirmative from another.
  Mr. Chaytor: I look forward to the proof of that. If the hon. Gentleman were to act as he says he would, it would be a record. I think that he would be the only Opposition Member who had ever chosen to send a child to a secondary modern school. It would be a remarkable event, and I will hold him to his promise.
  The hon. Member for Buckingham based his argument on the assumption that the evidence is that grammar schools perform better than other schools. He dismissed the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet regarding the recent research by York university, and the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) about what happened in Milton Keynes. He insisted that grammar schools perform better.
  Unfortunately, even if that was true at some point in the past, it is true no longer. I refer the hon. Member for Buckingham to the written answer that I received on 25 May from my right hon. Friend the Minister for School Standards. It showed that the top 25 per cent. of children in grammar schools and secondary modern schools differed in level of achievement by only about 5 percentage points.
  The figures show that 100 per cent. of that top 25 per cent. in comprehensive schools obtained five GCSE passes at A to C grades. That may not be the ideal

  779
  benchmark, but it is the one normally used. By contrast, 96.4 per cent. of children in that ability range in selective schools achieved that success.
  Our comprehensive system has developed and improved over the years. The figures show that children in the top 25 per cent. in the ability range perform better in comprehensive schools than in selective schools.
  Mr. Brady: Will the hon. Gentleman say where those top performing comprehensive schools are—in the most affluent areas, or the poorest ones?
  Mr. Chaytor: The figures that I gave apply to comprehensive schools across the country that happen to have children from the top 25 per cent. of the ability range. Their geographical location is irrelevant. Conservative Members, newspaper editors and television pundits talk about the failure of comprehensive schools in inner cities, but it must be remembered that there is not a single comprehensive school in any inner city in the United Kingdom. Every school in the inner city has been selected once, twice, or even three or four times. There is no such thing as a genuinely comprehensive school in our inner cities because, in the vast majority of cases, those schools have been so heavily creamed that even though their curriculum may be available to children of all ability, their intake does not reflect the full span of the ability range.
  Mr. Hopkins: On the previous point, does my hon. Friend agree that one problem with the selective system is that children who do not pass the 11-plus examination, or whatever one might call it, become alienated from education; therefore, across the system as a whole, such children perform less well on average? When children are in comprehensive schools, they are encouraged rather than discouraged.
  Mr. Chaytor: That is absolutely right. If we contrast areas that have successively reorganised along comprehensive lines with those that have retained selection, comparing areas like for like in terms of their socio-economic status, that will prove to be the case.
  I see the hon. Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady) shaking his head and I am glad that he is doing so, as it conveniently brings me to my next argument. He made the sweeping statement that he represents the best performing local authority in the north-west—Trafford, which is an authority that I know reasonably well. I am not familiar with the performance of all the local authorities in that area, but I am familiar with that of authorities in Greater Manchester, where our constituencies are located.
  If we compare selective Trafford with comprehensive Bury, on whatever indicator that the hon. Gentleman chooses to provide, we will find that there is, at worst, no difference and, in most cases, a significant improvement in the schools in Bury. Let us consider, for example, the performance at key stage 2 in primary schools: Bury's comprehensive primary schools outperform the primary schools in Trafford. If we take performance at key stage 4, or the number of children who obtain five A to Cs at GCSE, the most recent results show a negligible difference: 55 per cent. in Bury and 55 point something per cent. in Trafford. Consider the number of children
  780
  who get a single GCSE. This is the most interesting result, as it is where the bulk of the population is at, and the proportion of children who get A to Gs in comprehensive Bury vastly exceeds those achieving that score in selective Trafford.
  The most significant figure is that for the participation rate beyond 16—it is what this Bill is about—where selective Trafford performs not only far worse than comprehensive Bury, but far worse than many other districts in Greater Manchester and throughout the north-west—districts that do not have the enormous social advantages of Trafford.
  My hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet has performed a service to the House in his careful dissection of the weaknesses of the selective system in Kent and the impact that that has on the development of the potential of children, of the divisive nature of the system as it impacts on communities, and of its sheer inefficiency. He also performed a service by drawing attention to some aspects of the existing regulations for the ballots in selective areas that must be reconsidered. He advanced a significant argument in favour of one sort of change to the existing ballot. Other changes need to be reconsidered. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) also argued constructively about the way in which the system operates, in particular in the area that he represents.
  I hope that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will take the time—I know that he will keep the matter under consideration—to reconsider the way in which the ballot for selective systems operates. It is not a question of opposing selection out of dogma or ideology. My objection to selection by ability at 11—there are other forms, which I do not oppose—is entirely based on the evidence and the results. The fact is that across the board, like for like, the performance of children in comprehensive schools and systems is far better than that of children in selective schools and systems.
  7.15 pm
  Mr. Brady: I shall be brief, but some of the arguments that have been advanced in the debate, in particular those in the previous contribution from the hon. Member for Bury, North (Mr. Chaytor), need to be challenged. It would be deeply boring for the House if the debate degenerated into a ding-dong between Bury and Trafford and who has the best results, so I will not go too far down that road—but the hon. Gentleman should look at the performance in Trafford between key stages 2 and 3.
  An article in The Times Educational Supplement last year demonstrated that the authority had one of the best improvements between those stages in the country. That is because something happens between primary school level—
  Mr. Chaytor: I will tell the hon. Gentleman exactly what happens between key stages 2 and 3: a large number of children leave Trafford at 11 to avoid the secondary modern schools and an equally large number come in at 11 from surrounding affluent districts to take advantage of what they perceive to be the value of Trafford's grammar schools.
  Mr. Brady: The hon. Gentleman can pursue his fictions if he wishes. There is a traffic in and out of

  781
  Trafford, not least across the boundary from the Manchester local authority area, which is, of course, Labour controlled, and is less affluent than the areas in my constituency to which children come. They come across the boundary not because of the affluence of their parental background, but because they are seeking a better standard of education, and they are fortunate to be able to obtain it.
  The improvement between key stages 2 and 3, which is one of the best in the country, is because of the quality of the schools—not merely the grammar schools, but the high schools too. I have talked often in the House about the quality of the secondary modern high schools in my constituency and the Secretary of State has acknowledged it. Ashton-on-Mersey is a beacon school. Children in my constituency are not consigned to failure if they do not go to a grammar school; they go to a beacon school. Now, they may also go to a technology college, as we have one coming on stream. It is a question of the quality of the system as a whole, and it delivers.
  The hon. Member for Bury, North can say what he likes about performance in Bury. I very much hope that the schools there are excellent and I congratulate him on the results that they achieve. However, he cannot say that the borough of Trafford is universally affluent. Let us compare like for like. Trafford has 18.9 per cent. free school meals. A comparable authority, such as Kirklees, which has about 18.5 per cent., comes 78th in the league table of local education authority performance, whereas Trafford always comes towards the top.
  We can dispute these matters day in and day out and we have had numerous opportunities in this Parliament to do so. The crucial question is not whether hon. Members believe one set of statistics or another for the performance of selective schools; it is whether parents believe in the performance of the selective system. That is why I was dumbfounded and disappointed to hear the hon. Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman) propose his amendment, the basis of which was that the Government had introduced a rigged balloting system in which, as we heard from my hon. Friend the Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), the question is inappropriate in many areas where there are stand-alone grammar schools as the electorate is manifestly unfair. I do not object if Labour Members have a passionate, ideological objection to grammar school and selective education: in that case, they are right to state that view. However, if after a debate that has lasted 20 years in Kent, as it has in Trafford, they still cannot persuade the 20 per cent. of parents necessary to sign their petition to trigger a ballot, it is not acceptable for them to come back to the House and say that they cannot do it under the rules introduced two years ago so please may they change the rules because they have failed.
  I will not compare the hon. Member for South Thanet, who seems to be a perfectly charming man in most respects, with President Mugabe in any other respect, but the hon. Gentleman's disregard for the democratic process in this matter is worthy of the situation with President Mugabe. People are saying, "We did not win. If we do not win under the current electoral process, we will change it and do it differently. May we please have new rules?" Surely not.
  782
  I happen to believe that even if the hon. Gentleman were to have his way and the Secretary of State were to buckle to pressure from the Benches behind him and make it easier to secure ballots on the future of selective education where it exists, we would find in Trafford, in the Wirral, in Buckingham and in Kent—as we did in Ripon, where it has been tried—that the vast majority of parents have the good sense to recognise good schools and to want to defend them, and that they put in practice what the Secretary of State puts into words. "If it ain't broke, don't fix it."
  Mr. Blunkett: I shall be brief. I want to place on the record once and for all that Labour Members think that the 11-plus is an anachronism. It will be an even greater anachronism when we have raised standards in primary schools sufficiently to make a nonsense of selecting 25 per cent. of children on the basis of a test of their mathematics and English ability, with or without verbal or non-verbal reasoning tests.
  The 11-plus will be an anachronism because actually it is possible to provide diversity in the secondary school system. both within and across schools, in a way that develops the talents of the gifted, provides support for those with special needs and allows those who are good at a particular subject to flourish but does not penalise those who, at a particular age and stage of education, have not managed to jump through a particular hoop.
  If we can manage that, we shall have a world-class education system that prepares people for the future—one that demands not that we have an elite composed of a small number of people, educated to a high level in schools that are separated out, but that the majority of people are able to develop their talents to the full and contribute to a knowledge economy that can compete with the best in the world. Everywhere else, there is an end to dogma. Everywhere I go, whether in Europe or in China, which I visited two weeks ago, there is a desire—a commitment—to provide excellence for everyone, to develop children's talents and to enable children to flourish.
  Had I had my time again over the last three years, I would have picked up what the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon (Mr. Curry) alluded to tonight, so let me put that on the record. First, I believe that the coming together of the grammar school and the college, as it now is, is an extremely good development: the combining of the work of the governing bodies and the ability to interchange children across the schools is an excellent development. Where grammar schools and secondary modern schools are close enough together to make that a possibility I, in the time that is left to me as Secretary of State, will do everything I can to encourage them to combine, to show once and for all what a nonsense it was to separate out children at 11.
  If we can achieve that in those areas, we can do a service to local people because the practice of separating out children at 11 and the argument that has taken place tonight illustrate the fact that, in this country, we cling to the past. We invent a structure and a system and cling to it as though that were the determinant of success; whereas the teaching in the school, the nurturing of the individual and the tailoring of education to meet that individual's needs are what is required. Therefore, I take the challenge by the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon head on. I do not agree with him about the detail of the ballot in

  783
  relation to giving a vote to the parents of those who have already entered secondary school, because in this case the matter to be decided is not the abolition of a school but a change in the admissions process.
  There was a problem in the introduction of comprehensive education, in that we allowed schools that excelled—that had excellence—to deteriorate. I have one in my constituency. It was the only grammar school in the north of Sheffield, with a population of 250,000. It was for boys. It deteriorated; it fell apart. It was never and has not been since, until very recently, a comprehensive school. It is pulling itself up by its bootstraps. I use that illustration only to show that we can learn lessons from the past, but the issue for us all tonight is to move forward to the future.
  I found many of the other lines of argument that the right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon pursued very interesting. I say to him, and to my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet (Dr. Ladyman), that we should seriously consider whether there are anomalies that should be examined. I shall return to that subject. The interesting argument about Buckinghamshire was important, and my hon. Friend the Member for Milton Keynes, South-West (Dr. Starkey) put it very well. I thought that the intellectual argument that the predecessor of the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow) used to make was very entertaining. The trouble is that intellectual entertainment is irrelevant to the needs of individual children.
  The excellent speech by my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet was from the heart. It was about the dilemma of parents and the consequences for children. We should take very seriously the heartfelt cry that he made, as a parent as well as a politician representing the area. He spoke of the silly nonsense of a Dover test versus a Kent test—but with the channel tunnel, I was wondering whether there might be a Calais test, which would override both.
  My hon. Friend made interesting arguments about the possibility of dissecting the county, as a previous Conservative-controlled Kent county council did when it suited it. I believe that it will be difficult to respond positively on that theme. The idea is intellectually possible, but looks very difficult in practice, despite the anomaly of the Dover test and the nonsense that results from it, which my hon. Friend rightly outlined. It is even more impossible to change the 20 per cent. threshold.
  It is equally impossible to conceive of starting a process of allowing parents to ballot, holding one ballot in one area and then deciding to abandon ballots altogether, which is what the Conservatives are proposing. As Baroness Blackstone rightly put it, that would be rather like holding a by-election to determine a general election. I am sure that, after the Romsey by-election, the Liberal Democrats would consider that to be a wonderful idea. Perhaps the Opposition would not find it quite as attractive, although the idea has points in its favour.
  Mr. Purchase: Tottenham.
  Mr. Blunkett: On the strength of the arguments that are being made, now that we have had the Tottenham by-election we need not bother with a general election. We
  784
  obviously do, and I will stand by that. It is nonsense to suggest that, having embarked on a system, we abandon it—not least because it removes all parental choice. Neither parents nor anyone else could ever again change the system of selection and the admissions process in those schools that are currently designated grammar schools. That would be an intellectual and practical nonsense.
  However, there are clearly technical difficulties in areas where a ballot is held throughout an authority. Such problems were experienced in Kent, as my hon. Friend the Member for South Thanet outlined. I think that I am right in saying that 45,959 votes were required—an enormous challenge, by anyone's calculations.
  In areas such as Kent and Trafford, where a ballot process is still in existence with the current threshold, anomalies have been highlighted. The right hon. Member for Skipton and Ripon mentioned some of them. I am prepared to take a look at those detailed technical requirements as they relate to the development of the ballot process. However, what I cannot do is change the threshold for the ballot. I am not prepared to prevent parents having the opportunity to ballot.
  7.30 pm
  We embarked on the process five years ago—it is five years to the week since we published the document outlining it, and indicated that we would give parents the right to choose. Five years later, we are still debating those issues, but the ballots will go ahead. The debate is important; it matters deeply to children. It matters to my colleagues in the House and to many people outside. We should always treat the debate with care and try to respond where we can.
  However, we must be honest with one another; none of us can allow the issue of selection and grammar schools to divert us and to dislocate the process in which we are engaged—raising standards for all children and ensuring that we give to the many what was, in the past, available only to the few. We are not returning to the debates of the past; we shall not allow the media or anyone else to divert us from the course we have set. We shall give children in our schools the decent education they deserve. That is why we should reject the new clause.
  Dr. Ladyman: By leave of the House, I will answer my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State. As my right hon. and hon. Friends are flooding into the Chamber, it is clear to me that, if I were to push new clause 9 to a vote, it would be carried. However, I must accept that the Conservatives and their sympathisers in the House of Lords would certainly throw out the new clause—and the Bill with it. The Bill deals with important issues.
  Given that I want no more and no less than for parents in my constituency to be able to hold a ballot in which the facts can be considered objectively, free from party politicking, and to make their decision about the future of selective education, my best chance of achieving that is to take the Secretary of State's kind offer to the bank. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
  Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 11

  GRAMMAR SCHOOLS: RETENTION OF SELECTIVE ADMISSION ARRANGEMENTS
  () In the School Standards and Framework Act 1998

  (a) in section 104 (designation of grammar schools), omit subsection (4)

  (b) omit sections 105 to 108 (procedure for ballots to determine retention or discontinuance of selective admission arrangements) and

  (c) in section 109 (proposals by governing body to and selective admission arrangements) omit subsections (3)(b) and (4).'.—[Mr. Bercow.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Motion made, and Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—
  The House divided: Ayes 132, Noes 330.

  Division No. 239]

  [7.32 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Hawkins, Nick

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Hayes, John

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Heald, Oliver

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Baldry, Tony

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Beggs, Roy

  Horam, John

  Bercow, John

  Howard, Rt Hon Michael

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Blunt, Crispin

  Hunter, Andrew

  Body, Sir Richard

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Boswell, Tim

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Johnson Smith Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Brady, Graham

  Key, Robert

  Brazier, Julian

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Lansley, Andrew

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Leigh, Edward

  Burns, Simon

  Letwin, Oliver

  Chope, Christopher

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Clappison, James

  Lidington, David

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Loughton, Tim

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Luff, Peter

  Collins, Tim

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Cran, James

  McIntosh, Miss Anne

  Curry, Rt Hon David

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Day, Stephen

  Madel, Sir David

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Maginnis, Ken

  Evans, Nigel

  Malins, Humfrey

  Faber, David

  Maples, John

  Fabricant, Michael

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Fallon, Michael

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Flight, Howard

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Moss, Malcolm

  Fox, Dr Liam

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Norman, Archie

  Gale, Roger

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Garnier, Edward

  Ottaway, Richard

  Gibb, Nick

  Page, Richard

  Gill, Christopher

  Paice, James

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Paterson, Owen

  Gray, James

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Green, Damian

  Prior, David

  Greenway, John

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Grieve, Dominic

  Robathan, Andrew

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Robertson, Laurence

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Hammond, Philip

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  786

  Ruffley, David

  Thompson, William

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Viggers, Peter

  Shepherd, Richard

  Walter, Robert

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Waterson, Nigel

  Soames, Nicholas

  Wells, Bowen

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Whittingdale, John

  Spring, Richard

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Wilshire, David

  Steen, Anthony

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Swayne, Desmond

  Yeo, Tim

  Syms, Robert

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Mr. John Randall and

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Mrs. Eleanor Laing.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Ainger, Nick

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Alexander, Douglas

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Allan, Richard

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Allen, Graham

  Clwyd, Ann

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Coaker, Vernon

  Ashton, Joe

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Cohen, Harry

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Coleman, Iain

  Austin, John

  Connarty, Michael

  Baker, Norman

  Cook, Frank (Stockton N)

  Ballard, Jackie

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Banks, Tony

  Cooper, Yvette

  Barron, Kevin

  Corston, Jean

  Bayley, Hugh

  Cousins, Jim

  Beard, Nigel

  Crausby, David

  Beckett, Rt Hon Mrs Margaret

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Bell, Stuart (Middlesbrough)

  Cummings, John

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Dalyell, Tam

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Berry, Roger

  Darvill, Keith

  Best, Harold

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Betts, Clive

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Blackman, Liz

  Davidson, Ian

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Davies, Geraint (Croydon C)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Borrow, David

  Denham, John

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Brake, Tom

  Dowd, Jim

  Browne, Desmond

  Dunwoody, Mrs Gwyneth

  Burden, Richard

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Burgon, Colin

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Burnett, John

  Edwards, Huw

  Burstow, Paul

  Efford, Clive

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Ennis, Jeff

  Ennis, Jeff

  Cabom, Rt Hon Richard

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Feam, Ronnie

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Fisher, Mark

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Flint, Caroline

  Cann, Jamie

  Follett, Barbara

  Caplin, Ivor

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Casale, Roger

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Caton, Martin

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Foulkes, George

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Gardiner, Barry

  Chaytor, David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Chidgey, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Clapham, Michael

  Gerrard, Neil

  787

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Gidley, Sandra

  McCabe, Steve

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Macdonald, Calum

  Godsiff, Roger

  McIsaac, Shona

  Goggins, Paul

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  McNulty, Tony

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  MacShane, Denis

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Grocott, Bruce

  McWilliam, John

  Grogan, John

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Gunnell, John

  Mallaber, Judy

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Hanson, David

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Healey, John

  Martlew, Eric

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Merron, Gillian

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Heppell, John

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Hesford, Stephen

  Milburn, Rt Hon Alan

  Hill, Keith

  Miller, Andrew

  Hinchliffe, David

  Moffatt, Laura

  Hodge, Ms Margaret

  Moore, Michael

  Hood, Jimmy

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Morley, Elliot

  Hoyle, Lindsay

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

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Morris, Rt Hon Sir John (Aberavon)

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Mountfort, Kali

  Hurst, Alan

  Mudie, George

  Hutton, John

  Mullin, Chris

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Illsley, Eric

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Oaten, Mark

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Jamieson, David

  O'Brien, Milk (N Warks)

  Jenkins, Brian

  Olner, Bill

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Pearson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Pike, Peter L

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Plaskitt, James

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Pollard, Kerry

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Pond, Chris

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Pope, Greg

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Pound, Stephen

  Keetch, Paul

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Kemp, Fraser

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Khabra, Piara S

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Kidney, David

  Purchase, Ken

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Rammell, Bill

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Raynsford, Nick

  Laxton, Bob

  Reed, Andrew (Loughborough)

  Lepper, David

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Leslie, Christopher

  Rendel, David

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  788

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Salter, Martin

  Tipping, Paddy

  Sanders, Adrian

  Todd, Mark

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Touhig, Don

  Sawford, Phil

  Trickett, Jon

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Singh, Marsha

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Skinner, Dennis

  Tyler, Paul

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Tynan, Bill

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Vaz, Keith

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Wareing, Robert N

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

  Watts, David

  Soley, Clive

  Webb, Steve

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  White, Brian

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Stevenson, George

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Willis, Phil

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Winnick, David

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Woodward, Shaun

  Stunell, Andrew

  Woolas, Phil

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Taylor, Matthew (Truro)

  Mr. Mike Hall and

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mr. David Clelland.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 135

  SEX EDUCATION
  Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 83, in page 67, leave out lines 2 to 29 and insert—

  (2) In section 403 (sex education: manner of provision) in subsection (1) for the words "and the value of family life" substitute " the value of family life and sexual health".

  (3) After section 403 insert—

  "403A (1) The Secretary of State must issue guidance designed to secure that the following general objectives are met when sex education is given to registered pupils at maintained schools.

  (2) The general objectives are that the pupils—

  (a) learn about the nature of marriage as the key building block of society and its importance for family life and for the bringing up of children;

  (b) learn about the significance of stability in family relationships;

  (c) learn to respect themselves and others;

  (d) are protected from teaching and materials which a reasonable person would regard as inappropriate having regard to—

  (i) whether information is accurate and objective;

  (ii) the language and images used;

  (iii) the age of the pupils and

  (iv) the provisions of section 403, this section and section 403B.

  789

  (3) When sex education is given to pupils who are in the third or fourth key stage or over compulsory school age, the general objectives referred to in subsection (1) are to include the following additional objectives.

  (4) The additional objectives are that the pupils—

  (a) learn to understand human sexuality;

  (b) learn the reasons for delaying sexual activity and the benefits to be gained from such delay;

  (c) learn about obtaining appropriate advice on sexual health.

  (5) The Secretary of State's guidance must also be designed to secure that sex education given to registered pupils at maintained schools contribute to

  (a) promoting the spiritual, moral, cultural, mental and physical development of the pupils and of society;

  (b) preparing the pupils for the opportunities, responsibilities and experiences of adult life.

  (6) No guidance under subsection (1) shall be issued or substantially revised unless a draft of the guidance has been laid in draft before and approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.

  (7) Local education authorities, governing bodies and head teachers must, in discharging their functions under section 403, have regard to the Secretary of State's guidance.

  (8) In this section 'maintained school' includes a community or foundation special school established in a hospital.".'.

  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): With this it will be convenient to discuss amendment No. 73, in page 67, line 11, after first "are", insert—

  '(a) taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children; and

  (b)'.

  Mr. Boswell: If I am brief in moving the amendment, that is not because this is not an important matter. It is important to those on both Front Benches and to the political parties and it attracts much interest among Back Benchers. I am conscious of the timetable for the whole architecture of the Bill and of the fact that, after four hours, we have not even begun to consider education for those aged between 16 and 19. There are also many others important issues to debate.
  I bear in mind two factors. The first is that this issue has been fully—almost exhaustively—debated in another place. I suspect that it may well be debated again, because the clause has already been amended since it left the Lords. Secondly, there is a proper and honoured place for my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) to speak to his own amendment. We have considerable sympathy for his amendment, as is shown by the rather unusual fact that the whole Opposition Front-Bench team have attached their names to it.
  In fact, I am surprised that my hon. Friend's amendment did not attract other signatories. As he will no doubt tell the House shortly, it is couched entirely in terms that are drawn from the Government's publication "Supporting Families: A consultation document". I do not understand why Ministers have not signed the amendment. The phrase
  marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children
  is a direct quotation from the Government's document. What are Ministers up to in not associating themselves with the words that they themselves have used?
  790
  In the interests of winning consensus wherever that is possible, I am minded to advise my hon. Friends to desist from pressing amendment No. 83—obviously, we shall reserve our position until we have heard the debate—but to persist with their support for my hon. Friend's amendment. We shall do that conscious of the fact that matters might ultimately be resolved either in another place or in discussions between the two Houses on what they are prepared to accept.
  I touch on these issues not to steal my hon. Friend's thunder but to explain the architecture of what I hope will be a not unduly prolonged debate. I shall now address my remarks to amendment No. 83, which more assiduous Members who read the Bill at an earlier stage may recognise, because it is framed in exactly the terms of the clause bequeathed to us by another place on its consideration of the Bill after amendment. It was returned to us and was then filleted by Government amendments in Committee.
  It may be convenient for the House if I explain three things that the amendment is not. First, it is not to be construed as any signal, encouragement or advertisement to any person in a school, whether a pupil or his or her teacher, to have any part whatever in any discrimination or bullying in respect of the individual child. We believe strongly—we respect the views of those who take a different view—that it is possible to assert values, including those in connection with marriage, without stigmatising persons who are not married, persons whose parents are not married or persons who are in some other sort of relationship.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am pleased that the hon. Gentleman is dealing with the amendment in the same thoughtful and considered way in which he dealt with such matters in Committee. In view of the argument that he is advancing and his comments about not stigmatising—and drawing attention to concerns about bullying—why have the Opposition not seen fit to include in the amendment any reference to those issues?
  Mr. Boswell: I was anticipating that question. In terms of the amendment that we inherited from another place, and in stating the general objectives of instruction in sex education, paragraph (c) refers to the need for pupils to learn to respect themselves and others. That is a sufficient peg on which to hang the concerns that the hon. Gentleman and I share.
  We believe that it is possible to assert values. Some of us have Christian values and others may have other values, other faiths or no faith. To say that is not to suggest that those who do not share our views and values are not worthy of our respect. A school needs to wrestle with these issues at all times, and its teachers must have regard to them. The purpose behind the amendment is to provide for guidelines that are set in statute, rather than merely evanescent guidance from the Secretary of State for the time about these sensitive issues.
  Secondly, the amendments have nothing to do with issues that arise from the criminal law or from the specific issue of the homosexual age of consent, on which Conservative Members, along with Labour Members, were free to take different views, and did so.
  The amendment bears no relation to any gender preference. However, it is a matter of fact, which I observed in Committee, that, when considering issues of

  791
  marriage, some gay people take the view that they would wish to associate themselves with the institution of marriage by extending the provision of civil marriage to cover unions between gay people. I say that not in a light or debating sense but to record that the amendment has nothing to do specifically with gay issues—and nor has it to do with the criminal law.
  My third point in what I might call path clearing is that the amendment has nothing directly to do with the operation of section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988. That will be discussed in a different context. If the Government are intending—[Interruption.] I am not quite sure why the Under-Secretary is chuckling. We have an understanding that the Government intend to legislate on section 28.
  In a sense, as my noble Friend Baroness Young adverted in another place, it is difficult to disentangle the two issues. However, there is no direct link. Perhaps the link has become a little clearer in relation to the recent decision of the Scottish Parliament to delete the section 28 provisions, but that was accompanied by its parallel decision to include a statement on the importance of marriage. It is reasonable to argue that the case for statements of the sort that we have set out in the amendment will be intensified if and when the Government decide to come clean and persist in their apparent intention to delete section 28.
  If they choose to make that deletion, they do so in the face of public opinion of the kind enshrined in the recent non-governmental Scottish referendum, the overwhelming view of the Christian Churches and the view of leaders of other faiths.
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that there is no connection between section 28 and what he is proposing, because the section has not been relevant in terms of school sex education policies, which are set by parents, teachers and governors, and have been for some time? What the hon. Gentleman is proposing is a departure in terms of guidance for schools. That is not affected by whether section 28 is or is not on the statute book.
  Mr. Boswell: Although I have been at some pains not to debate section 28, its application goes wider. One of the difficulties in the clause as we received it from the Committee is that it excludes—Christian interests would welcome this—the confusing reference to duties on a local education authority. This is about—we think that this is proper, and evidently the Government do too—whether the sex education policy of schools should be determined by schools, subject to guidelines which may or may not be statutory. The amendment relates to the nature of statutory guidelines.
  The amendment has an interesting and perhaps somewhat erratic genesis. First, there are resonances with the Government's general objectives, which were enshrined in an amendment for debate on Third Reading in another place. For example, it referred to the importance of learning about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and the rearing of children. It referred also to learning about the significance of marriage and stable relationships. Those were regarded as key building blocks of community and society.
  792
  Many Members will be aware of the history of the debate at that stage in another place. The amendment of my noble Friend Baroness Young was preferred by their lordships, who delivered the Bill to us accordingly. Hon. Members will perhaps have studied those debates.
  It is interesting that the Government, not having got their own way on their own draft, indicated in a reversing statement by Baroness Blackstone that they would consider the Government's future position. In both respects, although this is not always the case, the Government have honoured their undertaking. They have taken away all positive references in the statutory guidelines to the nature of marriage. They have produced an alternative, which appears in the Bill as clause 135, which we seek to amend.
  There is an interesting feature to the Government's second thoughts. It is an open secret that they started with a heavy influence from the Christian Church, and the Church of England's board of education in particular, to produce some value-laden statements to put in statute and to inform the guidelines. However, the Government have moved away from that. They have only produced—although it is not unworthy and I am not suggesting that we should quarrel with it—a minimal filter for the activities that schools may sanction in terms of sex education.
  8 pm
  In one sense, it might be appropriate—in another, it might be inappropriate, given the history of the century—to describe the Government's attitude to legislation as smacking of the 18th century: they appear to be saying, rather wearily, that all they, as a Government, can do is to prevent pupils from being done harm through access to inappropriate materials. In no sense am I suggesting that it is not important to prevent access to such materials or to ensure that materials are appropriate to the age and culture of the individuals involved, but, in a slightly uneasy progress, the Government have removed any positive duties—any meat—from the guidelines, other than that which appears in non-statutory guidance.
  Mr. John Gummer: Does my hon. Friend consider that the position is now worse than it was before? Had the Government not been through the debate in another place, where the issues were thoroughly fought out, what they have done might be thought the result of an oversight, or of a different approach. In fact, the Government, in a direct way, have decided that they are not prepared to support a provision that Christian Churches of all sorts and many informed people want to be introduced. Because of that, the Government need to explain their position far more clearly than they have hitherto.
  Mr. Boswell: My right hon. Friend makes a most valuable point. It would have been one thing had the Government not started down the route of introducing an extraneous matter into the Bill, which makes provision for post-16 education, but it is quite another for the Government, having started on the basis that it was a good idea to tell people what they ought to teach, now to say that, because they did not get their way in another place, they have decided not to say anything at all about it. That casts doubt on the strength of their feeling on the matter.
  Dr. Evan Harris: Will the hon. Gentleman explain the thinking behind his

  793
  amendment? As I understand it, it differs significantly from the amendment tabled by Baroness Young. Have Conservative Front Benchers been convinced by the arguments against some aspects of the noble Lady's amendment?
  Mr. Boswell: With respect to the hon. Gentleman, I perceive a close equivalence between the two amendments. I might have overlooked something, but I think that, in amendment No. 83, we have tabled the same amendment as Baroness Young tabled. Furthermore, my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot has masterfully summarised our case in his much shorter amendment No. 73.
  We have proposed some positive general objectives and attempted to address some of the issues. We welcome the Government's desire to protect pupils from harm or access to inappropriate materials, but it is mealy-mouthed of them to say that they believe in values—or did at one stage—but to remove them once challenged. It reminds me of the politician who said, "Here are the principles: if you don't like them, we'll take them away and find another set."
  Some of us have occasionally been critical of our Church. The Church of England Board of Education has been straightforward in its approach. A letter was sent to my noble Friend Baroness Blatch by a member of that body, Mr. Locke, who states:
  the importance of marriage and the non-equivalence of other relationships are at the heart of where the Board of Education stands.
  That is a traditional view, which many Conservative Members respect. I think that it is where we should stand.
  It is easy for the issue to be over-emphasised and for it to give rise to ill-considered talk. We are considering an important subject: the guidance that should be given to schools in framing their sex education policy. Within that, there is a separate issue of whether the guidance should appear and be altered from time to time in non-statutory form, or whether it should be enshrined in legislation. Not for the first time—sometimes to the embarrassment of previous Conservative Governments—their lordships are right. They have talked of principles and the importance of marriage and stability in relationships, and have done so in a way that reflects more closely than the Government's proposals the views of the general public, of the Christian Churches and of responsible people who engage in these sensitive matters.
  I think that the Lords got it right. The Government have backed away from the challenge at the first sign of difficulty, or out of petulance resulting from their experiences in another place. They have come up with a small and inadequate alternative; our version is better. Either in the formulation proposed in amendment No. 83, or in the shorter and more succinct formulation offered by my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, the House deserves to pass back to their lordships a firm endorsement of marriage and traditional values.
  Mr. Gummer: On listening to the debate, the question that most people will ask is why on earth the Government are resisting the amendments, given that they represent the views of most of those who have considered the issues over a long period. The Government said that they would
  794
  listen carefully to those outside this place who want to raise the standards of the nation and, in particular, encourage future generations to have the stability that marriage alone brings. The Government claimed in the other place that they have no quarrel with the desire to put marriage at the centre of sex education—indeed, the Government's own amendment was designed to achieve precisely that end. Therefore, Ministers face today the difficult task of explaining their actions to the public, who must be mystified as to why the Government want us not to put marriage at the centre of sex education. Had we not broached the subject, it would not be so serious a situation; but we have, so for the Government not to accept either of the amendments we offer or not to make the amendment that they proposed in another place says to the people of this country that the Government do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education.
  I am one who has been fortunate to have had a long and happy marriage. Therefore, I am among the first to insist that we should in no way be willing to stigmatise those who, for all sorts of reasons, have not had that kind fortune, and certainly not their children. However, I am also aware of the enormous advantage given to a new generation of growing up knowing, as they go to sleep at night, that the next morning their parents will be there and that their parents have committed themselves, outside the having of children, to live with each other until death do them part. That is a crucial element of stability—the one thing that any couple ought to try to give to the next generation, for without it they bring into the world a life for which their commitment is not properly sufficient. We are the only animal that has the choice of producing children knowingly. The one thing that we can properly give to the next generation is the knowledge that we intend for their sake, if for no other, to live together and provide the stability that young people growing up so desperately need.
  All we ask in the amendment is that that perfectly proper view, which has been the view in this country for hundreds of years, which on any test is the view of the majority of people in this country, and which we understand to be the view of the Government, should be enshrined in legislation.
  If the Government refuse to accept such a reasonable amendment, they will stand accused not just by their political opponents, but by the Church of England, the Catholic Church and the Protestant denominations of not believing that marriage should be at the heart of sex education. I can think of few things more damaging than sex education without marriage at its heart, for it would then be merely the mechanistic explanation of that which many already know.
  If we are to challenge the Government, which I do in the most polite way that I can, I must ask the Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Redditch (Jacqui Smith), to answer a simple question when she replies. If she is not willing to accept the amendment, will she tell the House that she does not believe that marriage should be at the heart of sex education in schools? Unless she is willing to say that, she must accept the amendment.
  If the hon. Lady does not accept the amendment, she must have the courage of her convictions and say, "Whatever the Church of England says, whatever the Catholic Church says, whatever most people in this

  795
  country say, I do not believe that marriage is at the heart of sensible sex education." Let her have that courage. I shall not agree with her. I shall find that view offensive, in the deepest sense, for it offends the next generation and it removes from them the thing that all of us have a duty to give.
  I have no time for those who are not prepared to commit themselves to each other, but are prepared to produce children outside that commitment. I believe that to be a very wrong way of approaching their responsibility, but if the Minister takes that view, let her say so, and we will know. However, if she refuses to say so, the Government will be not only wrong, but extremely cowardly.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: I am delighted to follow my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) who, as ever on such issues, has given the House a lucid, eloquent, courteous and incisive view on an extremely important matter facing the nation.
  I am somewhat surprised to find my amendment being endorsed by those on my Front Bench and to find myself, so to speak, in pole position on the grid, although I am delighted that that is the case and that my hon. Friends have seen fit to promote the amendment that I tabled. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) made clear, the wording that I used was taken straight from the Government's own document entitled "Supporting Families—a consultation document" which was published a couple of years ago.
  Paragraph 4.3 of that document states:
  The Government believes that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships. This does not mean trying to make people marry, or criticising or penalising people who choose not to. We do not believe that Government should interfere in people's lives in that way. But we do share the belief of the majority of people that marriage provides the most reliable framework for raising children.
  The elision of the two points made in that paragraph forms the basis of my amendment.
  Mr. Boswell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way and, again, for his amendment. Will he draw the attention of the House specifically to the remark in the paragraph that he quoted, which may not have received sufficient attention so far? The Government conceded there that that view is shared by the majority of people in this country, yet they now oppose our amendment and say that they are prepared to go against the majority view, for reasons that they have not yet adequately stated.
  8.15 pm
  Mr. Howarth: My hon. Friend is right. Indeed, my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal made it plain that that was the view of the majority of the people of the country, and that it is bizarre that the Government are bent on resisting such a modest amendment, which is entirely in accordance with the Government's philosophy, as stated by no less a person than the Home Secretary.
  The debate is part of a two-sided coin. The Government announced their plans to abolish section 28 of the Local Government Act 1988—the provision that prevented local authorities from promoting homosexuality as "a pretended family relationship." They know that that is deeply unpopular.
  796
  In Scotland, week after week, the Daily Record—not a Tory newspaper—has been hammering the Government and supporting Cardinal Winning and Brian Souter in the courageous stand that they have taken, so demonstrating that they were in touch with the people of Scotland and the Government were wholly out of touch. That was shown by the opinion poll commissioned by Brian Souter. I pay tribute to the courage of those people, one a cleric and the other a business man, for the stand that they have taken. They have set a great example to the rest of the nation.
  In the face of that hostility in Scotland and elsewhere, the Government introduced an amendment on Third Reading of the Bill, late in the proceedings in another place. The amendment, in the name of Baroness Blackstone, required the Secretary of State to issue guidance. The guidance was published on 16 March, a week before the debate in another place. The guidance was extensive, running to 28 pages.
  The Government tried to get the bishops on side, but failed to reckon with the outstanding and formidable eloquence and determination of my right hon. and noble Friend Baroness Young, together with the right reverend Bishop of Winchester, who supported my right hon. and noble Friend and who, I know, feels passionately about the issue. They persuaded the other place of the merits of their argument and won the day with an amendment to the Government's proposal, writing into the Bill that marriage is
  the key building block of society.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2000; Vol. 611, c. 436.]
  In Committee in this place, the Government removed Baroness Blackstone's new clause as amended by my right hon. and noble Friend in the other place, and substituted the present wording of clause 135. All the general objectives set out in the Bill as it left the other place are gone, save for the ambiguous requirement for pupils to be protected from
  teaching and materials which are inappropriate—
  however that is to be defined. Instead, governing bodies and heads are to rely on the Secretary of State's guidance.
  It is significant that those in another place were prepared to insert an amendment that was specific, even if it was not quite in the terms that many of us wanted, yet in this place all those provisions have been removed, save for the reference to inappropriate material.
  Nothing better illustrates the confusion and prevarication at the heart of the present Government than their policy on sexual matters. On the one hand, the Home Secretary sets out graphically the Government's support for the institution of marriage. Then there is the prevarication in the guidelines issued by the Secretary of State for Education and Employment, and we have the Government promoting the Bill to reduce the age of consent for buggery from 18 to 16. Where is the joined-up government in all of that? It is a very confused message that the Government are sending.
  I remind the House that at the Ayr by-election the Prime Minister, having been shown some posters produced by campaigning groups whipping up homosexual propaganda, said:
  I've just seen the posters here in Scotland. I don't think I've ever seen a more astonishing campaign in all my born days. People are being told their children will have to play—what was it?—

  797
  homosexual role playing in schools. No wonder parents are concerned. It's nonsense. No child is going to be given gay sex lessons in school. Not under this Government now. Not ever.
  Those were the Prime Minister's words, yet we have today a publication by Health Promotion Service Avon—the House has already heard me refer to some—
  Dr. Harris: A teachers' pack.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. It is what is being given out to teachers. In lesson five, part II, "Challenging homophobia", a method to be promoted is described as follows:
  This session can be performed as a role play, written up and fed back to large groups, or responded to like an 'Agony Aunt'.
  The Prime Minister said that this would not happen under this Government. Here we have it, down in Avon, at the taxpayer's expense.
  Mr. Shaun Woodward: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Mr. Howarth: I will not give way to the hon. Gentleman.
  At the taxpayer's expense, that kind of literature is being produced—literature that the Prime Minister himself said this Government would not be party to. Case study D says:
  Michael is 15 and his boyfriend wants him to have sex. He really wants to but he is nervous. Michael knows he should use a condom but doesn't know where to go for help. What should he do?
  For goodness' sake! This child is under 16, even before the law is changed from 18 to 16. What on earth are the Government doing allowing that kind of publication to go out with taxpayers' money?
  Mr. Allan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree with my understanding of the position, which is that no material is ever used in schools unless it is agreed to by the teachers, the governors and the head teacher? The governors include parents. It is a very specific responsibility. So it does not matter what anyone produces as printed material for the hon. Gentleman to read out, for his enjoyment, if not for everyone else's. What matters is what schools decide on the ground. The Government do not decide sex education policy in schools; it is decided by governors, parents and teachers.
  Mr. Howarth: The hon. Gentleman is absolutely right. I understand that it is material produced for schools and available to them. The Government may well believe that it is inappropriate material. My point is that the Prime Minister himself suggested that such material was not being produced under his Government. It is being produced, and that is the material that is available to schools should they wish to use it.
  In a letter to my noble Friend, Lord Ashbourne, my predecessor as chairman of the Lords and Commons family and child protection group, the Home Secretary wrote on 26 July last year:
  The evidence is that marriage better provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and this framework is the most reliable for raising children.
  The House may agree that that is pretty well a reflection of the language in the document "Supporting Families". But the guidance issued by the Secretary of State on
  798
  16 March refers repeatedly to marriage and stable relationships in the same context. Not only does that repeated juxtaposition of marriage and stable relationships imply that they are equally valid, which they are not, but, as my noble Friend Baroness Young pointed out in another place, there is nothing that prevents homosexual unions from being defined as stable relationships.
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has returned to the substance of his amendment. In view of his remarks, does he believe that all relationships that are not of the marriage kind are unreliable frameworks for raising children?
  Mr. Howarth: I would agree with the Home Secretary—
  Mr. Marsden: That is not the question.
  Mr. Howarth: The Home Secretary says that the best relationship is that of marriage. The hon. Gentleman will have heard my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal say that that is not to stigmatise those who are in different relationships. We are being asked to give some leadership. It is my view that the Bill does not give the necessary leadership, because the fact is that the family in Britain is in crisis. We have all seen it at our surgeries and advice centres. I doubt that there is an hon. Member present who in the last month at his or her surgery or advice centre has not had evidence of that. I shall not quote from a constituency case that came up last Saturday, partly because it is simply too distressing.
  I should like to quote what the noble Lord Stoddart of Swindon, a Labour peer, said in another place on 23 March:
  compulsory sex education has not done much to stabilise, let alone promote, marriages Ω
  There is more promiscuity, less sexual morality, less marriage, more divorce, more single mothers, more under-16 pregnancies and more child pregnancies Ω all those matters were supposed to have been dealt with by the various Acts that have been passed. Clearly, they are not delivering the goods.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 23 March 2000; Vol. 611, c.463.]
  I entirely concur with what the noble Lord said.
  I and my hon. Friends are not proposing the amendments simply out of a belief in the moral case for marriage, although I subscribe to it. I entirely agree with what my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal said, and I hasten to acknowledge the work that CARE, Christian Action Research and Education, and the Christian Institute have done to fight this battle.
  I agree with the Home Secretary: the evidence to which he referred indeed shows that marriage confers benefits all round. Studies have consistently shown that marriage generally, not always, leads to a healthier and happier life and that children benefit from that. Like my right hon. Friend, having passed the 25-year mark, I can bear testimony to the long-suffering wife I have and to some splendid and dutiful children. I am under no illusion that all marriages work out. I believe, nevertheless, that marriage is, as the Home Secretary says, the better framework for bringing up children.
  Furthermore, the evidence shows that stable relationships, which I suppose one could describe in other terms as cohabiting, are no substitute for marriage. I am

  799
  sorry to say that there is plenty of evidence that that is so. For example, the British household panel survey a few years ago found that cohabitant couples are almost six times as likely to split up as those who are married. The Economic and Social Research Council found that even where there are children, half of cohabiting couples part within 10 years, compared with just one in eight of married parents. One cannot ignore those facts.
  As recently as just a couple of months ago, the Office for National Statistics published a document, "Mental health of children and adolescents in Great Britain", which contained some startling information. I do not want to detain the House for too long, so I shall simply give the flavour of it. It shows the prevalence of mental disorders by family type, age and sex. Let us take conduct disorders in boys aged 11 to 15. For those in married households, the percentage with a disorder was 5.7. In cohabiting households, the figure was 17 per cent., three times as great. For those in households where there was just a single parent, the figure was 17.6 per cent. Against that factual background, we have a duty to the children of this country to ensure that the laws and regulations regarding sex education take into account the facts of what is happening.
  The Government should stop trying to appeal to every interest group for fear of offending one or other of them. It was indefensible to give the advice that appeared in the guidelines that were published in March. They stated:
  there should be no direct promotion of sexual orientation.
  That means that the Government are neutral on the matter. They cannot and should not be neutral. Instead, they should recognise the serious crisis that faces family life in Britain today, and give proper, unambiguous, Christian, moral guidance to our young people to enable them to live more fulfilled lives than perhaps many of their parents have been able to live in recent years.
  8.30 pm
  If the Government accept the amendment, they will at least no longer be perceived to be speaking with forked tongue. As my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry has already said, the amendment has, for the Minister's comfort, been lifted straight from the Government's document. They could therefore happily seize ownership of it. I am not proud. They can own it, and show that they are being entirely consistent. However, if the Government fail to support the amendment, they will show that neither is there joined-up government, nor are the Government honest in their language in the "Supporting Families" document.
  I end with the question that my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal posed to the Minister. Does she believe that marriage should be at the heart of sex education? If not, she must tell the House. The parents and children of this country should know.
  Mr. Julian Brazier: It gives me great pleasure to follow my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) and my right hon. Friend the Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) and their cogent and compelling arguments.
  Like my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot, I shall focus on rearing children and the message that we should propagate in schools. I should like to add one more study
  800
  to the compelling list that he cited. Twelve years ago, a study was undertaken in America, not by some right-wing think tank or a religious organisation, but by the United States Department of Health. I am grateful to the Institute of Economic Affairs for publishing it. It examined juvenile delinquency among young people in all major family types. Married couples who had remained together constituted one category; three other categories included single parents and cohabiting couples.
  The study examined five different income categories. In debating the best way in which to bring up children, the crucial argument that tends to be used by those promoting the other side is the importance of poverty. They claim that we leave out that factor, and that because poverty is more frequently associated with alternative life styles, one would expect to find more juvenile delinquency and more of a whole range of other problems, such as those to which my hon. Friend the Member for Aldershot referred, among those who lived such life styles.
  The study was astonishing because it showed that the poorest category of children, from families who earned less than $10,000 a year in 1988—a level of subsistence that would be regarded as intolerable by many in this country—had a significantly lower level of juvenile delinquency than the average in the three other categories. I looked a little further down the table and discovered that in the poorest category, the married couples who had stayed together and reared their children had fewer children guilty of juvenile delinquency than the wealthiest group—those who earned more than $50,000 a year.
  My hon. Friend mentioned the contrast between married couples and cohabiting couples, as revealed in a British study. The most recent study that I have seen was undertaken three years ago. The critical difference between it and those that my hon. Friend cited was that it pulled out cohabiting couples who subsequently got married. If, for 1997, we compare those who were married in 1987 with those who were cohabiting in 1987 and did not subsequently get married, the success rate of the relationship was 81 per cent. in the former category and 15 per cent. in the latter.
  The case is overwhelming.
  Mr. Gummer: Does my hon. Friend agree that if such overwhelming evidence were offered to the Government in any other circumstances, they would be bound to accept it? Yet when we offer the evidence that my hon. Friend described, it is not acceptable because the Government are not prepared to stand out against those for whom such evidence is embarrassing.
  Mr. Brazier: I hope that my right hon. Friend is wrong, but I fear that he is right.
  The case is overwhelming. I was once privileged to take part in a debate against the hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) at the Oxford Union. Participants in the debate included a rising generation of young people, some of whom have now found their way into the House. I was encouraged by the fact that the motion defending the traditional family was passed heavily. The point that needs making, tonight as then, is that our arguments are not about stigmatisation but about aspiration.
  One of my closest and dearest friends was brought up by an extremely violent alcoholic father. Sadly, most classrooms today include a child whose father is a violent

  801
  alcoholic. Does that mean that we should not teach children that it is wrong to beat children? Many children are brought up with a parent who is hooked on a drug; does that mean that we should not teach children that they should not take drugs? Of course not. Almost every family in the land is affected by, for example, divorce or illegitimacy. However, that means neither that we should have a conspiracy of silence nor that we should stigmatise anyone. We should aspire to the best. That is why the amendment is so important.
  Dr. Harris: I want to ask the Minister three questions from the Back Benches. However, before I do that, I should like to ask the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer) a rhetorical question. Does he believe that it is the job of a Minister, rather than parents and the Church, to tell the nation that sex outside marriage is sinful? He should learn from his party that when Ministers start moralising, they are in dangerous waters. Moralising is for people, such as the right hon. Gentleman, who have connections to the Church, and for parents. It is not the Government's job to tell adults what they should or should not do in their bedrooms.
  Mr. Gummer: In answer to that rhetorical question, I simply said that I wanted the Minister to support the words of the Home Secretary. I merely said that, like him, I believed that marriage provided greater stability than any other form of rearing children. If the Minister is not prepared to say that, she must say that she does not believe that it is true. That is all I asked.
  Dr. Harris: The tone of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks suggested that sex outside marriage was less than wholesome and that it was the Government's job to preach that idea to the nation. I question that.
  I also question the hon. Member for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth). It is hard to know where to begin. I shall not make a strong attempt because there were so many logical flaws in some of his analyses. The idea that he could prove causal relationships through statistics is nonsense. The idea that the possession of a marriage certificate tucked away in a top drawer is some sort of insurance that will prevent a relationship from breaking up is nonsense. The idea that one can identify people who cohabit as equivalent in the sample to people who marry is ridiculous. Many people choose not to get married, and live together instead because they fear that their relationship may not last. It is therefore not a huge surprise if those relationships break up, regardless of whether children are involved.
  The statistics that the hon. Gentleman cited did not relate wholly to children. He talked about mental illness affecting young people, as if we did not know that the biggest association is with deprivation and the stresses of family life. We know that the families of single parents, some of whom have tried marriage and are divorced, suffer far more stress and deprivation, and therefore have more associated poor health outcomes, than people who are not in that category. That is the obvious and correct interpretation of the data. The hon. Gentleman's misinterpretation does the debate no good at all.
  The hon. Gentleman has the peculiar idea that one cannot ask young people to put themselves in the position of victims of intolerance because that is bizarre.
  802
  I remember that when I was taught about the importance of not being racist, I was told to imagine being in the position of someone who was a victim of such persecution. That is a suitable mode of teaching, and certainly not inappropriate. The hon. Gentleman asked what advice people should give to a 15-year-old boy considering sexual behaviour. If the question concerned a 15-year-girl, would he say that that advice should not be available? He is right to lament the huge increase in, and the high incidence of, pregnancies among the under-16s. However, if he is not prepared for information to be given to young people in school to protect them, I despair of what sort of society his way would bring.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?
  Dr. Harris: No, I want to finish.
  I commend the Government's preference for the Bill's current wording over that originally proposed. We should compliment them for coming to that view; indeed, my hon. Friends the Members for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) did so in Committee.
  I have three brief questions for the Minister about the guidance referred to in the Bill. Will there be time for a parliamentary debate on the detail of the guidance, which is pretty fundamental? The Minister will be aware that many people are concerned not only about what we have already heard about, but about the fact that the Bill does not do enough to protect young people from the risks of early sex, and, indeed, other sexual activity. Given that primary schools have no statutory duty to offer sex education, is the Minister certain that the guidelines will implement her stated wish in the guidance that children should be taught about puberty before it happens, including the 10 per cent. of girls who do not know about menstruation before they have their first period—a dreadful situation, by all accounts.
  The guidance talks about giving information along those lines in the transition year between primary and secondary school. I am sure that the Minister's colleagues in the Department of Health, Government health advisers, paediatricians and GPs will tell her that the phrase "shutting the stable door after the horse has bolted" would apply to a school that, despite her intentions, decided to delay giving that information until that late stage.
  Finally, everyone in the House is concerned about the incidence of child sex abuse. Indeed, I sport a green full-stop badge every day to bear witness to that. I believe that the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children shares my view that children are not reporting abuse, and certainly not reporting it early enough, because they do not recognise what is going on, as they are not taught early enough in school which parts of their bodies are private and not to be interfered with by other people. That is a result of the failure of sex education to address the needs of very young children in age-appropriate language. I question whether the guidance, which contains a lot of good research by the social exclusion unit on teenage pregnancy, will achieve the aims that Health Ministers and many other Ministers desire.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Jacqui Smith): It is fair to say that the debate about sex and relationship education, which has been going on for some time, has generally been conducted with great passion and belief on both sides. It is also fair to say that there was a great deal of considered, sensitive and thoughtful debate, especially in Committee, when the issues were covered in some depth and when, as hon. Members have said, the Government reversed the amendments introduced in another place. However, I fear that the amendments tabled this evening and certain aspects of the tone of our debate will not build on the positive, sensible approach adopted in Committee. For that reason, I shall ask my hon. Friends to join me in opposing the amendments.
  8.45 pm
  I shall begin with amendment No. 83, which would reinstate much of the amendment that Baroness Young introduced in another place, the provisions of which were removed in Committee. It ignores the importance of balance, which must be at the centre of guidance on sex education. No one says that marriage is not an ideal, about which children should be taught in schools, but it would be wrong to stigmatise children whose parents are not married.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Will the Minister give way?
  Jacqui Smith: No I will not, because we are short of time, and I want to deal with the points raised by the hon. Gentleman.
  In particular, because of its silence on the importance of understanding difference, amendment No. 83 would fail to tackle homophobic bullying in our schools. Moreover, it includes a vague notion of a reasonable person making judgments about what constitutes inappropriate teaching and learning, which the Government believe risks creating confusion and uncertainty for our schools.
  We have always made it clear that we are committed to supporting marriage as the basis for family life. We believe that pupils should learn about the nature of marriage and its importance to family life and bringing up children. That is set out very clearly in our draft sex and relationship education guidance, which we issued for consultation in March. In fact, this Government put marriage into the curriculum for the first time, under the personal, social and health education framework issued last autumn. That framework underpins the guidance and work on sex and relationship education.
  At key stage 2, the framework states that pupils should be taught to be aware of different types of relationship, including marriage, as well as those between friends and families. At key stage 3, pupils should be taught about the role and importance of marriage in family relationships. At key stage 4, they should be taught about the nature and importance of marriage for family life and bringing up children.
  Our guidance will be supported by our national healthy school standard, which every school is expected to sign up to during the next few years, and which contains as a criterion of success the requirement for schools to teach in line with the Secretary of State's guidance. That constitutes much more positive and practical action than has ever been taken before.
  804
  Our aim is to improve the sex education that our children receive, which in the past has rightly been criticised for concentrating too much on the mechanics of sex and ignoring the importance of respect, stability in relationships and marriage. Why did the right hon. Member for Suffolk, Coastal (Mr. Gummer), who was a member of the previous Government, not do more to improve the quality of sex and relationship education, as this Government are doing?
  We recognise that many children are raised in loving and stable relationships outside marriage. We must not allow those children to be stigmatised in our schools; nor should we stigmatise children from single parent families. The hon. Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Aldershot (Mr. Howarth) made much of the Government consultation document, "Supporting Families", which they quoted correctly, but selectively. That document recognises that there are strong, mutually supportive relationships outside marriage. That is the balance that the Government have always made clear, but it is not made clear in the amendments that the Opposition have tabled.
  The document is referred to specifically in our sex and relationship education guidance. Selective quoting does no justice to the debate, or to improving sex and relationship education for our children. Our guidance presents a careful and considered balance; amendment No. 83 would fail to provide that balance.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, South (Mr. Marsden) made the important point that that amendment would fail to ensure that children are taught about respecting difference and about preventing and removing prejudice. It is all very well for the hon. Member for Daventry to claim that that is Conservative Members' aim. If that is their aim, why did their colleagues not support the amendment that the Government tabled in the Lords in which it was made explicit? Without that safeguard, schools cannot tackle discrimination and teach tolerance. The amendment would specifically remove the chapter on recognising diversity and removing prejudice.
  We believe that bullying on whatever grounds—be it based on race, appearance or sexual orientation—is wrong and should be checked. I am sure that many right hon. and hon. Members will know of young men and women whose lives have been made a misery by such bullying. We recognise that schools need to be able to deal with it, and the amendment will not provide the necessary safeguard.
  The issue of protecting children from inappropriate teaching and materials has emerged as a key concern, although I do not believe that the sensationalism of some of the comments by the hon. Member for Aldershot did it due credit. The amendment made in Committee provides clarity and certainty. It gives the Secretary of State a duty to issue guidance, so that pupils are protected from teaching and materials that are inappropriate to their age and religious and cultural background. It gives statutory force to guidance that addresses this central issue and extends protection to materials issued by health authorities, which were not previously covered.
  Mr. Gerald Howarth: Why is the Minister so afraid of putting the case for marriage in the Bill? She said that

  805
  the Bill covered inappropriate materials, so why does it not put the case for marriage? After all, paragraph 4.8 of "Supporting Families" says:
  For all these reasons, it makes sense for the Government to do what it can to strengthen marriage.
  Is the Minister saying that this is one area in which the Government are not prepared to help strengthen marriage?
  Jacqui Smith: As I have already pointed out to the hon. Gentleman, not only have the Government already done a great deal to ensure that the importance of marriage and relationships is included within the personal, social and health education framework and within sex and relationship education, but we are also addressing issues involving inappropriate materials. However, we are not prepared to accept amendment No.73, as it would undermine the careful, considered balance and consensus that we have achieved, which Committee members supported. It would require children to be taught that marriage alone is the most reliable framework for raising children.
  I do not need to repeat what I said earlier, but I would like to reinforce three key points. First, our draft guidance sets out that children should be taught about the nature of marriage and its importance for family life and bringing up children. Secondly, we cannot accept an amendment that does not recognise the realities of the society and the communities that we represent.
  As I said earlier, many children today grow up in loving supportive families outside marriage. Those children should not be stigmatised in our schools. Hon. Members will be aware that our guidance and our work on sex and relationship education stems from a recommendation in the teenage pregnancy report, and the need to address the high rate of teenage pregnancy in this country. We take that responsibility seriously.
  Thirdly, our guidance will be grounded in the broad consensus across society about how children can be given effective sex and relationship education in schools. The hon. Member for Oxford, West and Abingdon (Dr. Harris) raised specific questions that I do not have time to answer this evening, but I can tell him that we consulted teachers, parents and other organisations. They all supported the guidance, particularly teachers. Indeed, 73 per cent. of teachers who responded to consultation believed that our guidance was right.
  In conclusion, we need to focus on what is right to ensure that children receive an education relevant to their needs, that parents can have certainty that their children are receiving an appropriate and balanced education, and that schools, teachers and governors can be supported to have confidence in the education that they provide. The Government have built that balance and consensus, and it would be destroyed by the amendments, so I ask my hon. Friends to oppose them.
  Amendment negatived.
  Amendment proposed: No. 73, in page 67, line 11, after first "are", insert—

  '(a) taught that marriage provides a strong foundation for stable relationships and the most reliable framework for raising children; and

  (b)'.—[Mr. Gerald Howarth.]

  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 129, Noes 303.

  Division No. 240]

  [8.55 pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Ancram, Rt Hon Michael

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Loughton, Tim

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Luff, Peter

  Baldry, Tony

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Beggs, Roy

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Bercow, John

  Maclean, Rt Hon David

  Beresford, Sir Paul

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Blunt, Crispin

  Madel, Sir David

  Body, Sir Richard

  Maginnis, Ken

  Boswell, Tim

  Malins, Humfrey

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  Maples, John

  Brady, Graham

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Brazier, Julian

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  May Mrs Theresa

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Moss, Malcolm

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  Nicnolls, Patrick

  Burns, Simon

  Norman Archie

  Chope, Christopher

  o,Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Clappison, James

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clark, Dr Michael (Rayleigh)

  Page Richard

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth

  paice James

  (Rushcliffe)

  Paterson, Owen

  Collins; Tim

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Cran, James

  Prior, David

  Davies Quentin (Grantham)

  Randall, John

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Evans, Nigel

  Robathan, Andrew

  Faber, David

  Robertson, Laurence

  Fabricant, Michael

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Flight Howard

  Rowe, Andrew (Faversham)

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Ruffley, David

  Fox,Dr Liam

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Fraser, Christopher

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Gale Roger

  Shepherd, Richard

  Garnier, Edward

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Steen, Anthony

  Greenway, John

  Swayne, Desmond

  Grieve, Dominic

  Syms, Robert

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Hague, Rt Hon William

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Hammond, Philip

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hawkins, Nick

  Thompson, William

  Hayes, John

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Heald, Oliver

  Viggers, Peter

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Walter, Robert

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Waterson, Nigel

  Horam, John

  Wells, Bowen

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Hunter, Andrew

  Whittingdale, John

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Willetts, David

  Key, Robert

  Wilshire, David

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Yeo, Tim

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Lansley, Andrew

  Leigh, Edward

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Letwin, Oliver

  Mr. Stephen Day and

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Mr. Geoffrey

  Lidington, David

  Clifton-Brown.

  807

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Ainger, Nick

  Denham, John

  Ainsworth, Robert (Cov'try NE)

  Dismore, Andrew

  Allan, Richard

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Allen, Graham

  Dowd, Jim

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Ashton, Joe

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Edwards, Huw

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Efford, Clive

  Ballard, Jackie

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  Banks, Tony

  Ennis, Jeff

  Barron, Kevin

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Bayley, Hugh

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Beard, Nigel

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fisher, Mark

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Follett, Barbara

  Berry, Roger

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Best, Harold

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Betts, Clive

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blackman, Liz

  Foulkes, George

  Blizzard, Bob

  Gardiner, Barry

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Borrow, David

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  Gerrard, Neil

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Browne, Desmond

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burden, Richard

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Burgon, Colin

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Burnett, John

  Godsiff, Roger

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Goggins, Paul

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Grocott, Bruce

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Grogan, John

  Cann, Jamie

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hain, Peter

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chaytor, David

  Hanson, David

  Clapham, Michael

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Healey, John

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clelland, David

  Heppell, John

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hesford, Stephen

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hill, Keith

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hinchliffe, David

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Hughes, Simon (Southwark N)

  Cotter, Brian

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hurst, Alan

  Cranston, Ross

  Hutton, John

  Crausby, David

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Illsley, Eric

  Cummings, John

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Darting, Rt Hon Alistair

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  808

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Purchase, Ken

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Rammell, Bill

  Keetch, Paul

  Raynsford, Nick

  Kemp, Fraser

  Rendel, David

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Khabra, Piara S

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Kidney, David

  Rooney, Terry

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Kirkwood, Archy

  Ruane, Chris

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Ruddock, Joan

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  Lammy, David

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Salter, Martin

  Laxton, Bob

  Sanders, Adrian

  Lepper, David

  Savidge, Malcolm

  Leslie, Christopher

  Sawford, Phil

  Levitt, Tom

  Sedgemore, Brian

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Shaw, Jonathan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Sheerman, Barry

  Linton, Martin

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Livsey, Richard

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Singh, Marsha

  Lock, David

  Skinner, Dennis

  Love, Andrew

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  McCabe, Steve

  Macdonald, Calum

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  McFall, John

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  McIsaac, Shona

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

  Mackinlay, Andrew

  Soley, Clive

  McNulty, Tony

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  MacShane, Denis

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  McWilliam, John

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Mallaber, Judy

  Stevenson, George

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Martlew, Eric

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Merron, Gillian

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Stunell, Andrew

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Sutcliffe, Gerry

  Miller, Andrew

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Moriey, Elliot

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

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

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Mudie, George

  Todd, Mark

  Mullin, Chris

  Trickett, Jon

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Oaten, Mark

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Tyler, Paul

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pearson, Ian

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pickthall, Colin

  Watts, David

  Pike, Peter L

  Webb, Steve

  Plaskitt, James

  White, Brian

  Pollard, Kerry

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Pond, Chris

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Pope, Greg

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  Pound, Stephen

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  809

  Willis, Phil

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Wills, Michael

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Winnick, David

  Woodward, Shaun

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Woolas, Phil

  Mr. David Jamieson and

  Worthington, Tony

  Mr. Don Touhig.

  Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 1

  TEACHING OF ENGINEERING AND SCIENCE-RELATED SUBJECTS
  '.—The Learning and Skills Council shall present a report annually on the trends in the teaching of engineering and science-related subjects throughout the previous year. This report shall include a section relating to the proportion of the cohort—

  (a) commencing studies in those subjects; and

  (b) completing studies in those subjects

  with particular reference to the gender of students.'.—[Mr. Willis.]
  Brought up, and read the First time.
  Mr. Willis: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): With this, it will be convenient to discuss the following: New clause 10—London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee—

  '.—(1) The Council will establish a London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the local learning and skills councils in London.

  (2) The Committee shall be appointed by the Council and shall consist of not more than 15 members and shall have a majority of members with business experience.

  (3) The functions of the Committee shall be:

  (5) The functions of the Committee shall be:

  (a) to undertake research for the learning and skills councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in London;

  (b) to provide a forum for common decision making on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;

  (c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the learning and skills councils in London;

  (d) to liaise with the Mayor, the Greater London Authority, London Development Agency and other relevant partners on skills and employment issues;

  (e) to co-ordinate the activities of the learning and skills councils in relation to the London Small Business Service.'.

  New clause 19—Regional Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committees—

  '.—(1) The Council must establish a Learning on Skills Co-ordinating Committee ("the Committee") to co-ordinate the activities of the Local Learning and Skills Councils ("the local council") in each of the English regions as described in section 1 of the Regional Development Agencies Act 1998 ("the Region").

  (2) The Committee shall consist of not more than 15 members.

  (3) Committee members shall be appointed by the Council from nominations by each of the local councils that comprise "the Region" and must include representatives from the Regional Development Agency, Small Business Service, local authorities and the wider business community.

  (4) The Chairman shall be a member of and be appointed by the members of the Committee—

  (5) The functions of the Committee shall be:

  810

  (a) to undertake research for the local councils and provide information on employment, skills and the labour market in each Region;

  (b) to provide a forum for common decision making across the Region on the planning and delivery of the functions and responsibilities of the learning and skills councils;

  (c) to agree common operational frameworks and guidelines for the work of the local councils in each Region;

  (d) to liaise with the Regional Development Agency and other relevant partners as agreed by the Committee on skills and employment issues;

  (e) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Small Business Service;

  (f) to co-ordinate the activities of the local councils in relation to the Careers Services.'.

  Amendment No. 104, in clause 12, page 7, line 3, at end add—
  '() The Council must establish systems for collecting information which is designed to secure that its decisions with regard to information, advice and guidance services are made on a sound basis.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 31, 91, 32 and 42 to 44.
  Amendment No. 74, in schedule 3, page 74, line 31, at end insert—
  ', or to the London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee established under section (London Learning and Skills Co-ordinating Committee).'.
  Mr. Willis: My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) will speak to new clause 1, but I wish to speak to new clause 19, which deals with the organisation committees of the regional councils.
  It has taken four hours, but at last we shall be discussing the essence of the Bill. For all that time, Conservative Members avoided talking about—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman should talk not about what has gone before, but about what is before us now—the new clause.
  Mr. Willis: I am admonished, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  One of the real challenges in moving from the old organisation of post-16 education, training and lifelong learning is not simply to have a reorganisation but to do something much better. There is no point in getting rid of training and enterprise councils, the Further Education Funding Council or, indeed, the plethora of other organisations simply so as to swap the seats on the Titanic and replace them with different ones.
  In Committee, in another place and in the House we have always argued that we wanted not a single Learning and Skills Council, but regional learning and skills councils coterminous with the regional development agencies—hopefully, the forerunners of the regional assemblies—so that the regions have not only an identity but, alongside the RDAs, the means to apply the skills and education agenda post-16. We lost that argument in Committee and we accept that. We do not wish to re-run it, as I am sure hon. Members will be delighted to hear.
  In reality, many areas of Britain have ended up with a region, under the Regional Development Agencies Act 1988, and we now have sub-regional councils of the Learning and Skills Council. In Yorkshire and the Humber, for example, where my hon. Friend the Member for Hallam and I operate, we have three such

  811
  organisations. The point of the amendment is that we surely need an overarching organisation that will allow the three organisations to speak to each other.
  Much of the organisational structure set up by the Bill will hopefully work for the benefit of education and training post-16, but unless we have that co-ordination, the sub-regional committees of the local councils will go off on their own and will not truly speak to each other. All we are asking for is a co-ordination committee. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) has tabled a similar amendment for London. That is the essence—
  Mr. Gordon Marsden: I hear what the hon. Gentleman says and the Liberal Democrats have pulled back from their position in Committee, but in stressing the need for the changes he is surely showing a lack of confidence in the regional development agencies. He is suggesting that they are not capable of, or will not be able to make, the sort of contacts and communication that has been suggested.
  Mr. Willis: The hon. Member for Blackpool, North—[HON. MEMBERS: "South".] It was pretty near. The hon. Gentleman is showing an uncharacteristic naivety. He has demonstrated his lack of knowledge of the Bill, which surprises me. Throughout, we have argued that the connection between the RDA and the Learning and Skills Council is tenuous. Indeed, those links were put in only at the last minute. I would be happy if there were a direct statutory link between the council and the RDA as that would solve our problem. That is not the case, which is why we are arguing for the new clause.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hallam will deal with our other amendments if he catches your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Peter Brooke: Like the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), I regret the hour at which we are coming to these matters. After your stricture upon him, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not enlarge on what he said. I hope that you will excuse my saying, however, that I noticed that the Minister who dealt with the previous debate declined to take an intervention on the grounds that we were short of time. As the House rose at 6 pm yesterday, such excuses seem funny in the conduct of Government business.
  New clause 10 and amendment No. 74, which is consequential on it, stand in my name and I speak to them. They are of a probing nature. Amendments to the same general effect were moved at columns 836 to 843 on 10 February in the Standing Committee in the House of Lords by Lord Tope and Lord Harris of Haringey, neither of whom are of my party, but both of whom have been long involved in London local government. Lord Tope was once briefly a London Member of Parliament.
  9.15 pm
  I should in all honesty acknowledge to the House that in the debate on 10 February, Baroness Blatch advised the other place against the propositions that I am putting forward. But that was 10 February, and we have not heard further from the Government since Lord Tope, in acceding to the Government's request to withdraw his
  812
  amendment, said that he hoped that the Government would say more on the subject later. Since then, we have had silence.
  I wish to probe the Government's position on a London co-ordinating body for the five learning and skills councils that are to be established in the capital. The subject was debated in another place—I have given the reference—but it has not previously been covered in this House. Lord Harris of Haringey explained the debate that had occurred in the London Development Partnership when it made its recommendation, by a narrow margin, that there should be five local learning and skills councils in London, but also recommended that there should be a co-ordinating body. The concept of the co-ordinating body was accepted by the Government, through Baroness Blackstone, in the other place when she responded to the debate.
  I understand that the reason the Government have rejected the concept is that, although they have endorsed the concept of a co-ordinating body, they believe that it should not be on the face of the Bill. But although stakeholders in London understand the need to avoid another layer of bureaucracy, they are anxious to ensure a Londonwide approach to the many issues that cannot be decided solely by a single sub-region of London. The complex travel-to-work and travel-to-learning flows in the capital mean that unilateral action by one learning and skills council could adversely affect the actions of another. London's stakeholders are looking for a more powerful model than the one the Government appear to have in mind.
  A stronger co-ordinating body is needed for the following purposes. It is needed to provide a focal point of contact for Londonwide employers and bodies, including the mayor and Assembly and the single Small Business Service. It is needed to provide labour market forecasting and analysis. There are significant economies of scale to be achieved by a joint approach, and the valuable work of the London skills forecasting unit needs to be sustained in the new learning and skills council arrangements. A co-ordinating body is needed to share and co-ordinate London plans and priorities—the fact that funding will follow learners and providers will require a Londonwide approach to planning and rationalising provision if real benefits are to be achieved. A co-ordinating body is also needed to agree operating frameworks and procedures so that learners and employers can be treated equally in London; and, finally, to provide a forum for agreeing collective action and overcoming disagreements.
  We would not be building from a zero base in this respect. It is important that the good work that has been done by the London training and enterprise council and the skills forecasting unit on behalf of TECs, and the work by the London office of the Further Education Funding Council, should be incorporated in a new London co-ordinating body.
  Since I tabled new clause 10 and amendment No. 74, the regional director of the London region of the Association of Colleges has written to me to say:
  A co-ordinating body would make a great improvement to the provision of post-compulsory education and training in the city under the LSC. As things stand at present London will be divided arbitrarily into five areas whose boundaries defy the fact that the capital is a single labour market and also one travel-to-work and travel-to-study area. Although they bear no relation to reality, the

  813
  boundaries—once established—will begin to acquire the status of fiefdoms. Local council members and executive directors will soon believe that they know what is best for the individuals and firms in their own geographical patches, and begin to act without reference to either their population's wider interests or the greater interests of London as a whole.
  At the very time when we have gained a body, in the form of the GLA, to look after the strategic interests of London, the Government intends to remove both the overarching powers and duties of the FEFC's regional office and the co-ordinating influence of the London TEC Council. We will now have to rely on a head office in Coventry to determine a framework for collecting and analysing information, for agreeing priorities and for bringing together plans. It would be much better to fulfil these functions regionally.
  I tabled the new clause and the amendment as one London local MP among 74. In 1987, it was remarked by economists that, until then, the London economy had been growing more slowly than that of the rest of the country, but that the dramatic effect of big bang had accelerated growth in London, causing the city not only to grow faster than the rest of the country but to lead the country's growth. In my constituency, 20 times as many people are employed as in the average constituency—both nationally and in London; 22 per cent. of the working population of greater London work in my constituency. If the remaining 78 per cent. is divided by the 73 other London seats, the resultant figure is somewhat lower than 1.1 per cent.—that is, 5 per cent. of my 22 per cent.
  The hon. Member for East Antrim (Mr. Beggs) is in the Chamber. When I was Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the working population of my constituency alone exceeded the entire working population of Northern Ireland by 50 per cent. If there is such a great concentration in one constituency—which will of course fall under one particular learning and skills council—one fears that the benefits of that engine of economic activity in the heart of the capital will not be felt by the rest of London unless there is serious co-ordination. I have already referred to the London skills forecasting unit.
  The Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment, the hon. Member for Croydon, North (Mr. Wicks), is himself a London Member. Since I have been a Member of the House, we have seen increasing integration of the health service of London; policing has become borough based; and we are about to welcome the mayor and the Greater London Assembly.
  I have one suspicion about the Government's action. As London will be the first of our cities with a mayor, that will give it pole position. That is why a co-ordinating committee has a relevance in London that it might not have in Birmingham or Manchester—as the Minister for Education and Employment made clear in the House of Lords. If London has such a committee, there is a risk that other people will want one too—as is revealed by the Liberal Democrat proposals. That would be easier to avoid if the issue were left out of the Bill.
  Through the Government's initial response in the House of Lords and the impression they give us that they should be trusted—as there has been silence on the matter since then—they are saying, in effect, that they can be relied on to deliver a sensible arrangement, or that such an arrangement will emerge because they endorse the reason for it. However, there seems to be no reciprocity in other amendments tabled for debate; although the Government are asking London to trust them, they would not necessarily be trusted because of the statutory provisions that they want to implement—especially in relation to the cessation of TECs and their assets.
  814
  I do not want to leap forward to a discussion of those proposals; in tabling my provisions, I want only to be given a clearer idea of the results the Government envisage from a co-ordinating body whose importance—[Interruption.] I realise that the Minister is not trying to speak to me, but inevitably I can see his lips moving.
  The Government should make clear what they think will occur in London—with much greater substance, structure and form than has been given so far.
  Mr. Allan: I speak to new clause 1 and amendment No. 104, tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and me. They highlight two important matters to which the Learning and Skills Council should pay attention.
  New clause 1 addresses the shortage subjects of science and engineering, where problems could arise owing to the number of recruits across the board, but especially in respect of the number of women entering those professions. The new clause would require the Learning and Skills Council to collect data on the number of people both entering and completing courses in those subjects and to break down the information by gender, so that we can consider the number of women as a separate category.
  The background to the new clause is that there are too few women at all levels of science and engineering. That is a matter of concern for the Learning and Skills Council, because the problem is especially acute in post-16 education. Up to GCSE, all girls study science and mathematics, so 51 per cent. of those obtaining a maths GCSE and 38 per cent. of those obtaining a physics GCSE are female students. However, the percentage of female students completing A-level courses is down from 51 per cent. to 33 per cent. for maths and from 38 per cent. to only 20 per cent. for physics.
  Clearly, there is a huge fall-off at the A-level end of the education spectrum and the number of female students is further depleted by the time they reach higher education, where women constituted only 14 per cent. of applicants to engineering degree courses in 1998. However, there are variations across the different disciplines in engineering. For example, 24 per cent. of the applicants to study chemical engineering are women, but in mechanical engineering the figure is only 9 per cent. I hope that the House will recognise from those figures that the number of women studying science and maths falls off dramatically from the age of 16 onwards.
  The Learning and Skills Council will have a direct responsibility for female students over 16. Further education often offers engineering courses as an end in themselves, but they suffer from a fall-off in numbers even though they can provide a gateway into higher education. The council should therefore take action to deal with that problem.
  Although groups such as Women into Science and Engineering have performed valuable work and raised the number of female engineering graduates from 7 per cent. in 1984 to 15 per cent. today, that work is not in itself sufficient. We hope that it will be boosted by further Government action, particularly through the new bodies, such as the Learning and Skills Council, that they are setting up.
  There are a variety of reasons for the figures, and one explanation can be found at the careers guidance level. Amendment No. 104 deals with careers guidance more

  815
  generally, but women appear to be pointed in directions that are not entirely helpful in achieving a balance between the genders on engineering courses.
  The Department for Education and Employment could do more to promote active role models for women going into science and engineering. Such role models are perceived not to exist and that creates a self-fulfilling prophecy. The fewer women who study such subjects, the fewer there are to encourage other women to copy and aspire to their example.
  If we do not tackle the problem, we shall miss out on a huge pool of talent. Women make just as competent scientists and engineers as anyone else. However, only 14 per cent. of the graduates in these subjects are women and if we were to achieve a 50:50 gender balance, a huge gap would be filled. A significant number of women would make good professional scientists and engineers, but for one reason or another they are not entering those professions.
  Britain needs top-class engineers. By increasing the number of women in science and engineering, we would not only enhance and the assist the abilities of women wishing to enter those professions, but we would enhance the reputation of the professions as a whole. Men who are thinking of entering science and engineering may similarly be put off if they perceive them to be not truly modern, representative professions, but ones that conform to old-fashioned stereotypes about what science and engineering are for.
  If the Government are not able to accept the new clause, I hope that they will at least accept the principle behind it. Will they give us an idea of how their new structure of a Learning and Skills Council that is responsible for policy in this matter will improve on the status quo? I hope that they will accept that they need to improve the position and that they will tell us that a priority of the Learning and Skills Council will be to achieve a better representation of women in the shortage subjects that I have mentioned.
  I do not need to remind the Minister that this issue also follows through into the teaching profession. If people are not given the opportunity to study science and engineering at A-level and at degree level, they will not be able to become teachers. We have shortages in those key subjects and the Government are trying to deal with that problem. However, the first way of increasing the intake into teaching is to increase the number of graduates. That means expanding the pool across the genders.
  9.30 pm
  Amendment No. 104 is a response to many concerns that have been raised by the careers service about the new focus that the Government will have on 14 to 19-year-olds. We debated the issues in Committee and I do not intend to rehearse all the arguments about Connexions. I merely propose that the Government could provide reassurance by indicating that the national Learning and Skills Council will at least collect data on guidance services. We are all receiving plenty of anecdotal evidence about how careers services are being withdrawn. I have been given examples of schools, for example, which say, "We have only a few disaffected youngsters as a proportion of the yearly cohorts, but many others will not have the quality time and attention which
  816
  all youngsters require. The individual vocation and guidance interview is pivotal in all 11 to 16-year-old students' lives."
  Many schools reflect this and ask, "How can we have equality of opportunity if we risk moving into a situation in which guidance services, while they are properly focused on disaffected youths in the key 14 to 19-year-old group, are not available to others?"
  When the Government rejected an amendment proposed by my noble Friend Baroness Sharp of Guildford, they indicated that they do not wish to see statutory provision to the effect that we must maintain the level of services. In refusing to accept that amendment, they made a clear commitment to the careers and guidance services as a whole that the Government did not intend to see large-scale withdrawal of services from other groups of youngsters. We believe that they will not be able to justify their position unless they accept measures of the sort that we are proposing in amendment No. 104.
  If the Government accepted that, we hope that they would seek to accept a base-line study to ascertain exactly what is happening. One of the problems is that we are not aware of the full picture within the careers and guidance services. Some of the provision takes place in schools, some by careers companies, some by other advice agencies, some by employers and some by training agencies.
  It would be helpful if the Government were to require the national Learning and Skills Council to establish such a base-line study at this stage and then to report back regularly on it, so that we could see whether Connexions has led to withdrawal of service in other areas as advisers are diverted, or whether, as I think the Government have said they hope will happen, the broad range of provision available to all youngsters will be maintained at the same time as an enhanced service is offered to priority groups, preferably with additional funding made available under the comprehensive spending review. I understand that the Government intend that to happen.
  I hope that the Minister will be able to respond positively to our suggestion that we undertake serious research into what is happening in careers guidance services. I hope also that he will make a commitment to report back in future so that we can establish whether the sort of fears that are being expressed to us from throughout the country are being realised, or whether the Government can pull out of the hat the magic rabbit that will deliver an enhanced service and a broad range of quality service to all youngsters, no matter whether they suffer social disadvantage or whether they are performing adequately at school, and thus risk being excluded from those on whom careers services will be focused.
  Mr. David Heath: I support amendment No. 104. I apologise to the Minister and hon. Members who served on the Committee if I go over some of the ground that was covered in Committee.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan) spoke of the real fears of many in the careers service and in the school sector about the provisions that are set out in the Bill. I can only echo those fears from the view of my constituency. That was what prompted me to intervene on Second Reading, having had a useful meeting with Peter Renshaw of Somerset careers. My feelings and sense of concern have been increased by

  817
  letters that I have received from several secondary schools in my constituency, including Frome community college, Huish Episcopi school and Sexey's school, Bruton. They all make the self-same points, which I shall bring to the attention of the House.
  Not one of the principals or head teachers who wrote to me expressed discontent with the Government's motivation and intention: they made it clear that prioritising social inclusion was an entirely meritorious aim which they supported and wanted to be reflected in their careers service. Their concern was that there should be no diversion of the resources necessary to provide an adequate service to all children, especially year 11 students who need their school careers service if they are to take full advantage of the opportunities available to them and enter either training or careers that are of value to them.
  It strikes me that we are harking back to the debate of recent weeks about elitism in university admissions. The one way in which to break down such obstacles is to provide good guidance at the appropriate time to youngsters who are studying in comprehensive schools throughout our country—not only those who are falling behind, whether for social or educational reasons, but brighter kids who can profit from entering higher education and need to talk through the opportunities available to them if they are to take full advantage of them. There is a need to ensure that the new system continues to provide the same level of careers service in local education authority schools.
  A cause of discontent expressed in a letter to me from Mr. Barry Bates, principal of Frome community college, is that the changes will adversely affect the integrity of the careers service as it stands. We are having difficulty finding permanent replacements for staff who are leaving the local careers service; it is a good careers service that achieves a great deal in our schools, but the uncertainty that surrounds the Government's proposals puts at risk the integrity of careers service teams.
  The Minister can put our minds at rest by accepting our amendment. That would make it clear that there was an intention to revisit the matter and ensure that overall resources were not diminished by the changes. Not only could baseline data be collected but, even more importantly, baseline provision could be established, which would ensure that every child had access to a basic entitlement, irrespective of any additional support given to some. The Minister could also reassure us by making us confident that funding will be sufficient to meet all of the objectives that the Government have set out for the new service. We do not know how it could be provided—perhaps the comprehensive spending review will provide.
  We in Somerset know that, on the whole, our county achieves good GCSE results and that we have relatively low levels of social deprivation, so we accept that we will not be winners. There is a separate argument to be had about schools funding, but we know that if resources are to be redirected to address social deprivation through careers services, the big increases will go to places other than Somerset. What we do not want is children in our
  818
  schools to be losers. That is the reassurance that head teachers, parents and students in my constituency and my county of Somerset want to hear this evening.
  Mr. Wicks: At this hour, several important and detailed points have been raised. I shall do my best to answer them, but if I do not do so in the detail required, I apologise and promise to write to right hon. and hon. Members later.
  I understand the Liberal Democrats' position on new clause 19 and their allegiance to regionalism. We discussed in some detail the pros and cons of that in relation to learning and skills in the Standing Committee. The new clause is designed to establish a relationship between the learning and skills councils and the regional dimension embodied in the regional development agencies. I am sympathetic to that aim, but I think that the new clause presents the wrong course.
  As we have said before, the regional dimension of an influential role for RDAs and their regional skills strategies is clearly provided for in the Bill. Furthermore, local learning and skills councils will draw in broad representation from outstanding local individuals and the wider business community, with relevant expertise to ensure that Government-supported learning and skills delivery meets the needs of individuals, businesses and their communities at national, regional, sectoral and local level.
  We expect local LSCs to play an important role in partnerships established by regional development agencies and other bodies, such as local authorities and the Small Business Service. I hope that with those reassurances and the more detailed reassurances that I gave in Committee about the consultation process between the RDAs and the LSCs, the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) will be reassured of our good intention to relate the local to the regional with regard to learning and skills.
  On new clause 10 and the issue of London, I thank the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) for drawing this important matter to our attention. As a London Member myself, I take it extremely seriously. I remind the House that the London development partnership recommended that there should be five local LSCs in London and a co-ordinating mechanism to make sure that pan-London issues are dealt with effectively. The right hon. Gentleman, as a student of London governance over the years, understands the importance of London and the difficulties relating to boundaries within London.
  At one stage there were some interesting arguments in favour of one learning and skills council for London, but because of the sheer size we thought that that would be a step too far for the interests of Londoners. We have repeatedly made it clear that we accept both conclusions presented to us—the need for five LSCs for London, and the need for a pan-London mechanism that would operate with a fairly light touch. There should be no question of our presenting the House with a recommendation for a new layer of bureaucracy.
  As we prepare the ground for the new post-16 landscape, the Government office for London is engaged in discussions with key external partners, including representatives of the local authorities, training and enterprise councils, colleges, employers, trade unions and

  819
  the voluntary sector, about how the co-ordinating arrangement might operate and the issues that it would address. It would then be for the LSC chair and chief executive, in discussion with the five London local LSCs, to decide on the detailed arrangements. The work is under way already. We do not believe that we need statutory provision for those arrangements.
  In describing what we need as a light touch, I do not mean one that is insubstantial. The issues in Greater London are considerable. Clearly, at a time when Parliament has re-established a Greater London Authority and the people of London have just elected their first Mayor, it is entirely appropriate that we examine Greater London issues. With those assurances, I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will withdraw his amendment. I thank him for raising an important issue.
  In speaking to the Government amendments to schedules 1 and 2, I give due credit to the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell), whose eye for detail first enabled us in Committee to spot the possible need for an amendment to schedule 1. The point that he made was that the chair or chief executive of the national Learning and Skills Council, both of whom will be LSC board members, should be eligible for re-appointment to their additional roles as chair and chief executive, as well as for re-appointment as LSC board members.
  The hon. Gentleman agreed at that time to withdraw his amendment to allow for an examination of that point in relation to other provisions in the Bill. The result is a set of technical amendments in respect of the national LSC, local LSCs, the Welsh council and its committees, as well as the adult learning inspectorate, which ensure that provisions in the relevant schedules are consistent in their effects on issues of membership, tenure and re-appointment. The hon. Gentleman will, I hope, gain some well-deserved satisfaction from seeing that Government amendment No. 42 is identical to that tabled by him in Committee. I thank him for his close scrutiny of our Bill.
  9.45 pm
  In respect of new clause 1, the Government entirely agree with the Liberal Democrats about the importance of improving the participation of women in science and engineering courses. The fact that I am replying briefly to the considered speech of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) takes nothing away from that, or the importance of participation in the industries for which they prepare.
  The number of girls and women studying science has gone up in recent years, and the DTI has been actively campaigning to improve the situation still further, especially in engineering. Of course, the LSC will collect comprehensive information on subjects being studied and on student achievements in all areas of post-16 learning, including science and engineering courses, and we expect it to make the figures publicly available. I think that that is the assurance that the hon. Gentleman wanted. The FEFC publishes statistics for each academic year on student numbers in the various subject areas, which includes a breakdown of students by gender, age and mode of study. We expect the LSC to continue this activity, and the provisions in the Bill allow for that without any further amendment. The hon. Gentleman may therefore consider withdrawing what I think was an important probing amendment on an important subject.
  820
  I understand and sympathise with the sentiments behind amendment No. 104, which calls for information. On the basis of that, we have had a brief discussion on the nature of Connexions as a universal service. I shall say no more about that now, because a later set of amendments will enable us to discuss it a little more fully. I say simply that we are committed to Connexions as a universal service for all of our 13-year-olds to 19-year-olds.
  The Government are already developing systems to capture information relating to the local information, advice and guidance services, including their quality, efficiency and impact. The Secretary of State will set priorities for information, advice and guidance provision as part of the process of allocating funds to the LSC. Depending on the nature of these priorities, the Secretary of State will devolve responsibility for managing the appropriate information systems needed to support him.
  Finally, I come to the remaining Government amendments to the LSC's functions. We have always made it crystal clear that the provisions in the Bill which set out the LSC's functions will encompass both work force development and economic regeneration activity. Indeed, these matters are at the heart of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 31 and 32 make that explicit.
  In Committee, we reflected on the priority for work force development at the local level through an amendment to the provisions governing the local LSC's plans. Amendment No. 31 to clause 16 represents the second half of a commitment we made in Committee. It makes it explicit that at the national level the LSC's strategy must set out how it intends to develop the skills of people in the work force, while ensuring that that does not inadvertently affect the interpretation of the LSC's overall remit.
  In Government amendment No. 32 we return to the territory of local LSC plans. It makes explicit our commitment to economic development and regeneration by providing that a local LSC's plans must include a statement of the likely affect of its activities on the wider economic development and regeneration of its area. No one should now be able to doubt what is already set out in the "Learning to Succeed" White Paper and the prospectus for the Learning and Skills Council: our commitment to give adults the opportunity to continue learning throughout their working life.
  I hope that with those explanations and assurances—
  Mr. Brooke: I do not wish to be derogatory about the hon. Gentleman's speech, whose spirit I very much appreciate, but he did not really add anything to what I said in speaking to my amendment. However, he said that he would write to me. It would be extremely helpful if he would write with rather more substantive comments on what the Government office for London is achieving in terms of negotiations with the principal stakeholders.
  Mr. Wicks: What I sought to do, albeit with an eye slightly on the clock, given the hour and the business before us, was to say that we need a body representing the whole of the Greater London perspective. We are in consultation and we are developing our plans. The right hon. Gentleman, as a fellow Londoner, will be the first to know when we have developed our plans. I hope that the assurances that I have given mean that the hon. Member for Harrogate and

  821
  Knaresborough will consider withdrawing the amendment and that hon. Members will support the Government amendments.
  Mr. Willis: I thank the Minister for the courtesy of his replies and for accepting that the issues that we raised, even at this late hour, are serious. It is rather sad that we are rushing through the amendments, which have enormous substance. The right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke) was right to make a crucial point about London. It is sad that we have not debated that properly. However, with the assurances that we have received, especially about collecting statistics on women in engineering and science and the effectiveness of the new careers service, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 5

  PROVISION OF FINANCIAL RESOURCES
  Mrs. Theresa May: I beg to move amendment No. 87, in page 4, line 24, at end add—
  '(4) Any funding by the Council of provision of education and training under this Act (whether direct or indirect) shall be in accordance with the arrangements and formula contained in any order made under subsection (1) of section (Free Schools).'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: No. 76, in clause 7, page 5, line 21, at end insert—
  '(aa) on condition that the quantum of grant per pupil in each school shall not be less than that applicable in the final school year for which the local education authority had responsibility for funding pupils above compulsory school age; and'.
  New clause 13—Free schools—
  '.—(1) The Secretary of State shall by order establish a mechanism for determining the funding of all maintained schools (the funding formula).

  (2) The funding formula shall be on the same basis for every school but must have regard to:

  (a) the numbers on roll at 1st October in each school year

  (b) the age of pupils at any school including any below or above the age of compulsory schooling

  (c) such other special factors affecting the needs of pupils or the cost of provision as the Secretary of State may determine:

  (3) The governors and teachers at each school, as the case may be, shall use their allocation under the formula and such other revenues as are at their disposal to conduct education at that school; and in discharging their duties may draw on local education authorities or other bodies for free or paid-for advice and support and other educational services.

  (4) On the coming into force of the funding formula introduced under subsection (1) sections 45 to 53 of the School Standards and Framework Act 1998 shall be repealed.

  (5) Any order made by the Secretary of State under subsection (1) may contain such consequential, incidental, supplementary or transitional provisions or savings (including provisions amending, repealing or revoking enactments) as the Secretary of State considers appropriate.'.

  Mrs. May: Amendment No. 87 is a paving amendment for new clause 13. I shall therefore consider them
  822
  together. First, I should like to consider amendment No. 76, which relates to the all-important issue of funding for sixth forms in schools. It would introduce protection for sixth form funding, and would ensure that schools that currently have sixth forms knew that there was some certainty about their future funding, which they will receive under the new arrangements from the Learning and Skills Council via the local education authorities.
  There is considerable anxiety in schools with sixth forms, especially those with small sixth forms, often because of their geographical circumstances. That applies especially to rural secondary schools, whose numbers will not be sufficient for a large sixth form. However, without that sixth form, the opportunities for young people who want to continue their education post-16 would be remarkably limited. It is important that sixth forms in schools can remain. However, there is real fear that sixth forms will be under threat in future. One of those fears is caused by the swingeing powers in the Bill to declare school sixth forms inadequate, or to declare weaknesses and therefore set their closure in train.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) will raise the subject of inadequate sixth forms later tonight.
  Mr. Clappison: And tomorrow morning.
  Mrs. May: Indeed. Some important amendments remain to be debated.
  I want to deal with the second issue that worries schools with sixth forms: funding. The Minister may say that the Government have given schools some comfort in their guarantee on sixth form funding. However, as most heads will say when asked about the matter, they believe that the guarantee is not worth the paper it is written on. The guarantee states that the funding for school sixth forms will be maintained provided that the numbers are maintained. There has been much debate about what the Secretary of State meant by that phrase. It has been suggested to many schools that if their numbers fall, even by one or two students, the guarantee no longer holds, and that their sixth form funding will come under threat, with all the attendant consequences for the future of that sixth form.
  To illustrate the anxiety in schools, we surveyed London heads of schools with sixth forms and asked for their views about the Bill's proposed changes to sixth form funding and the structure of post-16 education. The answers were illuminating. First, the House may care to know that 62 per cent. of those heads felt that the Government were pursuing a levelling agenda in education for 16 to 19-year-olds. It is interesting to note that 70 per cent. of the schools surveyed believed that funding for their school had fallen in the past three years under the Labour Government. In relation to the future of their sixth forms, 97 per cent. of heads believed that pupils should have a choice in provision—between a sixth form in a school and other providers. Sad to say, the Bill could reduce that choice, as school sixth forms might be closed on the back of the Government's proposals.
  Sixty per cent. of the heads felt that the future of their sixth form was under threat as a result of the Government's actions. For heads, schools, parents and pupils, that threat has introduced uncertainty about the future of the provision in those schools and where pupils

  823
  can choose to go to undertake their post-16 education. We want to provide a measure of certainty for those schools and take away the uncertainty and the threat. That is why we tabled amendment No. 76, which would give schools a more genuine guarantee than the phoney guarantee provided by the Secretary of State and would ensure that they would not suffer a loss in funding for their sixth form as a result of the changed structure and the changed funding mechanism.
  It is interesting to note that House of Commons Library figures show that schools with sixth forms get significantly better GCSE results. There is a knock-on effect down the school. It is not just about allowing pupils to have the opportunity to choose to go to a sixth form in a school environment rather than a sixth-form college or a further education college. The provision of a sixth form in a school has an effect on teaching and pupils' achievement in the rest of the school.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady clarify her final comments? Does she not agree with the latest research which shows that the smaller the sixth form, the less likely students are to do well? Sixth forms with fewer than 50 students perform extraordinarily badly compared with, for instance, sixth forms with more than 200 students or, indeed, sixth-form colleges and even FE colleges.
  Mrs. May: It is important to examine the circumstances of any particular school. If, for example, the hon. Gentleman is saying that he would prefer to remove the sixth form of a small rural secondary school purely because of its size and take choice away from pupils, I do not accept that that is the way forward. Pupils should have the choice that is available. It is interesting that, in many other aspects of education, the hon. Gentleman would join the Government in talking about the importance of teaching in small groups. The problem that is often mentioned in relation to small sixth forms, and, indeed, the issue that has underlain part of the debate about the definition of weaknesses in schedule 7, is whether a small sixth form class should be declared as weak purely because of its numbers. One cannot say that, simply because a group is small, it will not achieve or that teaching quality will be lower.
  Mr. Willis: First, I intervened to question the hon. Lady's assumption that all sixth forms appear to have better results than schools, sixth-form colleges or FE colleges. That is not the case. On the latter point, of course I would never argue that small groups are necessarily bad for teaching. However, I would argue that, even in a rural area, a school's ability to give students choice and diversity in a sixth form with numbers as low as 50 would be seriously hampered.
  Mrs. May: I am happy to clarify what I said for the hon. Gentleman. The figures from the House of Commons Library show that schools with sixth forms get better GCSE results, so having a sixth-form has a knock-on effect down the school, as it provides role models and raises the quality of teaching throughout the school.
  Mr. Willis indicated dissent.
  Mrs. May: The hon. Gentleman shakes his head. I am happy to provide him with the independent House of Commons Library figures, which clearly show that schools with sixth forms get better GCSE results.

  BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
  It being Ten o'clock further consideration of the Bill stood adjourned.
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 15 (Exempted business),
  That, at this day's sitting, the Learning and Skills Bill (Lords] may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.
  As amended in the Standing Committee, again considered.
  Question again proposed, That the amendment be made.
  Mrs. May: I have to say that I am sorry to hear the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) making those comments about small sixth forms in rural schools, because, from the sound of it, the Liberal Democrat policy is to abolish such sixth forms and put the pupils into other provision.
  Mr. Willis: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: I shall give way once more, and then I wish to make progress.
  Mr. Willis: I am extremely grateful to the hon. Lady, who is generous and courteous, as always. Hansard will show that I never mentioned rural schools; it was the hon. Lady who mentioned them. If she is extrapolating Liberal Democrat policy from what she believes I have said, she will clearly need to read the record.
  Mrs. May: I will be happy to look at the record, and I am sure that it will show that the hon. Gentleman has not contradicted my interpretation of the Liberal Democrat view on small sixth forms in rural schools.
  Mr. Chaytor: Will the hon. Lady give way?
  Mrs. May: No, I want to make progress.
  Amendment No. 76 clearly aims to provide certainty to schools that are worried about the future funding and very existence of their sixth forms and their ability to maintain them. They are worried about the impact of that on teaching and on pupils in earlier year groups. They are worried also about the impact on choice for students in future.
  Many students choose to stay on in the school environment for their post-16 education, rather than moving to a sixth form college or further education college. Sadly, some choose to go to an FE college and then find that they have made the wrong choice and want to go back to their school. It is important that students have that choice and can actively decide to remain in the school environment and to benefit from the pastoral support and extra-curricular activities that are provided, rather than simply having the opportunity to go to a tertiary college.
  Amendment No. 87 is a paving amendment for new clause 13, which would introduce a different method of funding pupils and give schools the power to choose how to spend all of their budget. This subject will not come as a surprise to the Minister. The Secretary of State referred

  825
  to it in his speech to the National Association of Head Teachers on 1 June which led to The Daily Telegraph headline, "Blunkett frees state schools". The article said:
  All state schools will be set free of local education authority control and will effectively be given grant-maintained status, says David Blunkett, the Education Secretary.
  We know full well from long experience of the Secretary of State's speeches that, to understand his intentions, one has to look behind the headlines and search for the substance. Sadly, as with so many of his headlines, when we delve into the detail—with this Government, the devil is always in the detail—we discover that, although he claims to be freeing state schools, the proposals do nothing of the sort. There is a certain sense of déjà vu about that.
  About two years ago, the Government introduced "fair funding"—their new method of funding schools, which was lauded as a measure by which the freedoms of grant-maintained schools would effectively be provided again for schools; they would get 100 per cent. of their money and be able to decide how to spend it. Of course, that was another example of the triumph of spin over substance. In fact, far from schools being given 100 per cent. of their budgets, funds are being held back by local education authorities.
  LEAs can hold back 89 different categories of expenditure under four different categories of responsibility. Once again, we are told that 100 per cent. of the funding will go to schools and that LEAs will be funded for four specific categories of responsibility, but the Secretary of State has in fact proposed not that schools will get 100 per cent. of their funding directly, but that a Green Paper will be issued for consultation.
  We all became interested in the fact that the Department for Education and Employment might publish a Green Paper on school funding, but we now find that the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions is to issue a document which, among other local authority funding matters, will refer to LEA funding. Far from "Blunkett frees state schools", it is a case of the Green Paper being issued by the Deputy Prime Minister and, like most things that the right hon. Gentleman issues, it is likely to sink without trace.
  Conservative Members genuinely believe in free schools and in schools being self-governing. We believe that they should have their budgets and the freedom to exercise choice over how they spend them. After all, the Conservative Government created grant-maintained status, but the Labour Government have abolished it. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would provide a new basis of funding that would enable schools to be entirely self-governing. One of the first issues raised with one when one visits a school is the degree of Government prescription, not only in relation to the amount of bureaucracy that the school faces but, and more particularly, in relation to its funding.
  Schools do not have the freedom to decide how to spend money for themselves. They increasingly find that money is held back not only by LEAs, but, more particularly, by the Department for Education and Employment, to be spent purely on political priorities set by the Government, rather than on the practical priorities that the schools know are needed for their pupils.
  826
  I recently met head teachers in Kent who complained about funding and prescription. When I asked them whether they would prefer to have the money and the power to spend it themselves, their response was simple—to a man and woman, they just said yes. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would enable the Government to put into practice the headline that David Blunkett got into The Daily Telegraph.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Lady knows the conventions of the House.
  Mrs. May: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I refer of course to the headline that the Secretary of State achieved in The Daily Telegraph. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 give the Government an opportunity to put their legislation where the Secretary of State's mouth was. They give them the opportunity to say, "Yes, we actually want schools to be free; we want them to have their budgets; and we want them to be able to spend them in the way that they wish."
  I fear that the Minister will oppose and reject amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 because, behind all the headlines, the Government have a centralising agenda. They have a bidding culture, in which spending priorities for schools are determined in Whitehall. They have a "one size fits all" approach and they think that the man in Whitehall always knows what is right for pupils throughout the country.
  If we really want to raise standards, we should set the schools free. If we want to raise standards, we should enable schools to maintain their sixth forms. For the information of the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), the figures from the House of Commons Library show that 9 per cent. more pupils achieve five or more A to C grades at GCSE at schools with sixth forms than at schools without sixth forms. That is a clear message about the impact of school sixth forms.
  Mr. Chaytor: Does the hon. Lady accept that of the schools with sixth forms, a significant proportion will be selective schools and therefore have a different intake? Of those without sixth forms, by definition, none is selective. It is inevitable that there is a higher percentage pass rate at GCSE because of the involvement of selection.
  Mrs. May: As the hon. Gentleman told us earlier that grammar schools as well as other schools were not achieving in academic terms, that was a very silly argument for him to produce.
  If we want to raise standards in schools, we should set the schools free. Grant-maintained schools have shown what can be achieved. They increased the number of teachers and the number of courses. They offered extra choice for pupils. They introduced new music departments. They added sixth forms to schools that wanted them. They raised standards because they had their budgets. They had the freedom. They were self-governing.
  Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 will enable schools not just to enjoy the benefits of that freedom again, but, most important, to raise standards for pupils, to benefit pupils throughout the country and to do what the Government claim they want to do, but what their policies are not doing: ensuring that every young person

  827
  develops their full potential and that we genuinely have an education system that provides high-quality education and high standards for all our children.
  Mr. Willis: The reason why we have got to 10.10 pm and we are still not discussing the essence of the Bill is perhaps explained by the skills taskforce, which reported on Tuesday that 7 million adults have a lower level of literacy than an average 11-year-old and that a quarter of adults function at an innumerate level. The reason for that is the 18 years of Conservative education policy, which produced the most appalling levels of literacy and numeracy anywhere in Europe. The reason why Conservative Members do not want to speak about the Bill and to address it is because it is an indictment of what they left behind.
  On amendment No. 76, the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) clearly has an obsession about sixth forms. I hope that we will discuss much of the sixth-form agenda, and small sixth forms in particular, during consideration of a later group of amendments, but I must respond at least briefly. I hoped that she would make the point—it is a real problem—about Government policy on the funding of sixth forms in the transitional stage. They guarantee that, if their numbers stay the same, they will get the same amount of money. If the numbers go down, they will not, yet if the numbers go up or double, there is no guarantee that funding will rise in proportion. When the Minister replies to amendment No. 76, she must address that specific issue. Sixth forms cannot plan for the future when they cannot have the guarantee of funding, which is clearly necessary.
  The amendments were yet another diversionary tactic away from the essence of the Bill. We have had discussion of sex, selection and grammar schools, and we are now on to free schools—or free-for-all schools. I do not need to remind the House—I was one of the people who worked under the glorious education system that existed until 1997—that the Tories want to return yet again to division, and to the idea that standards can be raised only by competition and not by co-operation. It is a travesty for the hon. Lady to talk about the grant-maintained schools movement being the saviour of our education system. The divisions that were created by the ballots organised for GM status caused immeasurable harm in authorities up and down the country, and a return to that would be desperate.
  10.15 pm
  The Tory policy of free schools is based on a series of myths about local education authorities. Before the hon. Lady attempts to intervene, let me say that not all local authorities are perfect. Many of them leave a lot to be desired in terms of supporting their schools.
  The first myth is that local education authorities waste too much money on administration. In fact, LEAs spend less than 2 per cent. of their income on administration and most of that goes on the administration of appeals, the special educational needs system, the payroll and other essential expenditure. That pales into insignificance compared with the administrative costs of most schools or those of the Department for Education and Employment, which are estimated at about 5 per cent.
  828
  The second Tory myth about local education authorities is that they retain vast resources. They do nothing of the sort. Indeed, 94 per cent. of LEAs delegate at least 75 per cent. of their budget and the average figure, according to the DFEE' s latest statistics, is 82.4 per cent.
  Mr. John Hayes: The hon. Gentleman omits to say that that is a result of legislation passed under the Conservative Government, which obliged LEAs to do just that. Until LEAs were obliged by legislation to start delegating money in the way that he described and slimming down their administration, they were far more cumbersome and burdensome bodies than he now tries to pretend.
  Mr. Willis: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his characteristically frank intervention. I am not disputing the fact that the previous Government introduced the arrangements; I am complimenting them for doing so. That makes it even more ludicrous that those on the Tory Front Bench are now saying that the arrangements that they introduced are inadequate. If that is the case, who is to blame but the then Secretary of State?
  An analysis of the money that local education authorities hold back for central expenditure shows that the vast bulk of it is to provide services for special educational needs and for people with disabilities. If the hon. Lady is saying that they should not hold back that money or that they do not do so with the consent of their schools and school governors, as applies in most cases, clearly the legislation that was introduced by the Government whom she supported is not working.
  The third myth is that LEAs divert money that is planned for education into other sources and that, somehow, it gets taken out of the education budget and moved elsewhere. Figures from the House of Commons Library show that when the Tories left office, the contribution by local authorities to education budgets in 1996–97 was no less than £699.3 million and that, in 1999–2000, the contribution that local authorities made in excess of SSA to school budgets was £387.7 million. That is hardly a picture of local authorities taking money away from schools.
  The whole essence of the free school movement, espoused by the hon. Member for Maidenhead in new clause 13 and amendment No. 87, is that we should have central funding. Heads and schools are attracted to central funding, and, as a former head, I would be the first to admit that. However, the new clause provides that, with a few exceptions, all children in all schools in England would get the same amount of money from central funds. The hon. Lady should be honest and admit that the cost of funding every school to the highest level of funding would be £4.4 billion. If, however, the hon. Lady does not intend to fund all schools equitably, she must say where the funds will be taken from to be spent elsewhere. If no increase in central spending is intended, current Tory policy means that some 40 per cent. of schools would see a reduction in their budgets in order to meet the free schools pledge.
  The other point that the hon. Lady has to answer is that the £0.4 billion that local authorities spend on schools would have to be found either centrally or from somewhere else. I doubt whether any hon. Member would be prepared to urge local councillors to say, during a local

  829
  election campaign, that the Government were funding schools now, but that we needed to spend another £400 million to top up what the Government should be spending. That is nonsense, but it is the reality of what the free school movement would mean.
  What evidence is there that our schools want to be free? What evidence is there that small rural primary schools want to be their own admission authority, to run all their services, to be responsible for their grounds and every other function or to organise contracts on a daily basis? They do not, and if the hon. Lady were honest about her discussions with schools in rural areas, she would agree that they want less responsibility. They want to be able to get on with teaching and leading their staff. Amendment No. 87 and new clause 13 would plunge our schools into chaos, and I hope that the House will reject them.
  Jacqui Smith: I shall keep my response brief because—as has been mentioned—we have not yet got on to the key issues of the Bill. The Opposition have not concentrated on those either. This debate has more to do with the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) performing a warm-up act for the Leader of the Opposition's major speech on education next week than with a serious willingness to engage in the debate.
  New clause 13 seeks to establish a national funding formula, applying on the same basis to all schools. As we have heard tonight, the previous Administration often said that they were in favour of greater delegation, but, in reality, they did little to achieve it. However, we have acted. Under fair funding, there is not only greater transparency, there is also greater delegation.
  Later this week, my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State will publish once again tables showing expenditure by local education authorities, and their delegation rates. Those tables will show a substantial increase in delegation, brought about by the targets we have set and by the requirements to delegate repairs and maintenance fully, as well as personnel and finance administration.
  Mrs. May: If the Minister is claiming that the Government are so much in favour of delegating money to schools, why did they abolish grant-maintained status?
  Jacqui Smith: We have succeeded in delegating more money to all schools. Along with those matters that I mentioned, we have delegated personnel and finance administration, school meals in secondary schools—with the option for primary schools—insurance, if schools want it, and a number of smaller items. In all, an extra £1 billion is available for delegation.
  Although we have achieved greater delegation and will go on increasing it, we have done so with a responsible attitude towards pupils. The Opposition talk of free schools, but they are less keen to acknowledge that there are significant issues that need to be addressed. As the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said, pupils with special educational needs cannot be dealt with just through a formula; they are not numbers. LEAs are needed to take a wider view of their needs. What would the Opposition do about those children?
  830
  The Government have inherited lots of failing schools and are making strenuous efforts to turn them round—efforts which owe much to the involvement of LEAs and need flexible and appropriate funding. Presumably, the Opposition would set those schools free to flounder.
  School transport is a delicate and difficult matter which needs co-ordination, especially if pupils' rights to transport to denominational schools—or even, dare I say it, grammar schools—are to be actually reflected in the available services. Again, how would the Opposition cope?
  While the Opposition are thinking about what they would do, we have made clear what we will do. We are reforming the funding of education for those aged 16 to 19; part of that will be the funding of sixth forms via the Learning and Skills Council, but through LEAs so that local needs are properly addressed and schools continue to get funds from a single source. That illustrates how unnecessary amendment No. 87 is. We will be reforming the very heart of the education funding system in ways indicated by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State when he spoke earlier this month about the forthcoming Green Paper.
  In that Green Paper, we shall set out options for arrangements that would be fair to different parts of the country, are more transparent and provide more predictability and stability than the standard spending assessment system with which we have to cope now.
  We shall also explore the possibility of having separate budgets for schools and LEA central functions, so that we can be much clearer about the funding intended for schools. That would make clear the amount of funding that was being made available and end once and for all annual arguments about what schools should be getting. We will do that on the basis of discussion and consideration and not on the basis of a policy drawn up on the back of an envelope, such as the Opposition have provided this evening.
  Quite aside from the fact—as was argued in Committee—that it is entirely unnecessary to put our sixth-form funding guarantee in terms in the Bill, there are other problems with amendment No. 76. On funding, spending in schools fell by £60 per pupil in the last three Budgets of the Conservative Government. Under this Government, spending will increase by £300 per pupil. Given those facts, I feel that our guarantee has rather more basis than any comments that the hon. Member for Maidenhead may have made this evening.
  The hon. Member suggested that there was a fear for school sixth forms. If pupil numbers reduce, all that will happen is that the funds will reduce pro rata. That is exactly what has always happened under local management of schools and fair funding. The guarantee is maintained and it is a real-terms guarantee; that is unprecedented and is not reflected in the amendments.
  There are several other technical problems with the amendment. It suggests that the baseline should be the academic year from September 2001, despite the fact that the transfer will happen only eight months into that year. The amendment seems also to suggest that funding for sixth forms should all of a sudden switch to the academic year from the financial year, which would surely cause chaos and increase administration and bureaucracy.

  831
  On consultation, I agree that we did not ask the London Conservative party to carry out our public consultation. However, there was widespread support for the case for change and on the question of what the baseline year for the funding guarantee should be.
  10.30 pm
  In the light of all those problems, I urge the hon. Member for Maidenhead not to press the amendments and the new clause. I hope that the Opposition will also end their campaign of frightening parents, schools and LEAs into believing that the Government have a hidden agenda for school sixth forms. Our only agenda is one that we are proud to publicise—that provision for 16 to 19-year-olds should be of high quality, and that it should offer a range of options. School sixth forms will continue to be an important and valued element of education provision.
  Mr. Peter Bottomley: The Under-Secretary of State smiles at the end of a speech that would have been more enjoyable if, instead of sounding like a wind-up Minister, she had smiled while she made it. She has assured the House that if sixth form numbers fall, funding will not be cut more than pro rata, but she did not say what would happen if sixth form numbers grew. We have to assume that she could not give the assurance that, in that case, funds would grow pro rata. Perhaps she would like to give an assurance to that effect to schools that are successful in expanding their sixth forms.
  It is clear that people in many education authorities are keen to have a mixture of provision. In the West Sussex area, for example, there are sixth form colleges and schools with sixth forms. The House should unite in saying that the Government should show more confidence in children and their teachers, and that the aim should be to help them achieve far more than has been the case over the past 20 years or so.
  When I first came to the House, some large schools had more than 1,200 pupils, none of whom gained an A-level pass in maths, physics or chemistry. Those schools were not successful. Many people said that pupils in large schools, regardless of whether those were rural or inner-city schools, should be able to achieve the sort of success that would allow them to go on to university or medical school, or join a range of professions. There is now a bipartisan agreement that that can and should happen.
  The disappointment in the debate was that the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) seemed to think that he was opposing the Conservatives in government, and gave his implicit support to almost everything that the Labour Government are doing. My hon. Friend the Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) asked him what was the Liberal Democrats' policy on sixth forms in rural areas, but he did not answer. That will allow Liberal Democrats to be attacked by Labour and Conservative Members for letting down many teachers, pupils and parents in those areas.
  Finally, it is true that children are not numbers. All children, parents and teachers want to achieve what in South Africa is called "upliftment". The connotations of that word are a greater sense of achievement, and a greater opportunity for it. Achieving that requires a little less of the partisan approach that we have heard from the Government over the past three years.
  832
  The Under-Secretary of State referred to a Green Paper. Will she assure the House that the consultation process will be more open than the health service consultation that was bounced out by the special political advisers to the Department of Health a month ago? An education Green Paper that was a genuine consultation exercise would be welcome, I suggest to the Labour party—
  Mr. Blunkett: What has this got to do with the Bill?
  Mr. Bottomley: I am following up a point made by the Under-Secretary of State in this debate. She referred to the Green Paper, and that involves consultation. If that is news to the Secretary of State, it is a jolly good thing that he is listening to the debate.
  Mr. Blunkett: What a silly man. Is that a challenge?
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael Lord): Order. I should be grateful if hon. Members, including the Secretary of State, would refrain from making sedentary interventions.
  Mr. Bottomley: The Under-Secretary referred to the Green Paper in her response to the debate on the amendments, for which the Secretary of State was not present. I was saying that I hoped that the consultation would be genuine. If the Labour party wants to respond to the consultation, that would also be welcome. For us to have a bipartisan approach to improving education, each person should try to respond to the questions that others are asking.
  My belief is that we are doing our job better if we allow schools and sixth form colleges to improve their output. That requires the confidence of the teachers, the interest of the parents and rather less of the minor party bickering that the Secretary of State introduced into the debate this evening.
  Mrs. May: I am disappointed that the Government have not seen fit to take the opportunity to accept the amendment that would remove the uncertainty from the future of school sixth forms. I am also disappointed that they have not indicated in answers to the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Worthing, West (Mr. Bottomley) what will happen to school sixth forms when numbers increase—because the schools are worried. However, the Government do not trust the schools, the heads or the teachers. It is clear that the Liberal Democrats do not trust the heads or the teachers either. We do trust the heads and the teachers to get on with the job of raising standards in our schools. That is why we want to give schools complete freedom and ensure that they get all their funding and the opportunity to decide for themselves how to spend it, rather than having to take instructions from the Minister on where to spend every £10, and have the Government decide their priorities for them.
  Because the Government have not seen fit to put their legislation behind the Secretary of State's mouth, I shall press amendment No. 87 to a vote.
  Question put, That the amendment be made:—
  The House divided: Ayes 122, Noes 323.

  Division No. 241]

  [10.36pm

  AYES

  Amess, David

  Letwin, Oliver

  Arbuthnot, Rt Hon James

  Lewis, Dr Julian (New Forest E)

  Atkinson, Peter (Hexham)

  Lidington, David

  Baldry, Tony

  Lilley, Rt Hon Peter

  Beggs, Roy

  Lloyd, Rt Hon Sir Peter (Fareham)

  Bercow, John

  Loughton, Tim

  Blunt, Crispin

  Luff, Peter

  Body, Sir Richard

  Lyell, Rt Hon Sir Nicholas

  Boswell, Tim

  Mclntosh, Miss Anne

  Bottomley, Peter (Worthing W)

  McLoughlin, Patrick

  Bottomley, Rt Hon Mrs Virginia

  Madel, Sir David

  Brady, Graham

  Malins, Humfrey

  Brazier, Julian

  Maples, John

  Brooke, Rt Hon Peter

  Maude, Rt Hon Francis

  Browning, Mrs Angela

  Mawhinney, Rt Hon Sir Brian

  Bruce, Ian (S Dorset)

  May, Mrs Theresa

  Burns, Simon

  Moss, Malcolm

  Chope, Christopher

  Nicholls, Patrick

  Clappison, James

  Norman, Archie

  Clarke, Rt Hon Kenneth (Rushcliffe)

  O'Brien, Stephen (Eddisbury)

  Ottaway, Richard

  Clifton-Brown, Geoffrey

  Page, Richard

  Collins, Tim

  Paice, James

  Cormack, Sir Patrick

  Paterson, Owen

  Cran, James

  Portillo, Rt Hon Michael

  Davies, Quentin (Grantham)

  Prior, David

  Davis, Rt Hon David (Haltemprice)

  Redwood, Rt Hon John

  Dorrell, Rt Hon Stephen

  Robathan, Andrew

  Evans, Nigel

  Robertson, Laurence

  Faber, David

  Roe, Mrs Marion (Broxbourne)

  Fabricant, Michael

  Ross, William (E Lond'y)

  Fallon, Michael

  Ruffley, David

  Flight, Howard

  St Aubyn, Nick

  Forth, Rt Hon Eric

  Sayeed, Jonathan

  Fraser, Christopher

  Shepherd, Richard

  Gale, Roger

  Simpson, Keith (Mid-Norfolk)

  Garnier, Edward

  Soames, Nicholas

  Gibb, Nick

  Spelman, Mrs Caroline

  Gill, Christopher

  Spicer, Sir Michael

  Gorman, Mrs Teresa

  Spring, Richard

  Gray, James

  Stanley, Rt Hon Sir John

  Green, Damian

  Swayne, Desmond

  Greenway, John

  Syms, Robert

  Grieve, Dominic

  Tapsell, Sir Peter

  Gummer, Rt Hon John

  Taylor, Ian (Esher & Walton)

  Hamilton, Rt Hon Sir Archie

  Taylor, John M (Solihull)

  Taylor, Sir Teddy

  Hammond, Philip

  Tyrie, Andrew

  Hawkins, Nick

  Viggers, Peter

  Hayes, John

  Walter, Robert

  Heald, Oliver

  Waterson, Nigel

  Heathcoat-Amory, Rt Hon David

  Wells, Bowen

  Hogg, Rt Hon Douglas

  Whitney, Sir Raymond

  Horam, John

  Whittingdale, John

  Howarth, Gerald (Aldershot)

  Widdecombe, Rt Hon Miss Ann

  Hunter, Andrew

  Willetts, David

  Jack, Rt Hon Michael

  Wilshire, David

  Jenkin, Bernard

  Winterton, Nicholas (Macclesfield)

  Key, Robert

  Yeo, Tim

  King, Rt Hon Tom (Bridgwater)

  Young, Rt Hon Sir George

  Laing, Mrs Eleanor

  Lait, Mrs Jacqui

  Tellers for the Ayes:

  Lansley, Andrew

  Mr. John Randall and

  Leigh, Edward

  Mr. Stephen Day.

  NOES

  Abbott, Ms Diane

  Atkins, Charlotte

  Adams, Mrs Irene (Paisley N)

  Austin, John

  Ainger, Nick

  Ballard, Jackie

  Allan, Richard

  Banks, Tony

  Allen, Graham

  Barron, Kevin

  Anderson, Donald (Swansea E)

  Bayley, Hugh

  Atherton, Ms Candy

  Beard, Nigel

  834

  Benn, Hilary (Leeds C)

  Fearn, Ronnie

  Bennett, Andrew F

  Field, Rt Hon Frank

  Bermingham, Gerald

  Fisher, Mark

  Berry, Roger

  Fitzsimons, Mrs Lorna

  Best, Harold

  Flint, Caroline

  Betts, Clive

  Follett, Barbara

  Blackman, Liz

  Foster, Rt Hon Derek

  Blears, Ms Hazel

  Foster, Michael Jabez (Hastings)

  Blizzard, Bob

  Foster, Michael J (Worcester)

  Blunkett, Rt Hon David

  Foulkes, George

  Borrow, David

  Gardiner, Barry

  Bradley, Keith (Withington)

  George, Andrew (St Ives)

  Bradley, Peter (The Wrekin)

  George, Bruce (Walsall S)

  Browne, Desmond

  Gerrard, Neil

  Burden, Richard

  Gibson, Dr Ian

  Burgon, Colin

  Gidley, Sandra

  Burnett, John

  Gilroy, Mrs Linda

  Butler, Mrs Christine

  Godman, Dr Norman A

  Caborn, Rt Hon Richard

  Godsiff, Roger

  Campbell, Mrs Anne (C'bridge)

  Goggins, Paul

  Campbell, Rt Hon Menzies (NE Fife)

  Golding, Mrs Llin

  Gordon, Mrs Eileen

  Campbell, Ronnie (Blyth V)

  Griffiths, Nigel (Edinburgh S)

  Campbell-Savours, Dale

  Griffiths, Win (Bridgend)

  Cann, Jamie

  Grogan, John

  Caplin, Ivor

  Gunnell, John

  Casale, Roger

  Hall, Mike (Weaver Vale)

  Caton, Martin

  Hall, Patrick (Bedford)

  Cawsey, Ian

  Hamilton, Fabian (Leeds NE)

  Chapman, Ben (Wirral S)

  Hanson, David

  Chaytor, David

  Harris, Dr Evan

  Clapham, Michael

  Harvey, Nick

  Clark, Rt Hon Dr David (S Shields)

  Healey, John

  Clark, Dr Lynda (Edinburgh Pentlands)

  Heath, David (Somerton & Frome)

  Henderson, Doug (Newcastle N)

  Clarke, Charles (Norwich S)

  Henderson, Ivan (Harwich)

  Clarke, Eric (Midlothian)

  Hepburn, Stephen

  Clarke, Tony (Northampton S)

  Heppell, John

  Clelland, David

  Hesford, Stephen

  Clwyd, Ann

  Hill, Keith

  Coaker, Vernon

  Hinchliffe, David

  Coffey, Ms Ann

  Hood, Jimmy

  Cohen, Harry

  Hopkins, Kelvin

  Coleman, Iain

  Howarth, George (Knowsley N)

  Connarty, Michael

  Howells, Dr Kim

  Cook, Rt Hon Robin (Livingston)

  Hoyle, Lindsay

  Corbett, Robin

  Hughes, Ms Beverley (Stretford)

  Corbyn, Jeremy

  Hughes, Kevin (Doncaster N)

  Corston, Jean

  Humble, Mrs Joan

  Cotter, Brian

  Hurst, Alan

  Cousins, Jim

  Hutton, John

  Cranston, Ross

  Iddon, Dr Brian

  Crausby, David

  Illsley, Eric

  Cryer, John (Hornchurch)

  Ingram, Rt Hon Adam

  Cummings, John

  Jackson, Ms Glenda (Hampstead)

  Cunningham, Jim (Cov'try S)

  Jackson, Helen (Hillsborough)

  Dalyell, Tam

  Jamieson, David

  Darling, Rt Hon Alistair

  Jenkins, Brian

  Darvill, Keith

  Johnson, Alan (Hull W & Hessle)

  Davey, Edward (Kingston)

  Johnson, Miss Melanie (Welwyn Hatfield)

  Davey, Valerie (Bristol W)

  Davidson, Ian

  Jones, Helen (Warrington N)

  Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (Llanelli)

  Jones, Dr Lynne (Selly Oak)

  Dawson, Hilton

  Jones, Martyn (Clwyd S)

  Dean, Mrs Janet

  Jowell, Rt Hon Ms Tessa

  Denham, John

  Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald

  Dismore, Andrew

  Keeble, Ms Sally

  Donohoe, Brian H

  Keen, Alan (Feltham & Heston)

  Dowd, Jim

  Keen, Ann (Brentford & Isleworth)

  Eagle, Angela (Wallasey)

  Keetch, Paul

  Eagle, Maria (L'pool Garston)

  Kennedy, Jane (Wavertree)

  Edwards, Huw

  Khabra, Piara S

  Efford, Clive

  Kidney, David

  Ellman, Mrs Louise

  King, Andy (Rugby & Kenilworth)

  Ennis, Jeff

  King, Ms Oona (Bethnal Green)

  Ewing, Mrs Margaret

  Kirkwood, Archy

  835

  Kumar, Dr Ashok

  Purchase, Ken

  Ladyman, Dr Stephen

  Quin, Rt Hon Ms Joyce

  Lammy, David

  Quinn, Lawrie

  Lawrence, Mrs Jackie

  Radice, Rt Hon Giles

  Laxton, Bob

  Rammell, Bill

  Lepper, David

  Raynsford, Nick

  Leslie, Christopher

  Reid, Rt Hon Dr John (Hamilton N)

  Levitt, Tom

  Roche, Mrs Barbara

  Lewis, Ivan (Bury S)

  Rogers, Allan

  Lewis, Terry (Worsley)

  Rooker, Rt Hon Jeff

  Liddell, Rt Hon Mrs Helen

  Rooney, Terry

  Linton, Martin

  Ross, Ernie (Dundee W)

  Livsey, Richard

  Rowlands, Ted

  Llwyd, Elfyn

  Roy, Frank

  Lock, David

  Ruane, Chris

  Love, Andrew

  Ruddock, Joan

  McAvoy, Thomas

  Russell, Bob (Colchester)

  McCabe, Steve

  Russell, Ms Christine (Chester)

  McCartney, Rt Hon Ian (Makerfield)

  Ryan, Ms Joan

  Salter, Martin

  McDonagh, Siobhain

  Sanders, Adrian

  Macdonald, Calum

  Savidge, Malcolm

  McFall, John

  Sawford, Phil

  Mclsaac, Shona

  Sedgemore, Brian

  McKenna, Mrs Rosemary

  Shaw, Jonathan

  McNulty, Tony

  Sheerman, Barry

  MacShane, Denis

  Shipley, Ms Debra

  Mactaggart, Fiona

  Simpson, Alan (Nottingham S)

  McWilliam, John

  Singh, Marsha

  Mahon, Mrs Alice

  Skinner, Dennis

  Mallaber, Judy

  Smith, Angela (Basildon)

  Marsden, Gordon (Blackpool S)

  Smith, Miss Geraldine (Morecambe & Lunesdale)

  Marsden, Paul (Shrewsbury)

  Marshall, David (Shettleston)

  Smith, Jacqui (Redditch)

  Marshall, Jim (Leicester S)

  Smith, Llew (Blaenau Gwent)

  Marshall-Andrews, Robert

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

  Martlew, Eric

  Southworth, Ms Helen

  Meacher, Rt Hon Michael

  Squire, Ms Rachel

  Merron, Gillian

  Starkey, Dr Phyllis

  Michael, Rt Hon Alun

  Steinberg, Gerry

  Michie, Bill (Shef'ld Heeley)

  Stevenson, George

  Miller, Andrew

  Stewart, David (Inverness E)

  Mitchell, Austin

  Stewart, Ian (Eccles)

  Moffatt, Laura

  Stinchcombe, Paul

  Moonie, Dr Lewis

  Strang, Rt Hon Dr Gavin

  Moran, Ms Margaret

  Straw, Rt Hon Jack

  Morgan, Alasdair (Galloway)

  Stuart, Ms Gisela

  Morgan, Ms Julie (Cardiff N)

  Stunell, Andrew

  Morley, Elliot

  Taylor, Rt Hon Mrs Ann (Dewsbury)

  Morris, Rt Hon Ms Estelle

  (B'ham Yardley)

  Taylor, David (NW Leics)

  Mountford, Kali

  Temple-Morris, Peter

  Mudie, George

  Thomas, Gareth (Clwyd W)

  Mullin, Chris

  Thomas, Gareth R (Harrow W)

  Murphy, Denis (Wansbeck)

  Thomas, Simon (Ceredigion)

  Murphy, Rt Hon Paul (Torfaen)

  Tipping, Paddy

  Naysmith, Dr Doug

  Todd, Mark

  O'Brien, Bill (Normanton)

  Touhig, Don

  O'Brien, Mike (N Warks)

  Trickett, Jon

  Olner, Bill

  Turner, Dennis (Wolverh'ton SE)

  O'Neill, Martin

  Turner, Dr Desmond (Kemptown)

  Öpik, Lembit

  Turner, Dr George (NW Norfolk)

  Palmer, Dr Nick

  Turner, Neil (Wigan)

  Pearson, Ian

  Twigg, Derek (Halton)

  Perham, Ms Linda

  Twigg, Stephen (Enfield)

  Pickthall, Colin

  Tyler, Paul

  Pike, Peter L

  Tynan, Bill

  Plaskitt, James

  Walley, Ms Joan

  Pollard, Kerry

  Ward, Ms Claire

  Pond, Chris

  Wareing, Robert N

  Pope, Greg

  Watts, David

  Pound, Stephen

  Webb, Steve

  Prentice, Ms Bridget (Lewisham E)

  White, Brian

  Prentice, Gordon (Pendle)

  Whitehead, Dr Alan

  Prescott, Rt Hon John

  Wicks, Malcolm

  Primarolo, Dawn

  Wigley, Rt Hon Dafydd

  836

  Williams, Rt Hon Alan (Swansea W)

  Woodward, Shaun

  Woolas, Phil

  Williams, Alan W (E Carmarthen)

  Worthington, Tony

  Williams, Mrs Betty (Conwy)

  Wright, Anthony D (Gt Yarmouth)

  Willis, Phil

  Wright, Tony (Cannock)

  Wills, Michael

  Tellers for the Noes:

  Winnick, David

  Mr. Gerry Sutcliffe and

  Winterton, Ms Rosie (Doncaster C)

  Mr. Robert Ainsworth.

  Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 10

  QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AND GRANTS
  Amendments made: No. 28, in page 6, line 11, after "promote" insert "—
  (a)".
  No. 29, in page 6, line 12, at end insert—
  '(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section 101.'.
  No. 30, in page 6, line 13, at end insert—
  '() may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section 101 may be made;
  () may be designated by the Secretary of State under section 102(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 13

  PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
  Amendments made: No. 57, in page 7, line 10, leave out "adequate".
  No. 58, in page 7, line 10, after "training" insert—
  'which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 16

  STRATEGY
  Amendment made: No. 31, in page 8, line 25, at end insert—
  '(2A) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment; but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 18

  SUPPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 91, in page 9, line 6, leave out—
  'hold shares in a company, or otherwise become a member'
  and insert—
  'subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 22

  PLANS OF LOCAL COUNCILS
  Amendment made: No. 32, in page 10, line 28, at end insert—
  '(f) a statement of the likely effect of the local council's activities on the economic development and regeneration of its area.'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Schedule 1

  LEARNING AND SKILLS COUNCIL FOR ENGLAND
  Amendments made: No. 42, in page 70, line 23, after "member" insert—
  'or chairman or chief executive'.
  No. 43, in page 70, line 25, after "chairman" insert "or chief executive".—[Mr. Wills.]

Schedule 2
  LOCAL COUNCILS
  Amendment made: No. 44, in page 73, line 38, after "member" insert "or chairman".—[Mr. Wills.]
New Clause 6

  PLANS: WALES
  '.—(1) The Council must make a plan for each of its financial years.

  (2) The Council must send its plan for its first financial year to the National Assembly as soon as is reasonably practicable after the year starts.

  (3) The Council must send its plan for any subsequent financial year of the Council to the National Assembly before the year starts.

  (4) A plan for a financial year must include—

  (a) proposals as to how the Council intends to achieve in the financial year any objectives which should be achieved in the year in conformity with directions of the National Assembly or with conditions imposed under section 47;

  (b) the Council's financial proposals for the year;

  (c) such other matters as the National Assembly specifies.

  (5) The National Assembly must approve the plan or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.

  (6) The Council must publish the plan as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with the National Assembly's requirements; and publication must be made at such time and in such manner as the National Assembly specifies.

  (7) The Council may make and publish such other plans as it thinks fit; but any such plan must not conflict with a plan for a financial year.'.—[Mr. Hanson.]

  Brought up, and read the First time.
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. David Hanson): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government new clause 7—Strategy: Wales.
  New clause 2—Delegation of training programmes: Wales—
  '. The National Council for Educational Training for Wales may, in discharging its duties under sections 30 to 34, delegate to the Employment Service in Wales the contracting and management of work—based training programmes of the kind hitherto within the responsibility of the training and enterprise councils.'.
  New clause 3—National training opportunities network: Wales—
  '.The National Council for Education and Training for Wales must, in fulfilling its duties under sections 31 and 32, establish a national training opportunities information and placement network for persons aged 16 or above.'.
  Amendment No. 6, in clause 30, page 14, line 1, leave out from "appointing" to end of line 3 and insert—
  838
  'members to the Council the National Assembly must appoint at least one third from the private sector and at least one other member who is a training provider in Wales.'.
  Government amendment No. 92.
  Amendment No. 2, in clause 46, page 21, line 19, at beginning insert—
  '. The National Assembly shall appoint regional committees in accordance with the provisions of'.
  Amendment No. 3, in page 21, line 19, leave out from "5" to end.
  Government amendments Nos. 45 and 46.
  Amendment No. 4, in schedule 5, page 80, line 5, leave out "may" and insert "shall".
  Amendment No. 5, in page 80, line 5, at end insert—
  'and at least half the appointments to such committees must be from the private sector, with at least one other member appointed from training providers in Wales.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 47 and 52.
  Mr. Hanson: I will speak briefly to the Government amendments and new clauses, which I hope are largely self-explanatory. New clause 6 arises from a request from the National Assembly and from discussions with my hon. Friends for the Bill to include more explicit provisions on the planning functions for the council in Wales. It sets out the duty of the council to formulate a plan that must be approved by the National Assembly, which will have powers to require alterations to the plan. Any such alterations must be made by the council.
  Amendment No. 52 arises from new clause 6, and I hope that it is acceptable to the House. New clause 7 places a duty on the council to prepare a strategy relating to its functions and to keep that strategy under review. The strategy must contain proposals as to how the council intends to achieve the objectives contained in any directions from the National Assembly. Again, I hope that those provisions are acceptable to the House.
  The remaining Government amendments in the group have already been extensively debated; they relate to the Learning and Skills Council for England and give similar powers to the council in Wales. I hope they are acceptable to the Opposition, because several of them—amendments Nos. 45 to 47—relate to points made by the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) in Committee. I undertook to return to those matters on Report and have done so today. I commend the Government amendments and new clauses to the House.
  My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and my hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) tabled new clauses and amendments that are included in the group. I shall listen to the points they make and respond in due course.
  Mr. Ted Rowlands: My right hon. Friend the Member for Llanelli (Mr. Davies) and I tabled new clauses 2 and 3 and four amendments. Although I shall try to deal with each provision as briefly as possible, they relate to matters of considerable relevance to training needs in Wales, so it is essential that I make some vital points.
  New clause 2 aims to make it possible for the Employment Service to be the contracting and management agency for some of the work-based training

  839
  programmes that are currently under the governance of the training and enterprise councils. We had in mind especially work-based training programmes for the creation of adult employability: the pre-vocational training, occupational skills and recruitment and training programmes for the over-25s that are currently contracted to and delivered through the TECs and training providers.
  Such training programmes will better suit adults if they are linked closely to the new deal. Unlike Conservative Members, I believe that the new deal has been a great success story in our communities. It has broken with the fatalism and resignation that were left by the previous Administration and felt by many people—and not only by youngsters. They were left on the scrap-heap and were not offered meaningful training or employment opportunities.
  I passionately believe that we should link training programmes for adult employability to the new deal. That is exactly what will happen in England. As I understand it, the new deal will be re-engineered in England for those aged over 25 to include what were the training and enterprise councils' training programmes. However, in Wales, the matter will remain with the National Assembly and be covered by its budget, so the programmes will not be a part of Employment Service provision. I hate to tell hon. Members and my colleagues in the National Assembly that I believe they have got it wrong in this respect—and only in this respect. England has got it right. A relationship should be created between the new deal and adult employment programmes as currently provided by the TECs, but that will disappear when the TECs disappear.
  I have made this point before and the correspondence that I have received suggests there will be a new type of demarcation dispute. Because TEC budgets will go to the National Assembly and because employment services do not form an integral part of its role, the Assembly is jealously guarding its budget and the provisions for such programmes. I hope that such a petty demarcation dispute will not interfere with the best and most sensible way to deliver the programmes.
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will accept new clause 2, but if he does not, will he assure us that there is nothing in the Bill to make it impossible for the Employment Service to deliver work-based training programmes in Wales? It is vital that we have that option. I fear that the National Assembly will not exercise it, which is why I seek a statutory basis for it in the Bill.
  New clause 3 raises a separate and vital issue that I mentioned on Second Reading. Then, I explained that the catch-22 situation in our communities is that many employers do not offer training provision beyond NVQ 2. Many young people do not have the opportunity to train beyond that level, because work-based training programmes are not available. However, every survey that I have read suggests that we cannot have a new-tech or 21st century economy without such additional provision. How do we break through that catch-22? Because employers do not offer NVQ 3 training opportunities, how will young people in communities such as mine obtain such opportunities?
  I draw an analogy with the position of a pupil in a sixth form studying A-levels and looking for a place a university. In such a case, a huge administration—the Universities Central Council on Admissions—ensures that a person with two Cs and a D can find a place at
  840
  university anywhere in the country. A huge organisation is designed to find a place for a person who wishes to pursue the academic route. However, there is no equivalent for vocational training. As so often, it is a Cinderella subject.
  New clause 3 suggests that the new National Council for Education and Training for Wales would have a duty to set up a network to provide a vocational equivalent of the UCCA system for people who want to pursue vocational training opportunities that are not available in their local community or that are not provided by companies in their immediate vicinity. However, those opportunities may be available elsewhere—and, in my area, along the M4 at Sony, in Bridgend. How does a youngster find out what opportunities might be available in places other than in his immediate vicinity?
  11 pm
  Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Information is necessary, but does the hon. Gentleman agree that if young people have to travel considerable distances in the more rural areas, there will be a need for financial assistance to enable them to do so?
  Mr. Rowlands: I agree that we should expand opportunity, and that will require additional financial provision. If anything should be the subject of an objective 1-type funding scheme, it should be the proposal that I am putting forward. We need to train the infrastructure of minds and skills as well as developing the physical infrastructure in our community. Objective 1 funding could assist, promote and deliver greater training opportunities. Financial provision for travel and access is extremely important.
  Many of the young people in the community of the right hon. Member for Caernarfon (Mr. Wigley) or in mine do not know where these opportunities lie. If they were taking A-levels and wanted a place in a university, a huge organisation would help them find that place. There is not an equivalent for those with training needs. I am trying to place a duty and responsibility on the new Welsh council, but it might be an English point, too. There is a case for establishing a training network.
  Amendments Nos. 2 to 5 relate to the composition of the national council and the issue of regional committees and their composition. As for the Welsh provision, we have nothing more than a skeleton. We do not know what the structures will be below the national council. This is the new post-devolution flexi-legislation. The issue will be left to the National Assembly to determine. Hon. Members, certainly those of us who represent Welsh constituencies and know something about training, have a perfect right to prescribe ideas and views on the nature and character of the council and the structures below it.
  Amendments Nos. 2 and 3 suggest that employers should constitute a third of the appointments and training providers. Those who provide training should serve on the national council. I do not know who will be the chairman. I understand, however, that the English council chairman has been announced. In Wales, there is a powerful need for a total commitment to the scheme by employers. The TECs have failed in many respects because there was not an employer commitment. By giving employers a significant role to play at national council level and in regional committees, we hope to bind Welsh employers

  841
  into the entire process. By giving them the privilege of belonging, serving and being an essential part of it, we hope that that will lead to commitment, involvement and obligation.
  Mr. Alun Michael: Does my hon. Friend accept that this matter has been debated a great length, and that there is a danger in making a test of a percentage the touchstone for the involvement of business? If the amendment were not carried, I would not want my hon. Friend to imply that the involvement of business would be any less important. Proportions can become a straitjacket. I think that everyone who has spoken on this topic over recent months has agreed with my hon. Friend's point that there is a need for business to be fully engaged and an important part of the council.
  Mr. Rowlands: I accept my right hon. Friend's point. However, he probably understands and shares the view that we have a cultural tendency not to bind business into education structures. I am being rather modest in my observations in that respect, but let us consider the composition of the original education and training action group for Wales. It was dominated by the education and further education sectors, and its first report reflected that. My right hon. Friend will remember that it was as a result of the protest that followed that amendments were made to quotas to make the group more attuned to the needs of industry and employment. I believe, therefore, that that danger is present. I accept that there is a problem with prescribing, but I believe that we must send a message, loud and clear, that we want business, manufacturers and industry to be passionately and fully involved.
  I come to the amendments dealing with regional structure. Once again, there is no structure below the NCETW set out in the Bill. We have no local skills councils, because we are awaiting the National Assembly's view on the role of the regions. No doubt, my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Wales will tell me that we must not be prescriptive and that the right word to have is "may", as in "we may set up committees or regional offices". However, the first question asked in a glossy TEC paper that arrived in our post only this morning is:
  Will the new National Council have Regional Offices?
  to which the answer is:
  It is intended that four regional offices will be established across Wales. These will work closely with the local CCETs—
  that is, Community Consortia for Education and Training.
  These offices will have committees which will advice the National Council on regional policy issues related to skills, education and training.
  A TEC document has been issued to all hon. Members stating that there will be regional committees and regional offices, yet my amendment stating that there "shall" be regional committees is apparently not appropriate. Why should we take that from some glossy document, when we are told by Ministers here that we cannot lay down that provision in legislation?
  I hope that my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary will accept my amendments. I am the last person to suggest a new quango, but, a new maxi-quango having been created in the form of the NCETW, I assume that there will have
  842
  to be mini-quangos below it to deliver its programmes. Maxi-quangos always give rise to mini-quangos, so, if we are to have mini-quangos, I suggest, first, that they encompass the people who have to deliver training—employers—and secondly, that they be regional bodies so that they can serve communities broader than local authority districts, which are often too small to deliver many of the programmes. I believe that there is a case for a regional structure, so why not put it in the Bill, especially as glossy TEC magazines tell us that the decisions have already been taken?
  Training is vital to the future economic development of communities such as ours, but it has been the Cinderella of the system. We have to make it work and achieve our aims for the 21st century. I can think of no better way of spending objective 1 money than to make the Bill work and, by so doing, create more opportunities and a more diversely skilled community and society than we have now.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: As I am sure the House will be relieved to hear, I rise to speak only briefly. I wish to ask a couple of questions about new clauses 6 and 7, which will clearly be passed if the Government use their might.
  What assessment has been made of the costs to the taxpayer of the plans, both in the Welsh Assembly and in the national council? Recently, hon. Members will have looked over their local council's best value plans. My local authorities appear to spend half their time creating plans, formulating them and ensuring that they are meeting statutory requirements. When the Government, at such a late stage, decide to insert additional plans in the system, they should tell the House what assessment they have made of costs.
  I hope that the hon. Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) has been told by Ministers that his valuable contribution will be followed up. He has identified a matter that has already been identified by my local colleges. The Government have decided on a unified strategy for skills training. I do not resile from that. In many ways, it could be a good idea, but the Government have decided, as the hon. Member recognised, that the long-term unemployed for whom the new deal provides and who probably have the fewest skills in the entire work force should not be included in the training for which the councils are planning. In deciding how courses should be set up for new deal people and for people who are not on new deal, colleges will have two paymasters and two groups for which to plan.
  The point made about Wales is also valid for England, but I shall not stray into that. I support the hon. Gentleman's argument. He was so keen to tell the House that new deal has been successful. He is clearly a man who can pick up on figures, whereas those on the Government Front Bench, even if they do not listen to the speech, seem unable to pick up on their own statistics.
  If the hon. Gentleman considers the group aged between 18 and 24 who are long-term unemployed, and who are currently being helped, in the Government's terms, by new deal, he will discover that the Government currently claim to be helping more than 135,000 people in that group. If the hon. Gentleman looks back two years and examines the corresponding statistics, which are provided by the Government and the Office for National

  843
  Statistics, he will find that, before the benefits of new deal were available, that group numbered 115,000. Surely even those on the Front Bench can understand that the present figure of 135,000 represents a rise.
  The hon. Gentleman identified the need to use the new councils, which, after all, are being set up with taxpayers' money, to help people gain the skills that they require, so that they will no longer be long-term unemployed, and so that they will not be in a new deal scheme that creates more long-term unemployed, instead of getting them out of long-term unemployment. Surely that would be a good thing.
  I hope that the Government will listen to their hon. Friend, whose valuable argument I support.
  Mr. Hanson: I value our short debate. My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) made some valuable points and I hope to reassure him on some of them.
  With regard to co-operation between the new council and the Employment Service, under clause 34 the council may, for the purposes of post-16 education and training, disburse funding itself or, by arrangement with others, or by joint arrangement with others, to achieve its objectives. The latter two categories could, where appropriate and desirable, include the Employment Service in Wales in the manner set out in the new clause.
  The new deal programme in Wales, which was highly praised by my hon. Friend, has not been devolved to the National Assembly, but I feel confident that my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, the Assembly and I have a shared expectation that the new council in Wales and the Employment Service in Wales will work together closely and productively to ensure that we get the utmost benefit from the work of the new council and from the new deal programme.
  The hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) showed clearly that the Conservatives still oppose the new deal and still do not recognise that it benefits people in Wales. Whatever the figures he has brought together, there has been a 61 per cent. fall in youth unemployment in Wales because of the new deal. His criticisms are not strictly accurate.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: Will the Minister give way?
  Mr. Hanson: I will not give way, as time is pressing and the hon. Gentleman has had his opportunity to speak. There has been a 61 per cent. fall in youth unemployment. The hon. Gentleman asked in passing about the figures and the cost of the plans. I cannot give him a specific figure for the plan, which deals with the way in which the council spends the resource, but our total budget in Wales will be in the region of £420 million next year. Obviously, the costs of preparing a plan will fall within that. Again, it is a matter for the National Assembly. The amendments are about the Assembly's powers to deliver those policy objectives in due course.
  844
  11.15 pm
  I hope that my hon. Friend is reassured by the point on the new deal.
  Mr. Rowlands rose—
  Mr. Hanson: I did not give way to the hon. Member for South Dorset.
  Hon. Members: Give way.
  Mr. Hanson: I give way to my hon. Friend.
  Mr. Rowlands: I believe that what my hon. Friend has said is what I want, which is that the TECs' budget money that will now go to the National Assembly after their abolition, and, with the resultant employment problems, will be given to the council, and the council could disburse that money to the Employment Service, although the Employment Service budget is not within the National Assembly. Is that right?
  Mr. Hanson: As I have explained to my hon. Friend, the position is that the council in Wales is able, where appropriate and desirable, to include the Employment Service, if it wishes, in the disbursement and undertakings that it wants to make. Where appropriate and desirable, it has the option of working closely with the Employment Service. However, the Employment Service is not devolved. What I am really indicating is more co-operative work rather than disbursements.
  My hon. Friend spoke about his new clause 3. The existing careers service in Wales, under contract with the Assembly, is already empowered under the Employment and Training Act 1973 to provide a placement service for young people seeking training opportunities. Under its supervision, the current service will be developed and enhanced as part of an all-age information, advice and guidance service, and there will be a wider Wales careers service launched by the National Assembly from April 2001. I hope that that answers some of the points that my hon. Friend raised.
  With regard to membership, my hon. Friend will be aware that, under clause 30, the council is due to be constituted with between 10 and 12 members. I accept his point about the commitment of employers. I hope that employers, and, indeed, other sectors of the community, will get on board and provide strong support for the council in Wales. However, if we reserve places for the private sector and employers we shall be restricting the National Assembly's choice in the matter. I hope that my hon. Friend will accept my belief that there should be a commitment from employers, but that reserving places would be too prescriptive for the National Assembly, which wants to see candidates whose experience and qualities match the needs of the public bodies which they will serve. The scrutiny by the Assembly will be important.
  My hon. Friend said that he wished to see regional committees. I draw his attention to the fact that regional committees exist in the National Assembly, looking at a range of issues across the Assembly at large. If my hon. Friend's amendment were passed, he would in a sense be creating two sets of regional committees, each having functions in respect of areas of responsibility within

  845
  Wales. That would lead to confusion. I hope that he will accept that, within the regional committee structure in Wales, there is an opportunity for regional input into a whole range of policies across the National Assembly, including within the councils.
  Mr. Rowlands: Will the National Assembly's regional committees be the watchdogs of the regional offices of the national council? I read out the answer to the question in the TEC brochure, which arrived in the post today, saying that the offices will have committees which advise the national council on regional policies. Are they the regional committees of the Assembly or will they be specially established committees to act as watchdogs over the regional offices of what were the TECs?
  Mr. Hanson: The regional committees of the National Assembly can look at any aspect, and obviously can look at the whole range of matters on policy issues. I shall happily meet my hon. Friend, as I have done before, and discuss that point in detail. I hope that, on the basis of that further offer and the assurances I have given, he will be able not to press his amendments and support the Government amendments.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 7

  STRATEGY: WALES
  .—(1) The Council must formulate a strategy in relation to its functions and keep it under review.

  (2) The Council must incorporate in the strategy proposals as to—

  (a) how it intends to achieve any objectives contained directions of the National Assembly;

  (b) how it intends to achieve any objectives within any time limits contained in such directions.

  (3) The strategy must include proposals as to how the Council intends to develop the skills of persons in employment: but this does not affect the generality of subsection (1).

  (4) The Council—

  (a) may at any time send to the National Assembly a copy of the strategy as it subsists for the time being;

  (b) must at such times as the National Assembly indicates send to the Assembly a copy of the strategy as it subsists for the time being.

  (5) The National Assembly must approve the strategy sent to it or require the Council to make specified alterations of it; and if alterations are required the Council must make them.

  (6) In exercising its functions the Council must have regard to the strategy as approved by the National Assembly or as altered in accordance with its requirements.'—[Mr. Mr. Hanson.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second Time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 38

  QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS AND GRANTS
  Amendments made: No. 33, in page 18, line 8, after "promote" insert "—
  (a)".
  846
  No. 34, in page 18, line 9, at end insert—
  '(b) the making of arrangements which qualify under section 101.'.
  No. 35, in page 18, line 10, at end insert—
  '() may be specified as a body with which arrangements under section 101 may be made;
  () may be designated by the National Assembly under section 102(1) or (3) and may act in accordance with such a designation;'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 41

  PERSONS WITH LEARNING DIFFICULTIES
  Amendments made: No. 59, in page 19, line 7, leave out "adequate".
  No. 60, in page 19, line 7, after "training" insert—
  'which are sufficient in quantity and adequate in quality'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 44

  SUPPLEMENTARY FUNCTIONS
  Amendment made: No. 92, in page 20, line 22, leave out paragraphs (c) and (d) and insert—
  '(c) to subscribe for or otherwise acquire shares in or securities of a company unless the National Assembly consents.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Schedule 4

  NATIONAL COUNCIL FOR EDUCATION AND TRAINING IN WALES
  Amendments made: No. 45, in page 77, line 4, after "member" insert—
  'or chairman or chief executive'.
  No. 46, in page 77, line 6, after "chairman" insert "or chief executive".—[Mr. Betts.]

Schedule 5
  COMMITTEES (WALES)
  Amendment made: No. 47, in page 80, line 36, after "member" insert "or chairman".—[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 59

  ADDITIONAL FUNCTIONS OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR
  Mr. Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 17, in page 27, line 11, after "teachers" insert "or lecturers".
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendment No. 18.
  Amendment No. 77, in clause 67, page 30, line 40, at end add—
  '(6) The Inspectorate and the Chief Inspector, acting together, shall publish at least annually a report on the operation of the framework.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 23 to 25.
  Government new clause 5—Annual Plan of the Chief Inspector for Wales.
  Government amendment No. 19.

  847
  Amendment No. 7, in clause 75, page 34, line 16, at end insert—
  '(3A) In conducting inspections of any training providers the Chief Inspector must have regard to the terms of the providers' contract.'.
  Government amendments Nos. 20 to 22, 26 and 27.
  Mr. Wicks: In essence, the provisions for the annual plan of the chief inspector for Wales are the subject of the amendments. New clause 5 places a duty on the chief inspector for Wales to prepare an annual plan for the forthcoming financial year and submit it to the National Assembly. The plan must set out the chief inspector's proposals for the way in which she intends to use the funds made available to her to carry out her inspection and other functions. Amendment No. 26 would place the Assembly under a duty to approve the chief inspector's annual plan for the forthcoming financial year, which she will be required to submit under new clause 5.
  The other Government amendments are minor corrections and technical adjustments, with which I shall not try the patience of the House.
  Mr. Boswell: First, I shall deal briefly with Government amendment No. 17, to which the Minister referred somewhat perfunctorily as part of a clutch of Government amendments. I should be grateful for the Minister's reassurance; I therefore mention it before considering amendment No. 77.
  Government amendment No. 17 would include in the chief inspector's remit the ability to consider
  functions with respect to the training of or for teachers
  "or lecturers". Has that remit previously extended to further education lecturers and their training? That is an important question. The Government are moving forward on the further education national training organisation, and we would support any improvement in professional standards. However, it is worth considering whether there is a substantive point to be examined or whether the amendment simply corrects an inadvertent omission.
  I should also value the Minister's comments on instructors, who are important staff in further education colleges. They are not lecturers; they often instruct in specific technical skills. I am not clear whether the remit of Ofsted and the chief inspector would extend to them. If not, why not? How will the matter be resolved?
  Amendment No. 77 reflects our continuing anxieties about the incoherence—to put it charitably—of the Government's provisions for inspection in England. I did not try to join in the Welsh debate, but, as some hon. Members know, my wife is from Wales and she is involved in education. Many members of her family before her have been involved in education in Wales. I take the Welsh analogy seriously. Even if the Welsh model of a single inspection is not the right template for England, it is perhaps more coherent than that for England.
  Whatever would have been right for England, the Government have devised a messy structure, including a framework for the collaboration of the chief inspector of schools and the chief inspector of adult learning. We debated that extensively in Committee. I do not wish to reproduce those debates. We hope that the relationship will work well and harmoniously. That is more likely than
  848
  not. I was reassured by a presentation that Her Majesty's chief inspector for 16 to 19 education gave in the House. That is an important relationship, and, in Committee, we rehearsed what would happen if it broke down or was not as harmonious as it should be. We also discussed, and the Government introduced, provision for revising the framework as time, circumstances and experience dictate.
  I realise that, at this late stage, Ministers may not be inclined to rewrite the Bill, but they should have it in mind that one way to deal with potential tension would be to get the two chief inspectors to sit down at least once a year and write an account of how the framework was going. They could—one hopes that they would do it jointly—draw attention to any difficulties in the framework. For example, they might want to float proposals for changes to the framework. If nothing else, that would provide us with an opportunity, perhaps through an Adjournment debate in the House or in Westminster Hall, to raise concerns about the framework.
  My points about Government amendment No. 17 are probing, and my remarks about amendment No. 77 relate to the need to run past the House, or the general public, how the framework is going. We hope that it will be harmonious and that the two chief inspectors will work together and not find themselves in constructive tension.
  Mr. Bob Blizzard: The idea of an annual report is worthy of consideration because it will help to tell us whether the common inspection framework is working. Getting it to work may be harder than we think. I say that not because I do not support the joint inspection process—I do—but because I have evidence of a joint inspection in Lowestoft college in my constituency in March, which took place under the transitional arrangements.
  That joint inspection, with a common framework, was described by the college as a shambolic process. There was supposed to be a single team from the Further Education Funding Council and the Training Standards Council, but my discussions with the college lead me to believe that there was not a single programme of meetings or lesson observations and that the common evidence base was not effectively used.
  Inspectors from both organisations turned up to observe the same class. There was clear evidence that they were failing to share the base of information that had been provided by the college. The staff felt that two separate inspections were taking place. They were asked to participate in feedback sessions, and the two organisations held their sessions at the same time, so it was impossible for staff to attend both. It was felt that the designated lead inspector took no notice of what the inspectors from the other organisation said.
  I give that example to make the point that we must ensure that the procedures witnessed at Lowestoft college are not repeated as the new inspection framework is developed and comes into being from 2001. The annual report may help in that process.
  The process at Lowestoft failed to provide the opportunity for colleagues to seek redress in respect of ineffective planning procedures. It is worrying that we are, perhaps, trying to join two diverse groups who are reluctant to come together, and, if we shuffle the same individuals as a pack, the process may not work. A common set of principles must be established, as

  849
  clause 67 requires. The irony is that, at the moment, both inspectorates demand separate evaluations, yet no single body appears to be evaluating the joint process.
  I raised the matter with my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State on Second Reading, and he gave the commitment that it would be investigated. I am sure that it will be, but that has not happened yet. Will he assure me that the matter will be investigated, not only out of fairness to Lowestoft college, but—and this is my point about the amendment—to learn valuable lessons that will help with the establishment of the joint inspection process, which I want to happen?
  11.30 pm
  Mr. Rowlands: As I understand it, the inspectorate in Wales will cover not only schools and further education, but the whole gamut of training. Indeed, it is already inspecting training providers; some inspections have already taken place.
  Following that experience, I should draw the attention of my hon. Friend the Minister to two points. One is to do with some of the comments on and criticisms of the training providers' work and programmes. The inspector has been saying, "You should do this, this and this" although those things are not part of the training providers' contract. I cannot see how such an inspection could take place. Surely, there can be inspection only of what the training provider is contracted to do.
  The position should at least be clarified. It is perfectly right for the chief inspector to say to the body that has issued the contract—it has been the TEC—"You shall now do something else. Offer a wider contract to training providers," but it is not right to criticise training providers for not doing something that is not part of their contract. There have already been such criticisms during some of the inspections of training providers.
  The second point is to do with the nature of the inspections themselves and the inspectors. I know of one case where the inspectors who turned up had experience as ex-principals, or experience in further or higher education, but had no experience of training, including industrial training, employment and the other world to which training is linked.
  In Wales—it is the right and proper decision—we are to have one umbrella inspectorate. We will not have ALI: the adult learning inspectorate. We will have one inspectorate to cover the whole of Welsh provision, including training and training providers. We must ensure that the inspectorate is equipped and has people with experience and knowledge of the world of industrial and employment training. They should not come just from schools and further and higher education traditionally.
  I hope that the Minister will assure us that, in Wales, we will bestow on the chief inspector those wide and broad powers; that inspectors will have regard to the contracts that training providers are given; and that the personnel who carry out the inspection will be much more broadly based. They should have a wider range of experience than was part and parcel of the old schools inspectorate, as we all called it.
  Mr. Wicks: Amendment No. 17 concerns a matter of great interest to the hon. Member for Daventry
  850
  (Mr. Boswell). It is a very minor amendment. Clause 58(1)(d), which describes the extended remit of the chief inspector, contains the expression
  training of or for teachers or lecturers.
  The amendment therefore adds the words "or lecturers" to clause 59(3), which describes the additional functions of the chief inspector. The hon. Gentleman asked about instructors. We regard them as teachers for the purposes of the clause. I hope that that satisfies him.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) raised some important points. Although it is not the intention of the legislation to provide for the chief inspector of Wales to inspect the service specification of the new National Council for Education and Training in Wales, the provisions in clauses 76 and 84 enable the chief inspector to draw the attention of the Assembly to any shortcomings in the council's specification, as appropriate. That is a sensible longstop in addition to the Assembly's arrangements for the monitoring and oversight of the council's functions. I hope that that explanation reassures my hon. Friend, but we are happy to discuss the matter in greater detail with him.
  In discussing amendment No. 77. the hon. Member for Daventry raised some interesting points about the nature of the new inspections. In order to satisfy public accountability on the operation of the framework, there is a clear opportunity in each inspector's annual report to describe the previous year's experiences. That will be an on-going process. If there is a case for a joint report—I think that that was the hon. Gentleman's point—we will want to explore it. Therefore, I cannot give an absolute guarantee, but I promise that we and the new inspectors will think again.
  My hon. Friend the Member for Waveney (Mr. Blizzard) drew on the experience of one joint inspection. That proves the value of our reforms, as my hon. Friend was describing the status quo and not the new system. The problem was that the two inspectorates were working to separate frameworks. Under the common framework, a single team would work with more harmony. We are persuaded by the first area inspection that joint inspectorates can work very well. If my hon. Friend writes to me with details of that experience, I will make sure that we properly consider the matter. I hope that, with those reassurances, hon. Members will support the Government amendments and not press theirs.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 62
  ACTION PLANS
  Amendment made: No. 18, in page 28, line 19, leave out "66" and insert "66(2)".—[Mr. Betts.]
Schedule 6

  THE ADULT LEARNING INSPECTORATE
  Amendments made: No. 23, in page 81, line 20, at end insert—
  '() If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is not already a member of the Inspectorate, the Secretary of State must appoint him as a member for the same term as his appointment as chairman or chief officer.

  851
  () If a person to be appointed under section 50(3) is already a member of the Inspectorate but his term of appointment as such would end before his term of appointment as chairman or chief officer ends, the Secretary of State must extend his term of appointment as a member so that it ends when his appointment as chairman or chief officer ends.'.
  No. 24, in page 81, line 21, after "member" insert—
  ', chairman or chief officer'.
  No. 25, in page 81, line 23, after "chairman" insert "or chief officer".—[Mr. Betts.]

New Clause 5

  ANNUAL PLAN OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR WALES
  '.—(1) The Chief Inspector for Wales must, for the purposes of the consultation required under section 104(4) of the 1998 Act (funding of HM Chief Inspector of Education and Training for Wales), prepare a plan for each financial year.

  (2) The plan must be submitted to the National Assembly by such time before the beginning of the financial year to which it relates as the National Assembly may direct.

  (3) The plan must contain estimates of—

  (a) the expenditure necessary, in the financial year to which the plan relates, in order to secure that the functions of the Chief Inspector for Wales are discharged effectively; and

  (b) the -income which the Chief Inspector for Wales will receive in that financial year and which may be applied towards meeting the expenses of the Chief Inspector for Wales.

  (4) The plan must also contain proposals for the management of any funds which may be provided by the National Assembly for that financial year.

  (5) The Chief Inspector for Wales may, after the plan has been approved under section 104(4A) of the 1998 Act, publish it in such manner and at such time as appear to the Chief Inspector for Wales to be appropriate.

  (6) "The 1998 Act" means the Government of Wales Act 1998.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

  Brought up, read the First and Second time, and added to the Bill.

Clause 73
  THE EXTENDED REMIT OF THE CHIEF INSPECTOR FOR WALES
  Amendment made: No. 19, in page 33, line 10, leave out from "1998" to end of line 12.—[Mr. Betts.]
Clause 79

  INSPECTION OF CAREERS SERVICES ETC. IN WALES
  Amendments made: No. 20, in page 36, line 17, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
  No. 21, in page 36, line 27, after "Assembly" insert "for Wales".
  No. 22, in page 36, line 30, leave out—
  '(5) to (8) of section 34'
  and insert
  '(6)to (6C) of section 35'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 89

  TRANSFERS: ENGLAND
  Mr. Wicks: I beg to move amendment No. 36, in page 40, line 23, leave out subsection (11).
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following: Government amendments Nos. 37, 38 and 124.
  Government new clause 8—Transfers: Wales.
  Government new clause 18—Training programmes: cessation of funding.
  Government new clause 21—Pensions.
  Government new clause 22—Pensions: interpretation.
  Government new clause 23—Pensions: delegation.
  Mr. Wicks: When we discussed the important matter of the transfer of assets in Committee, I promised to update the House on Report on the work that we are doing with TECs to agree the future use of assets. That work has led us to conclude that we need additional safeguards through the Bill to ensure that such assets continue to be used to meet national priorities and for the benefit of local communities.
  TECs currently hold assets with a gross value of more than £600 million and a net value of nearly £280 million once current liabilities are taken into account.
  It has become increasingly clear from our discussions with TECs that their future plans vary widely. Some are proposing to wind up the company and return all remaining funds to Government. Others have plans to keep the company going in one form or another. In a small number of cases—I emphasise that it is a small number—proposals are beginning to emerge which move away from one of the fundamental principles which has underpinned the work of TECs.
  We believe that we must ensure that no TEC resources are used in support of any proposals that could be linked to individual shareholders or profits and take money away from public control. I emphasise that, in the vast majority of cases, we are having useful, civilised discussions with TECs on a TEC-by-TEC basis on the use of assets in a way that is consistent with national priorities and the needs of local communities. Only in a very few cases do we have concerns, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State feels strongly that we need the amendment in order to protect public money. Parliament would expect no less of us.
  Ms Linda Perham: I am most concerned by what my hon. Friend is saying. I have received representations from the East London TEC. I hope that my hon. Friend will reassure those involved that the East London TEC and a number of other TECs are not included in the small number at whom the amendment is directed. Some people involved in the TEC feel that the Government already have enough powers. I hope that my hon. Friend can offer some reassurance.
  Mr. Wicks: If the Government already had enough powers we would not have tabled the amendment. We did so after much consideration, but there was a very real risk that we could not safeguard public money. We have to

  853
  reassure the public and Parliament that we have taken the necessary powers. I emphasise that the provision will affect only one or two TECs and, even in those cases, we hope through negotiation not to have to use the powers. However, significant amounts of public money are at stake and it is important that we make the amendments.
  Mr. Willis: Can the Minister explain why he has not tabled an amendment that would deal with the contingent liabilities of directors of TECs, during and after the transition period? Many directors fear that, although they will have acted in good faith and dealt properly with current assets, they could be held responsible for contingent liabilities.
  Mr. Wicks: We are considering that matter. We realise that most TEC directors have done a good job for their local communities and we are aware of their anxieties as they wind up their business. If we can provide reassurances for them, we will. We are working hard in that regard.
  Some concerns have been raised by TECs about the new powers. In taking the powers, it is not our intention to override the TECs' existing commitments which we have agreed in their business plans; nor do we intend to exert a perpetual power over future arrangements. Nor do we wish to interfere with those assets brought to the merger by chambers or legitimately accrued since merger in the membership fund. Such assets should and will be available to chamber members to establish a new chamber. We will do nothing to change that. I hope that those reassurances are helpful.
  Mr. Christopher Gill: My intervention follows those made earlier, because concern has arisen in Shropshire that the assets of the local TEC were provided for the specific use of the area. We should like some assurance that those assets will continue to be available for the successor bodies. What specific assurance can the Minister give us that Shropshire will not lose those assets?
  Mr. Wicks: Some assets properly have to return to the Secretary of State, and that is widely understood. Some assets will be used to help to fund individual learning accounts, and that is understood. Where those requirements have been satisfied and local assets remain, we have given an absolute assurance that they will be used for local purposes. I hope that that reassures the hon. Gentleman.
  Mr. Rowlands: Do the powers apply to Welsh TECs? Do the worries and concerns that the Minister has mentioned apply to the situation of Welsh TECs?
  Mr. Wicks: The same principle must apply—that we have to safeguard public money. In the case of England, we hope to do that by negotiation. I am sure that that will be achieved, but we felt that we should also take on additional powers.
  Mr. Boswell: The Minister earlier gave a welcome assurance to the House on this important matter, to the effect that there was no intention on the part of Ministers to seek to alienate what might be termed privately
  854
  generated assets. What assurance is there that the powers of direction for the future of assets that the Secretary of State will take could not be applied to private assets? No specific safeguard is apparent in the new clauses.
  Mr. Wicks: TECs were set up by Parliament on behalf of the public and the assets exist because of that public nature. I have given an absolute assurance that when assets have been properly generated locally and belong to the local community, they will be preserved for the local community. I have also given assurances about the future of chambers. We are trying to advance on the basis of agreement and negotiation, and we are using accountants and auditors who satisfy both parties.
  It is only in the rarest of circumstances that we may have to use the new powers. However, if we had not provided for these powers, we might have had to come to the House in a few months' time and admit that millions of pounds' worth of public money had been used for profit-making purposes by new companies with shareholders. In that situation, the House would have been appalled and we would have had to appear before every Select Committee under the sun. The Secretary of State is right to put the amendment before the House to safeguard public money.
  11.45 pm
  Mr. Boswell: I am somewhat shocked and disturbed by the Government's provisions. I have no wish to overreact, but, given the sensitivity of the situation in which TECs now find themselves, one would not expect them to express themselves with undue robustness.
  Mr. Blunkett: We are talking about public money.
  Mr. Boswell: I shall come to that point. The TEC National Council has stated that it is concerned to safeguard the reputation and integrity of TECs and chambers of commerce, training and enterprise, and feels that it would be unfortunate, at this late stage, if the proposals were to undermine the good will that has existed between TECs, CCTEs and the Government. I entirely share that sentiment and I hope that Minister does, too.
  The new clause creates an entirely different dynamic to the negotiations. Some months ago, I jocularly characterised the Minister as the mad axeman. Now, I think that he has cast himself in a new role; that of playground bully. In effect, he is saying to TECs, "Please negotiate with me. If we do not get the outcome that I want, I will have your assets anyway and take them somewhere else." That is our concern.
  Mr. Blunkett: There are assets.
  Mr. Boswell: That is a very interesting point. I remind the Secretary of State of my question to his Department concerning any action taken to prevent forestalling action by the TECs, in effect, to sequester public assets. In doing that, I was criticised by the chief executive of one of the TECs for any implication that there was in some way an attempt to stash away assets into the private sector. We accept that publicly derived assets should be either returnable to the Secretary of State or applied by the Secretary of State to public purposes.

  855
  In many of the things that Ministers have said—including tonight's welcome reassurance that they seek agreement and earlier assurances that any locally derived assets would be applied locally—they have sought to be helpful. However, the problem arises where there is a genuine disagreement on either the origin or the nature of the particular assets in question. I have been at some pains to distance myself from the argument—which I did not think would be helpful to the general consideration—but I am aware of the circumstances involving the Northamptonshire chamber of commerce, training and enterprise, where there is a serious disagreement of principle as to the nature of the assets and their future control.
  It is right that, in principle, publicly derived funds should be under the control of the Secretary of State. However, to take forestalling action, the Secretary of State's proposal is that, from the passing of the Act, he may, in effect, sequester any assets. The Minister was not able to assure me that those assets would be necessarily and absolutely certainly publicly derived assets. That is still a concern for the TEC National Council.
  I am not suggesting for a moment that the Minister or the Secretary of State is setting out to steal private assets, or the assets of my local chamber of commerce. However, the Minister has not given the safeguards tonight that we might reasonably expect. That is a concern. In any case, where there is a dispute, one party should not be able to resolve the matter in its favour and a matter should not be resolved under the threat of one party resolving it in its favour. It should be resolved, if necessary, by some independent procedure.
  In Committee, I offered in good faith the possibility of considering arbitration in suitable cases as a way of overcoming the problem. I do not question the good faith of Ministers in dealing with the matter, but several aspects worry me.
  First, in proposing these nuclear deterrent powers to intervene in what the Minister called extreme cases, the Government run the risk that TECs might take anticipatory action while the Bill waits to be enacted. That action could not then be reversed, and setting out the powers at this stage might encourage people who want to take action before the Bill becomes an Act. I do not canvass that approach, nor would I welcome it, but it is something that needs to be considered.
  Secondly, although I hope that the negotiations in which the TECs are involved will be satisfactorily concluded, the Minister should consider whether it is fair for them to face the potential threat that Ministers may direct the fate of their assets without having to specify whether those assets are publicly derived. The problem is that it is arguable that, in some cases, those assets could have been derived from the membership of the relevant chamber of commerce.
  My third point is a matter of some concern. The proposed powers amount to powers to alienate property in the private sector that belongs to another, regardless of whether that property derived from public funds. Ministers are thereby putting themselves at risk of legal challenge. For example, the imminent legislation to implement the European convention on human rights would prevent the alienation of private assets.
  I am worried that, in seeking to overcome a potential or theoretical problem, the Minister may have used a blunderbuss that could trigger legal challenges. The result
  856
  may well be more difficult than would have been the case if the Government had proceeded by a more consensual route.
  Of course I accept the case for a proper disposition of public funds. Equally, however, there is an argument that private funds, or funds whose ownership or derivation could be subject to argument, should be properly disposed—ideally by agreement or, if necessary, by independent resolution. With respect, it should not be done on the fiat of the Secretary of State.
  I have gone on about this, despite the lateness of the hour, because I feel that it is of great importance. I do not want to press the matter to a Division in the House. However, when I have listened to the Minister's reply, I should be happy to defer to the greater legal wit and wisdom in another place, where the new clause will have to be considered and where the proposals may be viewed even less favourably.
  I have not manufactured the concerns that I have described: they are seriously held by Conservative Members and members of the TEC movement.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: It is rare for me to think that my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) is taking any matter to an extreme, but I think that the Minister is aware of a case in my constituency that is especially apposite to this debate about the proposed powers to transfer assets that have been given to a TEC for a particular purpose.
  Weymouth college is based at two sites. One of them was passed to the college by a local estate, with the not unusual proviso that the asset should be used only for educational purposes. [Interruption.] Does the Secretary of State wish to intervene?
  Mr. Blunkett: I think that the hon. Gentleman is out of order.
  Mr. Bruce: It seems that the right hon. Gentleman wants to do your job, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  The college wants to sell one site and to use the funds from the sale on rebuilding at the second site, but it has been told that those funds may revert to the state. I have had legal opinion from the Treasury Solicitor and the Attorney-General to the effect that this matter has to be tested in the courts. The college cannot simply sell one site and transfer the proceeds into educational spending.
  That is exactly what is happening with TECs. They have been given assets for particular purposes; the money has been voted by Parliament. However, those assets will now be taken away from the TECs and used for other purposes. I hope that the Minister will address that point in relation to the Government's amendments.
  Mr. Brooke: I rise in support of my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I apologise for the lateness of the hour, although that is not wholly of the Opposition's making. I commend the Government Back Benchers, who are being remarkably patient—rather more patient than Front Benchers.
  The Government have a tough timetable in terms of implementing everything in the Bill for the deadline of 1 April next year. There must be a degree of anxiety about whether these matters will be concluded before the

  857
  Bill becomes an Act and while it is still before Parliament. In view of the Minister's observations about contingent liabilities and the discussions about them, it would seem eminently desirable that those discussions should be concluded before the Bill is finally enacted.
  I am conscious that the issue hangs on one or two cases, and that is why the Secretary of State is seeking these powers. The problem is that one or two cases could be a moving target unless there is some process of identifying them to the official Opposition. That has to be a concern, although naturally there is a sense of trust towards the Government. However, the Government have said that the problems arising in one or two cases have prompted this measure.
  The greatest hazard in what has, in principle, been an orderly and amicable process up to now, is the law of human nature that makes people behave according to the way in which they are treated. If they are treated as though a blunderbuss will be held to their head in the final analysis, that alters the climate in which the negotiations take place.
  I think that the Minister must give greater assurances on how the Government will bring this matter to a conclusion while the Bill is still in front of the two Houses of Parliament.
  Mr. Wicks: I genuinely regret the stance of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell). I pay tribute to the majority of TECs, and those associated with them, for their excellent work. We all know that there has been variation in quality, but I do not want to dwell on that. We want to build on good practice. We fully expect large numbers of excellent staff and many directors of TECs to be part of the new infrastructure of learning and skills councils.
  It is important to emphasise again that, in the vast majority of cases, we are having sensible and calm discussions with TECs, helped by a firm of auditors and accountants, to look at complex issues about assets. They are complex because there is no such thing as a typical TEC. They vary a great deal—some, for example, are in partnership with chambers of commerce. We are looking at that in great detail. The process is being pursued in an orderly way. We may never need to make use of the amendment, but some cases concern us.
  The hon. Gentleman adopted a rather belligerent tone, calling me the school bully. My job, and that of the Secretary of State, is to be vigilant on behalf of the public about the public's purse. I will give some instances, but I will not name names—unless I am tempted. In a number of instances, we have had to take firm action to prevent a TEC from taking steps that we do not consider to be in the public interest. These include a proposal to move a freehold property outside the control of the Department's debenture, the movement of a large sum of reserves into a trust and a proposal to establish a separate company with two TEC employees as the only shareholders. We have managed to head off those proposals, in part through existing powers in the contract and in part through stern discussions with some of those involved. However—and this is the rub—we are not confident that the contract can cover all the situations that may arise.
  I emphasise that, faced with the situation in which some people are forming new companies and setting themselves up as the only shareholders, there is a real risk that they
  858
  will take the public's money and run. We will not let them run away with the public's money. That is why—yes, with a heavy heart and much consideration—we have tabled the amendment.
  12 midnight
  The TECs have money that is generated from the public, but I have already made it clear that where, for example, chambers are involved and they wish to re-establish themselves as sole chambers, we will be helpful in terms of the assets that we require. Where there is local money, which does not properly need to be transferred to the Secretary of State, it will be used for proper local purposes. We have to be vigilant on behalf of the public. That is what this Parliament is about; it is what the Government are about; and it is what the amendment is about.
  Amendment agreed to.

Clause 90

  STAMP DUTY
  Amendment made: No. 37, in page 40, line 27, leave out 'or 89' and insert—
  ', 89 or (Transfers: Wales)'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Clause 91

  CONTRACTS OF EMPLOYMENT
  Amendment made: No. 38, in page 40, line 32, leave out 'or 89' and insert—
  ', 89 or (Transfers: Wales)'.—[Mr. Blunkett.]

Clause 99

  AMENDMENTS RELATING TO EXTERNAL QUALIFICATIONS
  Amendment made: No. 39, in page 45, line 2, at end insert—
  '(2A) In subsection (3) of section 24 for "(g)" substitute "(gg)".'.—[Mr. Wills.]

Clause 100

  QUALIFYING ACCOUNTS
  Amendments made: No. 95, in page 45, line 39, leave out—
  'in or as regards Scotland'
  and insert—
  'for the purposes of any provision of, or made under, an Act of the Scottish Parliament authorising grants to be paid to, or in respect of, individuals in connection with their education or training; and for this purpose references in this section to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Scottish Ministers.'.
  No. 96, in page 45, line 40, at end insert—
  '(8) For the purposes of this section an enactment includes an Act of the Scottish Parliament.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 101

  QUALIFYING ARRANGEMENTS
  Amendments made: No. 97, in page 46, line 26, after 'are' insert '—
  (a)".

  859
  No. 98, in page 46, line 27, leave out 'or Northern Ireland'.
  No. 99, in page 46, line 28, at end insert—
  ', or
  (b) arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland).'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 102

  QUALIFYING ARRANGEMENTS: FURTHER PROVISION
  Amendment made: No. 100, in page 46, line 42, at end insert—

  '(5) The Department of Higher and Further Education, Training and Employment in Northern Ireland (or a person designated by it) may make arrangements with a body in connection with the making by that body of arrangements which qualify under section (Qualifying arrangements: Northern Ireland).

  (6) Subsections (2) to (4) apply to arrangements under subsection (5) as they apply to arrangements under subsection (1); and for this purpose references in subsections (2) to (4) to the Secretary of State are to be treated as references to the Department.'.—[Mr. Betts.]

Clause 108

  PROVISION OF SERVICES
  Mr. Boswell: I beg to move amendment No. 78, in page 49, line 38, after 'particular'", insert—
  ',while having regard to the needs of all young people for access to independent guidance and to a mode of service which is appropriate to their particular circumstances'.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following amendments: No. 103, in clause 109, page 50, line 21, after 'team', insert—
  '() a Connexions partnership'.
  Government amendments Nos. 9 to 12.
  No. 8, in clause 117, page 55, line 17, leave out "may" and insert 'shall'.
  Government amendments Nos. 13 to 16.
  New clause 4—Support for 11–25 year olds: Wales: provision of services—
  '. The National Assembly may provide or secure the provision of services which the Assembly considers will encourage, enable or assist (directly or indirectly) effective participation by young persons in education or training.'.
  Mr. Boswell: After those brisk exchanges, I accept, of course, that Ministers wish to act in good faith, and I am sure that their assurances on clause 89 and on the amendment which deals with the Connexions strategy are well intended.
  In response to a blunt question in Committee, the Minister has already given me the specific assurance that all young people will have access to independent guidance. I thought it appropriate to try to embody that in the Bill, and, in effect, to help the Minister to honour his assurance. In respect of that and of the second part of that amendment, considerable concerns remain in what might be described as the guidance professions and the careers services. Those have been reflected in representations to us by the Guidance Council and the Careers Service National Association. The concerns were also mentioned
  860
  earlier by the hon. Member for Sheffield, Hallam (Mr. Allan), but I did not intervene then, so as to save time and repetition.
  Those in the careers services are concerned that, as a result either of signals from Ministers or of constraints on resources, activity has been diverted to young people who may be, or are in danger of being, socially excluded, at the expense of other young people. Frankly, if the Minister is to solve this problem, he will have to work something out—perhaps, although I anticipate it only in general terms, in the comprehensive spending review—to enable him to deliver a proper service to all young people, and a specific service to those in danger of social exclusion. Of course, he cannot comment on that at the moment.
  On the substance of the amendment, we need to ensure that the undertaking that the Minister has given—that all young people will have access to independent guidance—means what it says. Essentially, that means access to a guidance interview, and/or to continuing support from guidance services if that is appropriate.
  I believe that all of us who have had children who have passed through that age appreciate that, whatever their intellectual or other abilities, at some stage they need an opportunity to talk to someone outside their school and family who can give them well informed—and above all, independent—advice. That is the great virtue of the guidance and careers profession, and long may it continue.
  In certain cases, access to IT information or a database may be appropriate and all that is needed, but in most cases the individual should meet a real person and receive real advice about their circumstances. That is a talisman which we all, on both sides of the House, need to preserve, and it is of great concern to the guidance profession.
  In the second part of amendment No. 78, I refer to
  a mode of service which is appropriate to their particular circumstances …
  That sounds rather like a piece of Sir Humphrey-speak. Perhaps I may explain what I have in mind, because there is a real issue here about the way in which the Connexions service is delivered.
  There is a genuine, although I hope only potential, criticism of a service that is still in its early days of establishment—that everything is focused on the needs of the socially excluded. For example, there is a very strong emphasis on personal mentoring. It would not be appropriate to reopen all those debates tonight, but although the relationship required for the potentially socially excluded young person may be of a mentoring nature, it would be unfortunate if what, for shorthand, I shall call mainstream young people did not have access to a different mode. For example, they could be taught by their teachers, in school or whatever, and then have access to independent guidance, not necessarily on the referral of a mentor but as a procedure that they could ask for or choose.
  The danger with the way in which the Government have structured the service is that they require some 20,000 personal mentors. If those are recruited in large numbers from the guidance profession—which, as I recall, numbers some 7,000 staff at the moment—there will be no separate guidance profession left to deliver the independent guidance that we all wish to see. That would cause the independent guidance to fall, by default.

  861
  It would perhaps be better to move more slowly, and with greater sensitivity to the needs of individuals. There may be a role for the personal mentor, especially for the target groups that Ministers have mentioned, but that does not necessarily mean that the model must be universally applicable to all young people, or must be the same whatever the region or local circumstances. Ministers have talked about that, and I think that they will be flexible in considering the bids for the plans that have been put forward for the Connexions service; the local tendering has now concluded its first phase.
  I am not unhopeful, but I say to the Minister in all seriousness that there are still some real concerns in the guidance profession that this matter has not been got quite right yet. We need to hold to the principle of readily accessible independent guidance for all young people, and we need to find the right model of guidance and support for all young people. It will not always be the same for each and every one of them.
  Mr. Rowlands: I shall speak briefly to my amendment No. 8. Whereas in an earlier debate I said that I thought that the English had a superior solution to some of the problems, in Wales the arrangements for the development of youth services as proposed in clauses 117 and 118 are, if not superior to those proposed for England, at least more appropriate to Wales than the English provisions of Connexions would be. But if we are to make those youth services work, the money must be where the legislation is.
  I note with considerable interest that clause 117 says that the National Assembly
  may direct a local authority
  to provide such services. It may actually make provision for grants. However, clause 118 states that a local authority
  shall comply with a direction
  served by the National Assembly under clause 117.
  Amendment No. 8 would require that if the National Assembly for Wales issues such a direction and insists on a local authority's compliance with it, the Assembly "shall" rather than "may" provide the money for the local authority to fulfil that service. Without such a provision, the situation will arise—as it has so often in the past under all Governments—in which increased duties are placed on local authorities without adequate finance.
  If, under clause 117, the National Assembly issues a direction to a local authority to provide certain youth services, as clause 118 states that authorities must obey such directions, surely the National Assembly should be obliged to provide the grants, loans or other financial assistance required to deliver the service. There is a compelling logic to my amendment and I hope that the Minister will accept it, so that clause 117(4) reads, "A direction under subsection (1) … shall include provision for grants, loans and other kinds of financial assistance" to local authorities.
  Mr. Nick St. Aubyn: I support the amendment tabled by my hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) on a matter that I mentioned on Second Reading. In parts of the country such as the one that I represent, there is real concern that the diversion of
  862
  resources for an admirable intent—to assist those who are disadvantaged and who perhaps need more help—is at the expense of other sectors of the community.
  In a recent letter to me, the Guidance Council said:
  much of the traditional support available to all young people … has fallen off sharply. Resources have been diverted to the most needy.
  The council referred to the switch of resources from the many to the few. That is consistent neither with the Government's objectives, as we understand them, nor with the interests of our children or our economy.
  In a fast changing world, it is vital that more able children have access to good specialist advice. If such access is curtailed to fund support for the less advantaged members of society, we shall all reap the consequences in the poorer choices made by more able children. If they do not receive the training and direction that they need when they are young, not only their future but the future of our economy will be in jeopardy.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) spoke so briefly that I nearly failed to catch your eye, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  I support amendment No. 78. I want to probe the Minister on the age ranges that would be covered under clause 108, especially if the amendment were accepted. Many colleagues are aware that young people with learning difficulties or mental disabilities will be greatly helped by the guidance referred to in the Bill.
  I note that the clause relates to young people aged up to 20. However, such an age specification would often be inappropriate for young people receiving those services. The amendment might help local authorities by ensuring that appropriate guidance was available and the clause was not so prescriptive. It would provide that young people aged over 20 whose mental age was not more than 20 could receive further guidance to ensure that they could continue their career or obtain the training that they needed.
  Will the Minister address that point? I have come across cases in local technical colleges, for example, in which there is an age cut-off beyond which assistance cannot be offered to such young people, although they are probably more in need of that guidance than their able-bodied counterparts.
  Mr. Wicks: On the hon. Gentleman's final point, the service for those with learning difficulties will not be restricted to the normal age group of 13 to 19. We shall extend it to those aged up to 25, to help them with transition. That is important.
  12.15 am
  My hon. Friend the Member for Merthyr Tydfil and Rhymney (Mr. Rowlands) referred to the new local service for young people. I think that the crux of his concern was that suitable resources should be available to get the job done. Clearly, resources will be an important element, and I want to provide the reassurance that they will be available. However, other matters might need to be covered by an Assembly direction under clause 117. Those might, for example, include the need for local authorities and other service providers to have regard to Assembly guidance on consulting young people and on the design of local management services.

  863
  We discussed the concerns of the hon. Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) many times in Committee. The Connexions service for all 13 to 19-year-olds is universal; it is for all in that age group. All the children and young people in the critical teenage years need first-class impartial, independent and expert guidance about learning options at 16 and other stages. They may need guidance about going to university or about the modern apprenticeship scheme, and they may need guidance and advice about careers.
  In a modern age, the way in such advice is delivered will vary. We need to make use of information and communications technology and we shall establish a telephone line, Connexions Direct, so that people can receive such advice. However, face-to-face contact is vital, so there will be a universal service for all young people. Special groups, particularly those from poor and disadvantaged backgrounds or those with learning difficulties, will need advice and guidance, but others, such as our most able boys and girls, sometimes need special help to get through school because of their high abilities. I recall that the Select Committee on Education and Employment produced a report on that subject a year or two ago.
  The service will be universal because all young people will need it. However, the word mentor has been used, so I shall quote one of my academic mentors, the late Richard Titmuss of the London school of economics. He used to teach his students that if "poor people's services" are just for poor people, they tend to be poor services. Those of us who are universalists remember that. It will be a universal service for all people, because that is the most civilised and dignified way of giving support to the most disadvantaged.
  Amendment negatived.

Clause 111

  EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTIONS:INFORMATION AND ACCESS
  Amendment made: No. 106, in page 51, line 40, leave out—
  'and city colleges for the technology of the arts,'
  and insert—
  ', city colleges for the technology of the arts and city academies,'.—[Mr. Wicks.]

Clause 114

  INFORMATION: SUPPLY BY PUBLIC BODIES
  Amendments made: No. 9, in page 53, line 16, after 'the' insert 'persons or'.
  No. 10, in page 53, line 19, after 'person' insert 'or body'.
  No. 11, in page 53, line 20, after 'Those' insert 'persons and'.
  No. 12, in page 53, line 23, at end insert—
  '() a chief officer of police,'.—[Mr. Wicks.]

Schedule 7

  INADEQUATE SIXTH FORMS
  Mr. Clappison: I beg to move amendment No. 105, in page 85, leave out lines 20 and 21.
  864
  My hon. Friend the Member for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) has rightly made known our concern about some of the Bill's provisions and their effect on sixth forms. I intend to be brief, but let me make it clear that we regard it as an issue of great importance. We certainly share the objective that we should deal with any institution for 16 to 18-year-olds that fails to provide a good education for its pupils and fails to help them to realise their ambitions and fulfil their aspirations.
  There are clearly problems with the definition of inadequate sixth forms. It is confined to school sixth forms. It does not include the other types of institutions, notwithstanding the fact that school sixth forms have a better record of providing good GCSE results earlier on and better academic A-level results than other types of providers.
  The definition of inadequate sixth forms is wholly unsatisfactory, and the amendment is designed to put it right. [Interruption.] I am not sure whether it will succeed in that purpose unless I have the attention of the Under-Secretary of State, who will not hear the problem that I shall outline if he does not listen.
  A school's sixth form is said to be inadequate if
  the school is failing or likely to fail to give pupils over compulsory school age an acceptable standard of education, or … the school has significant weaknesses in one of more areas of its activities for pupils over compulsory school age.
  We have problems with that definition. We think that it is not clear or comprehensive, especially in respect of paragraph (b), which refers to "significant weaknesses" of schools. It is clear from that that a school may not be failing, or likely to fail, to give an acceptable level of sixth form education, but it could still fall foul of paragraph (b) because of "significant weaknesses". We need to know what are these "significant weaknesses", which are covered by paragraph (b) but not by (a).
  Is the Minister able to tell us what these "significant weaknesses" might be? For example, might they relate to a school that provides a limited range of subjects, or to a school that has small classes in its sixth forms, even though the school is providing a good or adequate level of education? This is of particular interest to rural sixth forms, because they seem to be under the most pressure from the combined effects of the schedule, which gives more powers of intervention to learning and skills councils to close school sixth forms, and of earlier provisions that relate to funding.
  The Government are taking more and more powers to intervene in respect of sixth forms. Earlier, the Secretary of State said that interventions should be in inverse proportion to success, but successful institutions are having more and more intervention brought to bear against them. If they are to face closure through being described as inadequate, we must have a better definition of what amounts to an inadequate sixth form than the Government have given us.
  Mr. Ian Bruce: The amendment draws attention to an extraordinary situation. I think that the Minister, who is a fair-minded man, will understand what is likely to happen if lines 20 and 21 remain in the Bill. As a fair-minded man, I think he will say that deleting the words would not damage the purpose behind the provision.
  There are very successful sixth forms in my constituency. Yet—I hope that this will not be a headline in the Dorset Echo tomorrow—each one of those sixth

  865
  forms could be classed as inadequate under the definition in the schedule. They all, and the sixth form college that provides sixth forms—although I do not think that it is covered by the provision—have significant weaknesses in one or more areas of their activities for pupils over compulsory school age. I am sure that each of the head teachers would say that, under that definition, they are trying to do things that they need to do better. They have to have more pupils, more resources or whatever. They are building up certain areas of their sixth form, and they may find that it is failing to meet expected standards in some areas.
  All the sixth forms have been started since the inception of our sixth form college, as schools have decided to build up their own sixth forms. The success of the education offered to children in those schools has been improved by the introduction of a sixth form. However, when a sixth form is introduced and is in the process of being built up, it is, by common consent, inadequate—in terms of the range of subjects available, class sizes and so on.
  Imagine a school inspector carrying out a normal Ofsted inspection and asking himself how he should define the situation regarding the sixth form. On reading the definition in schedule 7, he will have to tell the school that he is sorry, but he has to write in his report that the sixth form is inadequate. That would be the death of sixth forms that were just starting to build up a reputation—no one would want to attend them, so they would have no chance of developing.
  No one would quarrel with the definition of "inadequate" set out in paragraph 1(2)(a)—that a school has an inadequate sixth form if
  the school is failing or likely to fail to give pupils over compulsory school-age an acceptable standard of education.
  Clearly, that is the test of whether the individuals currently in the sixth form will receive an adequate post-16 education. On occasion, when a particular department is not doing well, the school decides to close the department and not offer those subjects to its post-16 students; those students can then go to another school in the area or to the sixth form college to study the subject. However, that is not a reason for including paragraph 1(2)(a) in a statutory definition of an inadequate sixth form.
  The Minister is a fair-minded man and I am sure that he is convinced by our argument. So that we can reach Third Reading and have a proper debate on it, I am sure that he will accept our sensible amendment.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I share my hon. Friends' concern. For some time, we have suspected that Ministers have a hidden agenda to reduce the number of sixth forms in secondary schools. Ministers believe that sixth forms cost too much and give some schools an advantage over others, despite the fact that when the Select Committee on Education and Employment considered the issue a couple of years ago, it found that there was very little difference in funding for sixth forms in schools and those in colleges.
  My concern about the two lines identified in the amendment, on which my hon. Friends have not touched, is that the scope of a school's sixth form may be reduced to those subjects in which the head teacher and governors are absolutely confident that performance and delivery are
  866
  beyond question. As a result, the variety of courses that A-level students seek might be denied them, not because the school wants to restrict their choice, but because it fears that the quality of provision in certain subjects might not quite pass muster when the inspector comes to call; and that, because of that single failing in that single subject, the future of the whole sixth form in that school will be jeopardised. That will be the effect of the schedule as drafted.
  The definition encompasses not courses but "activities". One of the activities undertaken by school sixth forms is the provision of advice on university admissions. From the views expressed by Ministers in recent weeks, we know that they think that sixth forms throughout the country are failing their students in terms of the advice they give them on access to university. Tony Higgins, chief executive of UCAS, was quoted in The Independent earlier this week as saying that
  there's far too low a proportion of those from low socio-economic groups applying to go to university.
  I agree. One of the reasons may be that those pupils are not getting the right advice from their schools. The solution is not to close down the sixth forms, but to bolster them.
  As a result of the provision, the curriculum that those sixth forms offer will become even narrower in future, and many of them will fear that, because of their weakness in that respect, they are at risk of being closed down across the board. On such flimsy grounds, the Government could come in and reorganise sixth form provision in many parts of the country.
  12.30 am
  Mr. Bruce: My hon. Friend reminds me that the Government say that sixth forms must take pupils over 16 from lower socio-economic groups and get them through A-level. Even a brilliant sixth form where all the pupils were doing well could still be classed as inadequate because pupils were not staying on. The sixth form would therefore be failing in an activity that the Government expected it to undertake.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: My hon. Friend touches on the reason why the word "activities", which is ill defined, is so wrong. It is surely up to the governors, the head teacher and the parents to decide what sort of school they want. We believe that it is their choice. It is not for some Government Minister to go round the country ticking one box and crossing another, deciding which schools are allowed to survive and which schools he or she will close down.
  Mr. Desmond Swayne: When I raised the matter on Second Reading, my remarks were greeted with derision on the Government Benches. I drew to the attention of the House the importance of sixth forms in providing sixth-formers with an opportunity to exercise administrative responsibility over their juniors, and the benefits of that to sixth-formers. That was regarded by Labour Members as so unfashionable as to be derisory.
  In my capacity as a Territorial Army officer responsible for the recruitment of further officers, it is my experience that pupils who have had this opportunity and responsibility often stand head and shoulders above their peers who have not had the same responsibility. That is

  867
  an important function of sixth forms. To what extent does the ability to offer sixth-formers the opportunity to exercise administrative responsibilities over the rest of the school feature in the Minister's definition of adequacy?
  The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. Michael Wills): I am glad that the Opposition share our objective that every student should receive an acceptable standard of education. However, most of what I have heard has been an alarmist attempt to whip up fears—I know that the hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) will be fascinated by what I am saying—about an agenda that does not exist.
  I shall immediately answer the question asked by the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison). The definition of "inadequate" is consistent with the statutory definitions of schools requiring special measures and schools with serious weaknesses. A sixth form or an LEA-maintained 16-to-19 institution will be found inadequate if it is failing or likely to fail to give its pupils an acceptable standard of education, or if it has significant weaknesses in one or more areas of its activities for pupils.
  That judgment will be made on the basis only of the quality of education that a school provides for its sixth form pupils. We will work with the chief inspector to develop detailed criteria that take account of the common post-16 inspection framework. Those criteria will be published.
  For serious weaknesses to be identified in a whole-school inspection report can have equally serious consequences for a school. As with the judgment that a school requires special measures, a judgment of serious weaknesses will trigger the LEA's powers to intervene by appointing additional governors and suspending delegation of the school's budget. If the necessary improvements are not then made, the school is likely to be judged as requiring special measures at its next inspection, which would trigger the Secretary of State's powers to direct that the school be closed.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Wills: I shall not give way, because I want to make progress and I am absolutely confident that when the Opposition have heard the power of my arguments they will feel impelled to withdraw their amendment.
  We resist the amendment because it would narrow the definition of "inadequate" to sixth forms that are failing. But removing the possibility of closure for sixth forms with serious weaknesses would not be in the interests of students. They should be assured of high-quality provision wherever they choose to learn. Let us be clear in this respect: serious weaknesses are just what they say, not just minor problems about which anyone can afford to be complacent.
  We shall also resist the amendment because it would cut across the careful way in which we are providing in the Bill for consistent inspection arrangements across post-16 learning, with similar standards applied to schools and colleges. If those arrangements are to be successful in encouraging improvements, rigorous follow-up arrangements must be in place; and where any provider of post-16 education is not meeting the standards that students have a right to expect, it must make the necessary
  868
  improvements or face the possible consequences. The Bill therefore contains provisions for the LSC and the CETW to intervene in colleges where students are not being offered the quality of education to which they are entitled. It is therefore entirely right that the councils should have parallel powers where 16 to 19 provision in schools is not of adequate quality.
  Schools will not be left to struggle alone with the vital task of improvement. Local education authorities have a responsibility to help schools draw up and implement their post-inspection action plans, and, where appropriate, diocesan bodies should also provide support. These proposals are about safeguarding high quality. As we have made consistently clear in Committee and again tonight, we have no agenda for removing sixth forms and reducing choice for 16 to 19-year-olds. The hon. Member for Maidenhead keeps bringing up this subject. I hope that she is listening to what I am saying.
  Many sixth forms are achieving high standards and excellent examination results, and we want more of them. We have made it very clear that schools that are providing high-quality education for their sixth form pupils have nothing to fear from the proposals in schedule 7, and it would not be right for sixth forms with serious weaknesses to be in that same secure position. As I have already set out, they will have three important safeguards.
  Mrs. May rose—
  Mr. Wills: I will not give way, because the hon. Lady will be persuaded by the time I finish.
  Sixth forms with serious weaknesses will be allowed a reasonable time to put things right after a first adverse inspection report. The crucial judgments about quality will be made by independent inspectors; and, finally, the statutory decision-making process will enable all the relevant issues to be fully aired.
  We have made it consistently clear that our aim is that all post-16 provision will be of high quality. Our proposals for inadequate sixth forms are consistent with that aim, and with the principle that intervention should be in inverse proportion to success. I hope that the hon. Member for Hertsmere will therefore be persuaded to withdraw the amendment.
  Mr. Clappison: I am afraid that the situation remains as unsatisfactory as it was before the Minister spoke. He referred throughout to "serious weaknesses". I respectfully draw his attention to the fact that that is not the terminology used in paragraph (2)(b), which refers to "significant weaknesses".
  The Minister was not able to give us an example of what a serious weakness might be. He said that serious weaknesses meant serious weaknesses, but could not give us a single example of a serious weakness that fell outside subparagraph (a) but came within subparagraph (b). It is no use the Minister's saying that it is related to education provision, because if it were it would fall under subparagraph (a), which concerns giving an acceptable standard of education. Nor did the Minister answer the point quite properly made by my hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) that subparagraph (b) refers

  869
  not only to school lessons or the curriculum but to activities, which makes it much broader and widens the scope for finding that a school has a significant weakness.
  Mr. Ian Bruce rose—
  Mr. Clappison: I will give way, but before my hon. Friend intervenes, I should like to make the point that the Minister also failed, interestingly, to deal with the point that I made about whether a limited number of subjects or small classes would amount to significant weaknesses.
  Mr. Bruce: I tried to intervene on the Minister. Doubtless he will jump to his feet and explain the point if my hon. Friend cannot do so. The Minister clearly suggested that the powers are exactly the same as those that already exist to deal with failing schools. If that is the case, why are sixth forms singled out by the terrible phrase "inadequate sixth forms"? Why is the closure of sixth forms, rather than the school, mentioned?
  Mr. Clappison: I am sure that my hon. Friend's anxieties are shared by many hon. Members who have heard what the Minister has said—or failed to say—tonight in response to the problem. The worries remain. I am dissatisfied, but, in view of the need to make progress and the lateness of the hour, I do not propose to press the amendment to a vote. However, genuine anxieties remain.
  I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Remaining Government amendments and new clauses agreed to.
  Order for Third Reading read.
  12.41 am
  Mr. Wicks: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read the Third time.
  At the end of a concert in Japan, the great lifelong learner and songwriter Mr. Bob Dylan observed that it was the time of hour when we had to run. Some of us were born to run, so it is therefore important that we keep the debate brief.
  I believe that the Bill is a measure for a new century. The way in which we invest in the skills of our people and take seriously the concept of lifelong learning will determine Britain's economic future. The way in which we determine our sense of community and fairness is equally important for some of us. We are considering not only economics but social inclusion. We are setting up new structures to help the young to pursue workplace development and further education, and to promote adult and community education.
  12.42 am
  Mr. Boswell: I begin by briefly commenting on the Government's strange pendulum management of their business. Yesterday, the business was so thin, bland and non-controversial that we were sent home by tea time. Today, substantial matters are being discussed well past midnight.
  870
  The Opposition remain concerned about the Bill for the reasons that we set out in our reasoned amendment on Second Reading. Above all, we are worried about the centralisation of power and the risk of bureaucracy. It is not that the Minister is an arrogant man; his look of injured innocence if anyone seeks to assert that puts me off making such a claim. However, the dynamics of the position or, more sinisterly, those shadowy educational theorists who lurk in the wings of education policy but occasionally find themselves centre stage, may wrench matters in a direction that Parliament has now empowered them to take. An example could be the unresolved threat to close down sixth forms or, to put it in industrial relations terms, progressively and constructively to dismiss them, not so much necessarily by deeming them inadequate as simply by gradually starving them of funding.
  The Ministers who served on the Standing Committee are certainly not lacking in personal charm, and I concede that they have sought to set out their stall as a reasonable case when the details of the Bill are being considered. Only today, however, in the discussion on the disposition of training and enterprise council assets, we had an example of the mask slipping. However much Ministers may claim to be acting in defence of the public purse and, as ever, with reasonableness, there will be those—and they will not all be twisters or people trying to take away Government assets—who will feel that their services and contribution have not been acknowledged, and that the Government's means of thanking them is to rig the course and create an inequitable solution on the disposition of assets.
  I come down from the high horse of principle to a more practical level in my closing remarks on our concerns about the Bill. If nothing else, Ministers have, in one Bill and at one time, set themselves the task of introducing a single framework for post-16 education and a parallel connection strategy, both of which involve the schools sector and many other providers. That is, as Sir Humphrey Appleby would no doubt have commented, "Extremely courageous, Minister."
  The policy, and the Bill that has been derived from it, are increasingly seen to be assembled in kit form, before our very eyes, in Committee and in the House. Only today, a new version of the transition planning document thumped on to my desk. That process will continue as the consultations continue, until vesting day next April and long afterwards. This is a policy of continuous experiment, if not necessarily of continuous improvement.
  Until this late hour, and this last gasp, we have continued to seek from Ministers, and even occasionally to receive from them, assurances. After our deliberations tonight, one final hurdle remains in another place, and after that we will leave this over-sold, over-ambitious and under-achieving Bill with some trepidation. We cast it forth to await the consequences that have not been foreseen and, more widely, the judgment of events.
  12.47 am
  Mr. Willis: We have spent nearly nine hours on the Bill, and of that, 15 minutes have related to its substance. From the Opposition, we have had sex, selection, division and privilege, which are key areas for a Tory Opposition, but nothing about the substance of what we should be here to discuss—educational provision for 16 to

  871
  19-year-olds and adults, which is desperately under-represented, desperately under-resourced and desperately in need of support.
  Anybody who read the skills taskforce report this week will be aware of the disgraceful skills situation among the adult population. The Small Business Service estimates that billions of pounds are lost because we do not have a work force with the skills to carry out the necessary tasks. Yet we have spent nine hours obsessing about sex, selection, division and privilege.
  The social exclusion unit report, "Bridging the Gap", was a graphic reminder that 170,000 16 to 19-year-olds leave school with no qualifications, no hope and no nothing, but they have not been mentioned in the nine hours that we have spent discussing sex, selection, division and privilege.
  As we end our consideration of the Bill, there is great sadness because this should have been a ground-breaking Bill. We sought a unified structure in post-16 lifelong learning, education and training. In 1992–93, the Tories created a marketplace. That was their answer to the problem: drive down costs and increase numbers. Everything would take its place. It has not. In reality, the Bill is a disappointment. Members on both sides of the House will share that disappointment. It has retained the narrow provision on the 16 to 19 age group. It has not extended its horizons beyond that, yet there is a classic need to address the underskilling of the adult population.
  The Bill does absolutely nothing for small business, which was looking to the Bill to allow it to tap into a network to upskill our people. There is little in that regard. It has decimated the careers service into a Connexions service. We hope that that will be highly successful, but it is at the expense of an adult careers service and of careers services for people who achieve more than five A to Cs. The Bill has created a new bureaucracy that may or may not be more successful than previous ones. Through the back door, it has brought in city academies.
  At midnight, I spent a few minutes doing a television programme, on which the official Opposition said that, when the Bill hit another place, all the problems in the House of Commons and previously in another place in terms of sex, grammar schools and selection would simply be regurgitated to kill off the Bill. If that happens, it will leave in limbo the TEC movement, the Further Education Funding Council and the whole of the reorganisation. The hon. Member for Maidenhead (Mrs. May) and her colleagues must not allow that to happen. Despite our differences, we on the Liberal Democrat Benches feel that there is enough merit in the Bill to give it its Third Reading and to support its passage back to another place.
  12.52 am
  Mr. Brooke: I was not able to be present at the conclusion of the Standing Committee because I was making a speech in the Second Reading debate on the Police (Northern Ireland) Bill. Therefore, I say briefly what I would have said then.
  The Government had a certain choice of Ministers to put on the Bill. I will remark neutrally that I think that they chose extremely well. The three Ministers who served on the Bill served the legislation, the Committee, the Government and, indeed, Parliament well. As I said when we debated the sittings motion originally, our side necessarily had fewer resources and had less to choose
  872
  from, but we were admirably served in the leadership of the official Opposition by my hon. Friends the Members for Daventry (Mr. Boswell) and for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison).
  In Committee, I enjoyed all the observations by the Liberal Democrats and by Government Back Benchers. Lest I sound like the dodo in "Alice's Adventures in Wonderland", handing round prizes to everyone, let me say a final word about the Bill—something that came up from time to time in Committee. The Government had assured us that it was a bottom up Bill, not a top down one. My only regret about our time in Committee and about the Bill as a whole is that the Government never sought in Committee or, indeed, on Report to justify the claims that they made for it.
  12.53 am
  Mr. Stephen O'Brien: I am pleased to have the opportunity to contribute to the debate, having since late last year been a member of the Education Sub-Committee of the Select Committee on Education and Employment. I was surprised to find that the Select Committee had not published a report on the Bill—a lamentable omission—but, before my time, it published a report on further education, which, extraordinarily, the Bill seems flatly to contradict.
  In the 11 months since I was elected to the House, I have it made it my priority to visit as many schools as possible in my constituency and to listen to parents, pupils, teachers, governors and the various youth groups and youth councils which are active and doing an admirable job in my constituency. In those many meetings, we have often discussed the basic proposals in the Bill as they have been progressively revealed to us. What they have been saying seems to be at odds with what the Government claim they have been listening to.
  My constituents have the fortune of living in Cheshire, a relatively high standard education area compared with England as a whole. It has a relatively good take-up rate for 16 to 18-year-olds to pursue their education seriously. The questions are, first, "What do the Government think they are doing by trying to encourage parents to vote to scrap grammar schools?" As there are none in Cheshire, they look across the county border to Trafford and say, "Isn't this just another example of the Government's determination to level down and stamp on excellence rather than celebrating it and drawing upon it?" That cause has no finer advocate than my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady). Other questions that are asked include, "Why do the Government want to get rid of the TECs?"; "What will happen to the jobs in those TECs?"; and "Is my sixth form safe?"
  If the Government really intend to introduce new sex education guidelines, why are they so embarrassed to promote marriage? If they are so keen to establish city academies in inner-city areas, why are they so grudging in their recognition of the involvement of the private sector in education? What is the Connexions service really going to deliver for the Winsford youth council? Surely all young people require access to guidance in an unpatronising way tailored to their individual circumstances.
  The Bill does not address those straightforward questions from my constituents. I hope that the Minister will address them in his reply to the debate, given that the Government rejected amendments that would have answered each and every one.

  873
  There is a consistent thread in the Government's approach to the Bill—their lack of trust in those who have the front-line knowledge and expertise to deliver their objectives. That lack of trust is fuelled by their difficulty with the concept of competition—and even that word. As has been demonstrated, it is best to draw on the excellence of grammar schools and encourage other schools to compete, rather than threatening them with the Damoclean sword of repeated ballots. Surely the right approach would have been for the Government to take advantage of that excellence to drive up standards by competition rather than to hide behind the word collaboration, resulting in a cloud of bureaucracy and the inability for anyone to accept responsibility and accountability.
  My concern, along with those expressed by my Front-Bench colleagues, is that the Bill started with fine aims, as peddled by the Government, but has lamentably failed by creating the potential for obfuscation, bureaucracy and centralisation, where it would have been far better for the Government to have trusted in the local delivery of the very services that they seek to promote in the spirit of competition, which would level standards up, rather than one of collaboration which, over time, will have a levelling down effect.
  12.57 am
  Mr. Swayne: When we considered the Bill on Second Reading, I thought that it attached to training a bureaucracy that would have been worthy of collective farming. However, it had two redeeming features: it provided a measure of protection for the teaching of the importance of marriage and, arguably, it put an end to the class warfare in respect of grammar schools. Both those redeeming features have been removed from the Bill during its passage through the House, so I could not support it on Second Reading and I certainly cannot support it now.
  I apply to the Bill what I call the Ringwood school test. Ringwood school in my constituency was a comprehensive school that was transformed by the experience of becoming grant maintained. One of the elements of its transformation was its acquisition, in the teeth of opposition, of a sixth form. It is now a thriving and, most importantly, a growing sixth form. My question about the Bill—the Ringwood school test—is what does the Bill do for that school. My estimate is that it does nothing. Indeed, it threatens the existence of that sixth form. The only assurance that we have been able to get from Ministers during the passage of the Bill is that the funding of that sixth form will not shrink. That is a growing sixth form, and we need an assurance that the funding will grow with it. We have not had it and that is reason enough to vote against the Bill.
  1 am
  Mr. Brady: I would hesitate to support any Bill that failed the Ringwood school test, the new and important threshold that any piece of education legislation should pass.
  Members of the Committee enjoyed a civilised discussion, and I echo the comments of my right hon. Friend the Member for Cities of London and Westminster
  874
  (Mr. Brooke) regarding the politeness of Ministers during the Committee. I am sorry that that attitude did not continue this evening. On occasion, Ministers have been bad-tempered and reluctant to be drawn on the detail of some of their proposals. They have also been reluctant to justify the implications of what they are doing, particularly in regard to city academies.
  When the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis) said that there was centralisation and bureaucracy and that the careers service was being decimated, I was sure that the Liberal Democrats would try their hand at opposition for a while. However, the hon. Gentleman reverted to type by saying that he would encourage his party, as usual, to support the Government.
  There are serious flaws in the Bill. Some of the difficulties that remain regarding the replacement of TECs by learning and skills councils are a concern. As my hon. Friend the Member for New Forest, West (Mr. Swayne) pointed out, the removal of some aspects of the Bill is also a cause for regret. We should have had an opportunity this evening to improve on the botched job that the Government made of previous legislation regarding the future of grammar schools. It is a cause for regret that, having seen that their policy in that area was palpably failing, the Government were reluctant to look at how to reform the legislation to remove the uncertainty and the threat hanging over some of the best schools in the country.
  I regret that the Government have not been prepared to listen; to think a bit more; and to argue more cogently for the policies that they are pursuing. The Bill could have been so much better and it is a source of regret that it is not.
  1.3 am
  Mr. St. Aubyn: I appreciated the comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Altrincham and Sale, West (Mr. Brady), although it would have been easier to hear them if there had not been so many conversations being carried out by Labour Members. I hope that they will do the House a courtesy and hear the Bill out in silence. If they have so little respect for the Bill, perhaps none of us should let it go through. [Interruption.]
  Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Michael J. Martin): Order. There is a great deal of background noise in the Chamber. It is late in the evening, so let us listen to the hon. Gentleman, as a courtesy.
  Mr. St. Aubyn: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker.
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Was that all right for the hon. Gentleman?
  Mr. St. Aubyn: That was delightful; I could not have asked for anything more.
  The Select Committee on Education and Employment looked at the matter a couple of years ago, and I remember a very different Liberal Democrat Member from the hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis). Labour Members concurred that the further education system had been working well and that the Further Education Funding Council was a success. The report found that its formula was well understood and we

  875
  heard again and again that the last thing that the colleges wanted was another reorganisation or change in the rules that would mean a new layer of bureaucracy, administration, time and expense while they got to grips with a new system.
  I do not think that the Bill ushers in anything like the new era depicted by the Minister. It is primarily an attempt to rebrand an approach to further education developed by the previous Conservative Government. Under that approach, further education colleges were taken away from the dead hand of local education authorities and given their freedom. That freedom came with a framework of standards and fair funding that enabled colleges to deliver many more courses to many more people at a far more attractive cost to the taxpayer.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough talked about obsessions. He and his party, and many Labour Members, are obsessed with the amount of money going into further education. Conservative Members are focused on what comes out the other end—the massive increase in the numbers who went through further education as a result of the previous Government's reforms.
  I elicited a series of parliamentary answers from the Minister in which he revealed that the numbers going through further education in the first few years of this Government had fallen by 189,000 full-time equivalents. That number is equivalent to the 500,000 people who would have gone through courses if the rate of achievement attained by the previous Government had been sustained. At the same time, as I have pointed out in other debates, the number of vacancies in the economy now totals more than 1 million. That is the highest level for more than 10 years, and represents exactly the sort of cost pressure on wages and demand for employees that could well lead to boom and bust.
  That wage-cost inflation is a direct result of the Government's failure to deliver, through the further education system, sufficient numbers of people with the right training for the jobs on offer. There is nothing in the Bill that answers that problem. On the contrary: at a time when education systems around the world are trying to become less political and include the dynamism of the private sector, this Bill represents a retrograde step. It brings back more political control over colleges and their links with local businesses.
  The TEC in my area has been singled out for praise in previous Select Committee reports for the way it works in partnership with colleges and local businesses. It is having great difficulty in persuading business people to carry on giving of their time under the new skills councils system. Many such people remain to be convinced that their voices will still be heard, and that the business approach that is so vital in this area will continue to carry the weight that it deserves.
  City academies are another example of the Government picking up a good Conservative idea. I am delighted at that, although it has taken them a long time to acknowledge the success that the previous Government achieved. The Government are rebranding the idea, and widening slightly the terms of reference of the academies, but they have given no clue as to how they will get more useful members of the private sector involved.
  The Government take the unfortunate view that the private sector is some sort of milch cow that will add extra resources to the education process. There is no
  876
  appreciation of the role that it can play in developing new ideas and the sort of stronger management that will deliver a better school system.
  The Government are too obsessed with the amount of money going into education and not obsessed enough with how those resources can lead to better results, higher standards and an increase in the number of people gaining qualifications in the excellent range of colleges inherited as part of the previous Government's golden legacy.
  1.11 am
  Mr. Ian Bruce: I had the good fortune in my first Parliament to serve on the Select Committee on Employment. It was interesting to see the transformation of view among Labour colleagues on the Committee about TECs being a good thing. When the previous Government abolished the Manpower Services Commission, which was a great employer in the Secretary of State's constituency, the TECs were at first universally condemned by the Labour party. Realising that those bodies were doing an extremely good job, however, Labour became wedded to the idea of co-operating with them, and trade unions became involved.
  The Government are obsessed with modernising—as they describe it—everything in sight, particularly when it comes to anything created by the previous Government that was successful in improving training. Therefore, the Government have to rebrand the TECs and come up with a new proposal.
  I am the first to acknowledge that when we introduced TECs, there was a lot of bureaucracy. The Treasury, in particular, wanted to re-audit the figures three or four times, whereas in a normal business, people would just get on with it. Abolishing the TECs and going through the rigmarole of removing their assets and creating a new body with new assets and employment rights means that the bureaucracy that had to be dealt with in the previous scheme must be dealt with all over again.
  Many people from other countries came to the United Kingdom to discover how we cured the British disease and reinvigorated our work force. Ministers consistently tell us how unemployment has gone down—and it has. Yet it appears from what they say that all the changes made under the previous Government that led to the creation of jobs and the training that people have had within companies, colleges and universities can be dismissed as though nothing has happened.
  The hon. Member for Harrogate and Knaresborough (Mr. Willis), who I understand earned his living as a professional in the educational establishment before coming to this place, told us what an awful job he had done. I do not agree with him—I think that he probably did a very good job. I am grateful to all those in my constituency who develop training and enterprise.
  I am particularly concerned about sixth forms. There is an interesting situation in my constituency. When the grammar school was abolished, a sixth-form college was created in the further education college. It was the only sixth-form college in the Weymouth and Portland area of my constituency. Local schools decided that it would be a good idea to have sixth forms as well, which led to the college complaining about the amount of money being given to schools for sixth forms. The college wanted equality of funding.

  877
  The Government announced that they would provide equality of funding and the college rejoiced. Indeed, I congratulated the Government—it just shows how foolish one can be. We now know what that equality of funding means. The Government looked at the cost of sixth forms in further education colleges or other sixth-form colleges and realised that they could get the same provision for the same price through schools. They then froze the amount that schools will receive. The Bill contains mechanisms to abolish sixth forms, so as they become more inadequate because the funding has been frozen, the Government can then decide to abolish them.
  When I challenged the Under-Secretary of State for Wales about unemployment, he produced the standard line that is no doubt produced by all the spin doctors and the people in Millbank tower. I shall explain why the Bill needed to do something about the failure of the new deal. The hon. Gentleman was probably looking at the figure of 115,000 two years ago for the long-term unemployed. He looks at those claimant figures now and he probably says, "Look, only 45,000 claimants." However, the new deal statistics, which are produced for us constituency by constituency across the entire country, show that in addition to the 45,000 who are classified as long-term unemployed, who are on the gateway, 65,000—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has gone a long way from the Bill. This is a Third Reading debate and he should return to that subject.
  Mr. Bruce: I am sorry to have gone on at some length, Mr. Deputy Speaker. If I could just finish the last two figures—
  Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has finished what he was saying on that matter. He should deal with Third Reading and then sit down.
  Mr. Bruce: I am grateful for your guidance, Mr. Deputy Speaker. I am sorry that I will have to give the Minister a seminar outside this place. Clearly, he has been misinformed by his own statistics.
  The Government claim that unemployment is down, and it is, but not on the long-term side. They have said that they are looking to train people and to develop new ways of training. I would not for one moment suggest that, as an economy develops, one can simply set systems in aspic, but with companies crying out for employees and having more vacancies than there are people to fill them, the Bill should have ensured that they would train their own staff. It should have done more to get employers involved in the training councils.
  The previous Labour Government had one very successful feature—they introduced the Open university, which is universally acknowledged as a way for people to take responsibility for their own training. The more we can get individuals to do that the better.
  Many of us congratulated the Government on the university for industry, which we thought would be another pillar of the Bill. In fact, the UFI has become a UFO: no one has seen it: it has disappeared.
  878
  We are looking to see what the Government intend to do. The Bill is a wasted opportunity. It is very long, but, frankly, it was a waste of the Government's time and it was certainly a waste of an opportunity to help people to get the training and skills that they deserve.
  1.18 am
  Mr. Hayes: I do not want to detain the House unduly, but I wish to return briefly to the city academies. They have been broadly welcomed—Conservative Members certainly welcome them because they build on the fine tradition of the city technology colleges and specialist schools, which are so greatly revered by hon. Members on both sides of the Chamber.
  However, the many criticisms of city technology colleges and specialist schools remain unanswered in respect of the city academies. I refer to three matters. The first is the precise status—the nature—of these new schools. I hope that when the Secretary of State sums up he will confirm that, to all intents and purposes, they will be private schools. The second matter is their relationship with other schools within their area. The great criticism of specialist schools and CTCs was the impact that they would have on neighbourhood schools. We want to know, and we have not heard it yet, what obligations city academies will have towards other local schools; what responsibilities they will have for school places and numbers; and about their possible impact on neighbourhood schools in those respects.
  Thirdly, precision is required in respect of the funders of the city academies. My hon. Friend the Member for Guildford (Mr. St. Aubyn) referred to that. However, he did not mention the transfer of assets. When that matter was discussed in Committee, there was a lack of clarity.
  I feel that we certainly need from the Secretary of State an assurance about the nature of the transfer of assets and about who those assets will ultimately belong to if they are transferred back to a private body and might become involved in a city academy. I suspect that, without that clarity—although I am sure it will be forthcoming from the Secretary of State—it will be very difficult for Members on either side of the House to vote for Third Reading.
  1.20 am
  The Secretary of State for Education and Employment (Mr. David Blunkett): All the remarks of the hon. Member for South Holland and The Deepings (Mr. Hayes) were dealt with in the first two hours of this afternoon when he was not present, and had I known that the hon. Member for South Dorset (Mr. Bruce) was going to go on at such length at this time of the morning, I would personally have carried 78 people to the polls in 1997.
  My friends know that I am totally in favour of timetabling all major Bills, and tonight's antics merely reinforce the argument that that is the most sensible thing that we could do in modernising this place for a 21st-century legislature.
  I want to thank hon. Members for being here at this time of the morning and for supporting Third Reading, and to reinforce the very generous words of the right hon. Member for Cities of London and Westminster (Mr. Brooke), who was kind enough, on the last Standing Committee on which he will serve before he retires, to pay tribute to the Ministers who served in Committee, who did a sterling job. I thank them and the Whips for what they did on that Committee.

  879
  The judge and jury of the Bill will be those who, in years to come, benefit from it.
  Question put and agreed to.
  Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed, with amendments.

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

  CRIMINAL LAW
  That the draft Criminal Justice Act 1993 (Extension of Group A Offences) Order 2000, which was laid before this House on 12th June, be approved.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

  ESTIMATES
  Motion made, and Question put forthwith, pursuant to Standing Order No. 145(2) (Liaison Committee),
  That this House agrees with the Report [22nd June] of the Liaison Committee.—[Mr. Betts.]
  Question agreed to.

PETITION

  Religious Broadcasting
  1.22 am
  Mr. Steve Webb: I am very grateful to have the opportunity to present a petition supported by more than 2,000 of my constituents which relates to the injustice whereby religious broadcasters, such as United Christian Broadcasters, are prevented from bidding for national radio broadcasting licences. Such organisations already broadcast successfully to local communities through local radio and satellite, but, for no good reason, are barred from seeking to broadcast to a wider audience. The petition has been organised by my constituent Mrs. Catherine Van Zoen, to whom I am most grateful.
  The petition states:
  That current broadcasting legislation is unfair in the way in which it discriminates against religious broadcasters and that religious organisations should be able to compete on a level playing field with secular organisations for the full range of broadcasting licences.
  Wherefore your Petitioners pray that your honourable House will urge the Department for Culture, Media and Sport to bring forward proposals to amend the legislation to remove discrimination against the ownership of broadcasting licences by religious bodies, and to require the Independent Television Commission and the Radio Authority to amend their Rules and Codes of Guidance to remove provisions which discriminate, in wording or in practice, against religious bodies.
  To lie upon the Table.

Planning Policy (Chelmsford)
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Sutcliffe.]
1.24 am
Mr. Simon Burns: A matter of great concern to my Chelmsford constituents is the amount of housebuilding that is expected to take place during the next 11 years. They fear that whole swathes of greenfield sites—possibly even greenbelt land, if the Liberal Democrats have their way—in Margaretting and Battlesbridge will be concreted over and lost for ever, thus despoiling our environment.
The cause of that concern is the requirement for 69,600 houses to be built in the county of Essex and in Southend-on-Sea between 1996 and 2011. According to figures given by the Deputy Prime Minister, the total could be even higher. My constituents and I want that number to be reduced, as it is unacceptably high.
The current system for housing allocation and the computation of housing need is deeply flawed and unsatisfactory. It is based on a top-down approach—from the Government through county councils to borough and district councils—rather than on the bottom-up approach which would be a more satisfactory and sensible way of dealing with a highly contentious issue throughout the country.
Between 1996 and 2011, Essex and Southend must provide 69,600 new homes. Under the structure plan, they have been allocated throughout the county taking several factors into account—including locally generated needs; the economic potential to support further housing and population increases; and a range of environmental and planning constraints. That will have a bad impact on the town of Chelmsford in my constituency, especially as the land available for housebuilding is, in theory, restricted because the whole of an area in the southern part of the town is green belt—as is the land in Battlesbridge to the south-east of the district council area. My hon. Friend the Member for Rayleigh (Dr. Clark) is extremely concerned about the impact of greenbelt changes on Battlesbridge in his constituency.
Chelmsford has been allocated the largest number of new dwellings in the area—11,950. That is wholly disproportionate and unfair for reasons that I shall outline.
First, building land available in Chelmsford is restricted by the fact that we have a significant amount of greenbelt land in the southern part of the town and in Battlesbridge. Secondly, we do not have the infrastructure to sustain the amount of housing that has already been imposed on us under the Essex county council structure plan.
Thirdly, I understand that 2,250 of the allocated dwellings are intended to meet the needs of people from outside the borough. Apparently that is because Chelmsford
has a strategic role to play in relieving south Essex of housing pressures because of its close proximity to this area.
I bitterly resent that. We are being made a dumping ground to meet the housing requirements of other people in the county. Indeed, I understand that one district authority has been allocated no extra housing.
Instead of trying to offload south Essex housing pressures on to Chelmsford, why not put the 2,250 houses—or some of them—in the Thames gateway?

881
As infrastructure improvements have already been carried out in that area and more are proposed, it is better suited to meet the Government's wider sustainability goals and objectives. Furthermore, the Thames gateway is nearer to that southern part of the county in which housing pressures are so great that Chelmsford is expected to bear them. I urge the Minister and the Government to ensure that the final guidance reflects the potential of the Thames gateway by ensuring that it takes higher levels of housing provision to stop Chelmsford having to shoulder the burden,
Fourthly, the Government have stated that 60 per cent. of the buildings should be on brownfield sites, and I wholeheartedly agree with those sentiments and that policy decision by the Government. However, as I pointed out to the Deputy Prime Minister on 7 March, Chelmsford does not have enough brownfield sites to take 60 per cent. of the new buildings. When account is taken of the homes built since April 1996 and the housing land available at April 1999, the number of extra dwellings needed in Chelmsford before 2011 will be about 7,700. However, most of the brownfield sites have already been used or earmarked for redevelopment.
The Deputy Prime Minister extremely helpfully recognised the problem when, in answer to my question, he said:
The 60 per cent. brownfield site that we have agreed is a national figure and will vary from area to area. In London it could be as much as 80 per cent., but areas outside London—
such as Chelmsford—
do not have that proportion of brownfield site available. That is why we have set a national figure.—[Official Report, 7 March 2000; Vol. 345, c. 880.]
That answer suggested to me that he intends to use the 60 per cent. figure as a flexible guideline.
If that is a correct assumption of how the Government will implement the policy, I urge them to intervene to implement it as quickly as possible so that we can start reallocating on a national average basis to take into account those areas that have more brownfield sites than others. If we do not take such a course of action sooner rather than later, district councils will have to plan for and implement the housing allocation numbers that they have been given. The flexibility that the Deputy Prime Minister envisaged will pass them by, because it will be too late. I urge speed in trying to put the flexible system into place.
Finally, I come to the question of what Chelmsford borough council seeks to do in allocating the 11,900 houses that it must find room for within its boundaries unless the figures are revised downwards, as I desperately hope that they will be in the not too distant future. I certainly do not envy the council or its planning department. They will have to try to find reasonable sites in which to place that housing. That will be difficult for the reasons that I have mentioned—the lack of brownfield land and the complication caused by the fact that greenbelt land lies within the council's boundaries.
I have been surprised by some of the ways in which the Liberal Democrat-controlled council have come up with recommendations. To be fair, I accept that the recommendations are for consultation and that no decisions have been made. I also accept that it would place the Minister in an invidious and impossible position
882
if I were to ask her to make any decisions on the suggestions that have been put forward. She is not able to do that. Decisions on greenbelt land may ultimately come before her and her colleagues, so she cannot compromise her position.
In May last year, the whole council came up for re-election. The Liberal Democrats, who formed the majority before the elections, fought them on a pledge to the people of Chelmsford that, if they were re-elected to power, they would increase the southern band of the green belt in Chelmsford the whole way round the limits of the town in order to seek to prevent housebuilding in our suburbs. I could quite happily have signed up to and supported that policy, which is the one that the Liberal Democrats fought the election on.
The Conservative party did significantly well by noticeably increasing its number of borough councillors and the Liberal Democrats lost overall control of the council. However, within four months of the election, they suddenly announced to the people of Chelmsford, out of the blue, that it was not possible to implement such a policy. It surprised me that they could not find that out before the election, but they did not.
It could be assumed from that that the Liberal Democrats are deeply committed to the green belt, but their consultation document that has gone out for the people of Chelmsford to respond to—it deals with where the housing should go—refers to the village of Margaretting, to the amazement of my constituents, and to the considerable anger of most of them. Margaretting, which is to the south of Chelmsford, has no transport infrastructure worth talking about except that the A12 rather noisily passes by it. It has no education infrastructure apart from a very good primary school and, with a population of about 800, it has very few houses. It is entirely within greenbelt land. However, the preferred option of the Liberal Democrats is to have 2,500 houses placed in the village.
The villagers of Margaretting are outraged, as is anyone in Chelmsford who cares for our environment. If the borough council, in the light of its consultation, is to disregard the representations that it receives and press forward with the proposal, I can assure the Minister that I will be knocking on her door with many of my constituents to try to ensure that the Government do not relax the green belt in that part of Chelmsford.
There is a problem in the north-east of the town. The proposals that have gone out for consultation contain the idea that north of the Boreham interchange there will be an additional 1,000 dwellings. In the village of Boreham, or on the outskirts, between 1,500 and 2,100 dwellings could be placed.
Boreham is a relatively small village and local community. To impose suddenly such a significant amount of housing upon it would destroy the nature and character of the village. With the possibility of 1,000 houses north of the Boreham interchange, the village—it is about three or four miles from the outskirts of Chelmsford—could become a suburb of the town, which is not acceptable.
These examples demonstrate the difficulties caused by placing a significant amount of housing in a relatively small geographical area. The county council should certainly reconsider the way in which it has carved up the county, giving Chelmsford the largest proportion of

883
additional houses when that is unwarranted, unrealistic and unsustainable. The preferred option of Margaretting in the borough council's consultation document is unacceptable. I do not accept that what it is planning for Boreham and other parts of the borough is the most sensible way of proceeding.
I would hope that, even at this stage, we could see a reduction in the number of houses that the county is expected to have built between now and the year 2011. We do not want our environment to be destroyed by the bulldozer, the brick and concrete. We want our villages to remain villages and our green belt to remain green belt. We want our open spaces and countryside to be just that, rather than a mass of urban sprawl.
1.39 am
Mr. John Whittingdale: I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on obtaining the debate on an issue that is of enormous concern both to his and my constituents in Chelmsford. I thank him for allowing me to make a brief contribution to his debate.
I do not want to repeat the arguments that he has advanced so powerfully and cogently. I merely say that I strongly endorse everything that he has said. He has spelled out some of the history of the proposal for considerable extra development in Essex, especially in Chelmsford. Suffice it for me to add that the original target contained in the Serplan—south-east regional planning committee—recommendation that Essex should take almost an extra 4,200 houses every year was regarded by many people in the county as far too high, and the new target of 5,420 new houses each year, which the county has been given as a result of the Deputy Prime Minister's actions, is impossible to achieve. I do not believe that the county infrastructure is capable of sustaining such a level of development, so I strongly urge Ministers to think again.
My hon. Friend and I are principally concerned about the extra housing that is to be built in and around Chelmsford—the borough council has been told that it is required to find space for 7,700 new properties. The three preferred locations identified in the plan lie outside my constituency, but several of the others mentioned lie in my constituency—one in Galleywood, one in Great Baddow and one just north of Sandon—and all have substantial drawbacks, as is made clear in the borough council's document. However, my real concern is less about the specific locations under discussion within the borough of Chelmsford than about the principle involved, because, whatever the location, so much extra housing will place intolerable strain on our local infrastructure.
Our area has already had a huge amount of development in recent years. As a result, schools are at capacity: two secondary schools in my constituency are full and are turning away parents who want to send their children there. Waiting lists for hospitals in north Essex are lengthening. As my hon. Friend knows only too well, north Essex has the worst waiting times in the whole country, and those times have lengthened dramatically in the past three years.
The road system is already clogged, with the A12—the main route between Chelmsford and London—often at a standstill. The water supply is under tremendous strain; although, given the rainfall of the past few weeks, it might
884
not be immediately apparent, Essex has been one of the driest counties—if not the driest county—in England, and the Essex and Suffolk water company is having considerable difficulty meeting existing demand. In addition, it is already proving difficult to find sufficient space to dispose of the waste generated in the county. None of those problems have apparently been considered by those who have made the proposal, yet all will be made far worse if the proposal goes ahead.
My message to the Minister is: think again. Such a large amount of housing will cause havoc in the county, especially in the borough of Chelmsford. I endorse my hon. Friend's remarks and urge the Minister to look at the matter afresh.
1.43 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Ms Beverley Hughes): I, too, congratulate the hon. Member for West Chelmsford (Mr. Burns) on securing this debate, in which he has expressed concern about the additional housing that Chelmsford will have to accommodate in the next few years.
For our part, the Government are keen to ensure that, in acting to meet the need for housing, the local planning authority adheres to our policies on housing provision. However, it is important to remember that the planning system is designed so that once the overall scale and distribution has been determined through regional planning guidance and the county structure plan—about which both the hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend the Member for Maldon and East Chelmsford (Mr. Whittingdale) are concerned—decisions on the precise location of development have to be taken locally. I shall speak later about the procedure governing that decision, but I am sure that both hon. Gentlemen would agree that it must be for the people of Chelmsford to make their views known and for Chelmsford borough council to take account of those views and justify its proposals through the local plan process. I shall say a little more later about the policies that must be observed. I hope that that will be helpful.
On the main point made by the hon. Member for West Chelmsford, I do not accept that a top-down process is involved in overall allocations through RPG, and there is a requirement for distribution decisions to be taken at local level.
As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, the council has embarked on a review of the current borough local plan, which expires next year. The new plan will need to include policies and proposals for accommodating the significant amount of new development required in the borough up to 2011, as he said. In preparing the new plan, the council must ensure that it conforms with the replacement structure plan which is simultaneously being prepared by the county council and Southend-on-Sea borough council.
Clearly, the replacement structure plan has major land use implications for the borough, particularly in relation to new housing and employment use. It was the subject of an examination in public last summer and, as a result of that process, Chelmsford borough's share of the overall amount of housing judged to be needed will be 11,650, which is 300 fewer than the number identified by the panel. I am informed that 9,200 of those houses are

885
required to meet locally determined need. The hon. Gentleman implicitly acknowledged that by saying that the remaining 2,450 houses were in addition to locally determined need.
Chelmsford borough council must now decide, as the hon. Gentleman acknowledged, where in the borough those 11,650 new dwellings should be located. The council must reach that decision in conjunction with local people, taking into account local views and national policy.
On the hon. Gentleman's point about the 2,450 houses, the county as a whole, and perhaps Chelmsford as well, needs key workers from outside. Therefore, the argument that Chelmsford should meet only its locally determined need cannot necessarily be sustained.
I return to the point about policy, on which I hope to be helpful. We will expect Chelmsford borough council, in deciding where the new dwellings should be built, to have regard to the policies on the location of new housing and the form of residential development that are included in the emerging replacement structure plan. Those policies must in turn reflect PPG3, about which there has recently been much discussion in the House.
A particular requirement of PPG3 is that a sequential approach be adopted to the identification of housing sites, so as to deliver brownfield land for development before greenfield sites. That means that the council must seek to maximise the use of brownfield sites, previously occupied buildings, and so on. I note the hon. Gentleman's reference to the Deputy Prime Minister's response to him, which I believe he has interpreted correctly, so it may provide some comfort.
I realise that Chelmsford probably cannot meet the target of 60 per cent. development on brownfield sites. In cases where not all development in urban areas can take place on brownfield or previously developed sites, as PPG3 requires, the Government look to local planning authorities to find the most sustainable option.
There are priorities governing the way in which the sequential approach should be applied. The most sustainable option is likely to be planned extensions or peripheral development on the edge of existing large urban areas, especially where it is possible to utilise existing physical and social infrastructure, good access to public transport, shops, jobs, leisure facilities, and so on.
That is the first priority. The policy on the sequential approach in the replacement plan also states that where new housing cannot be provided within or on the periphery of large urban areas it should be provided in the form of expanded settlements. These should be large enough to provide a range of employment, shopping, educational and other community facilities, with a capability for providing a choice of means of transport.
The plan also allows for small-scale housing to be provided in small towns and villages, in line with policy, on a scale sufficient to meet local needs. So in terms of
886
overall housing provision only a limited amount of housing can normally be expected to be accommodated in expanding villages, although the Government are concerned that there should be adequate housing provision in rural areas to meet the needs of local people, and we expect Chelmsford borough council to make sufficient land available either within or adjoining villages to enable local requirements to be met.
There is clearly set out in policy a priority order of application of the sequential approach. Indeed, the document produced by the council acknowledges that sequence of priorities on page 6, although, for reasons that it argues, its proposals do not necessarily conform to it at this stage. But the council may have a valid argument about that, and I am in no way making any judgment.
In recent months, Chelmsford borough council has been consulting residents about the land use planning issues that need to be covered in its local plan. In particular, the council has published a report containing a number of options and stating a preference. The important point to recognise is that, in taking that process forward and in going through the various stages of consultation, the council will be required to demonstrate the reasons for its preferences, and particularly how far it has been able to adopt the sequential approach, as I have outlined it and as policy in terms of the priority stages of that approach would require.
The onus is on the council to justify its proposed housing policies through the local plan process. The council has made it clear, as it is required to, that, at this stage, it is only seeking comments on the possible choices put forward, and not all the locations suggested might be developed.
The next stage is for the council to place on deposit a draft version of the new plan, which will be open to formal objection. I can assure the hon. Gentleman that, when that happens, the Secretary of State will look closely at the extent to which the proposals are in conformity with all our national planning policies, including those on housing.
After a second draft deposit stage, about four months later, outstanding objections to the plan will be considered before an independent inspector at a local public inquiry, probably late next year or early the year after. It is at the inquiry, in particular, that the merits of the council's proposals will be thoroughly examined and the sustainability of the options for locating new housing, tested against the Government's policies in PPG3, will be examined alongside the views of objectors.
I hope that I have clarified the detail of the policy for the hon. Gentleman. I am sure that he will be assisting his constituents to make their views known at the appropriate time, and I assure him that the Secretary of State will also give the matter careful consideration, if and when it comes to him.
Question put and agreed to.
Adjourned accordingly at six minutes to Two o'clock.

Preamble
[MR. MICHAEL J. MARTIN in the Chair]

RAF Chinook Crash
Motion made, and Question proposed, That the sitting be now adjourned.—[Mr. Betts.]
10 am
Mr. Martin Bell: I wish to speak on a matter of some importance, and I am somewhat dismayed to note that a Minister is not yet here to reply. I hope that a Minister will attend and listen to what is said, rather than simply reading a prepared text.
This is not a party political issue. It is a time not for recrimination, but for common sense and justice. The incident occurred on the watch of one Government and must be dealt with on that of another. That is why I, as an hon. Member without a party, have the privilege of making the case for action by the Ministry of Defence. [Interruption.] I am delighted to see that the Minister has now joined us.
On 2 June 1994, the RAF Chinook helicopter ZD576 crashed on the Mull of Kintyre, killing all 29 people on board, most of whom were Army and police intelligence officers based in Northern Ireland. Why they were travelling together in one aircraft, and thereby presenting a potential target for sabotage, is another issue. The crash was the worst peacetime accident in RAF history, and inquiries were begun immediately. The helicopter was not carrying a black box recorder, and the only evidence was in the thousands of pieces of wreckage lying on the hillside.
The Scottish fatal accident inquiry said that the cause of the crash could not be determined, and the RAF board of inquiry concluded that the most probable cause was the crew's selecting an inappropriate rate of climb for safe overflight of the mull. However, it also concluded that there were
many potential causes of the accident,
and was "unable to determine" a definite cause. Because they were dead, the two pilots, Flight Lieutenants Jonathan Tapper and Rick Cook, were not represented at the inquiry, and nor were their families. That was how the rules stood in those days.
The report was couched in terms of probabilities, rather than the certainties or near certainties that are required to sustain a verdict of gross negligence. The rules in force at that time stated that
only in cases in which there is absolutely no doubt whatsoever should deceased aircrew be found negligent.
However, two air marshals, Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day—the senior officer responsible for Chinooks—had the authority to overrule the verdict of the board of inquiry, and accused the pilots of "gross negligence" in not obeying helicopter flying rules. Sir William, who has now retired, has not changed his mind. Two weeks ago, he wrote in The Sunday Times:
we stand by every word we wrote.
Mr. Frank Cook: I am grateful to the very honourable Gentleman and commend him for
156WH
securing today's debate. However, I must apologise to him and other hon. Members—I am unable to attend the entire debate because I am chairing this morning's sitting of the Finance Bill Standing Committee, which begins at 10.30 am.
Does the hon. Gentleman agree that, in overruling the board of inquiry, the reviewing officers ignited a torch that has burnt vividly, and which has been fuelled by disinformation and the changing and progressively evasive attitude of the Ministry of Defence? That attitude has resulted in 90 signatures on an early-day motion, 60 letters to Ministers, 500 articles published in prominent newspapers and magazines in less than two years, and 100 reports on television and radio. Does the hon. Gentleman also agree, and will he impress on the Minister, that the torch of inquiry that has been fuelled by the disinformation and evasive tactics of the Ministry of Defence can be extinguished only by truth and openness?
Mr. Bell: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his intervention—he makes some sound points. Some people should be searching their consciences because, as I shall explain, this issue will not go away. It will remain until it is satisfactorily resolved.
The air marshals stood by what they wrote, but many people were disturbed by the ruling, and their doubts have increased as the years have passed. They include former and serving officers of the RAF, people with expertise in the flying characteristics of the Chinook, and, of course, the families of the two dead pilots—outstandingly well qualified young men, both cleared for special forces operations, who stood accused of killing 27 others. The verdict was close to manslaughter, or worse.
Ever since the verdict, the families, led by Michael Tapper, father of Jonathan Tapper, and John Cook, father of Rick Cook, have been campaigning to have it set aside. It dishonours their sons and is, in my view, unsafe. Concerns have been expressed by a growing number of parliamentarians and others, joined together in the newly-formed Mull of Kintyre group under the excellent chairmanship of Lord Chalfont. They include senior members of the House of Lords and of this House. I am delighted to see so many hon. Members in the Chamber today.
In the past year, 89 Members of Parliament signed an early-day motion, proposed by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, South (Mr. Hancock), calling on the Government to reopen the board of inquiry. Only last week, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State for Defence at the time of the inquiry, went to see the Secretary of State for Defence to express his concerns about the massive uncertainty surrounding the case. That was a highly unusual turn of events, and I hope that its meaning was not lost on the Secretary of State and other Defence Ministers, including the Minister who is here today.
So far, the demand for a reopening of the inquiry has been stonewalled by the Ministry, on the grounds that there is no new evidence. I hope that the Minister will not repeat that argument today, because it is unsustainable. A mass of new evidence has come to light that undermines the verdict against the pilots, including the evidence of two accidents in the United State

157WH
involving the same type of Chinook. That evidence was not available to the RAF's board of inquiry, because the accidents had not then happened.
The first accident took place in 1996. A US army Chinook crashed in Kentucky, killing all five crew members. Accident investigators ruled out technical malfunction and blamed the crew. However, a subsequent investigation revealed that a technical malfunction had been overlooked. The families successfully sued Boeing for more than $4 million. At this point, I should say that we are talking not about litigation, but about natural justice. The case showed that investigators can make mistakes.
The second case, which occurred in 1997 near Corpus Christi in Texas, was equally disturbing, although it involved a crash that, mercifully, did not happen. A Chinook was being flown by four experienced crew in clear weather. At 1,100 ft, it suddenly and inexplicably flipped upside down. What happened next is best described by one of the pilots, Pat Nield, in his own words:
The aircraft was tracked really smooth: it flew better than anything I'd ever flown out of Corpus. I was looking down at the map when I felt the nose pitch down, and I got a bit of a shudder. I looked up and saw that the airspeed had picked up…the nose pitched up and continued to yaw really strong. At this point I knew things were really bad. All of a sudden, the aircraft just snapped over, it felt like it went upside down. Maps were flying everywhere. I went ahead and got on the controls, but nothing would bite … I couldn't see inside the aircraft because everything was shaking too much. There was lots of noise, lots of vibration.
At about 250 ft above the ground, the pilots managed to wrestle back control of the aircraft and brought it safely down. Despite eyewitness accounts and months of investigation, the cause of the incident was never found. I ask hon. Members: if the crew had not regained control and had been killed in the resulting crash, who would have defended them against the charge of pilot error, or of gross negligence, in the absence of proof of a technical malfunction? What is the mindset in such cases—"blame the dead"?
In The Sunday Times last Sunday, John Nichol, a Gulf war hero and RAF navigator for 15 years, described a similar incident. A Tornado in which he was flying malfunctioned on take-off, but responded just seconds from disaster. He asked:
If I had not been so fortunate on the day my aircraft did something it shouldn't, I wonder who would be defending my reputation now.
That is the whole point. We have here a grave situation—which denies natural justice, and is of concern to all aircrew—in which pilots are presumed to be guilty unless proven innocent.
Mr. Nick Hawkins: The hon. Gentleman is discussing technical concerns about the Chinook. Does he agree that his argument is enhanced by the work that has been carried out by many aeronautical experts, including my constituent, Captain Ralph Kohn, who is a fellow of the Royal Aeronautical Society?
Mr. Bell: I am indeed aware of that. I shall discuss expert testimony later.
Mr. Tam Dalyell: During the hon. Gentleman's powerful speech, he referred to other
158WH
people's concerns. Contemporaries of the two pilots thought that they were very competent pilots, and share the concern on the grounds that, as they might put it, "There, but for the grace of God, go we."
Mr. Bell: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for that point, but I should add that, shortly before the flight, one of the two pilots expressed concern about the condition of the aircraft in question.
The incident over Corpus Christi was an extreme case of what is called a UFCM—an uncommanded flying control movement—which occurs when, in effect, an aircraft takes on a life of its own and defies all the actions of its pilots. During the past seven months, with the crash of Chinook ZD576 in mind, I have set out on a patient paperchase and tabled many written questions to the Ministry of Defence about UFCMs. On 8 December 1999, I asked the Secretary of State for Defence whether he would list the incidents of UFCMs that were reported by RAF pilots since 1994 and break them down by helicopter type. The list of such movements in Chinooks is revealing and the numbers are eloquent. There were six in 1994, five in 1995, six in 1996, five in 1997, seven in 1998 and six up to the relevant date in 1999. There is a steady pattern, which suggests something disturbing and mysterious. There have been 35 incidents in all, the cause of six of which was never found.
On 28 January 2000, I tabled a written question asking whether the air accidents investigation branch, which acted as the technical adviser to the RAF board of inquiry, had
considered and…ruled out the possibility of an uncommanded flying control movement, that left no trace as having occurred prior to the fatal crash of RAF Chinook ZD576.—[Official Report, House of Commons, 28 January 2000; Vol. 343, c. 384W.]
The Minister for the Armed Forces said that he would answer my question in a letter that he would place in the Library. That letter said:
The possibilities of pre-impact systems jam or detachment of control pallet inserts were not positively dismissible—The Board could not dismiss other possible causes of a control restriction…but the most probable flight path of the aircraft indicated that the controls were functioning at impact…and the Board of Inquiry concluded that the most probable cause of the accident was that the crew selected an inappropriate rate of climb.
I draw the attention of hon. Members and the Minister to the language that is used by the board of inquiry. It is the language of probabilities. That language is not sufficient to sustain the verdict of gross negligence to which the air marshals put their names. I do not know them personally, and I have no doubt that they are honourable men, but why they departed from the safer area of probabilities to the less defensible ground of certainty or near certainty that is required for a conviction—make no mistake about it, a verdict of gross negligence involves a conviction —remains a mystery to me and to many others; hence the campaign, the unease among the families and hon. Members, the Mull of Kintyre group and this Adjournment debate.
I have seen an internal MOD memorandum advising that the best answer to my questions, and to other questions about the verdict of gross negligence, is the fact that, prior to the crash, no messages or signals indicating that there was an emergency on the Chinook were sent. My answer to that suggestion is that, as with

159WH
the Kentucky and Corpus Christi incidents, no such messages would have been sent. The pilots would have been too busy fighting to regain control during the very few seconds that were available. It was literally a matter of life and death.
Most hon. Members, including myself, are laymen in these matters—we acknowledge that. However, the beginning of wisdom is to know how much one does not know. We pay heed to the experts, and our doubts were reinforced earlier this year in a report by three fellows of the Royal Aeronautical Society, who concluded that the verdict of pilot negligence in the case of the Mull of Kintyre crash was not sustainable in light of evidence that pointed to other problems that might have caused it. Air Marshals Sir William Wratten and Sir John Day resigned from the society, accusing it of bias and failure to publish relevant and balanced information. The case has shaken, and continues to shake, the aviation and aeronautical establishments and, I do not doubt, the Royal Air Force. The reputation of the air marshals is at stake and both men have served the state, but the pilots also served their country, with no less dedication, in the short time that fate allowed them.
I shall be brief. One of my other and, so far, unsuccessful campaigns is for shorter speeches and I want other hon. Members to have an opportunity to contribute. Before I finish, I have an interest to declare. With the hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key), whom I am delighted to see in his place, I am a patron of the Association of Air Force Wives. That admirable organisation, which operates regardless of rank, acts as a channel between the Royal Air Force and its families and helps the RAF to work better. It deals mainly with welfare matters but has a wider role in its involvement in the RAF's exercise of its duty of care. It is important not only to serving men and women, especially aircrew, but to RAF families. When bad things happen—as they do from time to time, because that is the way of the world—it ensures that matters are dealt with fairly, equitably, severely if necessary, but without prejudice. That applies especially in this case and as much to the dead as to the living—perhaps more to the dead, because they are not here to make the case for themselves. It is up to us to do that for them.
To those who argue that the Royal Air Force has better things to do with its time than to reopen an inquiry into a crash that happened six years ago, I would say that it has not, and that perhaps this case matters more than anything else. The way in which it is dealt with will tell all of us, especially serving aircrew, a great deal about the meaning of the duty of care in today's expeditionary Royal Air Force in the new millennium.
Repeated representations to the Ministry of Defence have been met with a blanket and unworthy refusal to reconsider. The argument is that the crash of ZD576 happened such a long time ago that the issue is time-expired and there is nothing more to be said about it. However, it is not time-expired and there is a great deal more to be said about it.
This is a matter of principle, honour and natural justice, which is never time-expired. It is not a commodity with a shelf life. It is the same yesterday, today and tomorrow. The board of inquiry should be reopened with a view to setting aside the verdict of gross negligence. I know that I speak for all members of the
160WH
Mull of Kintyre group in insisting that the matter does not go away, because our swords will not sleep in our hands until it is properly dealt with.
10.17 am
Mrs. Ray Michie: I am grateful for the opportunity to contribute briefly to the debate, which I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing. It concerns a matter so serious that it will return to haunt us again and again until it has been properly resolved.
I am sure that hon. Members will be aware that the appalling tragedy occurred in my constituency. On that fateful evening on 2 June 1994, a Chinook helicopter crashed into the Mull of Kintyre, killing all on board—25 passengers, Ulster's most senior intelligence personnel, and four crew. The pilots were highly experienced, having flown many hours in Chinook helicopters.
At the time, I was in close contact not only with the local emergency services but with the then Minister of State for the Armed Forces, the right hon. Jeremy Hanley, who promised a full inquiry. Not only was it necessary to try to establish the cause of the accident, but, in the immediate aftermath, the question was being asked why so many experts—the cream of Ulster intelligence—were crammed into one aircraft. We were subsequently told that that was not a departure from standard practice.
It was thought locally at the time that the helicopter might have been heading for Machrihanish RAF station because the normal flight path north to Inverness and Fort George would have been over the water following the west coast of Scotland. Why, therefore, did it not turn left as it would usually have done? My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) has also subsequently pursued the matter in the interests of justice.
It is not for me to rehearse all the technical details, but many questions remain unanswered. Was there an equipment failure? Were the pilots unable to manoeuvre the machine? Why was it flying so low? The weather does not appear to have been a crucial factor. I and my constituents remain deeply troubled that, in the absence of eye-witnesses to the crash, accident data and cockpit voice recorders, and despite the conclusions of the RAF's internal inquiry, which did not attribute blame, and the sheriff at the fatal accident inquiry in Paisley, which cleared both pilots of blame, the final verdict was, extraordinarily, that both pilots had been negligent to a gross degree. We were stunned.
The heather is now beginning to grow again on the scorched hillside where the memorial cairn stands. However, the scars on that hillside will never completely disappear, and the pain of the families and friends of the pilots will remain until this shameful and sorry affair is corrected. The verdict is a serious miscarriage of justice. The bottom line is that there is no proof positive that the pilots were negligent. So many people—experts, lay people, and my constituents who mourned deeply with the relatives—believe that the verdict, the accusation, is unsafe and should be withdrawn forthwith. I hope that the Ministry of Defence and the Minister—a considerate, thinking person—will look at the matter again. If they do withdraw the verdict, they will be highly commended and congratulated on doing so.
10.22 am
Mr. Frank Field: I shall let hon. Members into a not-too-well-guarded secret. When I spoke yesterday to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell)—1 learned from a previous intervention that he is a very honourable gentleman, and I would certainly subscribe to that—he said that he intended to speak for 17 minutes. Not only did he do that, he also took all interventions. He has said that he is running a campaign for shorter speeches, and within his 17 minutes plus interventions he has covered practically all the ground that the rest of us might wish to touch on.
I wish to make a single point. There is a fundamental difference between the position of those of us contributing to the debate and the unfortunate position in which my hon. Friend the Minister finds himself. We are disputing the Ministry's finding that there was gross negligence on the part of the pilots. To win, we need only establish doubt in one area, however small. The Government, given the position that they have adopted, to which I shall return in a moment, have to refute everything put forward. They cannot concede any of the doubts that people raise. They are, therefore, in the position in which the country found itself in the inter-war period, when poor old Stanley Baldwin said to the nation, "The bomber will get through". As my hon. Friend the Member for Tatton said, this campaign will get through: doubt will be established to a degree that the judgment must be overturned.
The Ministry of Defence put forward three technical arguments in an attempt to shore up its position. It says that, if one examines the simulation model that the manufacturer constructed for all those who wished to observe it, one can conclude that there was nothing wrong with the aircraft itself. However, the simulation model assumed that the pilots were in control, and doubt has already been cast on that. It ignores what we know from the wreckage about the position of the rudder, it ignores what we know about the intercom being switched off, when it was assumed that it was switched on, and it ignores the huge surge that occurs in these engines some of the time. When the Ministry of Defence did its own simulation, it did not do it on a Chinook model, nor did it even use a twin-motor helicopter. Therefore, there is at least a question mark over the safety of the plane.
What about the software—the FADEC system? We now know, although the inquiry did not know at the time—it found differently from the Ministry of Defence judgment—that the Ministry of Defence was suing the software suppliers. Does that not suggest that only someone very foolish or with much to hide would continue to maintain the position held by the Ministry of Defence?
What about the tactical air navigation system? There is a dispute about whether it was switched on. Whether on or off, we know that it was not much good in detecting where the crash had taken place.
The Ministry of Defence depends on those three areas of technical information in rebutting the simplest of questions: is there not enough doubt to overthrow the Ministry's decision? Those three technical areas look pretty shaky to me, a layman.
162WH
My hon. Friend the Member for Tatton referred to the problems with the Chinook reported since the crash, and to the difficulties that pilots have had in flying it. In one example the pilot thought that the aircraft had turned 180 deg. The one thing that my hon. Friend may have missed saying was that, when the pilots got that aircraft safely back to base, no one could account for that extraordinary manoeuvre. As he said, had it crashed, there would have been an all-too-easy answer to put forward in the public debate.
We come to the extraordinary role being played by Sir William Wratten in the public debate in selecting information that is good for his cause, while accusing us of doing exactly the same. That brings me back to the point that I wish to contribute to the debate. If we merely want to establish doubt, selecting information is what we are about. Only if one is in what I regard as the impossible position of saying that there is not reasonable doubt here can one not be caught in the game of selecting information to support one's case.
Of course, the Ministry is up against it with the crash, which was the worst in peacetime. My hon. Friend the Member for Argyll and Bute (Mrs. Michie) said that the plane was carrying some of the crown jewels of our security services, so one can imagine the horror back at base when what had occurred was reported, but that still does not account for the Ministry of Defence's stance.
At the moment, our campaign is focused narrowly on having an injustice rectified. However, what the Ministry must realise is that the longer the campaign goes on, the more serious the questions raised about the Ministry itself will be. We must ask whether Ministers would be able to overturn the decision, even if they wanted to, given the stance taken by senior officials in the Department. My experiences as a Minister do not rank with the seriousness of the matter, but departmental culture and the civil service hierarchy can lead such officials to take positions that thwart the wishes of Ministers.
Soon after the election, I asked the Department of Social Security to carry out a survey of fraud relating to family credit, a benefit that we were about to lose to the Treasury. In the 14 weeks towards the end of my period in Government, during which I had responsibility for dealing with fraud, I insisted that the benefit inquiry be undertaken. Not so long ago, I learned in this Chamber that, as soon as I had ceased to be Minister, papers went out to the Minister who succeeded me, and the decision was overthrown. I do not think for one moment that the Minister who succeeded me knew that the decision that he had made overthrew mine, but the Department was determined that the review should not take place, and it has not taken place.
Compared with what we are discussing today, that is an unimportant matter, but the Government should feel uneasy. We are coming to the end of the beginning of our campaign to have this decision overturned. The longer our campaign continues, the more serious it will become. It will move from a simple matter of rectifying a gross injustice to the more fundamental question of how Departments of State can operate against elected Ministers. If we do not win on the crucial point of natural justice soon, the campaign will fan out to the bigger issue. In that scenario, there will be some big losers.
10.32 am
Mr. Crispin Blunt: I support the moves made by the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) to raise this issue. I was in the Ministry of Defence, as special adviser to the Secretary of State, when the crash happened. Since the general election in 1997, I have been on the Defence Committee and have supported my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) and the right hon. and learned Member for North-East Fife (Mr. Campbell) in the efforts that they and the hon. Member for Tatton have made to have the issue reopened.
The more I have examined the issue, the clearer it has become that the judgment of the Royal Air Force's board of inquiry and of the two senior officers concerned turns on the issue of doubt. At the fatal accident inquiry, the sheriff found that he could not, on the balance of probabilities, find the pilots guilty of negligence. The criminal standard of proof—beyond reasonable doubt—was not used, so in effect that represents a criminal conviction hanging over the pilots' reputation, as the hon. Member for Tatton said. The RAF's regulations stipulate that there should be "no doubt whatsoever" if dead pilots are to be found guilty of gross negligence. The evidence simply does not stack up. The verdict cannot reasonably be sustained.
How did we get into such a position? As the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) said, we need produce only one interpretation of events that is realistic, or even possible, for that verdict to fall. A most experienced Chinook pilot, Squadron Leader Bob Burke, who has taken a prolonged interest in the matter, has described a scenario that would fit the description of the drama that may have occurred on the aircraft as it approached the Mull of Kintyre, and the reason why it did not turn to follow the sea route to Inverness, as expected. He said that seats in the Chinooks are dampened to work against the vibrations of the aircraft; if there is an on-board emergency, the dampening reinforces the bouncing motion, which makes control of the aircraft much more difficult. The hon. Member for Tatton said that the same thing had happened in an accident in the United States.
Reference was made to the Ministry of Defence briefing note, which stated that one reason for rebutting the views of those of us who have doubts about the accident was that no emergency signals were given. I understand that the IFF—identification friend or foe—setting was within one digit of the code used to signal an emergency on the aircraft; that is a small piece of evidence to rebut the Ministry of Defence position.
I want to examine the influences on Air Marshal Day and Air Marshal Wratten that led to their taking what now seems an extraordinary decision to overturn the verdict of the wing commander who conducted the board of inquiry and fly in the face of the evidence before them—in effect, to gainsay the sheriff who conducted the fatal accident inquiry. The first influence is the appalling embarrassment of the Royal Air Force being involved in an accident that killed the prime movers in internal security in Northern Ireland, which was a disaster for those operations. The second influence is the informal reputation of the special focus flight of the Royal Air Force—pilots who fly at the "full envelope" of their experience and ability. My experience is informal and entirely subjective, but their reputation
164WH
when I was in the Army was that they were the best pilots. We would get them to do more for us than other pilots flying helicopters in the services because of their unique ability.
Perhaps it was thought that a lesson had to be learnt, that the culture in the SF flight had to be curbed, and it would be done on the back of the verdict. That may have been in the back of the air marshals' mind, but it would have been an unfair lesson if the verdict had been used for that purpose.
There is also the problem that if the pilots were not responsible, the focus would be on the management of the Chinook fleet. The Royal Air Force management was taking proper command decisions about the operational employment of the Chinook fleet at the time. There was the enormous difficulty of sending aircraft to Boeing to be upgraded from Chinook 1 to Chinook 2. There were all sorts of problems involved in bringing Chinook 2 into the fleet. There was thus an operational shortage of Chinook aircraft available for service on operations in Bosnia, Northern Ireland and elsewhere. I believe that the fleet was being flown with an acceptance of risk that those responsible would not have accepted in other circumstances. The decisions taken were entirely proper operational decisions.
There has to be a balance of risk in such circumstances, and if the helicopter is not working at its optimum but is still needed on operations in Bosnia, a decision has to be taken whether to use it. In my judgment, the proper decision was taken. If a small amount of risk has been accepted and an accident happens, one is faced with a problem. It takes a brave person to turn round and say, "Well, we knew we were managing this risk, but we accepted it, knowing that there were difficulties with how the Chinook 2 fleet was being brought into operation in the Royal Air Force."
I make those few points, which are based on my experience, simply to suggest why the air marshals may have arrived at their decision. One must accept the point that Air Marshal Wratten made in another inquiry. As I understand it, he refused to accept the verdict of gross negligence by a pilot in a single-seater aircraft, because he might have had an epileptic fit before he flew his aircraft into the side of a cliff. That is the standard of proof that he requires in such judgments. However, he says in this case that he was unable to find any explanation except gross negligence. That simply does not stack up. In this case, a verdict of "no doubt whatsoever" cannot be established.
The Ministry of Defence is understandably anxious to support the RAF chain of command. Of course Ministers do not want to let down air marshals who have put themselves in an exposed position. Perhaps it is to Ministers' credit that their initial reaction is to try to find ways of supporting the chain of command and discipline within the Royal Air Force. However, the verdict of "no doubt whatsoever" is simply not sustainable in this case, and it is time to reconsider it.
10.41 am
Mr. Martin O'Neill: I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing this debate. I am sorry that I missed his remarks because I was delayed. However, I have a rough idea of what has been said, as a number of hon. Members have been pursuing

165WH
the issue for some time. When I first raised it in February 1997, in a debate on the RAF, I took the trouble of warning the relevant Minister that I planned to do so and I expected a reasonably full reply. To say that I was rather annoyed when I did not receive such a reply on the night of the debate is an understatement.
Those days are gone. Now we receive replies whenever we want them, and no end of briefings. In recent years, the Ministry of Defence has not been slow to make its case.
Mr. James Arbuthnot: This is an unusual intervention. As the Minister who gave the hon. Member for Ochil (Mr. O'Neill) that reply in 1997, I want to take this opportunity to apologise to him. I was wrong to give an inadequate reply and in the stance that I took as a Minister. A gross injustice has been committed and it must be put right.
Mr. O'Neill: I am grateful for that intervention. It takes a great deal of political courage to make such a statement, and I appreciate it. I was not making cheap capital out of the issue, although I was rather annoyed at the time. I imagine that it is not easy for people to move from government to opposition. They must reflect on decisions to which they were party that they subsequently felt were wrong. It is significant that so many former Ministers think differently on this issue now that they have left office.
I shall not cover the technical details again, because we have already had the "too fast, too low, in bad weather" debate. Those issues have been addressed. The question of "no doubt whatsoever" must be the starting point.
There was some disquiet on the part of the Tapper family about what a fatal accident inquiry involved, whether a Scottish sheriff was like an English high sheriff and so on. I first became interested in the issue because of Mr. Tapper's concerns. I was able to allay the family's fears and I think that there was a sigh of relief when the FAI result came out. When they discovered the somersault that was done in the MOD following the board of inquiry, there was not just disquiet but anger. However, perhaps we have occasionally focused unduly on the plight of the two pilots and not thought enough about the two other service personnel who lost their lives, to say nothing of the 25 other people who were lost.
This morning, it was said that the incident was the biggest peacetime accident in RAF history. I do not agree that the accident took place in peacetime. We were in the middle of a war, and some of the most valuable assets involved in that war died as a result of the accident. At the time, most of us assumed that terrorist sabotage was involved. Thankfully, no such attack was shown to have taken place. It is significant that our debate takes place the day after the ground-breaking evidence about the armaments cache of the IRA was provided to the investigation team. Yesterday's evidence justifies the belief that that war may have ended. We no longer live in circumstances that could be regarded as war.
The hon. Member for Reigate (Mr. Blunt) said that when the RAF's resources were placed under strain, judgments had to be made and equipment had to be
166WH
employed even though the RAF was not 100 per cent. certain about its safety, if the risks were calculable and the chance of fatalities was assumed to be minimal. As I understand it, those harsh judgments must be made in times of such stress. That supplies a context for some of the decisions and the reactions of some of the personnel involved.

I do not question the probity of the individuals who took the decisions, but I associate myself with the criticisms of opinions presented as facts. Such criticisms have been made repeatedly in the columns of respectable journals such as Computer Weekly, which went to great lengths to examine the software debate.
I have always been uneasy about the decision. I am not in a position to say whether those men were innocent, and I cannot say that there is no doubt whatever. However, I think that we should reopen the issue and start an independent inquiry that is acceptable to all concerned.
For a long time, some felt that we should not rake over the coals again, because an inquiry would unduly distress the families of the 25 security personnel, disquiet those of the two other service personnel, and at best reach a verdict that was merely satisfactory to the families of Mr. Cook and Mr. Tapper. Those days are past. We are now hearing from several families who want to find out once and for all why their loved ones died and whether anyone was responsible.
The Government must take a step of the character that the Opposition Chief Whip showed this morning. I support the Government, and some of my closest and oldest friends have been responsible for laying out their case. I have had passionate and occasionally distressing arguments with some Ministers, but not with my good friend the Under-Secretary. My fierce arguments about the issue with previous incumbents have given me no pleasure.
The security argument that if this incident had been shown to be the fault of the RAF, it would have been a propaganda coup for the IRA, or the forces of terrorism in Northern Ireland, no longer applies. There was also an argument that, if it had been shown to be caused by narrow procurement considerations—the availability of kit, the expenditure on defence— people could have made great political capital out of that. Those issues are no longer relevant.
We must return to the fundamental point that a great deal more evidence has emerged since the decision was handed down by the air marshals. I am sure that the Minister will attempt to discredit some, if not all, of that evidence. Time will probably prevent him from dealing with it all. However, it is fair to say that the evidence must be looked at dispassionately. Too many people in the Ministry of Defence have a vested interest in continuing to rubbish the evidence without adequate examination. Such examination can be afforded only by a full, open, credible inquiry. The form of inquiry that was held behind closed doors at the MOD is now a thing of the past. The families concerned would now have access to legal representation and there would be a proper weighing of the evidence by people other than those who take the final decision. That was not available at the time of the inquiry, and it should be available now.

167WH
I urge the Government to consider carefully the possibility of setting up an inquiry that would enjoy the confidence of the families of all concerned, of service personnel and, indeed, of the air marshals, whose credibility would be put on the line. The wealth of evidence that has emerged since the original decision demands reconsideration, and I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will look sympathetically at this issue.
10.52 am
Mr. David Rendel: I am delighted to have the opportunity to take part in this debate, and I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing it. This important subject has raised a great deal of concern among Members of Parliament as well as outside the House.
The concern relates to whether this is a case of the top brass in the armed services trying to divert blame from themselves, for their faults, on to those who, sadly, are no longer in a position to defend themselves. There are considerable worries that that might be behind the failure to reopen the inquiry.
My interest in the case first arose from a Public Accounts Committee hearing following a National Audit Office report on the way in which new military software and hardware was brought into use following its development. A large part of that hearing related to the Chinook accident. People outside this Chamber might think that they have identified the cause of this tragic accident as pilot error, but no one in this debate has suggested that the cause has yet been properly identified. I say that because I do not believe that it has been identified in any direction. I am not going to suggest that the cause has been identified as a technical malfunction. Everyone has accepted that it is at least possible that the cause was pilot error. However, the point is that there is no proof either way. A high degree of doubt still exists as to the real cause, and I want to concentrate on one significant aspect of that doubt.
The FADEC system—fully automated digital electronic control system—was introduced as a new engine control system in Chinook. The way in which that system was tested is of interest for today's debate. The system was to be tested by the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency based at Boscombe Down, which gave a contract to EDS-Scicon to look at the software. EDS-Scicon decided to use a system of testing known as static code analysis. Having tried to test the code by that method for some time, once those in the EDS-Scicon team had got through about 18 per cent. of the code they gave up. At one point they said that they were so concerned about the safety implications of their findings that they would stop testing and raise their concerns immediately with Hawker Siddeley, even though they had got only a short way through it. Later on they said that there was
an unquantifiable risk associated with the unverifiable nature of FADEC software.
They concluded that the rewriting of that software was—I use the word advisedly—"essential". When one is told that the tests on one's software have shown that its rewriting is essential, one can accept that suggestion, go through a rewrite and try to improve it; or one can do what the MOD did, which was to say that the testing method was unacceptable and use an alternative method.
168WH
Having seen that the static code analysis threw up a huge number of problems, the MOD decided instead to go in for dynamic testing of the code. It put the code through 70,000 hours of dynamic testing and, when that failed to throw up any problems, said that that proved that FADEC was a safe system for introduction. Since then, I understand that it has gone through over 100,000 hours of operational use, and the MOD is still saying that it has shown up no problems.
Those figures may sound large—testing a computer programme for several thousand hours without showing up any errors—but we have recently all become aware of a problem in the air traffic control system, which apparently showed up a fault in the software for the first time after 20 years. Those of us who have been involved in writing or analysing computer programmes know only too well that sometimes it takes a long time for a bug to show up and that sometimes circumstances occur so infrequently that a failure in the programme takes a long time to come to light. Therefore, the suggestion that the dynamic testing of this system over some 200,000 hours is sufficient to prove beyond all doubt that the system is safe in all circumstances seems a ludicrous exaggeration. The MOD should certainly take that into account in considering this sad accident.
The MOD's argument is that there has been no other FADEC-related failure and that, therefore, it must be a safe system. However, just before its meeting, the Public Accounts Committee was privileged to receive a letter from three members of the Select Committee on Defence, in which they made the following points. They say that after the Chinook Mk 2 was brought into operational service in November 1993
pilots experienced serious FADEC-related problems. Engines would cut out or suddenly run out of control. Sometimes these problems left no trace.
The members of the Defence Committee quoted from an internal MOD memo, dated 11 January 1995, in which Captain Brougham of the Procurement Executive stated that the Chinook Mk 2 suffered from
a series of problems…many of which were traced eventually back to software design and systems integration problems.
Indeed, according to the letter from the members of Committee, the board of inquiry concluded:
Nevertheless, an unforeseen technical malfunction, which would not necessarily have left any physical evidence, remained a possibility and could not be ruled out.
I do not suggest that any of that proves that FADEC was the cause of the accident. Sadly, we will probably never know whether that was so. Equally, however, we cannot say that FADEC was not the cause of the accident.
The issue is not simply a technical one concerning computer software, but one of fairness and justice. What happened is a travesty of justice, and the matter must not be left where it is. That would be grossly unfair—not only to the two pilots concerned, but, almost more importantly, to their families. The inquiry must be reopened.
11.1 am
Mr. Robert Key: We are not here today to question the honour or integrity of air marshals, nor are we discussing money or compensation. This is about natural justice, future morale in the Royal Air Force and

169WH
a particular failure of Government. I congratulate the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) on securing this important debate.
I was surprised by Air Marshal Sir William Wratten's article in The Sunday Times of 18 June. He stated:
we stand by every word we wrote in reaching the judgment we did.
He then demolished his own case by saying:
there is inevitably a degree of speculation as to the precise details of the events prior to impact.
He also said:
Why they elected to ignore the safe options open to them and pursue the one imposing the ultimate danger, we shall never know.
But that is all that we are saying. The RAF's own rules state that there must be "no doubt whatsoever"—a higher standard of proof than that required for murder.
Sir William also wrote:
The evidence taken by the board of inquiry with witnesses under oath, cannot now be replaced by hypotheses.
Yet that is precisely what he and Air Marshal Day did when they overturned the verdict of the board of inquiry and substituted their own judgment. The air marshals have never explained why they did that—not even at the countless briefings that were given to some of us, and which they clearly found so laborious.
That is one of the many reasons why the board of inquiry should be reopened. I have a great deal of sympathy for the Under-Secretary, the hon. Member for Kirkcaldy (Dr. Moonie). He has to hold the line maintained by his predecessors and others—including the previous Secretary of State, Lord Robertson, the right hon. Member for Hamilton, North and Bellshill (Dr. Reid), the hon. Members for Warley (Mr. Spellar) and for Newcastle upon Tyne, North (Mr. Henderson), Lord Gilbert and Baroness Symons. The members of the Mull of Kintyre group represent a greater continuity of interest and experience in this matter than current Ministers or most of the officials concerned. We intend to stay put for some time yet.
The Chinook crash verdict has all the hallmarks of a miscarriage of justice. Opposition Members believe that it should be overturned, or, if that is not technically and legally possible, that a new inquiry should be established. In the end, the Prime Minister will have to square up to this matter. Whatever Defence Ministers say, either an independent inquiry should be held now, or the verdict should be overturned. Otherwise, the issue will rumble on with claim and counter-claim, which will undermine RAF morale for years to come.
Like the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field), I too, as a Minister, have come up against the departmental culture and the civil servants who are the guardians of policy. Ministers come and go, but civil servants go on for ever. That is a great strength of the British system of government, but it can also be a great weakness. That weakness has been recognised by Sir Malcolm Rifkind, who was Secretary of State at the time, by my right hon. Friend the Member for North-East Hampshire (Mr. Arbuthnot) who today gave a brave speech, and by Lord Trefgarne, who was also a Minister in the MOD. I, too have an interest in this matter—the reputation of Boscombe Down, where aircraft testing and evaluation are carried out, has been impugned.
170WH
Every time more evidence is produced, the MOD says either that it is not new or that it is irrelevant. The official line is to adopt a stonewalling position, but that is untenable. Sir Malcolm Rifkind said on "Channel 4 News" on 13 October 1999 that it was an error of judgment not to tell the fatal accident inquiry about the EDS-Scicon report, the 3 June Boscombe Down memorandum, which grounded the Chinook fleet, or the Textron case. I entirely agree. As recently as 19 June, on the "Today" programme, Sir William Wratten said:
We can never know precisely what happened.
Exactly so.
There are still some 38 Chinooks flying. No one suggests that they are unsafe aircraft, but it concerns me that the majority of them are still to be fitted with cockpit voice recorders or accident data recorders, which were promised for the fleet some years ago and mentioned in the Defence Committee's report. On 18 November 1997, I asked the Minister for the Armed Forces how the programme was going. I was told:
The equipment will be fitted to the first 6 aircraft by December 1998, and embodied on the rest of the fleet by late Spring 2000.—[Official Report, 18 November 1997; Vol. 301, c. 153.]
On 19 May 1999, I asked where we had got to in this regard, and the Minister for the Armed Forces referred me to a letter from Sir Robert Walmsley, which stated:
We now plan on having the first six helicopters fitted by late November this year. The plan to fit the remainder of the Chinook fleet by the end of 2000, remains as previously advised.—[Official Report, 19 May 1999; Vol. 331, c. 345.]
On 1 February, Baroness Park of Monmouth asked in the other place how things were getting along. She was told by Baroness Symons:
Cockpit Voice and Flight Data Recorders have now been fitted to four of the RAF Chinook Mark 2/2a Fleet … This reflects the six-week period required to fit and test each aircraft.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 26 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 51W.]
Most of the RAF's Chinooks have not been fitted with that equipment. What is the latest position?
Much has been made of the Defence Committee's report on the Chinook crash on the Mull of Kintyre, which was published on 13 May 1998. It has subsequently become clear that the Committee was misled—unintentionally, I am sure—on at least five, if not six, major points. Nevertheless, events have moved on and new evidence has appeared. That is important—we should not simply let the matter run, and people should not continue to believe that what the Defence Committee was told was beyond doubt. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel) for drawing attention to the fact that members of the Defence Committee are fully aware of that.
The many technical arguments that have been used, not least in the press, are at least as important as the moral arguments. They point to doubt in this context. In the case of the Chinook that crashed, there was no flight data recorder, no cockpit voice recorder, no radar trace, no emergency call and no information from the wreckage that showed for certain how the aircraft was performing on its flight path on the approach to the mull. However, the decision was taken to blame the pilots and thereby to exonerate the equipment. From little more than two pieces of information—a waypoint changed in respect of an unknown position and a height reading, also taken in respect of an unknown position—

171WH
and in the absence of clear contradictory information, the MOD said that the aircraft was under control and travelling in a straight line directly towards the mull. Officials have made much of computer simulations, but they provided clues about the last three or four seconds only, and assumed that the aircraft was under control until that point.
The main issue is whether the pilots flew into the mull compulsorily or voluntarily, and no one can answer that on the basis of the wreckage. What is known is that the helicopter's FADEC engine control software had a history of problems, and some of the most serious design flaws were not drawn to the attention of accident investigators. In conducting its formal inquiry, the air accidents investigation branch relied on the assistance of FADEC's manufacturers, and was unaware that the Ministry of Defence was suing the manufacturers at the time of the crash for failing to show a duty of care in the design, development and testing of FADEC.
Those and many other concerns have not been addressed satisfactorily, and we are alarmed by the many incorrect statements that were made at various times.
Mr. Geoffrey Clifton-Brown: Mr. Brian Trubshaw, the Concorde experimental pilot, who is a constituent of mine, wrote to me on 12 October 1999. The letter, a copy of which I sent to the Ministry of Defence, refers to the Chinook crash in the United States in 1996. It states:
Subsequent investigation found electrical failure and the pilots were cleared of blame. Boeing settled for $4 million. The Minister—
that is the Minister for the Armed Forces—
also makes no reference to Boeing's admittance that all Chinooks flying between 1992 and 1996 were subject to power problems due to salt water seepage, ZD576 flew over a lot of salt water.
It is clear that technical doubts exist about this particular Chinook.
Mr. Key: Of course, my hon. Friend is right and I am grateful to him, because he has saved me the need to go into further technical detail. Surely we have established beyond reasonable question that doubt, at least, surrounds the matter.
Why does this issue continue to matter to serving RAF personnel and their families? If you are in any doubt, Mr. Deputy Speaker, you need only read the personal testimonies of service men in the RAF, and I shall quote from one or two. The first states:
After serving in the RAF myself for 12 years, I can't believe that the Government, MoD and RAF have ruined the reputations of a flight crew and their families in this manner. It makes me angry to think that the time I spent in the service of my country was for nothing…current service personnel and their families serving the country are apparently doing their "bit" for nothing.
Another e-mail states:
As a former Flight Lt who served at RAF Aldergrove at the time of the crash, I most certainly support your campaign to have the pilots names cleared…the techniques of half-truths employed by the MoD in this case came as no surprise.
This issue really does matter. According to one submission to the military pilots' internet site,
it may have been pilot error, it may have been something else. Until we know for sure what happened we can not blame the crew. A sad decision that reflects badly on both the Minister—
172WH
of the day—
and those who advise him.
RAF Odiham's Chinook Wokka website is very good, but if one turns to the Links page, one discovers that the official RAF Odiham site has been deleted. Why has it been deleted?
What is the way forward? In the other place, Lord Jacobs asked the Government a number of questions. He asked whether the deceased pilots could be found guilty of gross negligence if the inquiry were reopened under current rules, and if not, why not. The Minister of State, Baroness Symons, replied:
The terms under which the inquiry may be re-opened, in the event that new evidence came to light which justified that course, would need to be considered at that time.—[Official Report, House of Lords, 21 June 2000; Vol. 614, c. 29W.]
It seems that the Ministry of Defence is not closing the door on this inquiry.
There is one other clue to the way forward. William Tench, who was chief inspector of the Civil Aviation Authority in 1986, was commissioned in the late 1980s by Lord Trefgarne to review the procedures pertaining to service boards of inquiry. His report was never published, but it was critical of the process and stated:
involvement of some Station Commanders, Air Officer Commanding's Staff Officers and even the Commander-in-Chief, is an unwelcome intrusion upon what should be the complete independence of the Board of Inquiry.
The relevance to ZD576 is that both air marshals concerned were involved in the introduction of the Mk 2 into service and some believe that their independence was compromised from the start.
I hope that the Minister will now agree to publish the Tench report. It would be possible to reopen the inquiry. The Secretary of State recently wrote to my right hon. Friend the Member for North-West Hampshire (Sir G. Young) and stated:
The power to convene, or re-open a Board of Inquiry may be exercised by any two members of the Air Force Board of Defence Council—of which I am a member. The other 10 members include
Air Marshal Day and the Minister for the Armed Forces, the hon. Member for Warley.
I believe that the answer lies in Ministers' hands. There is no technical reason why they cannot reopen the inquiry and, in the interests of the dead pilots and of the future morale of Royal Air Force personnel and their families, those Ministers should now do so.
11.15 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Defence (Dr. Lewis Moonie): May I apologise to the hon. Member for Tatton (Mr. Bell) for my inadvertent discourtesy in arriving late, and for the absence abroad on departmental business of my hon. Friend the Minister for the Armed Forces, who would otherwise have responded to the debate.
I congratulate the hon. Gentleman on securing the debate and my right hon. Friend the Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Field) and others who have contributed to it. As we pass the sixth anniversary of the tragic crash on the Mull of Kintyre, the matter continues to attract attention. I pay tribute to the hon. Gentleman's sincerity and the measured and thoughtful way in which he made his points.

173WH
Much has been said and written about the accident over the years, often reflecting the unswerving determination of the fathers of the two dead pilots to clear their sons' names. None of us can feel anything but sympathy for them and their families. Equally, we remember the families of the other 27 people who died in that crash on 2 June 1994.
The hon. Member for Tatton and others raised a number of issues and I shall do my best to respond to them. I hope that he will forgive me if I say that none of them is new. Sadly, some of the reporting in the media about this accident has not reflected the profession's high standard of regard for proof and accuracy to which he subscribed with such distinction over the years. I want to take the opportunity to correct some of the inaccuracies.
The circumstances of the crash, as established by the Royal Air Force board of inquiry are as follows. On 2 June 1994, Chinook ZD576 departed from RAF Aldergrove on a flight to Fort George, Inverness. The aircraft had a crew of four and carried 25 military and civilian passengers who were to attend a conference in Inverness. It took off at 17.42 and at approximately 18.00 it crashed on the Mull of Kintyre. All on board were killed.
Before departing RAF Aldergrove, the pilots obtained an accurate weather forecast for their flight. They elected to carry out the flight under visual rather than instrument flight rules. Under visual rules, aircrew must remain clear of cloud and are required to keep the surface in sight. The weather forecast was suitable for a flight under those rules, but it warned of poor conditions affecting the Mull of Kintyre, as is often the case, and a bad weather contingency plan would have been required. The highest point of the Mull of Kintyre is 1,463 ft above sea level. Instrument flight rules stipulate that an aircraft must be least 1,000 ft above the height of the highest obstacle along the intended track if the crew is not in visual contact with the ground. Transit across the Irish sea was uneventful and conducted in clear conditions, but, as forecast, there was very low cloud and poor visibility around the mull.
A witness reported that, at a distance of about two nautical miles from the mull, or about 40 seconds from impact, the aircraft was flying at a height estimated to be between 200 and 400 ft. The witness estimated that visibility was about a mile and noted that the mull was covered in cloud and fog. Other witness statements from those who were on the mull at the time, including that of the lighthouse keeper, also refer to the fog and poor visibility.
The first waypoint or landmark that the pilots entered on the on-board navigational computer was the Mull of Kintyre lighthouse. At 0.95 nautical miles, or about 20 seconds before impact, the crew released the computer from its fix on the Mull of Kintyre and set it to indicate the bearing and distance to the next waypoint at Corran, 87 miles to the north. At that point, the pilots knew how close to the mull they were, and, given the deteriorating weather and the strict visibility requirements of visual flight rules, they should have already chosen an alternative course. As they had not
174WH
done so, they could—and, under the rules, should—have either turned away from the mull immediately or slowed down and climbed to a safe altitude.
At 15 to 18 seconds before impact, the aircraft was at a height of only 468 ft, as recorded on its tactical air navigation system. The pilots would have seen the same information on the radio altimeter, but even so, the aircraft was climbing only gently at that point. At four and a half seconds before impact, the crew performed an emergency manoeuvre and climbed about 150 ft in those final seconds. The aircraft crashed at a height of 812 ft, at a ground speed of 151 knots, or 174 mph.
The evidence given by the eyewitness about the situation 40 seconds before the crash, and the evidence that the crew reset the navigational computer about 20 seconds before the crash are telling indicators of the fact that, at the time, the pilots were not grappling with an in-flight emergency, yet they flew on, contrary to instrument and visual flight rules. The evidence is that they were already too close to the cloud-covered mass of the mull and were travelling too low and too fast. Had the aircraft been flying over the sea, as it should have been under visual flight rules, none of the relevant factors or scenarios would have had an influence strong enough to prevent such an experienced crew from maintaining safe flight.
Those are the findings of the Royal Air Force's board of inquiry, duly convened and constituted under statute for the purpose of investigating such accidents. The board of inquiry had available to it a wealth of expertise and experience in all the relevant disciplines, including helicopter and aircraft operations. In addition, there was the considerable technical expertise of the air accidents investigation branch. Other authorities, such as the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency, and the manufacturers of the aircraft—of its engines, equipment and avionics—made evidence available to the inquiry. The board's findings, together with a mass of technical and supporting information, have been made public.
Two years ago, the Defence Committee produced a helpful report on the lessons to be learnt from the Chinook crash. The Committee considered the suggestion that the crash pointed to the existence of fundamental flaws in the design of the Chinook Mk 2 and its components, but found no compelling evidence to support it. The Public Accounts Committee, whose report we await, recently inquired into the Ministry of Defence's processes for the acceptance of equipment into service and took the Chinook Mk 2 as a case study.
I shall turn to the points raised today. I shall answer them as fully as possible, and I shall write to hon. Members on any matters on which I do not have the necessary technical information. The hon. Member for Salisbury (Mr. Key) raised a point about the Tench report. The report's recommendations were not acted on when it was issued in 1987. We cannot rewrite history. The board of inquiry was conducted under the procedures that existed in 1994, which also applied to other inquiries at that time. I am aware of requests for the release of copies of the report, but hon. Members will be aware of the convention that existing Ministers cannot be made aware of advice given to previous Ministers, nor of those Ministers' views on the report. That convention may exasperate us, but it has always been applied, irrespective of the Administration.

175WH
Officials are carefully considering whether the report can be released. I appreciate that it has been outstanding for a few months and I hope that the Department will provide an answer in the near future.
Much reference was made to uncommanded flying control movements and other technical problems with the Chinook. The AAIB investigated in detail all relevant technical aspects of the crash and carried out a thorough assessment of control system components, but found no sign of pre-impact failure or malfunction. The hon. Member for Newbury (Mr. Rendel), who went into detail on the matter, missed the point. He and others suggested that in less than 20 seconds after the waypoint change that preceded impact, there was a major emergency that cleared itself and yet left no trace. As Air Chief Marshal Wratten said, negligence on the part of the pilots preceded the waypoint change; had the aircraft been flying as it should have been over the sea under visual flight rules, or at safety altitude under instrument flight rules, any temporary problem of the sort described could easily have been dealt with.
I shall write to the hon. Member for Newbury on the technical points relating to the FADEC process and the checking of the software sensor, because it is not an appropriate matter for a debate when time is limited. He may, of course, distribute copies of my letter to other members of the Committee. The suit mentioned by the hon. Member for Salisbury concerned a case of negligence by the manufacturers during a ground test of
176WH
one of the helicopters—it was not about the FADEC system itself. The IFF setting was considered by the AAIB but thought to be of no significance in the crash.
The hon. Member for Salisbury suggested that the Ministry of Defence was dismissive of information provided and did not give it proper consideration. I refute that: all arguments and theories were examined compassionately and in depth. Ministers and officials went to unprecedented lengths to explain the rationale behind the board's findings and will continue to do so whenever points are raised with us.
What I have said will seem unsatisfactory to those who believe passionately that the Ministry of Defence is wrong in this case. I came to my job after a lifetime in an occupation in which I was taught to question severely any information that I was given—I was taught always to be sceptical and to look for alternative answers. I adopted that attitude in considering the information before me recently. Somewhat reluctantly, as a natural sceptic, I concluded that the findings of Air Marshals Wratten and Day and the board of inquiry were correct, and that there was negligence on the flight prior to the vehicle entering cloud which, sadly, was responsible for the death of 29 people.
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. The Minister described this as a Committee and said that the hon. Member for Newbury could pass a letter around. This is not a Committee, it is a Chamber of the House and if the hon. Gentleman wants the information to go to all Members he should put it in the Library.

Global Warming
11.28 am
Mrs. Helen Brinton: The potentially devastating effects of world climate change through global warming are becoming increasingly clear. The world will be 3 per cent. warmer in a hundred years' time and the sea level is projected to rise by 40 cm by 2080. Sixty million people will be at risk of flooding and many will have to flee their homes permanently.
The Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution has only recently underlined the starkness of the threat and the scale of the challenge. Refrigeration is contributing significantly to the problem. Under the Montreal protocol, chlorofluorocarbons and hydrochlorofluorocarbon refrigerants were to be banned because of their potential to damage the ozone layer. Most users of refrigerants decided to switch to hydrofluorocarbons, which do not deplete ozone; however, they have a significant global warming potential or GWP. The Government estimate that, on average, HFCs have 2,274 times the GWP of carbon dioxide. If anything, the trend of recent scientific research is to rate the GWP of HFCs ever higher.
As long ago as 1995, the United Kingdom Government panel on sustainable development recommended phasing out HFCs. Kyoto included HFCs among the emissions that must be reduced to stop global warming. As "Climate Change: draft United Kingdom programme" published in March stated, the trouble is that as the mass change to HFCs projections show, there is
a strong underlying upward trend in emissions, as HFCs are used as a replacement for ozone-depleting substances.
It continued that the Government
believes that this trend is unsustainable in the longer term and that action should be taken to limit the projected growth
A recent study by Atlantic Consulting concluded that, by 2010, HFCs might represent 4 per cent. of the United Kingdom's greenhouse gas emissions. On that basis, phasing out HFCs would help us to achieve more than a third of our legally binding target reduction of 12.5 per cent. of greenhouse gases.
We will not learn to live without refrigeration unless we really have to, so what can we do? Fortunately, there are alternatives: technically, they are known as NIKs—not in kinds— most of which are represented by hydrocarbons, or HCs. HCs do not damage the ozone layer; their GWP is negligible. They are extremely efficient and effective refrigerants and, most importantly, the technology is available and they are in increasingly wide usage. There is no refrigeration application for which NIKs cannot be used. That is why they are being used in supermarkets, petrol forecourts, art galleries, banks and people's homes, and even in the McDonald's restaurant in the famous dome.
The Government have toughened their stance on HFCs. In the same publication on climate change they said:
HFCs are not a sustainable technology in the long term—the successful phase out of ozone-depleting substances is being achieved with a range of technologies and HFCs are only necessary to replace ozone-depleting substances in some applications. The Government believe that continued technological developments will mean that HFCs may eventually
178WH
be able to be replaced in these remaining applications. HFCs should be used only when other safe, technically feasible, cost effective and more environmentally acceptable alternatives do not exist. HFC emission reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol. HFC emissions will not be allowed to rise unchecked.
The balance of evidence in the HFC debate has shifted. For many years, the discussion centred almost entirely around the availability of alternatives to HFCs. The HFC producers, of course, asserted that there were none. However, after years of successful development and use, much of it in the United Kingdom, it is clear that a range of alternatives is available and that the burden of proof is on the chemical industry to prove that HFCs are necessary.
That leaves us with two challenges. Those who make and profit from HFCs will want to fight their corner. They have alleged that HFCs will prove to be an insignificant part of the global warming issue. However, the current volume of HFCs in the atmosphere is 1.6 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide equivalent, which is rising by 5 per cent. a year. That is not insignificant. They have also said that the energy efficiency of HFCs more than offsets their direct GWP. Yet an analysis of some 50 studies of the relative energy efficiency of HFC and environmentally benign HC refrigeration shows that, on average, HCs give an improvement in energy efficiency of 6 per cent. in domestic use, 15 per cent. in commercial use, 9 per cent. in air conditioning and 10 per cent. in heat pumps.
It is true that HCs are highly flammable, but so are many other substances that we use every day. The technology is well proven and safe. In Germany, which has some of the strictest attitudes and laws on health and safety, more than 95 per cent. of domestic refrigerators use HCs, and after more than 70 million operational years, not a single accident has taken place. The polluters continue to promote their pollution, but I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to stand firm, because the Government's policy is right.
However, a second challenge awaits. How do we progress from having good intentions to achieving the needed market shift? I suggest that we consider incentives to change. Will my hon. Friend confirm that supermarkets that want to reduce their climate change levy might be able to negotiate away part of their liability if they use HCs in refrigeration? Will he consider including NIK refrigerant and air-conditioning systems in the technologies covered by the enhanced capital allowance scheme and in the definition of low-carbon technologies, which will determine eligibility to receive encouragement from the £50 million energy efficiency fund?
Will the Minister study the Danish proposal to tax the consumption of refrigerants in accordance with their global warming potentials? Lord Marshall had more than one economic instrument in mind when he examined the problem, and he was highly sceptical about the ability of voluntary measures to reduce HFC leakage.
Companies investing now should not be locked into capital stock that does not meet good environmental standards. Action taken this year can prevent pollution that will otherwise cause global damage in the next 20 years of equipment life. Developing countries such as

179WH
China, India and Indonesia are moving straight from CFCs to HCs, without bothering with the now dated technology of HFCs.
I shall now speak wearing my Select Committee on Environmental Audit hat. Only some Departments and quangos are shaping up to the challenge by installing green refrigeration where possible. I do not yet see a central push covering all the Departments and the devolved Administrations. In hospitals alone, there must be enormous potential to convert refrigeration to environmentally benign systems. Is a mechanism available to co-ordinate such a scheme? That would show genuinely joined-up government, to use the common phrase.
I endorse the Government's policy. It is right to get tough on HFCs. I do not blame the manufacturers for defending their vested interests, and I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister will listen carefully to their arguments. I urge him to consider a range of incentives to produce the market shift that we need to avoid decades of unnecessary pollution.
Last, but by no means least, it is pleasing that the United Kingdom is the world leader in developing the alternative technology. Our technical advantage presents us with an opportunity to take a rewarding industrial and political lead. The sooner we move, the sooner the benefit will arrive.
11.38 am
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Mr. Chris Mullin): My hon. Friend the Member for Peterborough (Mrs. Brinton) raises an important matter. Global warming is probably the most important environmental issue facing the world. I shall begin by making a few general points about the action that the Government are taking to tackle the threat of climate change, then respond briefly to some of the points that my hon. Friend made.
Evidence mounts that climate change has begun. Globally, the past decade was the warmest recorded. In the United Kingdom, four of the five warmest years ever measured fell in the past decade. We are now continually reminded of our vulnerability to climate events. We cannot say for sure that events such as the storms that hit Europe at the end of last year or the floods that devastated Mozambique are the direct result of man-made changes, but we can expect such extreme weather events to become more frequent and more severe as temperatures rise.
Despite the milder winters that we have recently enjoyed, the United Kingdom will not escape some unwelcome effects, which could also involve huge costs. We know that we shall not be able to avoid some climate change. Greenhouse gases that have already built up in the atmosphere will make some rise in temperature and sea level inevitable. We must work together to ensure that we are best placed to adapt to the impacts that we cannot prevent.
However, all is not doom and gloom. The worst effects of climate change can be avoided if every country, Government, organisation and individual acts now to cut emissions. That will be a major challenge, but it is one to which we must all respond. At the Rio Earth summit in 1992, countries agreed voluntarily to return
180WH
their emissions to 1990 levels by 2000. The United Kingdom will be one of the few OECD countries to meet that target.
At Kyoto in 1997, developed countries agreed collectively to reduce emissions by 5.2 per cent. during the period 2008 to 2012. For the first time, targets will be legally binding and different countries have taken on different targets to reflect their national circumstances. Following our negotiations at European level, the United Kingdom agreed to a 12.5 per cent. cut. Although the Kyoto agreement was a significant step, it is only the first stage in an effort that will need to continue throughout this century and beyond. Much bigger cuts in emissions—perhaps 60 per cent. or more—will be needed globally if we are to avoid devastating climate change.
The draft climate change programme that we published on 9 March provides a new, strategic focus for action against climate change in the United Kingdom. It sets out the way in which we shall meet our Kyoto target and move towards our domestic goal of a 20 per cent. reduction in carbon dioxide emissions. It builds on the positive action that business, local government and other organisations are taking. It signals that changes will be needed in the long term. It also provides a framework that draws together existing actions and a series of new measures that will ensure that the UK's emissions continue to fall during this decade and beyond.
The draft programme covers all sectors of the economy, and we have focused on flexible, cost-effective policies that will be good for the economy and for people, as well as for the environment. The refrigeration sector, on which my hon. Friend focused, is important. We all recognise the huge social benefits that refrigeration brings. We all use and need refrigeration, but it has an impact on the environment in terms of energy usage and emissions of refrigerants. Over the years, the industry has made great efforts to improve the energy efficiency of refrigeration and air-conditioning systems, and we hope that improvements will continue to be made. However, we also face the challenge of reducing HFC emissions from refrigeration and air-conditioning equipment.
As my hon. Friend explained, HFCs are powerful greenhouse gases and, as they are increasingly being used as replacements for ozone-depleting substances such as CFCs and HCFCs, emissions are forecast to grow strongly in the near future. This trend is unsustainable in the longer term, and action must be taken to minimise emissions. That is why we announced our new position on HFCs in the draft climate change programme. I am aware of the concern expressed by industry in relation to this announcement, and I am grateful for this opportunity to explain what we are trying to achieve.
It is vital that our position on HFCs is seen as a whole, in the context of the proposed measures set out in the draft programme, which states that
HFCs are not a sustainable technology in the long term.
However, it also recognises that they are necessary to replace ozone-depleting substances in some applications, and that HFC emission reduction strategies should not undermine commitments to phase out ozone-depleting substances under the Montreal protocol. This is very

181WH
important, as the new European Commission regulation on ozone-depleting substances, which comes into force later this year, will ban CFCs and introduce tighter controls on HCFCs.
For some, it will be necessary to switch to HFCs, but we are now asking industry and users to look closely at all the alternatives and select those that are more environmentally acceptable. Safety, technical feasibility and cost-effectiveness should be taken into account before investment decisions are taken. Some businesses have already made the move. I think that my hon. Friend mentioned the example of Iceland Frozen Foods.
I want now to respond to some of my hon. Friend's suggestions for encouraging the move to alternative refrigerants. In relation to the climate change levy, she mentioned reduced liability for supermarkets using hydrocarbons. Eligibility for a discount in respect of the levy is based on the sectors covered by parts Al and A2 of the Pollution Prevention and Control Regulations. That has a clear rationale, because it covers the main energy-intensive sectors, and firms covered by those parts of the regulations must operate in an energy-efficient manner not required of other firms. The climate change levy is designed to improve energy efficiency in the business and public sectors. The Government welcome improvements that may flow from using hydrocarbon refrigerants, but they do not intend to open eligibility for a negotiated agreement to those who take action in this area.
As I am sure my hon. Friend appreciates, decisions under the enhanced capital allowance scheme are a matter for the Chancellor. However, refrigeration equipment is one of eight technologies listed in the March Budget that the Government intend to make eligible for the enhanced allowances. Decisions on which low carbon technologies will be supported
182WH
through the energy efficiency fund will be made in the light of the outcome of the forthcoming spending review, on which I am not in a position to elaborate.
As regards the tax on refrigerants, the Government share my hon. Friend's aim in tackling the issue of climate change and, as a matter of course, will keep a close eye on environmental developments and proposals in other European Union countries. I should add, however, that Lord Marshall's report focused on the business use of energy rather than on refrigerants. The Government have set out their environmental tax policy in their statement of intent on environmental taxation.
As regards the public sector's use of alternative refrigerants, Departments are encouraged to avoid HFCs wherever they can, although, as for other organisations, there may be occasions when a non-HFC solution is not feasible. My hon. Friend is right to identify hospitals as significant users of refrigerants, and I shall ask my officials to explore with their counterparts in the Department of Health the scope for further reductions in HFCs.
In the long term, however, as a result of continued technological improvement, HFCs may eventually be replaced in the applications where they are still needed. In the meantime, we shall discuss with industry the measures that can be taken to minimise emissions from these sources. We hope that that can be done by strengthening our voluntary agreements with industry.
The consultation on the draft climate change programme has now ended, and we are carefully considering the responses. We plan to publish a final programme later this year, which we hope will provide a framework that enables the United Kingdom to face the challenge of climate change and ensure that we safeguard our planet for the future.
11.49 am
Sitting suspended.

Beta Interferon
12 noo
On resuming—
Mr. Steve Webb: Provision for people with multiple sclerosis is an issue that has concerned hon. Members of all parties throughout the lifetime of this Parliament, and doubtless before that. The specific issue of beta interferon has been raised a by a number of hon. Members. It was raised last year by the hon. Member for Buckingham (Mr. Bercow), and more recently by my hon. Friend the Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow).
Today's short debate is timely, given a recent leak from the National Institute for Clinical Excellence, suggesting that NICE will recommend that provision of beta interferon for new applicants should not be funded by the national health service. That announcement was one of the few that has made me genuinely angry since becoming a Member of Parliament, because the hopes and expectations of MS sufferers had been raised by the involvement of NICE. Given the drug's effectiveness for particular groups of sufferers—which I shall discuss in a moment—the assumption was that there would be a positive outcome. I know from first-hand experience that both those who receive and those who might receive the drug were angry at the leaked announcement.
In this short debate, I want to discuss three aspects. The first is the effectiveness or otherwise of beta interferon, the second is why and whether the drug should cost so much, and the third is the process through which any Government must decide whether to pay for expensive drug treatments of this type.
On the drug's effectiveness, I shall begin by reading an excerpt from a letter that I received from a constituent. She first contacted me more than two years ago, at a time when her health authority, Avon, would not pay for beta interferon, although she would have got it had she lived in a neighbouring authority. She and I, with the Multiple Sclerosis Society and others, waged a campaign and were delighted when Avon health authority agreed at the beginning of last year to fund a limited number of courses of treatment—about 12.
My constituent was one of those who benefited. She now receives beta interferon, and it is paid for on the national health service. She said that the drug
is effective in slowing down the progression of my disease.
During 1997 I suffered several attacks and was unable to work for three months. I was faced with the prospect of having to use a wheelchair within months. Since starting with Beta Interferon in December 1997—
at which point, she was paying for private treatment—
I have had only two attacks and I am still managing to walk and work.
It is easy for those who do not suffer from this disease unthinkingly to use the phrase "a relapse", but it is clear that relapses can be devastating to MS sufferers who, as a result, cannot work or look after their children. Any drug that can reduce the number and frequency of relapses will make more than a marginal difference to those concerned. I am not saying that beta interferon is a cure, but it is clear that, for some, it can bring about a real and substantial improvement in the quality of life.
Mr. Paul Burstow: My hon. Friend is right to draw attention to the many MS
184WH
sufferers who feel that beta interferon treatment results in reduced relapses. Does he agree that the Minister needs to explain why NICE has apparently refused to take evidence from MS sufferers on the drug's impact on the quality of their lives?
Mr. Webb: My hon. Friend makes an important point. Clearly, anecdotal, individual experience does not provide the cast-iron proof that, say, a double-blind controlled trial might provide. If a body that is charged with assessing the consequences of spending money on a drug does not hear at first hand about the effects of that drug and the benefits that it can bring to real people in their real lives, it misses part of the story. It is therefore regrettable that that does not appear to have been fed into the process.
After I had secured this debate, my office received a phone call from a head teacher in Essex, who said that three members of staff in his school suffer from multiple sclerosis. Two of them receive beta interferon, and have benefited greatly from it. One had previously taken six months' sick leave. Since receiving the drug, one has taken just two days off sick and the other has taken three days. Furthermore, they are less dependent on steroids.
The head teacher pointed out that at his school the public sector pays £150 a day for supply teaching, and remarked on the cost to children in terms of disruption. His closing comment was that, as an employer, he feels that the Government need to do some joined-up thinking. One of my concerns about the process is that the cost-benefit comparison does not take a broad enough view of the potential benefits to people who receive the drug—not only to their individual lives, but to society and the economy as a whole. NICE is receiving only a partial picture.
I discussed the drug with Dr. Malcolm Campbell of Frenchay health care trust, who is one of the leading MS specialists in my area. His key point was that there is no alternative to the drug. People who can benefit from it have access to no other form of treatment to make their relapses less frequent. I accept that NICE is considering general provision for people with MS, and that there is a strong case for greater and improved provision for such people. However, it is a false dichotomy to say that some people can have a drug that prevents the disease from progressing, slows it down or makes it less awful, or other people can have proper community care—as though there is a fixed pot for MS sufferers, which can supply drugs or support, but not both. NICE is not there to make those kinds of decisions.
The consultant said that in the rest of Europe about one in eight MS sufferers typically benefit from the drug, whereas in the United Kingdom the figure is around one in 30. That leads to a fundamental question. Is the rest of Europe wrong, in that the drug is being given to people who do not need it or benefit from it, or we are wrong? During last week's Prime Minister's Questions, the Prime Minister said that only 12 per cent. of sufferers in France, Germany and Italy receive the drug. However, in this country the figure is only 3 per cent. He argued that the treatment will not benefit everyone, which is true, but it could certainly benefit more people than are currently receiving it.
There is currently no viable alternative to beta interferon. It clearly benefits people who suffer from relapses followed by periods of remission. In the long

185WH
term, the situation is less clear. The consultant told me that some people have been taking the drug for five years, and that we do not know much beyond that in terms of whether it wears off or has long-term beneficial effects. However, the potential is there, and it would be disturbing if funding were to be cut off at this stage.
I want to refer briefly to the vexed issue of the cost of the treatment. I believe that a figure of £10,000 for a year's course is frequently used. Dr. Campbell told me yesterday that £8,500 is now more accurate, because of the Government's efforts to put pressure on suppliers to bring the cost down. The Government are to be applauded for that. However, he also told me that whereas the figure is £8,500 in the United Kingdom, it is $8,500 in the United States. For some reason, the same drug is substantially cheaper in the US. I have been told that the same is true of Portugal, but I do not know whether that is so.
In all debates on expensive drugs, questions must be asked about the prices that are charged by drug companies and manufacturers, and whether the Government are doing enough to apply pressure to bring those prices down. I accept that companies need a return on their research and an incentive to do that research, but is the balance right? If they are prepared to sell the drug for $8,500 a year in the US, why should the figure in the UK be £8,500?
My final point concerns the process by which the Government, or any Government, should decide about such issues: the NICE approach, so to speak. The principle that there should be an independent body that can do what dozens of individual health authorities across the country cannot reasonably be expected to do—that is, to review the written clinical evidence, take oral evidence and spend time and money evaluating the clinical effectiveness of the drug—is right. It will help to reduce unevenness in this country, of which we are all aware.
Of what should the institute take account? I believe that it is taking account of matters that are not its legitimate concern. Hon. Members do not have the clinical expertise to judge whether the treatment works, although such evidence exists. It is widely accepted that it reduces the number of relapses by about a third.
Originally, NICE had a remit for clinical excellence and effectiveness, but its remit has been extended. In August 1999—I do not suppose that August is prime time for hon. Members to scrutinise legislation—a short statutory instrument was laid before the House stating that NICE's constitution should be amended. It stated:
after the words "promotion of clinical excellence" there should be inserted the words "and of the effective use of available resources".
In a sense, no one could object to that—rather like motherhood and apple pie, all of us approve of the effective use of available resources. The question is, who should decide what is available? The answer must be that the elected Government of the day, rather than clinicians, should do so. If NICE took such decisions, it would be second-guessing political decisions on the Government's behalf. For example, the Government could have decided to put up the standard rate of income tax by 1p, and they could have put approximately £2.5 billion into the health service, which
186WH
would have increased available resources. NICE could say, "Available resources are greater, and the health service should pay for beta interferon," but would it do so in that context? That would affect the resources that were available.
What is going on? Are not the Government abrogating their responsibilities? No one doubts that such decisions are difficult, and that prioritisation is needed, but the Government should not palm off such decisions to what is, in effect, a quango. Should not the Government accept responsibility for such decisions? They should say to the electorate, "We shall increase taxation to pay for the expensive drugs that we want in the NHS, or we shall not increase taxation, and you cannot have those expensive drugs." People elect us to take such decisions—they should not be handed to an allegedly independent third party.
Ms Oona King: Obviously, the Government have increaed resources to the NHS. On transparency, does the hon. Gentleman agree that it would be helpful if the clinical guidelines on the overall management of MS, which the Government have asked for, were made available before a decision was taken about the availability of beta interferon?
Mr. Webb: I am sure that greater openness in this whole process would be advantageous. I have no problem with making more explicit the criteria that are used to take such decisions—in a sense, that is the thrust of my argument. A body is needed to examine clinical effectiveness and excellence, and it cannot exist in a world in which there are no financial constraints. Cost-effectiveness involves saying, "If £1 is involved, that is great, but if £1 million is involved, that is silly." We need to sort out the finer details concerning political priorities and available resources.
Why was the statutory instrument produced during the summer recess, when there was limited scope for scrutiny? I accept that the instrument was subsequently debated, but why was the provision introduced as an afterthought? My concern is that the Government felt that they had let the cat out of the bag—they had set up NICE and asked it to examine effectiveness, but they were worried that it would give the wrong answers. The provision was designed to stop it from doing so—that is what it was doing with regard to beta interferon.
I hope that the Minister will assure us that clinical judgments will be made by clinicians and that political judgments will be made by politicians. Those decisions affect my constituents and those of many hon. Members. I welcome the fact that many hon. Members have attended this debate in an effort to show their solidarity with those constituents who need beta interferon. I see many nods around the Chamber. I hope that the Minister agrees that clinical effectiveness is the key and that the Government will not simply say no and abrogate their responsibilities. They should take the political decision and decide whether money should be found for a treatment that many of our constituents need and expect.
12.15 pm
The Minister of State, Department of Health (Mr. John Denham): I congratulate the hon. Member for Northavon (Mr. Webb) on securing this debate. This

187WH
is a good time for me to place on record a few comments following the controversy aroused by the unauthorised release—the leak— of the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's provisional guidance on beta interferon.
I hope that the hon. Gentleman will understand that it was a leak, and that the Government do not intend to comment on it at this stage. There are further stages to be completed in the National Institute for Clinical Excellence's approval process. We have not made public comment on any of the draft appraisals so far circulated by NICE, and we do not intend to change our position on the issue. However, it is a matter of great public interest and I recognise how this discussion must appear to those who face this disabling condition and whose hope for any relief is entirely understandable.
Multiple sclerosis, as we know, is a disabling neurological disease affecting about 85,000 people in the United Kingdom. We have great sympathy for those patients and their families. It usually strikes early in adulthood, and affects about twice as many women as men. The course of the disease is unpredictable, and it varies in progression rate and severity between patients. It has a major adverse impact on the patient's quality of life, especially during relapses, which may require hospitalisation. Disabilities that arise can include weakness, chronic fatigue, impairment of speech, vision and movement, incontinence and complete paralysis, as the hon. Gentleman and the hon. Member for Sutton and Cheam (Mr. Burstow) said. The hon. Gentleman also said that there was no cure for MS.
A variety of services exists to minimise the suffering from this distressing disease, including skilled nursing support, physiotherapy and symptomatic drug treatment to help to manage symptoms such as fatigue, spasticity, pain and depression. Acute relapses are managed, when necessary, with corticosteroids. All those provisions require close collaboration between primary and secondary care services, and the development of pathways of care that we are promoting is well suited to foster the right management of care.
There are three beta interferon products. They are licensed for the treatment of the relapsing remitting form of the disease and one of them, Betaferon, is licensed for the treatment of the secondary progressive disease. The treatments are targeted at modifying and possibly slowing the course of the disease. The beta interferons commonly cause some side effects. The cost of beta interferon treatment is about £10,000 a year per patient.
Clinical trials have shown that all three products reduce the relapse frequency in patients with the relapsing remitting disease. The drugs may also reduce the severity of relapse. Disability progression also appears to be delayed by active treatment, but the longer-term effects are not certain, in part because of the production of neutralising antibodies whose clinical significance is still uncertain. Studies of the secondary progressive disease also show reduced frequency of relapses. There are inconsistent findings in the available clinical trials about the effects on slowing the accumulation of disability in secondary progressive MS.
However, the experts have so far placed differing emphasis on the evidence from clinical trials. Some neurologists are keen to prescribe these products, at least to some patients, but others remain sceptical as to
188WH
the value of prescribing beta interferon or argue that available resources for MS care would better be used in providing alternative forms of health care support such as specialist nursing or physiotherapy.
The various policies adopted across the country for the use of this treatment confirm that clinicians disagree. There is also widespread agreement that we do not know as much as we would like about the longer-term effects of prescribing beta interferon year after year. These differences in clinical opinion were graphically illustrated only last week in interviews broadcast on the BBC news, when two consultants expressed diametrically opposite views on the clinical value of the drug.
Betaferon was the first product to receive a licence, in 1995. Differing views about the evidence from clinical trials were apparent at the time. The previous Government issued guidance in 1995 that left many of the key decisions to be taken at a local level. It recommended that prescribing should be initiated by hospital neurologists when clinically appropriate and asked health authorities to develop local arrangements with hospitals for purchasing and prescribing the treatment. Resource implications were left for local assessment.
The emphasis on local decision taking is the origin of the lottery of care often referred to as postcode prescribing. We continue to receive a steady influx of complaints across a range of issues from patients and clinicians, who cannot understand why there are wide divergences in local policies. All health authorities currently have policies in place by which some patients can receive beta interferon, but some are more restrictive. The percentage receiving beta interferon varies from about 0 per cent. to about 7 per cent. That amount of variation has given rise to great concern.
Mr. Barry Gardiner: Does my hon. Friend accept that the beta interferon decision will be critical to the future of NICE? If NICE loses public confidence over this issue, that will undermine its important work in providing medical solutions that are clinically rather than politically or financially led.
Mr. Denham: My hon. Friend will understand that one reason why I believe it is inappropriate for me to comment in this debate on what is currently a draft proposal is that the integrity of the NICE decision-making process must be seen to be intact and not subject to guidance, expressions of opinion or anticipation of outcomes from Ministers. The credibility of NICE is indeed important.
On this issue, as on a number of others, the Government believed that leaving decisions to local health authorities without any guidance or support was an evasion of the Department's responsibility at central level. That is the background to the development of NICE and the referral of beta interferon to it.
We have acknowledged on a number of occasions that priority setting is a necessary part of any health care system. It has always been done in the national health service and will continue to be. It is right and proper that priorities are set that make the best use of the NHS's available resources. We do not deny that difficult issues can arise that generate controversy, as when we are

189WH
dealing with a devastating condition such as multiple sclerosis. That has been made worse in the past when the significance of the evidence has been uncertain.
That is the situation in which we found ourselves. It was an unfair situation and we were determined to tackle it. The National Institute for Clinical Excellence was set up to ensure that the NHS's resources could be used to maximum effect and to remove inconsistent and unacceptable variations in care.
Mr. David Watts: Does my hon. Friend agree that it would be ironic if NICE were to replace a system based on postcodes with a system based on whether one developed an illness or medical condition before a certain date?
Mr. Denham: Let me deal with a number of issues that have been raised about affordability and with the comments about the patients receiving the drugs.
The institute's extensive programme of work will set clear standards to ensure that the NHS can focus on treatments that are clinically and cost-effective. It is right to have a single source of authoritative guidance and information to assist health professionals in making complex decisions about patient care. NICE has begun its work. Its guidance to date relates to a number of topics such as wisdom teeth, Relenza, on which the guidance has been restrictive, and ways of promoting the wider use of drugs and technologies such as taxanes and stents, for example.
The hon. Member for Northavon asked about affordability and the changes made to NICE's directions last summer. We have been over this ground before. We made it clear on many occasions well before last summer that NICE would advise on clinical and cost-effectiveness and would issue guidance to the NHS. As we have always said, it is right and proper that NICE should consider clinical and cost-effectiveness side by side.
The hon. Gentleman also said that Ministers should decide the level of resources that are available to the NHS. We have already done so. We recently announced the largest ever injection of resources into the NHS, amounting to an average growth of 6.1 per cent. over four years.
The Government have always said that NICE guidance would take account of cost-effectiveness. The amendment order that we laid in August was a clarification, because we recognised that the original wording of the establishment order did not fully reflect our policy intention to take cost-effectiveness, as well as clinical effectiveness, into account. The amendment simply ensured that the order reflected the policy position that the Government had previously taken.
Mr. Webb: The Minister gave the example of wisdom teeth, on which NICE had made a recommendation. Is there not a difference between that and beta interferon? The argument is that taking wisdom teeth out does not work, not that we cannot afford to do so. That does not appear to be the argument on beta interferon. Is there not a danger that NICE is taking a decision that should be taken by Ministers?
Mr. Denham: Of course I recognise the difference in magnitude between the issues of multiple sclerosis and
190WH
wisdom teeth. The hon. Gentleman will understand that. We established NICE to advise the service on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of a range of treatments and procedures. We asked NICE to review all the evidence on the clinical and cost-effectiveness of beta interferon for MS and to make recommendations on its use, based on that evidence. Those conclusions were issued in confidence on 16 June. The process is still running, and it would be premature to comment further.
However, following the leak last week of the draft appraisal conclusions, the institute's chairman, Professor Sir Michael Rawlins, said:
In order to avoid any further uncertainty in the minds of patients and those who care for them, I have no option other than to confirm that the provisional opinion of the Institute's Appraisal Committee is that other than for those patients who are already receiving these medicines, they should not be made available at the present time. This is because, on the basis of a very careful consideration of the evidence, their modest clinical benefit appears to be outweighed by their very high cost.
Mr. Burstow: Given what the Minister has just said, does he not find it surprising that NICE did not seek evidence directly from MS sufferers in making that determination?
Mr. Denham: The exact way in which NICE seeks information is its responsibility. However, I know that NICE consulted patients' organisations directly as part of the appraisal process. Given that the Multiple Sclerosis Society in particular is a highly respected organisation, I am sure that it will have made adequate representation—although I have not seen it—about the impact on patients. It is also worth noting that from the outset NICE has been structured, through its partners council and in other ways, to ensure that patients' interests are taken fully into account in the way in which it takes decisions.
The final judgment will be taken by NICE. The current period of consultation ends on 17 July, and NICE will listen carefully to all the comments that it receives from those consulted. The procedures then allow for an appeal. It is only after those procedures have been exhausted that NICE will reach final conclusions.
A number of other issues have been raised, but I am not sure whether I can deal with all of them adequately. The hon. Member for Northavon asked about NICE's role in considering wider costs and benefits to society in making its appraisals. Again, I cannot comment specifically on the draft appraisal that is the subject of this debate. However, we have made it clear that companies are free to submit any relevant evidence to NICE that they want taken into consideration. NICE's task is to consider the evidence of clinical and other health-related benefits of an intervention and to judge whether a particular treatment can be recommended as a clinical and cost-effective use of national health service and personal social services resources. That is our position, which we have set out before.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bethnal Green and Bow (Ms King) referred to our request to NICE to produce clinical guidelines. Our research and development division has undertaken some preliminary work on the guidelines which will shorten the period—
Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. John McWilliam): Order. Time is up.

Social Exclusion
12.30 pm
Mr. Michael Clapham: I am grateful that this subject was chosen for debate. It will highlight Labour's policy on exclusion as it applies to Barnsley, and to my constituency in particular, and allow me to bring to the Government's attention the progress that has been made by the Communities that Care project, funded by the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, which operates in the Worsborough electoral ward in my constituency. It will allow us to consider the scope of future developments as well as the important issue of funding that important project.
I shall provide some background information against which the economic and social dislocation of the area can be understood. In the mid-1970s, the area was prosperous. The fortunes of the local economy were linked to the energy economy, which was defined at that time in relation to two sources—coal and nuclear energy—based on the security of supply and sustainability. That provided stability for the local economy. However, after the Coal Industry Act 1980, the bitter wind of competition from imports began to be felt. In its wake came the 1984–85 miners strike and the rest is history.
Inevitably, the Barnsley economy was hit hard over the next decade by colliery closures that followed in the wake of the strike. More than 20,000 jobs were lost in mining and the multiplier effect made the blow much wider and much worse. The social structure came under great strain. Unemployment, poverty, low esteem, low educational achievement, substance abuse, family break-up and a general loss of community followed. That was made worse in a borough with the highest rate of disability in the country.
The local economy went into a severe depression and there was little help from the Tory Administration. Statistics collected by the local authority in the mid-1990s graphically show how depressed the locality had become. The average household income per year on the council estates was between £5,000 and £6,000. The average across the borough was £11,000, which compares with an average in Yorkshire and Humberside at the time of £ 18,300. Almost 30 per cent. of households contained a disabled person, 12 per cent. of the population were carers and the locality had, and still has, one of the highest mortality rates in England. I draw attention to that because I want to make a point about the health action zone.
It was estimated that the area needed to create 19,000 jobs over three years from the mid-1990s just to reach the average national level of employment. Not surprisingly, a great deal of the work that the local authority undertook was directed towards creating conditions to attract new companies to the area to bring jobs. There has been some success: brownfield sites have been cleared and new roads have been built to provide access to the sites and to a route that will link them directly to the M1. However, too few companies, particularly high-growth and high-value companies, are being attracted to the area. I understand that the local authority recently undertook a survey that shows that Barnsley has a deficit of 2,500 companies compared with similar areas.
192WH
Although the new deal is admirable, it is less effective in Barnsley than in an area with a solid industrial base. Consequently, far more people in the area are without jobs. Even unemployment figures hide the real extent of the problem. For example, Sheffield Hallam university carried out a study when the survey to which I have referred was undertaken. The university calculated that the real unemployment level in Barnsley was 24.6 per cent., whereas the official rate was 8.4 per cent.
It is now three years since the Labour Government were elected. The policies that they have pursued have brought improvements, but there is still a long way to go. The minimum wage, the working families tax credit and the increase in child benefit have all contributed to raising the income of the most needy households in the Barnsley borough. Figures from the Budget show that 2,875 households will benefit from the working families tax credit. Of the 15,366 pensioners who will benefit from the increased winter fuel allowance, 6,147 will enjoy a free television licence from this autumn. In addition, 11,200 people will receive the increased child benefit. Labour's approach to tackling inequalities is beginning to produce improvements in Barnsley.
Historically, low educational attainment was associated with the heavy industrial base of the local economy. Now, it is recognised that low attainment levels impact adversely on work force skills. The local authority has responded by setting an ambitious target of reaching the national average level of attainment within the next five years. The Government have assisted in that by establishing an education action zone. I visited the education action zone with other hon. Members to see the work being done. It was commendable.
Barnsley people suffer from poor health. It is estimated that the illness rate is 43 per cent. higher than the national average and that the death rate from heart disease is 25 per cent. higher than the average. For that reason, the borough was included in the South Yorkshire Coalfield health action zone. It is therefore disappointing that that zone's budget was cut by 24 per cent. with immediate effect from 21 June. That is a reduction of £789,000 on the programme budget of £3.037 million. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will raise that matter with Ministers at the Department of Health and urge them to reconsider.
Since the civic hall was mothballed two years ago, the town has lacked a sizeable theatre. That deprives local children of access to live theatre and excludes them from a cultural experience that most children take for granted. Last year, the Arts Council of England turned down the authority's bid for funding to renovate the theatre. That was disappointing. A new bid is to be made and I urge the Arts Council to address the problem of cultural deprivation in Barnsley and ensure that it has facilities for children to come into contact with live performances.
I recognise that closing the gap and reducing inequality in Barnsley will take time, but the figures that I gave show that a step has been taken in the right direction. Bringing about a cultural change and reversing the trend of the past decade will take longer and the Communities that Care project in Worsborough in my constituency, which is funded by the Joseph

193WH
Rowntree Foundation, is important. It also provides an opportunity to roll out the benefits of the project throughout the borough.
I shall outline the way in which the Communities that Care project works. It is one of three similar projects in the country and was the first to kick off. It is a long-term programme and the intention is to deal with the pressures and stresses that young people face in their communities. The project takes a new approach and an important factor is that it is owned by the community. At the core of the programme is the objective of building safer neighbourhoods where young people are valued, respected and encouraged to reach their potential. It is evidence based and founded on a partnership between young people in the community, the community itself, and the statutory and voluntary agencies. It encourages social commitment and achievement and takes a step-by-step approach to map out the risk and protective factors that influence young people in their community. The risk assessment group was assisted in its research by Oxford university. Sheffield university is also involved in evaluating the project.
A survey was carried out among 1,600 pupils at the two secondary schools. They were asked a series of questions about their attitudes, views, families and neighbourhood. Sixteen risk factors were analysed from the returns to give a picture of the risk and protective factors that were influencing the behaviour of young people in the Worsborough community. Following the prioritisation, five factors were identified as high-risk factors in the community: poor parental supervision and discipline; low achievement in school; disadvantaged neighbourhood; individuals, friends and peers condoning problem behaviour; and parents condoning such behaviour.
When the risk audit had been completed, the next step was to prepare a final strategy in the light of the evidence that had been collected from the survey based on an action plan. The purpose of the action plan is to increase the level of protective factors with the redirection of existing services to tackle risk and the introduction of a new focused intervention. It must be emphasised that the Communities that Care project is not trying to reinvent the wheel and I need to get it over to my hon. Friend the Minister that redirection of services and the focusing of intervention are planned in accordance with a menu. It is accepted that services are already being provided in that community—housing, education, social services and so on—but in the context of the Communities that Care project, the intervention is refocused to provide greater effect.
The project is working well. It started in 1998 and was funded for three years. The funding from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation will come to an end at the end of May 2001. Hearing what I have said, my hon. Friend the Minister may say, "What's new? We've been targeting communities in the UK for a number of years." I would not disagree with him, but what is new in this project is the way in which we can identify overlapping risks and protective factors. We need the community and the programme to proceed in an holistic way.
After three years' funding by the foundation, it is crucial to complete the project. All the research and analysis work has been done. Long-term
194WH
implementation is now needed, and it must be assured. Various types of funding are available and can be applied for—for example, single regeneration budget and European funding—but the project's future must be more secure. I am aware that the Government's crime reduction strategy includes a £540 million fund for the Sure Start project.
Sure Start is aimed at families and children. It has been approved in Barnsley, but is not under way. Now that it has been approved, that gives us an opportunity to move forward. I ask my hon. Friend the Minister to consider ownership of the Communities that Care project after May 2001 and perhaps the extension of funding from the Sure Start project, so that we can ensure implementation and co-ordination of the Communities that Care project. I see no reason why we should not be able to extend the Sure Start scheme.
12.47 pm
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Social Security (Mr. Hugh Bayley): I congratulate my hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, West and Penistone (Mr. Clapham) on raising this subject. He is a persistent and persuasive advocate for his constituency, for Barnsley as a borough and for the coalfield communities as a whole. The way in which he keeps drawing the attention of the House to the needs of a community pushed flat on its back by Tory economic policies in the 1980s and 1990s is a credit to him and in the best traditions of Labour party representation in the House.
In passing, I pay tribute to the remarkable Rowntree family. Not only did they start the business that is now the biggest employer in my constituency—the Rowntree, now Nestle, chocolate factory—but, when Joseph Rowntree, the founder of the dynasty, came to retire, instead of keeping private control of his huge shareholdings in the business, which had grown so remarkably, he put them into trust. He set up three great trusts which, between them, are the biggest independent private funders of social research, and social development programmes, such as the Communities that Care projects, the first of which is running in Barnsley. That was his major legacy to social policy. His son, Seebohm Rowntree, did the three poverty studies in 1901, 1936 and 1952 in York, as a fairly typical town. From those studies developed so much of Labour social policy, especially of the post-war Attlee Government that created the welfare state. They were two great social reformers.
I was interested to learn about the Communities that Care approach, which I like. It is right to build multi-agency networks to tackle the causes of deprivation and to concentrate on young people. The point at which escape from a life of poverty is most possible is when people leave home. That is when they either move into work and escape from poverty, or fail to do so and become trapped in a lifetime of benefits. That fact is recognised strongly in "Opportunity for All"—the Government's strategy to combat and defeat poverty. Everyone in every part of the country should have the opportunity to get on and prosper.
The Communities that Care strategy identifies what it calls the risk factors—such as school failure, teenage pregnancy, sexually transmitted disease, drugs and

195WH
crime—that undermine opportunity for all and the ability of individuals to surmount obstacles and make their way in life. It stresses the importance of skills, social inclusion and the protective factors that enable real opportunity for all. It also stresses the importance of listening to and taking account of young people's views, recognising and praising what they do, and allowing them to get involved in their neighbourhoods.
A similar approach was taken in the rejuvenation of the Bell Farm estate, which is one of the most seriously disadvantaged estates in my constituency. The project had some support from the Joseph Rowntree Foundation, but the key was to knit together the agencies and give a voice to local people, enabling them to shape changes to the streetscape and decide on changes to individual tenants' homes. That approach has worked well. At the beginning of the project, only 4 per cent. of people who lived on the estate thought that it experienced less crime than other parts of York. In other words, almost everyone thought that the estate was a crime hot-spot. At the end of the project, 53 per cent.—a majority—thought that there was less crime on the estate than elsewhere.
The foundation has moved on from the Communities that Care approach, but it follows the same precedent by giving people in disadvantaged communities the opportunity to express themselves and their solutions. That approach dovetails well with the Government's strategy on poverty. In February 1999, the Prime Minister set the Government the ambitious and challenging goal of seeking to eliminate child poverty within a generation. Until the Government published "Opportunity for All", which outlines the strategy for eliminating poverty, people were sceptical about whether that goal could be achieved. If it is challenging for the country as a whole, it is particularly challenging for communities such as that represented by my hon. Friend, but there is a determination in all parts of the country to achieve it.
My hon. Friend described the damage and devastation that the Conservatives' economic policies inflicted on Barnsley in the 1980s and 1990s. He described the consequences for the health of the population of Barnsley in particular, and gave many indicators. This morning, I discovered that 8.6 children per 1,000 live births die in Barnsley. That is the fourth highest infant mortality rate in the country, and compares with 5.6 per 1,000 in England as a whole. It reflects the burden of deprivation that a neighbourhood can face. That is why the health action zone—
Mr. Clapham: I assume that my hon. Friend recognises the importance of trying to get the South Yorkshire Coalfield health action zone moneys back on track.
Mr. Bayley: That is why I mentioned that. I clearly heard what my hon. Friend said, and I will ensure that his views are conveyed to the Department of Health. The health action zone was established to address such problems.
The basis for achieving the Government's strategy to reduce poverty is the provision of the right macro-economic framework. When the Labour party came to power three years ago, we inherited a legacy of boom
196WH
and bust from our predecessors. In just three years, we have made a major change to the nature of the economy. There is more stability. Throughout the country, 1 million more people are at work than in May 1997, and unemployment is falling. That is true even in places facing the highest burden of unemployment, such as Barnsley. In May 1997, the Barnsley travel-to-work area had an 8 per cent. unemployment rate, which has now fallen to 5.8 per cent. That is significantly lower than it was at its peak in the mid-1980s. In 1984, it stood at 14.5 per cent.
Mr. Clapham: I should emphasise that there is a great deal of hidden unemployment. The survey that was carried out in the schools at Worsborough showed that 50 per cent. of the households from which the children of Worsborough came had a head of the household who was not economically active.
Mr. Bayley: My hon. Friend stresses the nature of the problem.
It is not only a matter of Government policies taking a broad brush approach to unemployment and creating 1 million jobs, but of providing jobs at local level and targeting help where it is needed. That is one of the achievements of the new deal. In Barnsley, 1,251 young people are now in work as a result of the new deal, and 1,158 are in sustained employment. The new deal has worked. It has made the difference between long-term unemployment and employment. Long-term unemployment among young people in Barnsley is now down to 251. Those 251 people are the hard core of those who are most at risk of a lifetime on benefits, and therefore a lifetime of social exclusion. That is what my hon. Friend has highlighted today.
A wide range of initiatives is making a difference, as my hon. Friend knows, because he has argued for them and secured them for his community. The local education authority has secured rapid improvement in the education indicators since 1997, when the Government came to power. The learning gateway is providing opportunities for 400 young people. My hon. Friend also referred to the single regeneration budget, the education action zone and the confirmation of objective 1 status for South Yorkshire.
I stress that the Government's strategy to combat poverty lays a strong emphasis on work, because for most people of working age that is the best route out of poverty. Benefit expenditure tackles the immediate needs of those who cannot work, such as children, sick and disabled people and pensioners, and the Government have done a lot for those groups. Child benefit, having been frozen for years by the Conservatives, has increased by 26 per cent. in real terms to £15 per week for the first child and £10 per week for subsequent children. As my hon. Friend said, 11,200 families in Barnsley benefit from that.
The working families tax credit and the minimum wage will, in October this year, guarantee a minimum weekly income of £208 for a family with one child and one person at work. Couples on income support with two children aged under 11 will, by next year, be £1,500 a year better off. Those measures, taken together, have lifted 1.2 million children out of poverty. The Conservatives trebled the number of children in poverty, and we are taking action to reduce their number.

197WH
We are providing more money, in real terms, for disability benefits, and £6.5 billion more for pensioners. We have started by helping the poorest pensioners. In Barnsley, 8,200 such pensioners gain the minimum income guarantee. They had a pension of £62.45 when
198WH
we came to power; now it is £78.45. That is £16 more per week for the poorest pensioners in Barnsley as a result of Labour policies. Now we are targeting those whose incomes or savings put them just above the minimum income level, and they will get more too.
It being One o'clock, the motion for the Adjournment of the sitting lapsed, without Question put.

DEFENCE

  Missile Defence System
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) what criteria the Government will employ in making a decision on the deployment of a national missile defence system; [126947]

  (2) if the results of his Department's Technology, Readiness and Risk Assessment programme will be available before a decision is taken on whether to allow UK facilities to be used in a US national missile defence system; [126949]

  (3) on what basis a decision will be made on whether to allow the USA to upgrade the facilities at Fylingdales for a national missile defence system; [126948]

  (4) what recent discussions there have been between the UK and the USA regarding options for locating anti-ballistic missile sites in the UK; [126942]

  (5) what assessment he has (a) made recently and (b) plans to make of the impact of a national missile defence system on the security of the UK. [126946]

  Mr. Hoon
  We have discussed, and continue to discuss, a range of aspects of possible proposals for a US National Missile Defence system with the United States. The US has not asked for UK assistance in the deployment of the proposed system, nor would we expect them to do so until after a US decision on whether to proceed with its deployment. In discussions with the US Administration we have made it clear that the UK would consider any such request carefully, taking into account a wide range of factors, including the implications for UK defence.

  The MOD's Technology Readiness and Risk Assessment Programme is due to be completed next summer. I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave to the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 12 June 2000, Official Report, column 451W.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if NATO has(a) carried out and (b) is undertaking research into ballistic missile defences. [126938]

  Mr. Hoon
  We are not aware of any research carried out or being undertaken by NATO into ballistic missile defences. The Ministry of Defence has, however, contributed to NATO studies on the subject, including preparations for studies into the feasibility of theatre ballistic missile defence. We expect these studies to start next year.

  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what discussions have taken place between the UK and the USA on sea-based ballistic missile defences. [126945]
  434W
  Mr. Hoon
  The UK is not directly involved in the US sea-based Theatre Missile Defence programme but limited information exchange and collaborative research has been undertaken.

  Porton Down
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what assessment the Chemical Defence Establishment at Porton Down has made of the toxicity to humans of(a) the nerve agent GF and (b) sarin GB. [127132]

  Dr. Moonie
  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 June 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about nerve agents and their toxicity to humans since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  GB (sarin) and GF (cyclosarin) are organophosphorus nerve agents developed during World War II in Germany. Both agents are highly toxic chemicals. GB is a highly volatile liquid and is a particular hazard following inhalation, GF is some 30–35 times less volatile and presents a particular hazard from absorption through skin. In hot climates, however, GF may also present a significant hazard from inhalation.
  Both GB and GF are potent inhibitors of the enzyme acetylcholinesterase, which is responsible for the control of the important chemical messenger acetylcholine within the nervous system. When humans are poisoned, the signs and symptoms of acute poisoning progress from a general feeling of malaise, pinpoint pupils (miosis), excessive sweating, salivation, runny nose and breathing difficulties, through nausea, vomiting and muscle tremor, to loss of consciousness, convulsions and death from respiratory failure. The severity of these signs and their rate of progress depends upon the dose and route of exposure to the nerve agents. In general, those agents absorbed through the skin, such as GF, will exhibit a delayed onset of poisoning and those which are inhaled, such as GB, will exhibit a very rapid onset (within 1–2 min) of signs and symptoms of poisoning.
  A knowledge of the toxicity of these nerve agents has been built up over the years since the Second World War. Assessments have been prompted by intelligence reports of the chemical arsenals of potential aggressors, for example Iraq. They have been based upon studies in animals and to a limited extent in humans conducted within the UK and the Allied Nations. A number of these studies were carried out at Porton Down between 1948 and 1989. The last trial looked at the effects on the eye of low levels of GB. The trial was conducted to assess the effects from "the maximum dosage of nerve agent vapour to the eyes acceptable for aircrew" under NATO prescribed conditions. Scientists at Porton Down have also undertaken three paper exercises to examine the possible long-term effects of nerve agent exposure using the service medical records of volunteers previously exposed to GB. None of the three studies showed any significant difference between the patterns of days lost through illness, the number of specialist appointments or the number of hospital admissions between the control and exposed groups.
  Medical countermeasures to both GB and GF have been developed at CBD Porton Down and the combination of pre-treatment with Nerve Agent Pre-Treatment Set (NAPS) tablets and use of the ComboPen injector, which contains atropine, an oxime (P2S) and an anticonvulsant (Avizafone), provide effective antidotes against poisoning by these agents.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what information the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment (Porton Down) has compiled since 1970 on individuals who took part in the service volunteer programme; and for what reasons. [127133]
  435W
  Dr. Moonie
  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 June 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question enquiring about the type of information available on individuals who have participated in the Porton Down service volunteer programme since 1970. I am replying since the laboratories at Porton Down are part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  Records of volunteers who took part in studies between 1970 to the present day are held in a series of notebooks. These books contain, as a minimum, a volunteer's name, service number, date of attendance and the brief title of the study in which they participated. The general trend is that the more recent the study, the more comprehensive and detailed the information available. In the past, unless the studies involved exposure to chemical warfare agents such as mustard or nerve agents, in which case, additional information regarding the nature of this exposure might be recorded in specific laboratory notebooks, often the only surviving information on a volunteer's attendance is a simple entry in a summary book. In recent years, our records have become much more comprehensive and include written pre and post study medical examination notes.
  The records of the service volunteers are part of the corporate record. This archive is a valuable source of information on which we are able to draw when answering questions from former volunteers, their relatives, general practitioners and the War Pensions Agency about individuals' participation in the volunteers programme.
  I hope the above explains the situation.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence on what dates the Health and Safety Executive has inspected the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down since 1 January 1996. [127134]

  Dr. Moonie
  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. Matthew Taylor, dated 27 June 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about Health and Safety Executive inspections at the Chemical and Biological Defence Establishment at Porton Down, since the establishment is part of the Defence Evaluation and Research Agency (DERA).
  The Health and Safety Executive (HSE) has conducted two formal inspections since 1 January 1996; an inspection was conducted during February 1996 and a further inspection of the areas of the site involved with the handling of explosives was conducted on 31 May 2000. HSE has also visited the site on several occasions between 1996 and 2000 in order to discuss specific issues.
  The HSE is expected to conduct a further formal inspection of the site within the next few months.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  DERA
  Mr. Key
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence how many graduate job applications were made and how many jobs were available at DERA in(a) 1997, (b) 1998 and (c) 1999; and how many he expects for 2000. [127605]

  Dr. Moonie
  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.
  436W
  Letter from John Chisholm to Mr. Robert Key, dated 27 June 2000:
  I am replying to your parliamentary question about graduate recruitment within DERA since such matters relate to the operation of the Agency.
  DERA runs a corporate graduate recruitment programme for newly or recently qualified graduates. The figures below apply to this mainly "new" graduate intake.

  Year

  Number of applications received

  Number of vacancies

  Appointed

  1997–98

  3,533

  Up to 300

  242

  1998–99

  4,245

  Up to 300

  242

  1999–2000

  4,721

  Up to 500

  457

  For the year 2000 we are currently assuming vacancies again of up to 500 but, in view of the current deliberations on the future of the Agency, it is too soon to speculate the precise numbers of graduates eventually to be appointed.
  The above figures do not take into account local recruitment of staff for specific appointments, many of whom may well be educated to university standard.
  I hope the above is helpful.

  Major Andrew Harrison
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence (1) if his Department has been in contact with Major Andrew Harrison; [127988]

  (2) what measures he has taken to monitor the welfare of Major Andrew Harrison. [127989]

  Mr. Hoon
  I refer the right hon. Member to the reply I gave the hon. Member for Chingford and Woodford Green (Mr. Duncan Smith) on 22 June 2000,Official Report, column 243W. The Foreign Secretary and I are monitoring the situation very closely. We are satisfied that everything possible is being done to ensure Major Harrison's safety and welfare.

  US Airborne Laser
  Ann Clwyd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence what(a) information exchange and (b) co-operation there has been between his Department and the US (i) Department of Defense and (ii) State Department concerning the US Airborne Laser. [126944]

  Mr. Hoon
  The Ministry of Defence has received limited information from the Department of Defense on the US Airborne Laser programme. There has been no discussion or co-operation on this matter between the MOD and the Department of State.

  Staff Secondments
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Defence if he will list the senior members of his Department's staff who have been seconded to(a) UK and (b) non-UK companies in (i) 1995–96 and (ii) 1996–97; what posts they held in his Department; what was the cost to his Department of the secondments; and if he will make a statement. [127231]

  Dr. Moonie
  Details of Ministry of Defence senior civil servants seconded to companies in 1995–96 and 1996–97 and the costs to the Ministry of Defence are given as follows.
  437W

  1995–96

  Company

  Role in MOD prior to secondment

  Cost

  British Railways Board—(UK)1

  Secretariat to the Adjutant General

  £15,000

  Docklands Light Railway Ltd.—(UK)1

  Director IT (Policy)

  Nil—fully funded by DLR

  Opportunities for People with Disabilities1

  Assistant Director, Ship Refitting

  £60,000 (approximate annual cost)

  Raytheon (non-UK)1

  Director (Commercial) Defence Export Services Organisation

  Nil—fully funded by Raytheon

  1These secondments continued into 1996–97

  1996–97

  Company

  Role in MOD

  Cost

  Avery Berkel—(UK)

  Directorate (Finance and Secretariat) Weapons and Electronic Systems

  Nil—fully funded by Avery Berkel

  BAe—(UK)

  Deputy Chief of Defence Procurement (Support)

  Nil—fully funded by BAe

HEALTH

  Cancer Treatment
  Mr. Hammond
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what percentage of urgent referrals by general practitioners of patients with suspected cancer he estimates were seen by cancer specialists in the most recent period for which figures are available. [125256]

  Yvette Cooper
  Since April 1999, we have set the standard that patients with suspected breast cancer will be offered an appointment with a specialist within two weeks of their general practitioner making an urgent referral. Table 1 shows that in the most recent period (January to March 2000) 96 per cent. of patients referred urgently received an appointment with a specialist within 14 days where the hospital received the referral within 24 hours of the GP deciding to refer. Table 2 shows that nearly 80 per cent. of patients were seen within two weeks where the referral was received outside 24 hours of the GP deciding to refer.

  By December 2000 this high quality service will be extended to thousands of other worried patients as the standard is introduced for all cases of suspected cancer requiring urgent investigation.

  Outpatient waiting times for suspected breast cancer patients by region—quarter ended March 2000; England (hospital based)

  Table 1: Urgent referrals received within 24 hours of the GP deciding to refer the patient

  Waiting time from urgent referral by their GP to first outpatient appointment

  Region

  0–14 days

  More than 14 days

  Percentage seen within 14 days

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,916

  87

  95.7

  1(96.6)

  Trent

  1,728

  40

  97.7

  1(98.2)

  West Midlands

  3,253

  59

  98.2

  1(95.3)

  North West

  1,841

  106

  94.6

  1(92.2)

  Eastern

  1,246

  32

  97.5

  1(98.9)

  London

  1,887

  89

  95.5

  1(97.1)

  South East

  2,472

  223

  91.7

  1(95.2)

  South West

  1,953

  22

  98.9

  1(99.7)

  England

  16,296

  658

  96.1

  1(96.4)

  438W

  Table 2: Referrals not received within 24 hours of the GP deciding to refer the patient

  Waiting time from urgent referral by their GP to first outpatient appointment

  Region

  0–14 days

  More than 14 days

  Percentage seen within 14 days

  Northern and Yorkshire

  332

  122

  73.1

  1(77.9)

  Trent

  526

  166

  76.0

  1(65.6)

  West Midlands

  418

  68

  86.0

  1(87.6)

  North West

  776

  231

  77.1

  1(69.1)

  Eastern

  263

  33

  88.9

  1(86.1)

  London

  757

  194

  79.6

  1(73.1)

  South East

  402

  117

  77.5

  1(84.0)

  South West

  239

  34

  87.5

  1(95.8)

  England

  3,713

  965

  79.4

  1(76.7)

  1Previous quarter

  GP Practices (Patient Proximity)
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what definition he uses of a reasonable distance when determining access to a GP practice. [124642]

  Mr. Denham
  Subject to local planning decisions, it is for health authorities to determine, on a case-by-case basis, whether a surgery meets the reasonable expectations of its users and carers. Travelling distances are an important consideration, but we would expect travelling times, the availability and proximity of public transport and other services (such as National Health Service dispensing) to be taken into account.

  East Midlands Ambulance Service
  Mr. Todd
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health further to his answer of 28 February 2000,Official Report, column 76W, on the East Midlands Ambulance Service, when improved control technology for the East Midlands Ambulance Service Trust will be implemented; and how long the process of approval for the project has taken since first submission by the trust. [127011]

  Ms Stuart
  The National Health Service Executive has been working with the East Midlands Ambulance Service Trust since March 1999 on the process to approve the business case for the procurement of improved control technology. In order that the approval process can move forward as quickly as possible, the trust is currently working to address the concerns which have been highlighted in their latest business case submission. Approval will be granted only if these concerns are met.
  439W
  If the scheme is commissioned, the trust's project plan suggests that the phased integrated implementation of the new technology will be achieved in around seven months for Leicestershire and eight and a half months for Derbyshire.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health (1) how many agencies of his Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public; [127114]

  (2) how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127391]

  Ms Stuart
  The Department and its agencies have only one telephone line for the general public that is responded to by interactive voice response systems. This is the Department's Public Enquiry Office.

  Continence Services
  Mr. Boswell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what plans he has(a) to monitor implementation of best practice guidance and (b) to conduct further awareness campaigns in connection with the provision of continence services. [127596]

  Mr. Hutton
  "Good practice in continence services" was issued on 19 April 2000. This guidance suggests targets for primary and community teams, health authorities and National Health Service trusts. It includes appropriate references to the NHS Performance Assessment Framework, which is used to plan and monitor the delivery of services. A National Service Framework for Older People is currently being developed. This will supplement the guidance on continence services by placing it in the wider context of improving NHS services for older people.

  The guidance suggests that action to promote continence awareness should be undertaken locally and where appropriate, in consultation with relevant national organisations.

  Internet
  Dr. Gibson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is the Government's policy on the sale of medicines on the internet. [127882]

  Ms Stuart
  There are legal controls on the sale of medicines direct to consumers in order to protect public health and these apply whether the medicine is sold face to face or through the internet. The Medicines Control Agency has a special Internet Unit which investigates all alleged breaches of medicines legislation and has successfully taken action against a number of websites where the law has been broken.

  Empty Hospitals
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what the cost was of maintaining redundant empty hospital buildings in each region in the last year for which figures are available; and if he will make a statement. [127692]
  440W
  Mr. Denham
  The holding costs of maintaining the surplus estate that is not vested in trusts, once it is vacant and available for disposal, include maintenance, security, rates and utilities.

  The last year for which figures are available, ie 1999–2000, for each region are as follows:

  £

  Region

  Northern and Yorkshire

  1,500,000

  Trent

  580,000

  Eastern

  415,000

  London

  2,543,000

  South-East

  2,702,000

  South and West

  774,000

  West Midlands

  1,194,000

  North-West

  598,000

  Total

  10,306,000

  There is a continuing programme of disposals of the surplus estate in the ownership of the Secretary of State, which has realised in excess of £200 million per annum in recent years.

  NHS Management
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what was the total remuneration of each NHS health authority's general manager in each of the last three years; and if he will make a statement. [127690]

  Mr. Denham
  Information on the remuneration of health authority chief executives has been placed in the Library.

  Tesco
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what action the Food Standards Agency will take regarding the Public Health Laboratory Service testing of Tesco's organic mushrooms; and if the results of the PHLS's inquiry will be made public. [126309]

  Ms Stuart
  The responsibility for ensuring the accuracy of results from the testing of food lies primarily with the laboratory undertaking the testing. The Food Standards Agency was not involved in the commissioning of the survey in question.

  The Public Health Laboratory Service is in the process of completing its inquiry and will make the findings available at the earliest opportunity.

  Nursing Care
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health what is his estimate of the cost of providing free nursing care for elderly people outside hospital. [127495]

  Mr. Hutton
  National Health Service expenditure on community nursing for people aged 65 and over was £836 million in 1998–99, the latest year for which figures are available. Local council expenditure on nursing home care amounted to £669 million in 1998–99. Extending free nursing care to everyone in nursing homes assessed as needing it would cost an additional sum. The amount would depend on defining the nursing element of nursing home care.

  NHS Dentistry
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Health if he will make a statement on widening access to NHS dentistry. [127498]

  Mr. Hutton
  We have already made good progress towards improving access to dental services. Initiatives include Investing in Dentistry, in which £10 million in grants have been approved in return for promises of nearly 900,000 new National Health Service registrations. Personal dental services explore new ways of providing dentistry for people who cannot easily or conveniently use existing services. A third wave of 14 pilots will be operational by the end of the year, bringing the total number of pilots to more than 50. Dental access centres are one form of PDS pilot. Access centres provide a full range of dental services, at convenient times and in convenient places, to people who cannot at present easily access NHS dentistry. There will be 33 pilots operating from more than 50 access centres by April 2001.

  We have accepted the recommendations of the Doctors and Dentists Review Body for a commitment scheme to reward loyalty to the NHS. The scheme will cost £17 million per annum in England, and is currently being negotiated with the profession.

  Further initiatives to improve access to services will form part of our plans for modernising NHS dentistry, which will be published this summer in conjunction with the National Plan for the NHS.

CULTURE, MEDIA AND SPORT

  Euro 96
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport how much financial assistance was made available by(a) the National Lottery, (b) the English Sports Council, (c) the Government, (d) the UK Sports Council and (e) the Football Trust to assist (i) the preparation of the bid to hold the 1996 European football championships, (ii) with the upgrading of stadiums and other facilities for the 1996 European football championships and (iii) with the running costs of the 1996 European football championships. [127698]

  Kate Hoey
  Funding for the 1996 European championships was made available as follows:

  (a) No Lottery funding was made available, either for the preparation of the bid or for the running of the championships.

  (b) The English and UK Sports Councils were not in existence until 1997, but the then GB Sports Council contributed £80,000 towards the costs of the cultural programme.

  (c) The Government, through the Association for Business Sponsorship for the Arts and the Sportsmatch scheme, made available a total of £400,000 for the cultural programme which ran alongside the championships in the eight host cities. No other direct Government subvention was made. Much of the expenditure incurred during the running of the tournament, including the costs of additional policing, was met by the local authorities of the eight host cities.

  (d) See (b).

  (e) The Football Trust provided £19 million towards stadia improvements in the eight host cities during the period from 1993 to 1996. That sum was the Trust's contribution to the
  442W
  £72 million spent by the eight host clubs in the five years before the 1996 championships on essential ground safety work following the publication of the Taylor Report. Taking all professional clubs in England into account, the Trust made available £136 million for Taylor-related work over that five-year period. The Trust also contributed a further £500,000 towards the general running costs of the championships.

  Annual Reports
  Mr. Rendel
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport what the cost of producing the annual report of(a) his Department and (b) English Heritage was in each of the two most recent years in which they were published. [127845]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: (a) The costs incurred producing the Annual Report in each of the last two years were:

  £000

  1999

  64.6

  2000

  66.2

  This includes the cost of buying back copies for free distribution from The Stationery Office, who are responsible for printing the reports and putting them on sale around the country.

  (b) The cost incurred by English Heritage producing their 1999 Annual Report was £85,000.

  I will publish the results of their 1998 Annual Report as soon as they have provided it to me.

  Mr. Sedgemore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport when the review of the transparency of the BBC's financial reporting will commence; and if he will make a statement. [128140]

  Mr. Chris Smith
  In their response to the Davies panel's report on the future funding of the BBC, the Government announced that they would appoint independent consultants to examine the transparency of the BBC's financial reporting culminating in the publication of the Corporation's Annual Report and Accounts. The BBC's Annual Report and Accounts was published on 21 June and I have today appointed Pannell Kerr Forster to carry out a detailed review of:the level of information provided in the BBC's "Annual Report and Accounts";
  how far the reporting meets the requirements of the Royal Charter and the Government's conclusions on the outcome of the Davies review;
  the process that leads up to the disclosure of information in the "Annual Report and Accounts", including the extent to which the Governors are made aware of the issues;
  existing correspondence from stakeholders to the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and the BBC about the financial information produced; and
  existing mechanisms employed by the BBC to ensure transparency, including use of focus groups.

  The review will commence immediately and will be concluded by the end of July. I will publish Pannell Kerr Forster's findings. Copies of the terms of reference for the review have been placed in the Library of the House.

FOREIGN AND COMMONWEALTH AFFAIRS

  Iraq
  Mr. Dalyell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what assessment he has made in connection with the UK's policy on sanctions against Iraq of the threat to(a) the UK and (b) the United States from Iraqi use of chemical weapons; and what assessment he has made of the evidence submitted by Richard Butler to the UK Government on this subject. [125375]

  Mr. Hain
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: UK policy on sanctions against Iraq is governed by the relevant United Nations Security Council Resolutions (UNSCRs), not by our assessment of the threat. Richard Butler, the former Executive Chairman of the United Nations Special Commission (UNSCOM) has submitted no evidence to the UK Government on the subject of Iraqi weapons of mass destruction. During his time with UNSCOM, he reported to the United Nations Security Council that numerous serious gaps remained in Iraq's declarations on its chemical and biological weapons and ballistic missile programmes. We share his concern over this, hence the importance we attach to re-establishing weapons inspection regime in Iraq under UNSCR 1284.

  The UK's assessment of the threat posed by Iraq's chemical weapons capabilities can be found in the MOD document "Defending Against the Threat from Biological and Chemical Weapons", published in July 1999.

  Entry Clearance Interviews
  Fiona Mactaggart
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will list the current waiting times in each queue for entry to the UK for settlement in each post in the Indian subcontinent and in(a) Manila, (b) Bangkok, (c) Lagos, (d) Abuja, (e) Accra, (f) St. Petersburg and (g) Moscow. [127112]

  Mr. Vaz
  The most recent information available from the Posts concerned shows the following waiting times for settlement entry clearance interviews:

  Posts using 4 queue system

  Waiting time in weeks

  Islamabad

  Q1

  6

  Q2

  22.5

  Q3

  32

  Q4

  38

  Dhaka

  Q1

  16

  Q2

  28

  Q3

  16

  Q4

  44

  New Delhi

  Q1

  0

  Q2

  10

  Q3

  10

  Q4

  10

  Bombay

  Q1

  0

  Q2

  6

  Q3

  6

  Q4

  6

  Notes:

  Q1 = Dependent relatives over 65; special compassionate cases

  Q2 = Spouses, children under 18

  Q3 = Fiance(e)s; other settlement categories

  Q4 = Reapplicants
  444W

  Other posts

  Waiting time in weeks

  Calcutta

  2.9

  Karachi

  5

  Madras

  9

  Colombo

  11

  Manila

  13

  Bangkok

  7

  Lagos

  8

  Abuja

  17

  Accra

  34

  St. Petersburg

  6

  Moscow

  3.2

  Figures for Islamabad, Karachi, Dhaka, Calcutta, New Delhi, Madras, Colombo, Abuja and Moscow are for May 2000. All others, with the exception of Manila (where computer difficulties have hindered submission of statistical information since March 2000) are for April 2000.

  Bilateral Treaties (Republic of Ireland)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will place in the Library a list of bilateral treaties and agreements which have been agreed with the Government of the Republic of Ireland since 1 January 1997, including the title of each treaty and agreement and the date on which it was signed. [127138]

  Mr. Vaz
  I have placed a list of Treaties and Agreements between the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland and Ireland signed since 1 January 1997 in the Library of the House today.

  European Union
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on present and future activities of the Europe Made Easy Programme in the United Kingdom. [127188]

  Mr. Vaz
  My Department is not aware of this programme.

  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs on how many occasions since 1 May 1997 his office has referred hon. Members in parliamentary answers to the office of the European Commission in London; and if he will make a statement on his policy of referral, with particular reference to ministerial accountability. [127192]

  Mr. Vaz
  We refer hon. Members to the European Commission when their questions relate to Commission policy or to facts about programmes and projects for which the Commission is responsible. We do not keep a record of numbers.

  Moluccas
  Mr. Hancock
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what reports he has received from HM diplomatic posts in Indonesia on the human rights situation in the Moluccas. [127237]

  Mr. Battle
  We receive regular reports from the Embassy in Jakarta on the worrying developments in Maluku. We deplore the loss of all life resulting from the violence, in particular the escalating violence in recent
  445W
  days with over 100 people killed and over 200 injured. This represents a major threat to stability. We are playing a key role in the EU and the UN in calling on the Indonesian Government to work on peaceful resolution to the violence. EU representatives called on the Indonesian Government on 12 June, to remind them of their responsibility to maintain law and order, and to request an investigation and immediate steps to bring the perpetrators to justice. As part of the international effort through the United Nations Development Programme we have already funded two conferences on reconciliation in Maluku. With our partners and international agencies we are actively looking at other ways of promoting reconciliation.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many agencies of his Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [127553]

  Mr. Battle
  In the UK no FCO Department uses interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many of his Department's telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127388]

  Mr. Battle
  None of the FCO's telephone lines used by the general public is responded to by interactive voice systems. Where it is sensible and efficient to use them there is an increasing use of telephone lines which are answered by voice processing systems, but these respond to touch-tone telephones rather than the human voice. These systems are deployed overseas only where the in-country telephone infrastructure is good and where it is common practice for such systems to be deployed.

  Kosovo
  Mrs. Mahon
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if any of the Kosovo Protection Corps have been(a) arrested and (b) questioned following the weapons find in the village of Kleck; and if he will make a statement. [127556]

  Mr. Vaz
  Following the weapons find by KFOR, investigations are under way to establish who was responsible for the arms cache. A wide range of people are likely to be questioned, including members of the Kosovo Protection Corps, but it is too early to say yet whether KPC members were directly involved. The Government welcome KFOR's discovery of this illegal weapons site and will support tough action taken against those found responsible.

  Democratic Republic of Congo
  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what actions he proposes to take to prevent the sale in the UK and dependent territories of diamonds and other commodities being used to fund conflicts in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [127704]
  446W
  Mr. Hain
  The UK is a leading actor in supporting international efforts to tackle the problem of illicit diamonds and other commodities being used to finance wars in Africa.

  We have supported the establishment of a UN expert panel to follow up on reports and collect information on the exploitation of DRC's natural resources. We look forward to the panel's recommendations to the Security Council.

  We want to see a peaceful resolution of the conflict, and DRC's natural wealth used to benefit the people of DRC.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the recent conflict in Kisangani. [127703]

  Mr. Hain
  We deplore the recent fighting between Ugandan and Rwandan forces in Kisangani. Their actions have put the Lusaka Agreement at risk and led to widespread suffering for the people of Kisangani. We have expressed our concerns to both governments bilaterally and supported the UN Security Council Resolution 1304 which calls for both parties to cease hostilities and withdraw all their forces from the territory of the Democratic Republic of Congo.

  The United Nations observer mission in Kisangani has informed us that both sets of troops have withdrawn from the town. We continue to monitor the situation closely.

  Ms Oona King
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will press for a mandatory EU arms embargo on countries involved in the conflict in the Democratic Republic of Congo. [127705]

  Mr. Hain
  As a signatory to the EU Code of Conduct on arms exports the UK will not allow exports which would provoke or prolong armed conflicts or aggravate existing tensions or conflicts in the country of final destination.

  At the General Affairs Council (GAC) on 22 May the Council invited the EU/SADC working group on illicit trafficking in small arms and light weapons to examine in its next meeting practical measures to prevent arms flowing to conflict zones in the Great Lakes Region.

  The Council also mandated its relevant bodies to consider whether an arms embargo on the parties to the conflict would be appropriate.

  Pakistan
  Mr. Love
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has made regarding the re-establishment of democratic Government in Pakistan; and if he will make a statement. [127836]

  Mr. Hain
  Although we cannot endorse the recent ruling by Pakistan's Supreme Court that last October's coup was legitimate, we have noted the Court's ruling that national elections should be held within three years. We are encouraged that General Musharraf has apparently accepted this. We have continued to urge Pakistan's military to announce a clear and credible timetable for the transition to full democracy, most recently when
  447W
  the Permanent Under-Secretary at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office met his Pakistani counterpart on 22 June.

  Sierra Leone
  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what the proposed budget is for the UNAMSIL deployment in Sierra Leone for the year 2000. [127659]

  Mr. Hain
  The UNAMSIL budget for July 1999 to June 2000 is US$266,610,000, and for July 2000 to June 2001 US$504,399,051.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs how many child soldiers have been demobilised by pro-Government forces in Sierra Leone since 8 May. [127658]

  Mr. Hain
  The screening and demobilisation of child soldiers from pro-Government forces in Sierra Leone is continuing. The screening programme is to identify those children who have actually been involved in fighting. Of the 135 children who have recently entered the screening programme, 32 were identified as child soldiers.

  We welcome the Government of Sierra Leone's policy that there must be no place for children in the Sierra Leone armed forces, and that all child soldiers must be disarmed and demobilised. We will continue to press for the early release of all child soldiers in Sierra Leone.

  Mr. Maude
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs what recent representations he has (i) made to and (ii) received from the Presidents of(a) Nigeria, (b) Liberia and (c) Sierra Leone, regarding the ECOWAS bid to broker a ceasefire between Sierra Leone Government forces and RUF rebels. [127652]

  Mr. Hain
  We remain in regular touch with ECOWAS states over the situation in Sierra Leone. We support the efforts of ECOWAS to help restore stability throughout Sierra Leone and bring about an end to violence.

  President Kabbah has made clear that, before any ceasefire, the Revolutionary United Front must meet a number of conditions, including the immediate and unconditional release of all UN peacekeepers and other detainees.

  Zimbabwe
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make a statement on the attendance of observers for the forthcoming elections in Zimbabwe. [127718]

  Mr. Hain
  Around 400 international observers from such organisations as the Commonwealth, the European Union, the Organisation for African Unity and the Southern African Development Community, as well as national groups are present in Zimbabwe.

  We are dismayed that the Government of Zimbabwe has not allowed the United Nations Development Programme to co-ordinate the activities of the various observer missions, but we understand that there is a good degree of informal co-ordination between the observer teams.

  Iran
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if, during his forthcoming visit to Iran, he will raise with the Government the extent of religious freedom in Iran and the treatment of the Baha'i community. [127985]

  Mr. Hain
  We and our EU partners have regularly raised our concerns over Iranian treatment of the Baha'is and shall continue to do so. Persecution on religious grounds is totally unacceptable.

  My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will discuss a number of issues, including human rights, during his visit to Iran on 4–5 July.

ENVIRONMENT, TRANSPORT AND THE REGIONS

  Incineration
  Mr. Pickthall
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if authorities building incinerators can meet their recycling targets through the re-use of the ash. [126468]

  Mr. Mullin
  [holding answer 20 June 2000]: The introduction of new statutory performance standards was announced in the Waste Strategy 2000. Subject to consultation, we intend that the re-use of ash from waste incineration will not count towards achieving these targets.

  Information Kiosks
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what steps his Department is taking to amend planning regulations to remove obstacles to local authorities providing street information kiosks for their local communities. [127303]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  We have no current plans to make changes to the planning regulations in respect of local planning authorities providing information kiosks.

  Compulsory Purchase Orders
  Mr. Rooney
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions in what circumstances and by what means a compulsory purchase order in respect of a private dwelling can be rescinded. [126914]

  Mr. Raynsford
  [holding answer 21 June 2000]: Compulsory purchase of property must normally be authorised by compulsory purchase order.

  A compulsory purchase order made by a non-ministerial acquiring authority, such as a local authority, must be submitted for decision to the relevant "confirming authority". This is normally the Secretary of State or Minister responsible to Parliament for the legislation and policies which apply in the particular circumstances. An order is made and confirmed under procedures set out in, and regulations prescribed for the purposes of, the Acquisition of Land Act 1981. There are also rules for public local inquiries held for the purposes of that Act.
  449W
  An acquiring authority may have resolved to make a compulsory purchase order but, before submitting it formally, they may decide that they do not wish to proceed. In these circumstances, no formal compulsory purchase procedures will have been initiated and the confirming authority will have no function to discharge. Once the acquiring authority have formally submitted the order, they have no formal power to withdraw or rescind it but, in practice, it is possible to overcome this potential difficulty. If an authority have submitted a compulsory purchase formally and then decide that they do not wish to proceed with it, for example because they will no longer need to rely on compulsory powers, the normal practice in my Department is to give a short formal decision declining to confirm the order. This serves both to formally discharge the Secretary of State's statutory function and to remove the imminent "threat" of compulsory purchase of property.

  If an order is confirmed, the acquiring authority must make the order operative by serving and publishing notice of the confirmation before they may exercise the compulsory powers authorised by the confirmed order. Once the order is operative, unless there is a successful challenge in the High Court, the acquiring authority have three years in which to exercise the compulsory powers by serving a notice to treat, which period may be extended by agreement, or by completing an alternative procedure vesting title to the property in themselves. Hence, one way of rescinding an order at this stage would be to allow the period to lapse, so that the authority would no longer be authorised to exercise compulsory powers. This may happen where, for example, an order was confirmed subject to an undertaking given by the acquiring authority that they would not implement the order if the owner carried out certain repairs by a certain date. Compensation is payable where a notice to treat lapses.

  An acquiring authority may withdraw a notice to treat within six weeks of receiving a detailed notice of an owner's claim for compensation given in response to a notice to treat. If a dispute over compensation is referred to the Lands Tribunal, the acquiring authority may still withdraw their notice to treat within six weeks of the Tribunal's final determination. This may happen where, for example, the amount awarded by the Tribunal is higher than the authority are prepared to pay. In either case, the claimant must be reimbursed certain losses and expenses.

  Land Remediation
  Dr. Fox
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how many mobile plant licences have been issued to practitioners within the land remediation industry; how many licensed the(a) in situ and (b) ex situ remediation of land; and what technologies were involved in each case. [127580]

  Mr. Mullin
  To date, the Environment Agency has issued 21 mobile plant licences of which six are for in-situ remediation, 14 for ex-situ remediation and one for a combination of both. For practical purposes, the Agency has classified the technologies involved as ex-situ bioremediation (soil treatment beds) (5.5 licences); in-situ bioremediation (1 licence); soil vapour extraction (3.5 licences); soil washing (6 licences); solvent extraction (1 licence); solidification and stabilisation (3 licences); and transformation by chemical treatment (1 licence).

  Fuel Poverty
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what proportion of housing in the United Kingdom falls below the Standard Assessment Procedure 20 rating for energy efficiency; and what programmes are in place to improve Standard Assessment Procedure ratings in(a) pensioner and (b) single-parent households. [127575]

  Mr. Meacher
  Using the latest data from the English House Condition Survey, it is estimated that about 8 per cent. of dwellings had an energy efficiency rating under the Standard Assessment Procedure of below 20. The size of the total English housing stock was some 19.6 million dwellings.

  The energy efficiency of pensioner and single-parent households are being improved through a range of programmes as described.

  The Home Energy Efficiency Scheme (HEES) has been radically overhauled as of 1 June 2000. The scheme now provides grants for packages of heating and insulation improvement measures, including the provision of high efficiency central heating systems for low income households aged 60 years or more. The grant maximum has been increased from £315 to between £700 and £2,000 depending on the composition of each household and the condition of the dwelling. The scheme is focused on the private sector where nearly 70 per cent. of the fuel poor in England are found. In the case of pensioners and single parents, eligibility is linked to the receipt of an income-related benefit or one of the main disability benefits. Of the 460,000 households that are expected to be helped during the first two years of HEES, some 280,000 are likely to be aged 60 years or more.

  Government-funded programmes operated by the Energy Saving Trust also improve the energy efficiency both fuel poor households and others.

  The Government have also substantially increased the resources available to local authorities over the lifetime of this Parliament, reversing the reductions planned by the previous Government. The extra resources in the first three years, 1997–98 to 1999–2000, were allocated through the Capital Receipts Initiative (CRI). Information collected to monitor the impact of the CRI found that around a quarter to a third of the work on local authorities' own stock financed from this initiative lead either directly or indirectly to improvements in energy efficiency. If this were replicated across all local authority housing capital expenditure on its own stock this would equate to around £400–500 million per annum.

  The energy efficiency of low-income households is also likely to be improved through some of the regeneration schemes funded by DETR. These cover a wide range of activities depending on local need, and it is not possible to quantify the precise expenditure on energy efficiency improvements.

  To support the installation of energy efficiency measures, the Government also reduced the level of VAT from 1 July 1998 on work carried out on low-income households through eligible schemes such as HEES. The revenue cost of the reduction was £8.5 million a year.

  451W
  This year's Budget extended the reduced rate at a total cost of £35 million a year. By 2002, the total cost is estimated at £85 million.

  The Government are also introducing provisions to enable lessors to claim capital allowances on their investment in boilers, radiators and controls installed in residential properties under the Affordable Warmth Programme. The Programme will operate from 2000 to 2007, with the aim of helping up to one million low-income households benefit from improved energy efficiency. Estimate that Government assistance from this measure up to April 2002 will be approximately £10 million.

  In addition to Government energy efficiency programmes, since 1994 public electricity suppliers have, under the Energy Efficiency Standards of Performance, been required to encourage and assist customers with energy efficiency measures. The new Director General of the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets has, from this year extended these to also include public gas suppliers and the overall size of the programme has been doubled to £50 million a year. Around two thirds of this help has gone to pensioner and low-income families.

  As energy efficiency is a devolved matter, it is the responsibility of the respective Parliament and Assemblies to comment on the situation in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

  Regional Government
  Mr. Loughton
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions (1) when he proposes to publish his Department's review on regional government in England; [127990]

  (2) what consultations have been carried out for his Department's review on regional government in England. [127991]

  Ms Armstrong
  The Department has undertaken a preliminary study of the literature relating to regional government in England, which will be published shortly. No public consultation was involved. As substantive proposals are developed for taking forward the Government's commitments to regional government, there will be full consultation with regional and other interests.

  Advantage West Midlands
  Mr. Luff
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what recent assessment he has made of the performance of Advantage West Midlands; and if he will make a statement. [127888]

  Ms Beverley Hughes
  My Department has commissioned consultants to undertake an evaluation of the strategies and action plans produced by all eight RDAs, including Advantage West Midlands. Research is also being carried out by consultants into partnership working by RDAs in the development and production of their strategies. It is the aim that both pieces of research will be published and that the findings will contribute to a report on the RDAs performance in their first year of operation.

  The 2000–01 research programme of my Department's Local and Regional Government Research Unit also includes provision for a long-term evaluation of the operation and effectiveness of RDAs.

  North Wales Main Line
  Dr. Marek
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if the Virgin Trains commercial study of the electrification of the North Wales main line has been made available to the National Assembly for Wales. [127889]

  Mr. Hill
  The study was produced on a commercially confidential basis to the Franchising Director in March 1998 and he received an independent assessment of it, again on a commercially confidential basis, in September 1998. The Franchising Director has not since made the study or assessment available to the National Assembly for Wales.

  GM Farm-scale Trials
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the number of new GM farm-scale trials which will be required for(a) autumn planting this year and (b) spring planting next year. [127026]

  Mr. Meacher
  The Scientific Steering Committee for the Farm-scale Evaluations has advised that 20 to 25 fields should be sought for the autumn sowing of the farm-scale evaluations of herbicide tolerant oil seed rape this year.

  The original design for the evaluations was that for each GM crop 20 to 25 fields would be sought each year for three years. When it became apparent last February that there may be a shortfall in the number of farms for the spring sowings this year, the Steering Committee advised:
  that (the industry body) SCIMAC would need to provide sufficient farms for the research consortium to select a minimum of around 12–15 farms, representing a range of intensities and geographical locations. This would also include some redundancy for operational problems. This would allow the number of farms to be increased slightly in subsequent years, and also allow any minor imbalances in the range of farms selected for year one to be addressed.

  I expect that, as a result, the number of farms for the sowings next spring and in 2002 will be increased to ensure that the original aims and objectives of the evaluations are met. The Steering Committee will provide further advice later in the year on the numbers required.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions if he will list the varieties used in the non-GM part of the farm-scale evaluations. [127218]

  Mr. Meacher
  My Department does not hold information on the individual varieties being grown, as it is not relevant to the Farm-scale Evaluations research.

  Landing Rights
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what the Government's policy is on auctioning landing rights at UK airports; and if he will make a statement. [127504]

  Mr. Mullin
  I take the question to refer to take-off and landing slots, and not to traffic rights, which are negotiated separately. Slot allocation at congested airports is governed by European Regulation EC95/93. An independent co-ordinator makes the allocation using a set of priority criteria that reflect the European Regulation and international guidelines. The Government have no
  453W
  role in the process. Slots are allocated without charge. Under the existing Regulation once allocated, their holder has an indefinite claim on them as long as they are used.

  EC 95/93 is due for revision and we await proposals from the European Commission.

  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what estimate he has made of the revenue which would be raised by auctioning landing rights at UK airports; and if he will make a statement. [127503]

  Mr. Mullin
  None. The allocation of landing rights, or slots, at airports, is governed by EC Regulation 95/93 which does not explicitly authorise the buying and selling of slots. The Government do not therefore have information on which to base an estimate of the possible value of slots. The income raised would also depend on a number of variables including the number of slots auctioned, their location and how desirable they were to a particular airline.

  Planning
  Angela Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions what plans he has to streamline the procedure governing planning appeals. [128139]

  Mr. Raynsford
  My right hon. Friend has today laid before Parliament four Statutory Instruments to improve the handling of planning appeals under each of the three main procedures, written representations, hearings and inquiries these are: the Town and Country Planning (Appeals) (Written Representations Procedure) Regulations 2000; the Town and Country Planning (Hearings Procedure) (England) Rules 2000, the Town and Country Planning (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000 and the Town and Country Planning Appeals (Determination by Inspectors) (Inquiries Procedure) (England) Rules 2000. My right hon. Friend has also laid before Parliament a related amendment to the Town and Country Planning (General Development Procedure) Order 1995.

  A Departmental circular (DETR 5/2000), "Planning Appeals: Procedures (including inquiries into called-in planning applications)", is being issued today to accompany the new Statutory Instruments and copies have been placed in the House Libraries. This Circular (which replaces Circular DOE 15/96) explains the new procedures governing written representations, hearings and inquiries (including inquiries into called-in planning applications). The changes implement the conclusions of a consultation exercise announced by the then Minister for Planning, my right hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Cabom), on 31 March last year.

  The new arrangements, due to come into operation on 1 August 2000, are a key component of our "Modernising Planning" programme. I am determined to improve the service offered to business, householders and other users of the appeal system. The changes being introduced will improve the speed and efficiency of the system without impairing the quality, fairness or openness of the process or people's ability to participate.
  454W
  We have already set tough targets for the Planning Inspectorate to turn round appeals more quickly and they have made a good deal of progress in improving their own performance. However, improving service to the benefit of all concerned is not just the responsibility of the Planning Inspectorate. All parties to the appeals process have a responsibility to meet the deadlines set and to co-operate with the Inspectorate in agreeing dates offered for hearings and inquiries. In future, representations received after due dates will normally be disregarded. We shall be carefully monitoring the impact of the changes and will review their effectiveness after about a year to help us decide whether any further action is needed.

  Incinerators
  Mr. Norman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions how much public subsidy(a) was spent in each of the last three years and (b) his Department forecasts will be spent in the current financial year on the construction of incinerators; and if he will list the incinerator projects and the amount of public subsidy in each case. [126759]

  Mrs. Liddell
  I have been asked to reply.

  The payments made from the fossil fuel levy for electricity generated by the combustion of waste in England and Wales in the financial years 1997–98, 1998–99 and 1999–2000 to which I understand the hon. Member's question refers was £30 million, £31 million and £10 million respectively. These payments represent 26 per cent., 28 per cent. and 24 per cent. respectively of the total payments made for electricity generated from renewable sources of energy. The estimate for the financial year 2000–01 is £12 million (15 per cent. of the total). Projects are located at Edmonton, Coventry, Byker, Isle of Wight, Nottingham, Lewisham, Dudley, Wolverhampton, Stoke, Tyseley, Cleveland and Sheffield and more are expected to commission in due course. The payments received by each are commercially confidential. All of these projects offer substantial new opportunities for the recovery of metals and ash for recycling.

PRIME MINISTER

  Formal Meetings
  Mr. Flynn
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will make it his policy to record and make public details of all formal meetings in the course of his official duties; and if he will make a statement. [125999]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 15 June 2000]: Ministers and civil servants meet many people as part of the process of policy development and analysis. All such contacts are conducted in accordance with the Ministerial Code, the Civil Service Code and Guidance for Civil Servants: Contacts with Lobbyists. In order to preserve confidentiality, it is not the normal practice of government to release details of specific meetings with private individuals or companies. This is in line with the practice adopted by successive governments.

  Okinawa Summit
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Prime Minister what representations he has received in respect of the G8 summit in Okinawa; and what responses he has made. [127572]
  455W
  The Prime Minister
  I have received many representations in respect of the Okinawa Summit. These have come from international organisations, including the World bank and World Health Organisation; individual non-G8 members, including Nigeria and South Africa; NGOs, such as Greenpeace, Oxfam and Jubilee 2000; and hon. Members and members of the public. These have covered a range of global issues including debt relief, development, education, health and the global environment. I have also discussed the issues directly with some Heads of Government and NGO leaders; and responded in writing to others. Other interlocutors have received responses from Ministers and senior officials. There has also been direct dialogue on Summit themes between officials responsible for preparing the Summit and representatives of Commonwealth Governments and UK NGOs.

  Strategic Communications Unit
  Mr. Lansley
  To ask the Prime Minister how many(a) special advisers, (b) permanent civil servants and (c) temporary civil servants are employed in the Strategic Communications Unit. [127425]

  The Prime Minister
  [holding answer 23 June 2000]: Two special advisers and nine permanent civil servants are currently employed in the Strategic Communications Unit. One of the permanent civil servants is employed on a short-term secondment to the Unit.

  Council of Europe
  Mr. Ernie Ross
  To ask the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library the latest Information Bulletin on the activities of the United Kingdom delegation to the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe and the Assembly of Western European Union covering the period November 1999 to April. [128096]

  The Prime Minister
  I have done so today.

  Cabinet Committees
  Mr. Maxton
  To ask the Prime Minister what the membership is of each Cabinet Committee. [128095]

  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 (www.cabinet-office.gov.uk).

TRADE AND INDUSTRY

  Shipbuilding
  Mr. Alexander
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list the schemes which provide financial help for the shipbuilding industry; how much financial support has been contributed to these schemes by the Government since May 1997; and if he will list the beneficiaries of the assistance. [127830]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  Assistance to the shipbuilding industry is provided through the Shipbuilding Intervention Fund (SIF); the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme (HSCGS); and through the Innovation Budget.
  456W
  Grant assistance under SIF has been: Financial Year 1997–98 £7.01 million; Financial Year 1998–99 £10.54 million and in Financial Year 1999–2000 £3.99 million.

  The HSCGS is based upon offering long-term loans at a fixed rate of interest of 7½ per cent. DTI pays out subsidy or receives income depending on the relationship of market rates to that fixed rate. The net cost to/receipts by the DTI of the Home Shipbuilding Credit Guarantee Scheme have been: in Financial Year 1997–98 the Department received £223,000; in Financial Year 1998–99 the Department paid out £1,960,000 and in Financial Year 1999–2000 the Department received £1,991,000.

  Since May 1997, DTI has supported two competitiveness projects under the Innovation Budget. The first, a study of the policies of the Dutch shipbuilding industry in June 1999, had a DTI contribution of £20,000 and the second, completed in September 1999, was to assist the shipyards to benchmark their production and other business processes. That grant was for £94,245.

  Details of the SIF grants and HSCGS loans are confidential to the individual recipient companies. The recipient of both Innovation Budget competitiveness grants was the Shipbuilders and Shiprepairers Association, the industry's trade association.

  Engineering
  Jane Griffiths
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry which organisations were represented at the meeting on 23 May to discuss the work of the Hawley Review Group; and what was the outcome of the meeting. [127736]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The following organisations were represented at the meeting on 23 May:

  AEA Technology

  BAe Systems

  BioIndustry Association

  British Computer Society

  Committee of Vice-Chancellors and Principals of the Universities of the UK

  Department for Education and Employment

  Department of Trade and Industry

  Engineering and Marine Training Authority

  Engineering Council

  Engineering Employers' Federation

  Federation of Electronics Industries

  Forum for the Future.

  Venture Capital
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what Government help is available to increase access to venture capital for small companies in Morecambe and Lunesdale. [127638]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Government recognise the vital role that venture capital can play in support of growth businesses and the value that the formal venture capital industry can add. An existing business angel network in the North West currently provides informal investment capital to small companies in the region. The Government are also committed to ensuring that there is an adequate supply of venture capital to meet demand across the
  457W
  regions. The new Regional Venture Capital Funds will specialise in the provision of small scale equity to businesses with growth potential. Bidding guidance for potential sponsors of new regional funds was issued on 22 December 1999 and 21 notifications of intention to bid have subsequently been received. Should all of these come forward and meet the criteria all of the English regions, including the North West, will have access to at least one new, viable fund.

  E-commerce
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what help the Government are providing to small firms to encourage e-commerce. [127639]

  Ms Hewitt
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answers given to my hon. Friend the Member for Falkirk, East (Mr. Connarty) and my hon. Friend the Member for Luton, South (Ms Moran) on 2 March 2000,Official Report, column 337W, which described the activity of the DTI-lead Information Society Initiative.

  Since then, as well as launching our Technology Means Business programme which aims significantly to improve the environment of support for small businesses, we have received an extra £60 million package from the Chancellor's Budget. This will focus on ramping-up existing services to the SME community. It includes £10 million to boost the existing network of ISI Advice Centres throughout the UK and inject greater urgency into the Government's awareness campaign; and £20 million for the SBS to create a 'Gateway' through which people can get guidance, advice and information needed to run or start a small business. Additionally, the tax benefits for SMEs following the Budget include 100 per cent. first year capital allowances, the Research and Development Tax Credit for SMEs, and tax reliefs to promote corporate venturing.

  Plastic Bags
  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what plans he has to introduce a producer responsibility regime for plastic bags. [127725]

  Ms Hewitt
  Plastic bags, in common with bags made of other materials such as paper, that are used for the containment, protection handling, delivery or presentation of goods are classified as packaging. A producer responsibility regime exists for packaging in the form of the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations 1997. These Regulations place an obligation on business throughout the packaging chain who meet certain threshold requirements, to recover and recycle packaging waste.

  Auditors
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will introduce legislation to impose a duty of care on auditors towards shareholders of audited companies. [127486]

  Dr. Howells
  The extent to which auditors owe a duty of care to the shareholders of an audited company is as laid down by the courts. We will consider the need to change the position in the light of the final report from the Steering Group of the independent Company Law Review, expected next year. The consultation document 458W
  issued by the Review in March 2000—'Modern Company Law—Developing the Framework'—addresses the issues surrounding the scope of the duty of care (paragraphs 5.146 to 5.155).

  Water Companies
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if those water companies considering mutualising their assets will be able to form limited liabilities partnerships under the Limited Liability Partnerships Bill[Lords]. [127558]

  Dr. Howells
  Any two or more persons associated for carrying on a lawful business with a view to profit and satisfying the registration requirements may become a limited liability partnership. However, a "statutory undertaker" under the Water Industry Act 1991 must be a company limited by shares and could not therefore be an LLP.

  Energy Policy
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken in the past 12 months to support the manufacturers of renewable energy technology; and what support he makes available to promote overseas sales of renewable energy technology and energy efficiency services. [127568]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have taken significant steps to support renewable energy manufacturers in the last 12 months.

  The Government launched a new regional planning initiative for renewable energy in the summer of 1999. In November 1999 the Government issued two consultation papers, on network management and licensing issues for embedded generation, of direct relevance to renewables, and in December 1999 it announced its intention to allocate around £30 million to the growing of energy crops over the six years up to March 2007. The Government also announced plans to exempt all forms of renewable energy, including electricity generated from renewable sources, from the Climate Change Levy, which will be introduced in April 2001, providing a substantial financial incentive for its use.

  On 1 February 2000, to coincide with the Second Reading of the Utilities Bill, the Government published "New and Renewable Energy—Prospects for the 21st Century: Conclusions in Response to the Public Consultation". The Conclusions Document summarises key elements of the Government's policy. They are:
  a new Renewables Obligation on licensed electricity suppliers;
  exemption of electricity and heat from renewables from the Climate Change Levy;
  an expanded support programme for new and renewable energy including research, development, demonstration and dissemination; and
  development of a regional strategic approach to planning and targets for renewable energy.

  The Renewables Obligation will enable the Government to make progress towards a target of generating 10 per cent. of our electricity from renewable sources by 2010, subject to the cost to consumers being acceptable. The Government are also taking steps to set up

  459W
  transitional arrangements to ensure that Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation (NFFO) contracts continue to be viable in the future.

  The renewables industry is also benefiting from the increased renewables R & D budget, expected to be £32 million over this and the next financial years.

  Export opportunities in renewables technologies and services are a priority area for DTI support. DTI supports renewable energy technology in overseas markets in numerous ways, among them financial support for feasibility studies, country profile reports on renewables, and grant-supported outward and inward missions. For example we have recently sponsored two inward missions from China, concentrating on wind energy in the UK.

  Support for energy efficiency services is a matter for my hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment, Transport and the Regions.

  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what his timetable is for responding to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Environmental Pollution report, Energy-The Changing Climate. [127625]

  Ms Hewitt
  I, together with my right hon. Friend the Minister for the Environment, and other colleagues, will be giving careful consideration to the recommendations in this report and we will be aiming to respond within a year. In the meantime, the Government are considering responses to the draft Climate Change Programme, and plan to publish the final version in the autumn.

  Dr. Whitehead
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (1) what plans he has to enable unfulfilled Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation contracts for the supply of wind energy from onshore locations to be implemented anywhere within the area of sea within the Government's jurisdiction; [127584]

  (2) if he will enable Non-Fossil Fuel Obligation contracts to be implemented anywhere within the Government's jurisdiction. [127585]

  Mrs. Liddell
  The Government have no locus in the contracts entered into by the Public Electricity Suppliers (PES) to secure the generating capacity from renewable sources of electricity required by the non-fossil fuel obligation (NFFO) Orders. These contracts are location specific and any amendment to their location needs to be agreed between the contracting parties. In addition the Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) needs to be satisfied that the amendment does not cause the contract to cease to be a qualifying arrangement. If the contract ceased to be a qualifying arrangement the PES would not be eligible to receive fossil fuel levy for the electricity generated. I have asked the Non-Fossil Purchasing Agency Ltd. and Ofgem to re-examine the scope for amendments which would allow projects that have been frustrated by circumstances outside the control of the generator to go forward to construction and generation. Their re-examination has not yet reached a conclusion.

  Mr. Gibb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on the proposed new gas trading arrangements. [127479]
  460W
  Mrs. Liddell
  The term "new gas trading arrangements" covers a number of exercises, led by the Director General of Gas Supply and his office Ofgem, aimed at securing effective competition in gas supply and the economic and efficient operation of Transco's pipeline system. These include auction arrangements for entry capacity into the national transmission system and an on-the-day commodity market for balancing purposes, both introduced with effect from October 1999. Work is in hand on further refinements to the capacity and energy balancing regimes, including reviews of the exit capacity regime and of the possibility of introducing a linepack regime. Further background is available on the Ofgem website www.ofgem.gov.uk.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is the(a) make, (b) model and (c) number of each make and model of car (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department; and what is the (1) purchase price and (2) annual cost of the lease of each car. [127383]

  Dr. Howells
  My Department does not own any cars. The following are leased:

  Make

  Model

  Number

  Annual cost per car1 (£)

  Ford

  Escort

  4

  2,853.48

  Ford

  Escort

  1

  2,884.92

  Ford

  Escort

  4

  3,338.76

  Ford

  Escort

  4

  3,344.40

  Vauxhall

  Astra

  1

  3,272.76

  Vauxhall

  Vectra

  1

  3,473.16

  Fiat

  Cinquecento

  1

  1,680.00

  Fiat

  Brava

  1

  2,555.52

  Peugeot

  206

  1

  2,806.60

  Citroen

  Xantia

  1

  3,532.44

  1Excluding VAT

  Private-public Partnerships (London)
  Mr. Coleman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what arrangements to support sub-regional private/public partnerships will operate in London until the London Development Agency becomes operational. [127563]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department supports the work of the sub-regional partnerships through the Government Office for London and the Invest in Britain Bureau and this will continue up to, and after, the establishment of the London Development Agency on 3 July.

  Manufacturing Industry (London)
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what action his Department is taking to promote and support manufacturing industry in Greater London. [127386]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department provides assistance to encourage competitiveness and innovation in manufacturing and other sectors through a range of schemes and initiatives delivered in London. These include Regional Selective Assistance; Enterprise Grants; and support through Business Links aimed at developing new and growing businesses, including in export markets.

  BNFL
  Mr. Llew Smith
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will list each of the projects in Russia where British Nuclear Fuels has a business or research involvement; and if he will set out the sources of the support budgets in each case. [126571]

  Mrs. Liddell
  This is a matter for BNFL. I have asked the Company Secretary to provide my hon. Friend with the information requested.

  Farnborough Airshow
  Mr. Simon Thomas
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what support his Department is providing to the organisers of this year's Farnborough Airshow; and what assistance his Department is providing to overseas visitors to attend the show. [127877]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  My Department is providing no financial support to the Society of British Aerospace Companies (SBAC) in respect of the Farnborough International 2000 Airshow. Support from my Department of up to £29,500 has been offered to the SBAC, to assist delegations from Brazil, Canada and the Czech Republic attend the Airshow.

  Maternity Pay
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the review of maternity pay and parental leave will conclude; what organisations have been involved in the review; and how the information will be treated once the review is completed. [127251]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: I refer my hon. Friend to the answer given to my hon. Friend the Member for Ellesmere Port and Neston (Mr. Miller) on 22 June 2000, Official Report, columns 236–37W. There will be extensive consultation throughout the review.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he has taken to assess the compatibility of(a) the Convention on Biological Diversity and (b) the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement in respect of the treatment of genetic resources. [127462]

  Dr. Howells
  We consider the World Trade Organisation's (WTO) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement and the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) to be compatible, but we need to ensure that they are implemented in a mutually supportive way. For this reason we supported the recent decision of the 5th Convention of Parties (COP5) to the CBD, which asked the WTO further to explore the interrelationship between the provisions of the TRIPS agreement and the CBD.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make it his policy to seek an amendment to Article 27.3(b) of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement to exclude genetic resources for food and agriculture. [127465]
  462W
  Dr. Howells
  The current exclusions from patentability for biological materials as set out in Article 27.3(b) of the World Trade Organisation (WTO) Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) Agreement allow all WTO members sufficient flexibility to implement patent and other intellectual property regimes appropriate to their individual circumstances, within internationally agreed limits. Patents are afforded only to new technical inventions. Valid rights cannot be obtained for naturally occurring plants or animals or information concerning their genetic composition. Similarly, traditional or indigenous knowledge concerning the existence, use or properties of plants and animals is already not patentable. Given this flexibility and these limitations, we do not consider the requirements of Section 27.3(b) to be incompatible with WTO member states needs.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry if he will make a statement on his policy in respect of intellectual property rights over plant and animal varieties. [127466]

  Dr. Howells
  Patents are available only for inventions for new technical solutions. Under the Patents Act 1977 and EC Directive (98/44/EC) on the legal protection of biotechnological inventions, plant and animal varieties, or the breeding of plants and animals by traditional methods, cannot be the subject of patent rights. However, inventions concerning plants and animals may be patentable if the technical feasibility of the invention is not confined to a particular plant or animal variety. To be patentable, such an invention would have to satisfy the general criteria for patentability that the invention is new and would not be obvious to someone in the technical field.

  World Trade Organisation
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what steps he is taking to increase(a) public involvement in the WTO decision-making process and (b) openness in the operation of the WTO. [127463]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government launched a consultation exercise before Seattle and continues to receive and respond to public concerns through correspondence as well as the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/worldtrade. I, my colleagues and our officials also hold regular meetings with business, NGOs and trade unions. The UK has, since Seattle, pressed for progress on WTO reform, and in particular on issues relating to consensus building and communication. The WTO' s General Council agreed earlier this year that a consultation process should be launched on improvements to WTO consultative and decision-making procedures. We await the outcome of this consultative process.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he has made since the Seattle meeting in securing reform of the WTO. [127467]

  Mr. Caborn
  The Government launched a consultation exercise before Seattle and continues to receive and respond to public concerns through correspondence as well as the DTI website www.dti.gov.uk/worldtrade. On 7–8 February, the WTO General Council meeting agreed that a consultation process should be launched on
  463W
  improvements to WTO consultative and decision-making procedures. We await the outcome of this consultative process.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what is his policy in respect of the admission of China into the WTO. [127469]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK supports China's accession to the WTO on the right terms. We welcome the European Commission's success in negotiating an EU/China bilateral market access agreement. Of course, it is essential that China's commitments upon accession to the WTO are clearly set out and reviewed at regular intervals to ensure adherence.

  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what progress he is making in achieving clarification of the relationship between multi-lateral environmental agreements and the WTO rules. [127468]

  Mr. Caborn
  The UK and EU have proposed that a new Round of WTO negotiations includes a clarification of the relationship between WTO rules and trade measures taken within multi-lateral environmental agreements. We are continuing our efforts to build a consensus among WTO members for this proposal.

  Textile Industry
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what assessment he has made of the impact of imported textiles and clothes on the UK textile industry. [127460]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  The increased level of imports of textiles and clothing has presented a significant challenge for domestic producers, which has been met in a variety of ways. Some UK companies have looked at the opportunities for manufacturing overseas to take advantage of lower wage rates; most have looked at their existing operations and worked to increase their competitiveness.

  Most encouragingly the industry itself set up the Textiles and Clothing Strategy Group, and its Final report, "A National Strategy for the UK Textile and Clothing Industry" was launched last month. My Department responded rapidly and positively to the report's recommendations and we are considering what further action we can take to help the industry compete internationally in the future.

  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry how much of his recently announced support for the textile industry will go to firms based in(a) the Coventry area and (b) the West Midlands. [127461]

  Mr. Alan Johnson
  All of the Government's 'announceables' outlined in its 12-point plan are applicable to(a) Coventry and (b) the West Midlands.

  The DTI and DfEE are currently liaising to carry through the initiatives announced in the 12-point plan, and how much support a region is allocated very much depends on the 'take-up' from the textile and clothing industry in that locality.

  Research Council (Luxembourg)
  Mr. Casale
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry what the outcome was of the Research Council held in Luxembourg on 15 June; and if he will make a statement. [127183]

  Mr. Byers
  I am pleased to report that the Council of 15 June:

  1. Debated the future of the Information and Knowledge Society, underlining the importance of research policy, social inclusiveness and the interconnection of high speed electronic research networks.

  2. Adopted a Resolution on establishing an European area of research and innovation.

  3. Adopted Presidency Conclusions concerning funding for life science infrastructures.

  4. Received information from the Commission on progress on the joint ESA-EU strategy for space, and from the Presidency and Commission on international co-operation.

  5. Under Other Business, the Council received information from the Presidency on discussions regarding marine science, and heard an intervention from Germany on the question of authorisation procedures for the release of genetically modified organisms.

  The Council also discussed the future of fusion research spending.

  Cannabis
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry when the licensed clinical trials of cannabis are expected to be concluded; and if he will make a statement. [127861]

  Ms Hewitt
  The Medical Research Council is supporting a clinical trial to look at the efficacy of cannabis extracts in the treatment of spasticity in multiple sclerosis patients. The trial was announced in December 1999 and is being run by Dr. John Zajicek (Derriford Hospital, Plymouth) and the MRC Clinical Trials Unit.

  The trial is making good progress; local ethical committee approval has been obtained in principle and an application has been made to the Medicines Control Agency for the appropriate licence. The cannabinoids will be given exclusively in capsule form. Recruitment of patients is planned to start later in the summer. The results will be available in about 2.5 years, after formal scientific assessment of the results has taken place.

HOME DEPARTMENT

  Youth Offending Teams
  Mr. Clapham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what assessment he has made of the effectiveness of youth offending teams; and if he will make a statement. [126367]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  Youth offending teams have been in place across England and Wales since 1 April 2000. They are now operating a range of new interventions for young offenders with support from the Youth Justice Board. The Board will be monitoring their impact and will identify and disseminate good practice.
  465W
  Youth offending teams and the new police and court powers were previously piloted for 18 months and in 10 areas. The interim reports of the evaluation led by Sheffield University are in the Library. They show the practical value of the teams' multi-agency approach. The final evaluation report will be published during the summer.

  Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what recent representations she has received concerning the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill; and which organisations have expressed concern about the Bill's provisions. [127459]

  Mr. Straw
  I have received a number of representations on the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Bill including from:The Confederation of British Industry/Alliance for Electronic Business;
  Institute of Directors;
  British Chambers of Commerce;
  London Investment Bankers Association;
  British Bankers Association;
  Internetforum;
  Internet Service Providers Association/London Internet Exchange; and
  Vodafone.

  The content of representations was described in the reply I gave the hon. Member for Lewes (Mr. Baker) on 20 June 2000, Official Report, columns 147–48W.

  Family Reunification
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will make a statement on his policy towards current EU discussions on(a) rights to family reunification and (b) temporary protection of displaced people. [127195]

  Mrs. Roche
  The Government have decided not to opt into the European Commission's proposal for a Directive on the right to family reunification. Our decision was based on concern that opting into the proposal would remove the United Kingdom's ability to formulate and adjust policies in relation to family reunification as a matter of domestic law.

  However, in remaining outside this proposal, it is not the Government's intention that the United Kingdom should be seriously out of line with our European partners in this important area of immigration policy. For that reason we shall continue to participate fully in discussion of the text.

  As to the Commission's recent proposals on temporary protection for displaced persons, negotiations over this text have not yet begun. The Government will participate actively in those discussions.

  Cyclists (Fixed Penalties)
  Mr. Bradshaw
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many cyclists have been issued with fixed penalty notices for(a) pavement cycling and
  466W
  (b) other offences in each police area since August 1999; and if he will make a statement on the impact fixed penalty notices have had. [126314]

  Mr. Charles Clarke
  I refer to the reply I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Great Grimsby (Mr. Mitchell) on 26 June 2000.Official Report, columns 383–86W.

  Correspondence
  Mrs. Roe
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will reply to the letter of 21 March and subsequent correspondence from the hon. Member for Broxbourne, concerning her constituents Ms K. Vertigans and Ms L. Coe. [127809]

  Mrs. Roche
  I wrote to the hon. Member on 26 June in response to her letters on behalf of her constituents, Ms K. Vertigans and Ms L. Coe. I am very sorry that I was unable to do so sooner, and would like, through the hon. Member, to extend my apology to her constituents for the delay.

  Onus of Proof
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what his policy is on EU draft instruments which seek to alter the onus of proof in court cases. [127483]

  Mr. Mike O'Brien
  The Government's policy on European Community draft instruments is developed on the merits of each proposal.

  If the question is referring to the recent agreement of the European Community Directive on racial discrimination—which includes a provision requiring the respondent, once a prima facie case of discrimination has been made by the complainant and accepted by the court, to demonstrate that there has been no breach of the principle of equal treatment—the Government welcome the agreement of this Directive.

  This applies only to civil cases and does not represent a major change in terms of United Kingdom legal practice. Under current United Kingdom law, United Kingdom tribunals can and do, if faced with facts which raise a presumption of discrimination, and where no reasonable explanation is offered, draw an inference that discrimination has occurred.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many agencies of his Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [127552]

  Mr. Straw
  An interactive voice response (IVR) system automatically answers telephone calls with a recorded voice which asks the caller to use the telephone keypad to select the required service. There are four executive agencies in my Department. The UK Passport Agency uses an IVR system for inquiries from the public. About 40 per cent. of calls are effectively dealt with by playing recorded information. The others are answered by operators in a call centre, who are able to handle most calls directly and to connect the rest to staff in regional offices. The available information shows that IVR systems are not used in Her
  467W
  Majesty's Prison Service, the Forensic Science Service or the Fire Service College. No central records of IVR systems are kept.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many departmental telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127405]

  Mr. Straw
  An interactive voice response (IVR) system automatically answers telephone calls with a recorded voice which asks the caller to use the telephone keypad to select the required service. IVR systems are used by the Immigration Service at London (Heathrow) Airport Terminal 3, and at the Port of Dover. The Nationality Directorate and National Asylum Support Services also use IVR. The available information shows that no other IVR systems are used in my Department. No central records of IVR systems are kept.

  Prison and Probation Services
  Mr. Pond
  To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what plans he has to improve arrangements for the strategic management of the prison and probation services and for future complaints arrangements for the two services. [128072]

  Mr. Boateng
  We think it right to recognise the substantial and growing overlap in the work that both services perform as we pursue our drive to reduce re-offending through proven and well-targeted programmes and re-settlement planning as set out in the correctional policy framework which we published last year.

  We have established a new strategy board for correctional services, chaired by myself as the Minister with responsibility for prisons and probation, to advise the Home Secretary on giving strategic direction for the prison and probation services. This replaces the prison service strategy board. We will make formal amendments to the framework document of the Prison Service in due course.

  We have also decided to extend the prisons ombudsman's remit to cover probation services. This joint ombudsman will be created initially on an administrative basis, as with the prisons ombudsman, but we plan to legislate as soon as practicable. We are giving careful consideration to what the ombudsman's terms of reference should be. We shall make a further statement to Parliament in due course.

CABINET OFFICE

  Social Exclusion Unit
  Mr. Field
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office (1) how many of the members of the Policy Action Teams are resident in the neighbourhoods identified by the Social Exclusion Unit as especially disadvantaged; [127326]

  (2) how many of the (a) members, and (b) advisers to the Social Exclusion Unit are residents of the 3,000 neighbourhoods that the Social Exclusion Unit has identified as being especially disadvantaged. [127327]
  468W
  Marjorie Mowlam
  Policy Action Team members were chosen to reflect a wide range of backgrounds, knowledge and experience of issues affecting deprived areas. Information is not held about members' home addresses.

  SEU reports have consistently pointed out that there is no universally agreed definition of a deprived area.

  The members of the SEU, both its staff and its advisers, are drawn from a wide range of backgrounds, knowledge and experience, both within and outside Government.

  Government Annual Report
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Minister for the Cabinet Office, pursuant to her answer to the hon. Member for Pendle (Mr. Prentice) of 14 June 2000,Official Report, column 65W, for what reason the Government have no plans to involve the National Audit Office in the production of the Government's Annual Report. [127812]

  Marjorie Mowlam
  All the statistical data in the Government's Annual Report series are provided or checked by the Office for National Statistics or other reputable statistical sources such as Eurostat.

HOUSE OF COMMONS

  House of Lords
  Mr. Gordon Prentice
  To ask the President of the Council what publications will carry the proposed advertisements from the Appointments Commission soliciting applications for membership of the House of Lords. [126385]

  Mr. Tipping
  That is a matter for the Appointments Commission.

  Modernisation Committee
  Mr. Miller
  To ask the President of the Council what progress has been made in respect of the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons proposals on modernising the procedures of the House. [126386]

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the President of the Council if she will make a statement on progress by the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on reforming the procedures of the House. [126391]

  Mrs. Beckett
  48 of the 54 recommendations of the Committee have been implemented. Apart from abolishing conventions, such as the use of the top hat, the work of Modernisation Committee has produced a clearer Order Paper, better explanatory notes for legislation, more effective Thursday sittings, more freedom for Standing Committees to meet when they wish, a new scrutiny reserve for European business, the introduction of a new forum for debate in Westminster Hall and some easing of restrictions on the Press Gallery and Lobby, which they have long sought.

  Oral Questions
  Mr. Clifton-Brown
  To ask the President of the Council what recent representations she has received on altering the cut-off time for tabling oral questions. [126387]

  Mrs. Beckett
  Other than those from the hon. Gentleman, none.

  European Union Duties
  Mr. MacShane
  To ask the President of the Council what steps she is taking to provide resources for hon. Members to carry out duties relating to Parliament or their constituencies in the European Union. [126389]

  Mr. Tipping
  The House agreed to greater flexibility in the scheme for visits to European constituencies on 25 May last year. At that time we said the scheme would be reviewed after a year; the review has begun.

  Ministerial Accountability
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the President of the Council what plans she has to improve the parliamentary accountability of Ministers during(a) adjournments and (b) prorogations. [126392]

  Mr. Tipping
  Ministers are accountable to Parliament at all times.

  Select Committee Reports
  Mr. Simon Hughes
  To ask the President of the Council if she will propose to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons a new system for advance notification of the publication of Select Committee reports. [126393]

  Mrs. Beckett
  No. Arrangements for publication of reports and notification of publication are matters for the Select Committee concerned or for the Liaison Committee.

  Written Questions (Recesses)
  Mr. Quinn
  To ask the President of the Council what proposal the Government have made to the Select Committee on Modernisation of the House of Commons on the tabling and answering of written questions during parliamentary recesses; and if she will make a statement. [126394]

  Mrs. Beckett
  The Government have made no such proposals.

CHURCH COMMISSIONERS

  Clergy Remuneration
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, (1) when he expects the General Synod to decide on the Archbishops' Council's review of the clergy remuneration package; [127123]
  470W
  (2) when he expects an announcement to be made following the Archbishops' Council's consideration of the clergy remuneration package. [127126]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The Review Group set up by the Archbishop's Council will consult widely by means of a survey to be sent to all stipendiary clergy and licensed layworkers, the purpose of which is to assess how clergy are managing financially. The Group has also prepared a consultation document for discussion within the Church.

  It is hoped that an interim report will be made to the Council this November, but at this stage it is too early to say when the General Synod will discuss the review and be able to take a decision on its findings, or when an announcement will be made.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will make a statement on the factors the Archbishops' Council will take into account in reaching a decision on the clergy remuneration package. [127125]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The factors comprising the Review Group's formal terms of reference are listed in answer to the previous question. Responses to consultation will be another key factor. In addition to the financial survey to be sent to all stipendiary clergy and licensed layworkers, the Group's consultation document for discussion within the Church asks for views on the concept of the stipend, its structure, the principle of differentials, other elements of the remuneration package, and the ability of the Church to fund any increases in stipends.

  I have arranged for my hon. Friend to be sent a copy of the consultation document.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the hon. Member for Middlesbrough, representing the Church Commissioners, if he will list the main components of the clergy remuneration package to be considered by the Archbishops' Council. [127124]

  Mr. Stuart Bell
  The principal elements of the remuneration package to be considered include the level and structure of the stipend itself, pension provision and housing. It will consider how stipends are to be funded as well as the level at which they should be set.

  The Group' s formal terms of reference are:

  (i) To consider the concept and definition of the stipend;

  (ii) To examine the content of the clergy remuneration package (including retirement provision) and its comparability with remuneration for other groups;

  (iii) To ascertain, through a properly conducted large-scale survey of clergy and consultations with dioceses and charities, the financial circumstances of clergy;

  (iv) To review the size of dignitaries' differentials;

  (v) In conjunction with the Finance Committee, to evaluate the affordability and long-term financial sustainability of the present arrangements and any proposals for change;

  (vi) To consider the implications for any proposals for: clergy deployment and partnership between dioceses; future numbers of stipendiary clergy and patterns of ministry

  (vii) To consider whether the present structure for setting stipends should be retained and outline possible alternative structures;

  471W

  (viii) To consult with the Church Commissioners, the Pensions and Board and dioceses;

  (ix) To consult with other national church bodies through the Churches Main Committee and government agencies on matters of fiscal and taxation policy which affect stipends, in particular the treatment of benefits in kind;

  And to determine options for wide debate within the Church.

EDUCATION AND EMPLOYMENT

  School Bus Service
  Caroline Flint
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what percentage of(a) primary and (b) secondary school children have access to a school bus service; and what was the cost of providing such services to (i) primary and (ii) secondary children in the last year for which figures are available. [124532]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 5 June 2000]: We do not collect statistics on school children who have access to a school bus service. Provisional figures for local education authority expenditure in England on school transport in 1998–99 were £78 million for pre-primary and primary schools, £164 million for secondary schools, and £203 million for special schools.

  Medical Students
  Mr. Harvey
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many students entered medical school in each of the last five years; and if he will make a statement. [126917]

  Mr. Wicks
  [holding answer 21 June 2000]: The following table sets out the number of full-time undergraduate entrants to medical schools in UK HE institutions in each of the last five years.

  Number

  1999–2000

  5,306

  1998–99

  5,105

  1997–98

  5,044

  1996–97

  4,833

  1995–96

  4,699

  School

  Purpose of grant allocation

  Beamont Infant and Junior

  Replacement of Dining Room

  Beamont Community Infant

  Energy and Efficiency Initiative

  Bewsey Lodge Primary

  Replacement of Pipe Work

  Brook Acre Community Primary

  Enclosure to Existing Fire Escape Staircase

  Brook Acre Community Primary

  Energy and Efficiency Initiative

  Bruche Community Infant

  Re-roofing Main School

  Burtonwood Primary

  Window Repairs

  Burtonwood Community Primary

  Re-build Gable Wall

  Callands Community Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  Culcheth Community Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  Culcheth High

  Electrical Re-wire

  Culcheth High

  Replace Heating Boilers

  Culcheth High

  Fire Alarm System Unification

  Culcheth High

  Improvements to Ventilation

  Culcheth High

  Alterations to Heat Treatment Area

  Culcheth High

  Re-roofing

  Culcheth High

  Re-slate Roof and Window Repairs

  Culcheth High

  Refenestration of Block C

  SEN Statements
  Dr. Cable
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many complaints he has received in the last two years from parents of children with statements of special educational needs who consider that their LEA is failing to meet the special educational provision specified in the statement. [127142]

  Jacqui Smith
  The information requested is not available in this form. During the past two years Ministers at the Department for Education and Employment have answered about 650 letters dealing with special educational needs issues and almost 6,500 letters were answered by officials.

  School Funding (Warrington, North)
  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what has been the total capital allocation since May 1997 to schools in the Warrington, North constituency; and if he will break down these capital allocations by category of grant. [127317]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: The following table shows the information requested for Warrington, North.

  £

  Category

  Grant allocation

  NDS1 Allocation-1997–98

  37,328

  NDS2 Allocation-1998–99

  613,441

  NDS3 Allocation-1999–2000

  998,201

  NDS4 Allocation-2000–01

  640,032

  Energy Efficiency Initiative Allocation-1998–99

  36,135

  Class Size Capital Allocation-1998–99

  80,000

  Class Size Capital Allocation-1999–2000

  637,088

  Class Size Capital Allocation-2000–01

  1180,000

  Devolved Formula Capital Allocation-2000–01

  347,521

  Total

  3,569,746

  1 Reserved pending statutory proposal decision

  Helen Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will list the schools in Warrington, North constituency which have received funding through the New Deal for schools; and in each case for what purpose the money was allocated. [127318]

  Jacqui Smith
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: The following table shows the information requested for Warrington, North.
  473W

  School

  Purpose of grant allocation

  Glazebury CE Primary

  Boiler Replacement

  Hollins Green St. Helen's Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  Locking Stumps Community Primary

  Repair of Floor

  Newchurch Community Primary

  Replacement of Copper Roof

  Padgate Community High

  Re-roofing

  St. Alban's RC Primary

  Refenestration

  St. Alban's RC Primary

  Refurbishment of Toilets

  St. Andrew's CE Primary

  Re-surfacing of Paved Areas and Footpath, Playground, Carpark and Access Road

  St. Margaret's CE Primary

  Provision of Two Classrooms

  St. Margaret's CE Primary

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  St. Oliver Plunkett RC

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  St. Paul of the Cross RC Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  St. Phillip's CE Primary (Playgroup)

  Construction of Extension to Existing Teaching Area

  St. Stephen's RC Junior

  Provision of Toilets

  St. Stephen's RC Primary

  Refurbishment of Infant Toilets

  St. Stephen's RC Primary

  Provision of Nursery Toilets

  St. Stephen's RC Primary

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  Twiss Green Community Primary

  Refenestration and Replacement of Fascias

  Twiss Green Community Primary

  Replace Heating System

  Twiss Green Community Primary

  Provision of Two Classrooms

  William Beamont Community High

  Replace Fire Alarm System

  William Beamont Community High

  Refurbishment of Sport Facilities

  William Beamont High

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  Winwick CE Primary

  Energy Efficiency Initiative

  Winwick CE Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  Woolston Primary

  Provision of One Classroom

  Woolston Community High

  Improvements to Floor and Provision of Dust Extraction in CDT Room

  Woolston Community Primary

  Installation of Fire Doors to Hall

  Woolston Community Primary

  Re-roofing

  Woolston Community High

  Science and Technology Block—to Replace Deteriorating Mobiles

  Careers Education
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the linkages between personal health and social education and careers services for young people. [127457]

  Jacqui Smith
  There are strong links between careers education (which is a statutory requirement for pupils aged 14–16) and the revised Personal, Social and Health Education (PSHE) framework, which we expect schools to implement from autumn this year and includes reference to career planning and management. In April we published a booklet "Careers Education in the New Curriculum"—a copy of which has been placed in the House of Commons Library—which sets out the relationship between these areas, as well as the new Citizenship programme of study. We encourage schools to take advantage of the introduction of PSHE and Citizenship to enhance the provision of careers education. Many schools already teach these areas in an integrated manner.

  Teenage Pregnancies
  Mr. Jim Cunningham
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the linkages between personal health and social education and targets to reduce teenage pregnancy rates. [127458]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Government have launched a wide-ranging programme to tackle the unacceptably high level of teenage pregnancies in Great Britain. The Department for Education and Employment will shortly publish new sex and relationship education guidance which is an important part of this broader strategy, and will assist schools in educating young people so that 474W
  teenage pregnancies are reduced. The guidance will be firmly rooted in the PSHE framework and National Curriculum published in autumn 1999.

  This programme includes funding a number of local education authorities through the Standards Fund to reintegrate school age mothers back into the education system and support age-appropriate educational projects aimed at reducing the rate of teenage conception by raising pupils' self esteem, exploring issues of choice and responsibility and peer pressure. We aim to ensure that these initiatives are integrated with individuals schools' Personal, Social and Health Education frameworks and other approaches such as Sure Start and child care pilots for 16 and 17 year olds.

  Tuition Fees
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the cost of abolishing tuition fees for undergraduate courses in higher education in each of the next five years; and if he will make a statement. [127506]

  Mr. Wicks
  I refer the hon. Member to my reply dated 14 February 2000,Official Report, column 393W. Figures for beyond 2001–02 depend on student numbers on which decisions have not yet been made.

  Schools (Repairs and Maintenance)
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what estimate he has made of the backlog of repair and maintenance work at schools in England; and if he will make a statement. [127600]

  Jacqui Smith
  The Department does not currently hold accurate and comprehensive data on all school buildings. We have, however, made resources available to local
  475W
  education authorities to help them prepare Asset Management Plans covering all the maintained schools in their areas. When completed, these plans should provide a comprehensive picture of the repairs to school buildings which still need to be carried out.

  A total of £1.9 billion is being spent in the current financial year on repairs and maintenance, three times the amount spent in 1996–97. This includes the New Deal for Schools, public-private partnerships, and other capital grants to schools and LEA borrowing.

  Teachers (Performance-related Pay)
  Mr. Gill
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment how many teachers are eligible to apply for performance-related pay. [127884]

  Ms Estelle Morris
  Around 265,000 teachers in England and Wales were eligible to apply for the performance threshold this year.

  Post-16 Education and Training
  Mr. Chaytor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment what plans he has to equalise the funding arrangements for post-16 education and training. [128002]

  Mr. Wicks
  How the Learning and Skills Council will allocate its funds is subject to a current consultation. The Government have invited partners' views on a system of national rates for the majority of learning programmes, which means that the same programme would attract the same funding wherever it was delivered. The Government recognise the current differences in funding levels, and favours upwards convergence, but we recognise that this can only happen over time, and subject to resources being available. Changes in levels of funding will, of course, be subject to the real-terms funding guarantee we have given to school sixth forms.

  Engineering
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for Education and Employment if he will make a statement on the recent Engineering and Marine Training Authority report entitled "Working in Engineering", with special reference to opportunities in engineering for young people from ethnic minorities. [127721]

  Mr. Wicks
  I welcome the report by the Engineering Employers' Federation/Commission for Racial Equality. The recommendations stemming from the project provide a realistic opportunity for engineering companies to engage the ethnic minority communities in a more constructive way.

  This will require greater commitment and positive action to build more effective links with schools and ethnic minority community centres. I believe a vital factor in encouraging young people from the ethnic minority community to be engineers is to provide role models from their own communities. The case studies which have been published should actively encourage entry into the industry.

  My Department strongly supports the outcomes and follow-up initiatives from the project and will continue to work closely with all appropriate parties to ensure that
  476W
  the engineering sector, together with the construction and manufacturing sectors—for example—attract more young people from the ethnic minority community.

TREASURY

  VAT
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what would be the cost of increasing the value added tax threshold for small businesses by(a) 10 per cent., (b) 20 per cent., (c) 50 per cent. and (d) 100 per cent. per year; and if he will make a statement. [127494]

  Mr. Timms
  Customs and Excise do not have reliable current estimates of the cost of substantial increases in the VAT registration threshold. A description of the difficulties involved in predicting the effect of large changes in the threshold is contained in "The VAT Shortfall: Report of the Working Group on VAT Receipts and Forecasts", Treasury Occasional Paper No. 9, September 1997. Table A.13 of the Budget 2000 Financial Statement and Budget Report contains an estimate of the Exchequer cost of indexing the VAT registration and deregistration thresholds in line with inflation.

  Tax Avoidance and Evasion
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what action he plans to take to reduce tax avoidance and evasion through non-domiciled status. [127602]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The Government keep all aspects of the tax system under review.

  We have taken steps in successive Finance Bills to combat avoidance and evasion across the tax system.

  HIPC Initiative
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer when the World Bank and IMF will set up the joint committee for overseeing the implementation of the Heavily Indebted Poor Countries Initiative; and where it will be based. [127713]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  The World Bank and IMF announced the establishment of the HIPC Joint Implementation Committee on 16 April this year. The Committee is based in Washington and has had its first meeting on 22 May.

  Red Diesel
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer on how many days the HM Customs and Excise testing units for red diesel operated within Scotland during(a) 1997 and (b) 1998; and how many prosecutions were brought for illegal use of red diesel in each of those years. [127661]

  Mr. Timms
  Scotland has two road fuel testing units. In 1997 they were operational for a combined total of 446 days and for 432 days in 1998. In the same period they made 277 detections leading to penalties and duty recovered totalling £423,214. In 1997 and 1998 two cases were taken to prosecution.

  Climate Change Levy
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the net yearly costs in the first year of implementation of the climate change levy to(a) the dairy industry and (b) the agriculture industry in Scotland. [127697]

  Mr. Timms
  It is not possible to say what the precise effect of the levy will be on any one particular industry. The impact of the levy package will depend on a number of factors, including: the future energy consumption by firms; the level of employment in those firms; the number of firms that are eligible to receive a discount on the main rates of the levy by signing up to an energy efficiency agreement; what use they make of electricity generated from 'new' renewable sources of energy and in 'good quality' combined head and power plants; and the extent to which they take advantage of the proposed introduction of a system of enhanced capital allowances for energy saving investments. However, the agriculture sector stands to benefit from a number of features of the levy package including the proposed special package of support for the horticulture subsector announced in the March 2000 Budget.

  GNP
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what percentage of GNP has been spent on(a) defence, (b) education and (c) health in each of the last 15 years. [127640]

  Mr. Andrew Smith
  Table 4.4 of Public Expenditure Statistical Analysis 2000–01 (Cm 4601) shows the amount of public expenditure spent on these services, as a percentage of GDP, in each of these years.

  The Health figures presented in this table are net of income from charges and asset sales, and do not include NHS trusts interest and dividend payments.

  Tax Returns
  Miss Geraldine Smith
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discounts are available for electronic filing of tax returns. [127634]

  Dawn Primarolo
  On 16 February 2000, the Chancellor announced that individuals who file their self-assessment tax returns over the internet in 2000–01 and pay any tax due electronically will receive a discount of £10. Small businesses that do the same for their PAYE and VAT returns in 2001–02 will receive a discount of £50 for each. And in his Budget speech on 21 March 2000 he said that small businesses that qualify for the PAYE discount and which pay tax credits to employees would receive a further discount of £50. These discounts are being offered to encourage businesses and individuals to embrace internet technology. Legislation has been included in this year's Finance Bill to provide for the payment of these incentives. The detailed conditions will be set out in regulations to be published later this year.

  Child Benefit
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the revenue from taxing child benefit for(a) all upper-rate taxpayers at 40 per cent. and (b) upper-rate taxpayers at 40 per cent.
  478W
  but 50 per cent. for those with taxable incomes of over £100,000 per annum; and if he will make a statement. [127500]

  Dawn Primarolo
  The estimated revenue from taxing child benefit received by higher-rate taxpayers at 40 per cent. in 2000–01 is £50 million in a full year. The additional revenue from taxing child benefit received by higher-rate taxpayers with taxable incomes of over £100,000 per annum at 50 per cent. is estimated to be less than £5 million.

  Tax Evasion
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of tax revenue lost to the UK Exchequer as a result of tax evasion; and if he will make a statement. [127603]

  Dawn Primarolo
  No such estimate has been made. There is no generally accepted method of producing an estimate sufficiently reliable to be of value.

  National Insurance
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on the Government's proposals and timetable for the reduction of Class 1 National Insurance contributions payable by employers. [127977]

  Dawn Primarolo
  As announced by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, the rate of employers Class 1 National Insurance contributions will be reduced from 12.2 to 11.9 per cent. in April 2001 and from 11.9 to 11.8 per cent. in April 2002.

  Exchange Rate
  Mr. Mitchell
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what assessment he has made of the effect of his policy of stability in the British Government finances and in the economy on the exchange rate since May 1997. [127484]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  It is not possible to identify precisely the impact of stability-orientated policies on the exchange rate. Delivering low inflation and sound public finances is the best contribution the Government can make to securing a stable and competitive exchange rate over the medium term.

  No-smoking Policy
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will make a statement on(a) the effectiveness of his Department's no-smoking policy and (b) the proportion of his Department's offices that do not allow smoking. [125148]

  Miss Melanie Johnson
  I refer my hon. Friend to the answer I gave my hon. Friend the Member for Bolton, North-East (Mr. Crausby) on 24 January 2000,Official Report, column 117W.

  Employee Share Schemes
  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer how much extra tax and national insurance he will collect following the introduction of the All-Employee Share Scheme from employee and employer participants in the scheme. [126960]
  479W
  Mr. Timms
  The new all-employee share plan is a tax and NICs relieving measure designed to encourage more employees to hold shares in the companies for which they work and to reward their long-term commitment. The new plan will eventually cost the Exchequer around £400 million a year.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what representations he has received from(a) employers and (b) employees about the All-Employee Share Scheme; what was the nature of those representations; and if he will make a statement. [126935]

  Mr. Timms
  Since December 1998, when the consultation process on employee share ownership began, the Inland Revenue has received in the region of 1,000 representations. While these have mostly been from employers and their advisers, many individual employees have also made representations.

  The responses have covered all aspects of the existing Inland Revenue approved share schemes and the proposals for the new all-employee share plan and Enterprise Management Incentives. They have been overwhelmingly in favour of the new proposals. We have reflected these representations in the legislation.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer if he will review the annual upper limit of £1,500 for contributions to the All-Employee Share Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [126934]

  Mr. Timms
  The limit of £1,500 on the amount which employees may contribute annually from their salary under the new plan was arrived at after extensive consultation. We have no plans to review the limit at the present time.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions he has had with employers about the cost and administration which will be involved in running the new All-Employee Share Scheme alongside existing schemes; and if he will make a statement. [126968]

  Mr. Timms
  Consideration of employers' costs in setting up and running the new plan has formed a major part of the consultation underlying the plan, and the views of employers have been sought at every stage. Improvements designed to reduce these costs have been made to the legislation currently going through Parliament. The Regulatory Impact Assessment published on 21 March sets out a detailed cost/benefit analysis.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what discussions with employers he had before deciding on an upper limit of £1,500 per year for employees purchasing shares under the new All-Employee Share Scheme; and if he will make a statement. [126961]

  Mr. Timms
  The limit of £1,500 on the amount which employees may contribute annually from their salary under the new plan was arrived at after extensive consultation involving their employers, their advisers and other interested parties. Over 1,000 written responses have been received during the consultation period, mainly from employers and their advisers. The process started in December 1998 and ended earlier this year, following the publication of the draft legislation in November 1999. An advisory group drawn from large and small companies, their advisers, the TUC and the academic world worked 480W
  with officials on the detailed legislation, and a 60-strong group of large and small employers was consulted throughout.

  Mr. Robertson
  To ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer what estimate he has made of the number of employees who contribute more than £1,500 per year to purchase their employing company shares through a share scheme; and if he will make a statement. [126936]

  Mr. Timms
  A full picture of the distribution of amounts used by employees to purchase shares in the companies they work for is not available.

SOCIAL SECURITY

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security (1) how many telephone lines to his Department used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems; [127119]

  (2) how many agencies of his Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [127122]

  Angela Eagle
  There are three telephone lines used by the general public which are responded to by interactive voice response in the Department's Headquarters and one Agency (Benefits Agency).

  These are the Child Benefit Centre, which is manned by operators until 5.30 pm and from 5.30–8.00 pm by interactive voice response, and the Customer Care Helpline, which gives the client two interactive voice response options before/instead of being put through to an operator.

  The third is run on our behalf by a commercial organisation and deals with inherited SERPS inquiries.

  Income Support
  Mr. Matthew Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security what is his estimate of the cost of restoring entitlement to Income Support to 16 and 17-year-olds; and if he will make a statement. [127496]

  Mr. Bayley
  I refer the hon. Member to the written answer I gave on 17 February 2000,Official Report, column 663W.

  State Pension
  Mr. Webb
  To ask the Secretary of State for Social Security if he will estimate the cost in each of the five financial years beginning with 2001–02 of(a) linking the basic pension to earnings and introducing an age addition of £5 for pensioners aged 75 to 79 years, and £10 for pensioners aged 80 years and above and (b) introducing an increase in the basic pension in 2001–02 of £5 for pensioners aged 75 years, £10 for pensioners aged 75 to 79 years and £15 for pensioners aged 80 years or above, followed by price indexation of all rates of pension thereafter, in each case showing the cost net of savings on means-tested benefits and increased income tax revenue. [127881]

  Mr. Rooker
  The information is in the table.
  481W

  £ billion

  Option (a)

  Option (b)

  Gross

  Net of means-tested benefits and income tax

  Gross

  Net of means-tested benefits and income tax

  2001–02

  2.3

  1.5

  4.4

  2.9

  2002–03

  2.9

  1.9

  4.5

  3.0

  2003–04

  3.6

  2.3

  4.5

  3.0

  2004–05

  4.5

  —

  4.5

  —

  2005–06

  5.3

  —

  4.6

  —

  Notes:

  1. Option (a) assumes that the age addition is paid in full to all basic state pension recipients and is not uprated. Option (b) assumes age-related increases are paid pro-rata to those without full basic state pension.

  2. Both options include the cost of benefits whose rates are linked to the rate of basic retirement pension.

  3. Figures are rounded to the nearest £0.1 billion and are in 2000–01 price terms.

  4. Gross costs estimated by the Government Actuary's Department. Costs net of income-related benefit savings are estimated using the Policy Simulation Model. Income tax revenues estimated by the Inland Revenue.

  5. Estimates of income tax revenues not available beyond 2003–04.

AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

  Local Authority Funding
  Mr. Sanders
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will list the funds which are available to local authorities on application, indicating those for which the Torbay Unitary Authority has successfully applied in each of the last two years. [124197]

  Mr. Nick Brown
  Local authorities can apply for a range of funds managed by my Department, depending on their individual circumstances. My Department's records show that Torbay Unitary Authority had three successful applications under the Countryside Stewardship Scheme in 1998–99.

  Organic Farming
  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what percentage of those farmers requesting information from the organic conversion information service entered the organic farming scheme. [127027]

  Mr. Morley
  Precise figures are not available. However, we estimate that around 25 per cent. of farmers who contact OCIS eventually enter land into conversion.

  Joan Ruddock
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many farmers requested information from the organic conversion information service in the last 12 months for which figures are available. [127028]

  Mr. Morley
  In the period 5 June 1999 to 2 June 2000, just over 2,000 farmers contacted the organic conversion information service.

  Beta-sitosterol
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will make a statement on his policy towards beta-sitosterol products. [126892]
  482W
  Ms Stuart
  As responsibility for food safety and standards matters have now passed to the Food Standards Agency which reports to Parliament through Health Ministers, I have been asked to reply.

  I am advised by the Food Standards Agency that products containing beta-sitosterol require pre-market approval under the European Commission Novel Foods Regulation 258/97 if they did not have a significant history of consumption in Europe at the time the regulations came into force.

ADVOCATE-GENERAL

  Human Rights
  Dr. Godman
  To ask the Advocate-General what recent advice she has given to the Government concerning the cross-examination of complainers in court cases involving sexual assault and similar offences in relation to(a) the human rights of such witnesses and (b) the European convention on human rights. [126363]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  This raises difficult questions which require to be handled with great delicacy by policy Ministers. These questions include issues of human rights, of the complainer as well as of the accused. In England and Wales, this is the responsibility of the Home Secretary and legislation has been passed by Parliament. The relevant provisions of the Youth Justice and Criminal Evidence Act 1999 will be brought into force once the necessary rules of court, which are at an advanced stage, have been made. In Scotland, where the matter is devolved, the Executive have announced their intention to examine options open to them.

  Devolution Issues
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Advocate-General in what type of cases, intimated to her as devolution issues, she has intervened. [126364]

  The Advocate-General for Scotland
  I have intervened in a variety of devolution issues cases. Each case is considered on its merits. In general terms I have intervened, for example, where important issues of principle have arisen particularly in cases which might have ramifications for the whole United Kingdom. I do not usually intervene until a case has reached appeal or Privy Council stage.

SCOTLAND

  New Deal
  Mr. McFall
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many people in Scotland have moved in to unsubsidised employment as a result of the New Deal; and if he will make a statement. [126341]

  Mr. Wilson
  At the end of March this year, 28,795 people had moved in to unsubsidised employment as a result of participating in the New Deal in Scotland.

  Scottish Constituencies
  Mr. Gray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the time scale for reducing the number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. [126342]

  Dr. Reid
  It is not possible to be precise on this. The Parliamentary Boundary Commission for Scotland has not yet formally started its next review. It is for the Commission to determine when this commences, keeping in mind the requirement that it needs to report between December 2002 and December 2006. Following the report, implementation will take some time.

  Mr. Syms
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Boundary Commission for Scotland about the Government's plan to reduce the number of hon. Members representing Scottish constituencies. [126344]

  Dr. Reid
  I have had no such discussions. The rules for the redistribution of parliamentary seats are set out in the Parliamentary Constituencies Act 1986, as amended, and the Scotland Act 1998. The Boundary Commission is required to follow these in any review of the number of constituencies in Scotland.

  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with the Prime Minister about reducing the number of hon. Members sitting for Scottish constituencies. [126360]

  Dr. Reid
  I have regular discussions with my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister on various matters.

  Pensioners
  Mrs. Laing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has made to the Secretary of State for Social Security regarding pensioners. [126343]

  Dr. Reid
  I have frequent discussions with my right hon. Friend. We are proud of this Government's record: we are spending an additional £6.5 billion on pensioners over the course of this Parliament.

  Barnett Formula
  Sir Teddy Taylor
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent representations he has received on the operation of the Barnett formula in respect of the block grant to the Scottish Executive. [126345]

  Dr. Reid
  I have not received any such representations in the past six months.

  Coalfield Communities
  Mr. Eric Clarke
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action is being taken to regenerate coalfield communities in Scotland. [126346]

  Dr. Reid
  This Government are very aware of the specific problems faced by coalfield areas and remain committed to a long-term plan of action to regenerate coalfield communities. As I explained in my reply to my hon. Friend on 18 April, the work of the Coalfields Regeneration Trust is a matter for the Scottish Executive.
  484W
  With the publication of the report "Improving Lottery Funding Access and Delivery in the British Coalfields" on 5 June, this Government have signalled their intention to ensure that people in coalfields and other deprived areas can get the fullest benefit possible from the National Lottery.

  National Minimum Wage
  Mr. Wray
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many Scottish companies have had action taken against them to enforce the national minimum wage. [126347]

  Mr. Wilson
  Since the introduction of the minimum wage on 1 April 1999, national minimum wage inspectors in Scotland have taken action against 17 companies to enforce the national minimum wage. There are presently 229 cases being investigated by national minimum wage investigators. The Low Pay Commission reported on 15 February that the Inland Revenue has made a successful start to enforcement and was working proactively to ensure compliance with the legislation.

  Mr. Donohoe
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many workers in Scotland have benefited from the introduction of the national minimum wage. [126350]

  Mr. Wilson
  Over 100,000 workers in Scotland are entitled to higher rates of pay as a result of the introduction of the national minimum wage on 1 April 1999.

  Assisted Areas Map
  Mrs. Ewing
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Department of Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive regarding the assisted area status map for Scotland. [126348]

  Dr. Reid
  I have had various discussions with both the Department for Trade and Industry and the Scottish Executive about the assisted areas map for Scotland. I am hopeful that the Commission will soon agree to a map that will secure a very favourable outcome for Scotland.

  Planning Decisions
  Mr. Peter Atkinson
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will raise in the joint Ministerial Committee between the Scottish Executive and the UK Government the subject of planning decisions with cross-border implications. [126349]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has no plans to raise this issue in the Joint Ministerial Committee. Planning decisions are in the first instance a matter for local government, and it will generally be desirable that local authorities should discuss planning matters that span their boundaries with neighbouring local authorities, whether those authorities are in Scotland or England. The bilateral concordat between the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions and the Scottish Executive provides for communication and co-ordination between these central government bodies.

  Fairness at Work
  Mr. Russell Brown
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what assessment he has made of the effects on employees and trade unions in Scotland of the proposals contained in the Government's "Fairness at Work" White Paper. [126351]

  Dr. Reid
  The Government have implemented the proposals contained in the "Fairness at Work" White Paper mainly through the Employment Relations Act 1999. Workers and trade union members in Scotland have benefited a great deal from the creation of decent minimum standards at work and the emphasis on a partnership approach to work.

  Criminal Assets
  Mr. Jim Murphy
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had about the seizure of criminal assets in Scotland. [126352]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with both his Cabinet colleagues and Scottish Executive Ministers on various matters.

  US Trade Dispute
  Mr. Moore
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with(a) industry and (b) others about the future of Scottish cashmere manufacturing. [126353]

  Mr. Wilson
  I meet representatives of the industry and of individual companies on a regular basis to discuss a range of issues affecting the industry. I have written to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the current US Carousel retaliation threat to the cashmere and other industries, as well as discussing this with the US Ambassador to Britain. I am also in contact with the Scottish Executive on this issue.

  The hon. Member will be aware that we still await the final retaliation list from the USTR. I continue to be hopeful that our efforts on behalf of the cashmere industry have been successful.

  Mr. Tynan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent discussions he has had with the Scottish textiles industry regarding the trade dispute between the USA and the European Union. [126354]

  Mr. Wilson
  I have had a range of discussions with the industry about the current trade dispute. I have also written to the Prime Minister and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry about the current US Carousel retaliation threat to the cashmere and other industries as well as discussing this with the US Ambassador to Britain. I am also in contact with the Scottish Executive on this issue.

  The hon. Member will be aware that we still await the final retaliation list from the USTR. I continue to be hopeful that our efforts on behalf of the cashmere industry have been successful.

  Textiles Industry
  Mr. Browne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the future of Scotland's textiles industry. [126358]
  486W
  Mr. Wilson
  The Government recently announced a twelve-point plan to support the British textile industry, which has, until now, lacked an overall strategy and adequate support. The strategy will help the competitiveness of the industry by addressing issues such as the supply chain, design and research, public procurement and exports. I was delighted that the excellent work of Heriot Watt University's Galashiels Campus has been recognised by its designation as a Centre of Manufacturing Excellence in Textiles

  All the measures for the UK textile industry will equally apply in Scotland. I am delighted, however, that the Scottish Executive considers that the importance of the textile industry to the Scottish economy merits further action and is introducing a comprehensive package of additional measures to support the textile industry in Scotland.

  Eurozone
  Mr. Swayne
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what recent advice he has given to the Prime Minister regarding the readiness of the Scottish economy for entry into the eurozone. [126355]

  Mr. Wilson
  My right hon. Friend has regular discussions with the Prime Minister on a wide range of issues including the current healthy state of the Scottish economy.

  Genetic Paternity Testing
  Mrs. Irene Adams
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what the implications are in Scotland of the recommendations made by the advisory committee on Genetic Paternity Testing; and if he will make a statement. [126356]

  Dr. Reid
  A draft Code of Practice on Genetic Paternity Testing is currently being considered by the Human Genetics Commission. The Government plan to publish the Code later this year. The intention is that the Code will cover the whole of the United Kingdom, including Scotland.

  Drug Deaths
  Mrs. Ann Winterton
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland what action his Department is taking to reduce the number of drug deaths in Scotland as part of the UK anti-drugs strategy. [126357]

  Mr. Wilson
  Responsibility for action to reduce the number of drug deaths in Scotland lies with the Scottish Executive, working within the common UK-wide statutory framework. The reduction of drug-related deaths is a key objective of Scotland's drug strategy.

  Poverty and the Knowledge Economy
  Mrs. McKenna
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the joint management committees on poverty and the knowledge economy. [126359]

  Dr. Reid
  The Joint Ministerial Committees on poverty and the knowledge economy, which bring together Ministers from the UK Government and the devolved Administrations, both met on 26 May, in Edinburgh. The
  487W
  meetings were chaired by the Chancellor of the Exchequer. The Advocate-General for Scotland represented the Scotland Office. A wide variety of issues were discussed. Areas discussed at the meeting on poverty included the work being done to help pensioners; the Children's Fund and social inclusion. Areas discussed at the meeting on the knowledge economy included jobs and skills. It was agreed that a conference on services for pensioners should take place later this year. The next meetings of the Joint Ministerial Committees on poverty and the knowledge economy will take place in the autumn.

  Road Accidents (A90)
  Mr. Malcolm Bruce
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many(a) fatal and (b) serious injuries accidents occurred per vehicle mile on the A90 between Elton and Aberdeen in (i) 1995, (ii) 1996, (iii) 1997, (iv) 1998 and (v) 1999. [127228]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for statistics for fatal and serious accidents in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

  Orange Badges
  Mr. Alasdair Morgan
  To ask the Secretary of State for Scotland how many valid orange disability badges are currently held by individuals resident within Scotland, broken down by local authority area. [127660]

  Dr. Reid
  Responsibility for statistics for orange disability badges in Scotland is a matter for the Scottish Executive.

INTERNATIONAL DEVELOPMENT

  Bananas
  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how her Department is working with Caribbean banana smallholders and the Fairtrade Foundation to encourage the introduction of fair trade bananas to the UK market. [127886]

  Mr. Foulkes
  I met with the Fairtrade Foundation on 13 June to discuss their request for DFID support for the launch of the Fairtrade Windward Island Banana Campaign later this year. We have agreed to provide support for this campaign, and discussions on the details are continuing.

  Mr. David Stewart
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement on how her Department is working with the EU and other institutions to assist Caribbean banana smallholders. [127887]

  Mr. Foulkes
  We are continuing to press the European Commission to reach an agreement on a successor bananas regime that will not be WTO-compatible but will enable the continuation of a viable—albeit restructured—banana industry in the Caribbean. We are also continuing to work actively with the European Commission and other donors in a programme to support and encourage necessary reforms to achieve a more commercially based banana industry in the Eastern Caribbean. This programme is being supported by substantial funding 488W
  from the Stabex facility and the EC Special Framework of Assistance for banana industry restructuring, economic diversification and social safety net provision during the transition process.

  Intellectual Property Rights
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what recent discussions she has had with developing countries in respect of the Trade Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights Agreement; and if she will make a statement. [127464]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The WTO TRIPS Council is currently conducting its review of the implementation of TRIPS legislation for 13 of its developing country members. The Government will be following this review closely.

  The Government are well aware that the TRIPS Agreement has been difficult for some countries to implement and that questions have been raised about its coverage and approach.

  The Government stand ready to offer assistance to developing countries on understanding the implication of the Agreement for themselves and its implementation.

  Our Department is actively funding programmes aimed at helping developing countries to better their Uruguay Round commitment including in the area of intellectual property rights.

  The Government's position is to maintain an agreement on TRIPS. The Government are open to constructive suggestions on how to improve the TRIPS Agreement and as part of a new comprehensive round would be open to substantive negotiations on the Agreement.

  Parliamentary Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development on how many occasions she has deposited papers in the Library in response to parliamentary questions tabled to her Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April. [127673]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Between 19 October 1999 and 20 April 2000 papers have been deposited in the Library on 16 occasions in response to parliamentary questions.

  Burmese Refugees
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what measures the Government are taking to support Burmese refugees who have fled to(a) Thailand, (b) China, (c) India and (d) Bangladesh. [127802]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Over the last two years, DFID has given the Burma Border Consortium (a grouping of NGOs) a total of £537,500 for the provision of humanitarian assistance to around 110,000 Burmese refugees in Thailand. In Bangladesh, we have given UNHCR £250,000 for its programme to repatriate Burmese refugees. We understand that over 90 per cent. of these refugees have now returned to Burma, leaving some 22,500 in Bangladesh. In India and China, we understand that the number of registered Burmese refugees is very small (around 1,000 in total), and we have not targeted any assistance on these groups.

  Development Policy Forum
  Mr. Sarwar
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development if she will make a statement regarding the Development Policy Forum held recently in Glasgow. [127720]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Forum in Glasgow was one of a series of 11 being held across the UK between January and July this year. The Development Policy Forum process is designed to share thinking and ideas on development issues with groups and individuals from across society both to raise awareness of key issues and to deepen participants' understanding. This year's Forums have addressed three themes: achieving benefits for developing countries from the next round of World Trade negotiations, tackling corruption and aid untying.

  All three themes were addressed at the Glasgow Forum on 23 May, with useful and lively discussions taking place. The Government team was led by myself.

  Empowerment of Women
  Dr. Lynne Jones
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what steps the Government are taking to support the efforts of international aid agencies to facilitate the empowerment of women. [127803]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development is working extensively to encourage international agencies to actively support the empowerment

  DFID Funded Projects Active in Sudan, June 2000

  Agency

  Project

  Amount

  CARE

  South Kordofan emergency water

  195,439

  IGAD

  Sudan Peace Secretariat, Nairobi

  18,777

  MSF

  Hyper Endemic Kala Azar treatment, Gadaref State

  346,075

  MSF

  Health assistance for local and displaced population of north Bahr El Ghazal

  400,000

  MSF

  Kalar Azar treatment/prevention, south Sudan

  207,272

  OCHA

  Operation Lifeline Sudan Security Project

  882,000

  OCHA

  Operation Lifeline Sudan: humanitarian co-ordination in Khartoum and Nairobi

  200,000

  SCF

  Support to the World Food Economy Analysis Unit

  57,154

  SCF

  Emergency distribution of seeds and tools, south Sudan

  258,333

  Tear Fund

  Nutrition Programme, Omdurman, Khartoum State

  73,610

  Notes:

  CARE= Cooperation for Assistance and Relief Everywhere

  IGAD= Inter-Government Authority on Development

  MSF= Medecins sans Frontieres

  OCHA= United Nations Office for the Co-ordination of Humanitarian Affairs

  SCF= Save the Children Fund

LORD CHANCELLOR'S DEPARTMENT

  Bailiffs
  Mr. Hilary Benn
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the powers of bailiffs. [126372]

  Mr. Lock
  Professor Beatson of Cambridge University is conducting a review of bailiff law on our behalf, and will report to us this month. The National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux has published a report, entitled "Undue Distress", on bailiff powers and regulation. The Government have substantial concerns about the way some bailiffs operate and are regulated. We will look closely at the powers and role of bailiffs in the light of both these reports.
  490W
  of women in all their programmes. This includes key agencies in the UN, the European Commission, the international financial institutions, and international organisations in civil society. More specifically, we have recently significantly increased our support to the United Nations Development Fund for Women (UNIFEM). Details of this support are published in our annual Departmental Report.

  Departmental Cars
  Mr. Baker
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what is the(a) make, (b) model and (c) total number of each make and model of car (i) owned and (ii) leased by his Department; and what is the (1) purchase price and (2) annual cost of the lease of each car. [127395]

  Mr. Foulkes
  The Department for International Development makes use of three official cars, namely a Vauxhall Omega, a Vauxhall Vectra and a Ford Mondeo. All cars are used on a lease basis from the Government Car Service costing a total of £142,476.36 per annum.

  Sudan
  Mr. Cox
  To ask the Secretary of State for International Development what aid projects are currently financed by her Department in the Sudan. [127156]

  Mr. Foulkes
  Projects in the Sudan currently financed by the Department for International Development are listed.

  Shrewsbury County Court
  Mr. Paul Marsden
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on progress in refurbishing the Shrewsbury county court and the expected completion date thereof. [126373]

  Jane Kennedy
  The arrangement for payment of the agreed contribution of £40,000 to the Court Service from the local authority has now been resolved. There has been particular difficulty in reaching agreement with the Landlord; consequently it is anticipated that the new lease will not be signed before September 2000. Once the lease has been signed there will be a programme of works, approximately six months in duration, to be completed
  491W
  by the Landlord/Court Service. The completion date is dependent upon agreement of the lease and the Landlord disclosing the timetable for the works.

  Domestic Violence
  Ms Moran
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department when he intends to implement section 60 of the Family Law Act 1996 relating to domestic violence cases. [126374]

  Jane Kennedy
  Section 60 will allow third parties to apply for civil remedies in domestic violence cases on behalf of survivors of domestic violence. Those remedies are occupation orders and non-molestation orders. The implementation raises a number of questions which we are currently looking into. We will consider issuing a public consultation paper on this issue later this year.

  Magistrates Courts (South Staffordshire)
  Mr. Fabricant
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the administration of the magistrates courts in South Staffordshire. [126375]

  Jane Kennedy
  Decisions on the administration of magistrates courts in South Staffordshire are for the Staffordshire Magistrates Courts Committee to determine, in consultation with its local paying authorities.

  Public Trust Office
  Dr. Naysmith
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the failure of the Public Trust Office Executive Agency to meet two of its key performance indicators for the 1999–2000 financial year. [126376]

  Jane Kennedy
  The Public Trust Office failed its Unit Cost and Charter Standard key performance indicators for 1999–2000 (these results are still subject to National Audit Office approval). The Unit Cost target for the 1999–2000 financial year was to generate an efficiency saving of 3 per cent. This target was failed because the Public Trust Office's cost base was increased during the year to take account of a revaluation of its building. This unexpectedly added £500,000 to annual costs. Although the Public Trust Office missed its target of achieving 98 per cent. of Charter Standards, actual performance was 96.6 per cent., a creditable result against a very demanding target.

  Legal Services Ombudsman
  Mr. Bercow
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the performance of the Legal Services Ombudsman. [126377]

  Mr. Lock
  The Lord Chancellor published the first full review of the Office for the Legal Services Ombudsman on 29 March. The independent review, conducted by Miss Ann Chant, found that the Office is carrying out its responsibilities effectively, notwithstanding that its work load had doubled since its creation in 1990. The Office is described as professional, strongly committed to good client service and experienced in handling high volume 492W
  cases economically and to a good standard. The Ombudsman's 1999–2000 annual report is to be published next month.

  Rural Magistrates Courts
  Mr. Paterson
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department if he will make a statement on the work of rural magistrates courts. [126378]

  Jane Kennedy
  There is no difference in the work of magistrates courts in either a rural or urban location. All magistrates courts have the same criminal jurisdiction.

  I refer the hon. Member to the answer that I gave him on 25 January 2000, Official Report, column 180W. Magistrates courts are best managed locally by the relevant magistrates courts committee under the provisions of the Justices of the Peace Act 1997.

  County Court Fees
  Mr. Brady
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what meetings he has had with the Law Society to discuss the level of county court fees. [126379]

  Mr. Lock
  I have had no meetings with the Law Society to discuss the level of county courts fees, and there has been no request for such a meeting.

  Solicitors (Supervision Office)
  Ms Coffey
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department what assessment he has made of the performance of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors. [126369]

  Mr. Lock
  We have a number of concerns about the ability of the Office for the Supervision of Solicitors to meet the casework targets that the Lord Chancellor expects them to achieve, in particular in relation to the quality of adjudication and the turnaround times. However, we acknowledge that some progress has been made in reducing the backlog of outstanding cases since August 1999. We will continue closely to monitor their performance against the targets and timetable agreed by the Lord Chancellor.

  Interactive Voice Response Systems
  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many agencies of the Lord Chancellor's Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public. [127554]

  Jane Kennedy
  No agencies of the Lord Chancellor's Department use interactive voice response systems when dealing with telephone inquiries from the general public.

  Mr. Ben Chapman
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many departmental telephone lines used by the general public are responded to by interactive voice response systems. [127406]

  Mr. Lock
  The headquarters of the Lord Chancellor's Department does not use any interactive voice response systems.

  Written Questions
  Mr. Maclennan
  To ask the Parliamentary Secretary, Lord Chancellor's Department how many written parliamentary questions were tabled to his Department between 19 October 1999 and 20 April; and how many have not received substantive answers for reasons of disproportionate cost. [127682]
  494W
  Mr. Lock
  [holding answer 26 June 2000]: In the relevant period, 345 parliamentary questions were tabled to the Lord Chancellor's Department for written answer. Of these, 11 parliamentary questions did not receive a substantive answer for reasons of disproportionate cost and a further six questions received a partial answer where a full answer could have been provided only at disproportionate costs.

Preamble
The House met at half-past two of the clock: The CHAIRMAN OF COMMITTEES on the Woolsack.
Prayers—Read by the Lord Bishop of Southwark.

Driving Skills Tuition in Schools: Policy
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu Lord Montagu of Beaulieu asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they consider that, if lessons on vehicle driving and roadcraft were included in the appropriate schools curricula, it would improve driving skills for the young and reduce accidents.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Whitty): My Lords, the Government's road safety strategy reflects the need to cut child road casualties by 50 per cent. and to address the problems of novice drivers. In the school curriculum, the personal, social and health education framework includes road safety and responsibility as road users. We are doubling the number of visits to schools and colleges by driving examiners to deliver messages about responsible attitudes to driving and we are encouraging higher driving standards, with improved arrangements for learning to drive and assessing hazard awareness in the theory test.
Lord Montagu of Beaulieu: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that reply. In view of the great success of such schemes in the United States, will he initiate discussions with driving schools about establishing pilot schemes to assess their feasibility in this country? Does the Minister also agree that good tuition could not only reduce casualties, but reduce the truancy rate in schools?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I understand that that approach may have its attractions and its byproducts, but adopting driving lessons in schools, on school premises or arranged by schools for people who are under the driving age, is a serious issue. Some of the evidence from America suggests that that leads to increased illegal under-age driving on the roads. The problem with young drivers is not so much their technical skill as their attitude. Improving their technical skill would not necessarily improve their performance on the road and prevent casualties.
Lord Davies of Oldham: My Lords, I declare an interest as the president of the Royal Society for the Prevention of Accidents. Does my noble friend the Minister agree that, welcome though improving driving skills might be, given our appalling record on accidents involving children, which is one of the worst in Europe, it is much more important that the school
758
curriculum addresses the broad issues of road safety? Children are more likely to be injured as pedestrians or cyclists rather than subsequently as car drivers.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, my noble friend is correct. Despite our generally good road safety record, we fare much worse than most European countries on child pedestrian casualties. It is important that the totality of road safety attitudes is inculcated in schools, rather than emphasising the pre-driving stage. Nevertheless, it is important that pupils understand what driving is about. That is why we encourage driving examiners and others to go into schools to give lectures and information, under the auspices of the Driving Standards Agency.
Lord Harrison: My Lords, will the Government also take note of the problem of the exorbitant insurance premiums placed on young people—typically £1,000 a year? That is an impediment to our young men and women who want to learn to drive and acquire roadcraft skills.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I suspect that, regrettably, insurance company premiums for young drivers reflect knowledge and experience of the level of accidents and damage to vehicles and people when young drivers are involved. I am not sure that it is appropriate for the Government to intervene on that subject. There are other ways of improving the performance of novice drivers.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: My Lords, there are many suggestions around for improving the safety of our roads, ranging from teaching young children to behave better and to understand road safety through to reducing the speed at which people travel. We all have our favourites. Has any research been done on which are the most effective methods of reducing road accidents?
Lord Whitty: My Lords, there is a large body of road safety research, much of it funded by my department, as well as some international research. It shows that all the factors involved contribute—attitude, speed, road environment, density of traffic and the skill and behaviour of drivers. There is an indication of the relative importance of each factor, but to have a coherent road safety strategy we must address them all, as the Government's recently published road safety strategy does.
Baroness Blotch: My Lords, does the Minister accept that more could be done to encourage some schools that do not allow police officers on to the premises to carry out important crime prevention and road safety work? That situation is unfortunate. A school in Liverpool that I visited uses building a car engine and driving the car as a way of improving science and technology education and helping its young people to be safer than most, particularly those who do not enjoy secure home backgrounds.
Lord Whitty: My Lords, I am aware that a number of schools have engaged in engine maintenance and a

759
policy generally of introducing children of 14 onwards to car technology and driving. In Northern Ireland, there is a GCSE based on road safety that includes such factors. That has proved of some benefit to pupils who take it, particularly those who come from a more deprived background. Police visits to schools with a road safety message are beneficial. I hope that schools take up that idea and that police authorities continue to provide it. The decision on the curriculum in this respect is a matter for the schools rather than the Government.

Private Health Insurance
2.42 p.m.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry Lord Renton of Mount Harry asked Her Majesty's Government:
What measures they intend to introduce to encourage the take-up of private health insurance.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Government have no plans to introduce any measures to encourage the take-up of private health insurance. We believe that the best way to provide for the healthcare needs of all British residents is to use the available resources to fund the NHS directly rather than to subsidise those who, for whatever reason, choose to make alternative arrangements.
Lord Renton of Mount Harry: Oh dear! My Lords, following the historic announcement yesterday about the decoding of the human genome, I was hoping for an Answer from the Minister that was a little more forward looking—given that that marvellous achievement was made by a coming together of private sector and public sector research, which is bound to continue. Does the Minister agree that there are now some 7 million people in Britain who have taken out private health insurance, but that we are still well below the EU average for the percentage of private healthcare as a percentage of total healthcare? Can the noble Lord try to persuade his colleagues that those 7 million people should be allowed to pay their insurance premiums without taxation? Every penny that goes into BUPA or PPP gives the NHS more scope to help others. If, as President Clinton said yesterday, we are all to live for another 25 years, will the NHS be able to cope with that alone? I doubt it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I admire the noble Lord for looking forward. However, he should also look a little backwards. The Conservative government introduced tax relief on private medical insurance in 1990, which we removed after the 1997 election. Experience shows that, over that period of time, the number of people over 60 covered by private health insurance increased from 500,000 to 550,000 only; in other words, the tax relief went almost entirely to those who were already taking out private medical insurance, not to the health service.
Lord Winston: My Lords, is my noble friend the Minister aware that the National Health Service undoubtedly benefits most considerably from the admission of private patients into its hospitals? Are the Government aware that one of the problems with some of the big private insurance companies is that, at present, they offer a monopolistic practice that actually prevents their insured patients going into teaching hospitals? I should declare an interest here, as I am an honorary consultant within the NHS.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, nothing in my answers has indicated a decision on the part of this Government to set up barriers between private healthcare and the NHS. Indeed, that was not the purport of the original Question. My noble friend must not draw the conclusion that we are proposing any further changes in private provision or in its funding.
Lord Clement-Jones: My Lords, the original Question seemed to assume that more private health insurance would have benefits for our national health services. Is the Minister aware of any evidence which shows that subsidising private health insurance in this way would bring such benefits?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I believe that my response to the supplementary question of the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, made it clear that I agree with what the noble Lord, Lord Clement-Jones, has just said.
Lord Marsh: My Lords, does the noble Lord accept that many people will find what he says both deeply depressing and quite extraordinary? On virtually every count—whether it be fatalities in certain diseases, numbers of doctors or the proportion of GDP spent on healthcare—this country's health provision, regardless of which party is in power, is behind that of other countries; indeed, France is a classic example. Will the Minister agree that there is a benefit to be gained in trying to get more money spent on the National Health Service, and that the best way to do so is to encourage more people to contribute?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am glad to note that the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, is referring to the recent report of the World Health Organisation. However, the noble Lord should read that report with a little more care. Although it found that this country spends less of its GDP on health services in total, we stand at 18th in the world list, though that is not an ideal position to be in. We fall down badly—everyone agrees that this is right—on the responsiveness of our National Health Service to patients. That is a problem that we must certainly address. But it does not follow that the best way to improve our health services is to help to fund private medical services through our tax system. The real growth in NHS expenditure has been significant under this Government. We believe that that is the right way to move forward.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: My Lords, I am searching for some crumb of comfort in the noble Lord's answers. I believe he said that it was no part of this Government's intention to create barriers between the public and the private sectors of the health service. I hope that the noble Lord will learn from that answer and practise it. The immense inhibitions from which the health service suffers as a result of the sort of proprietary, defensive attitudes of the Government cannot be exaggerated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that sounded to me like an assertion, not a question.
Lord Renton: My Lords, would it help the Government to reach a decision in this matter if I mentioned that the only reason why I am still alive is that, last year, BUPA spent 10 times more on my medical attention than I had paid for my premium?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Renton, got good value and we continue to get good value from his continued presence.
Lord Walton of Detchant: My Lords, at a time when the National Health Service is gravely understaffed in terms of doctors, nurses and medical laboratory scientific officers, and is having to turn to the private sector for assistance in carrying out operations, is it not now possible that pragmatism can overcome idealism?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the impact of what the noble Lord, Lord Renton of Mount Harry, proposes, and of what we understand the Conservative Member Dr Liam Fox proposes, would be a continued brain drain from the National Health Service to the private sector, which would benefit no one.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, the Minister not only insists on taking responsibility for the fact that 97 per cent of the amount of money spent on health is spent by the Government—the world record for a government share—but is actually proud of that. However, is he also proud of the conclusions of the detailed report, to which the noble Lord, Lord Marsh, referred, which shows that we are in 18th position in terms of standards of healthcare? Does he take responsibility for the fact that we are lower in the world table than such countries as San Marino, Andorra, Malta, Greece and Iceland?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am delighted that the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has read the report rather more carefully than the noble Lord, Lord Marsh. I take pride in the fact that 97 per cent of our health expenditure is public health expenditure. If we move towards insurance funding of health services—the United States is the classic example of this—we shall have poorer health services at considerably higher cost.

European Single Currency
2.51 p.m.
Lord Blaker Lord Blaker asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the five economic tests proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer for joining the European single currency are closer to, or further from, being met than when they were first stated.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the Chancellor of the Exchequer has said that we shall make another assessment of the five economic tests early in the next Parliament.
Lord Blaker: My Lords, I am grateful for that reply but does not the noble Lord agree that the economic tests are so amorphous, and the answers to them necessarily so subjective, that they are unlikely ever to provide the clear and unambiguous evidence of economic benefits for which the Prime Minister has called? Is not the real purpose of the economic tests to promote the idea that the economic problems are more important than the political questions and to provide a screen behind which the Government will be able to judge according to the state of the opinion polls when it is suitable to hold a referendum?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I do not agree that the tests are amorphous and I do not agree that this is primarily a political decision rather than an economic one. As the Chancellor has always made clear, the economic tests apply to a successful single currency and to the circumstances under which the Government accept that there will be a pooling of sovereignty if we go into a single currency. But the tests of sustainable convergence, of flexibility, of investment, of financial services industry and of employment are by no means amorphous. They are capable of analysis and they have been subject to analysis, most recently by the International Monetary Fund.
Lord Shore of Stepney: My Lords, I am sorry that I cannot support my noble friend in what he has said. Seriously, there is only a flimsy intellectual case for joining on economic terms. It is a major political and constitutional issue. For the Government to go on ducking the issue and pretending that this is not the case is simply an exercise in dishonesty which gains us no respect on the Continent, where every other political leader accepts that the major purpose is to foster political union, is it not?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I am not aware that my noble friend asked a question in any of that. I am sorry that he felt it necessary to use such language in an intervention.
Lord Taverne: My Lords, can the Government explain how they will avoid the euro becoming an issue at the next election? In particular, how can die Chancellor of the Exchequer argue, as he clearly

763
intends to, that the Government should be re-elected because of his brilliant management of the economy and in the same breath state that he cannot possibly say that the state of the economy will be in a suitable condition for us to join the euro within a year or so of the next election? Is the Chancellor so blind that he cannot see that he is giving Mr Hague a superb opportunity to make him look foolish?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord, Lord Taverne, has departed from the Liberal Democrat script in the final few words of his intervention. Certainly the Government intend to adduce the argument in the next election that the Chancellor has done a brilliant job of restoring the economy to health. We will do that because it is true. However, to say that we are trying to secure that there will be no reference to the single currency in the next election is quite unrealistic.
Lord Waddington: My Lords, surely the noble Lord must agree that a glance at the second test, which asks, "If problems emerge, is there sufficient flexibility to deal with them?", shows that these are not tests at all but matters of judgment, leaving the Prime Minister free to recommend abolition of the pound whenever he thinks that he can get away with it.
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the second test actually asks whether there is sufficient flexibility to cope with economic change. I see no difficulty in that.
Lord Peston: My Lords, I hope that I may break the rules and speak in favour of the European Community. I refer to the questioning that seems to take place all the time. It is a long time since I knew any economics, but the notion that any economic test could be exercised without judgment is rather farfetched. Does not my noble friend agree that the tests lay down some sensible criteria but that it is up to someone—in this case, the Chancellor—to interpret them and put forward a view? Does not my noble friend also agree that that view will be subject to the test of many other people expressing their views, and therefore there is no problem?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, my noble friend is absolutely right. This Government have always said that, early in the next Parliament, on the basis of those tests, the Treasury will make an assessment; the Government will make a decision on the basis of that assessment; they will put that decision to the House of Commons and then to the people of this country in a referendum.
Earl Russell: My Lords, before the Minister accuses my noble friend Lord Taverne of departing from the Liberal Democrat script, will he tell the House whether he heard my noble friend in so much as a syllable suggest that Mr Hague might take the opportunity he was being given?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, that is an ingenious let out for the noble Lord, Lord Taverne.
764
The departure from the Liberal Democrat script comprised the suggestion that there might be some polemic gift to Mr Hague, but it certainly does not follow that he would be capable of taking it.
Lord Saatchi: My Lords, can the Minister give your Lordships' House the name of a single economist who will say that the five tests are objective? Is it not true that the tests are just a matter of opinion and that, as the Minister just said, the opinion will be the opinion of the Treasury and that, if asked to do so by Government Ministers, the Treasury would express the opinion that the earth was flat?
Lord McIntosh of Haringey: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Saatchi, has a gift for answering his own questions. Many economists take the view that these are objective tests. They are not precise tests. The noble Lord, Lord Peston, is a good example of a distinguished economist and there are many other distinguished economists on these Benches who take a comparable view. However, it is because we realise that ultimately we have to have a political as well as an economic judgment that we have continued to propose the process of assessment, decision and taking the view, first, of Parliament and the people of this country.

Austria
3 p.m.
Lord Trefgarne Lord Trefgarne asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether the Government of Austria have fulfilled any of the criteria laid down by the European Union for the resumption of normal relations.
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the measures taken regarding Austria are not a European Union action; they have been implemented by Austria's European Union partners on an individual, bilateral basis. As my right honourable friend the Foreign Secretary and my noble friend Lady Scotland have made clear on many occasions, we continue to expect the Austrian Government to fulfil their commitments to European values and obligations, and to combat all forms of discrimination.
Lord Trefgarne: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for that reply. Perhaps I may ask two supplementary questions. First, can she tell the House which other nation in the world has been subjected to the kind of measures that we, with our European allies, have taken against Austria? Secondly, does she not agree that, whatever one may think of the political situation in that country, it is a classic example of the disadvantages of PR?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the relevance of what happens with the rest of the world is not apposite; we are talking about 15 countries which are members of the European Union. There is a

765
difference between how we react to something that happens with one of those governments when compared to anywhere else in the world. As to the noble Lord's second point, no, I do not agree for one minute that this has anything to do with proportional representation.
Lord Janner of Braunstone: My Lords, can my noble friend give the House an assurance that the Government will maintain their present attitude towards the Austrian Government as long as a former right-hand person of Haider is their Vice-Chancellor and while they retain members of their very extremist Right-wing party in government?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Yes, my Lords. It is worth reminding the House that we are not talking about a party with Right-wing economic theories but about a party that was led by a man who, when addressing an army war veteran meeting in Austria—which included Waffen SS—described the Waffen SS as decent men of character; and who also, in a speech to the Carinthian Parliament, praised the orderly employment polices of the Third Reich. It is important to he clear about what caused such offence to the other members of the European Union.
Lord Wallace of Saltaire: My Lords, the Government were among the more reluctant assenters to these sanctions against Austria; after all, this is a very sharp domestic interference in the internal affairs of another state. If we are in favour of liberal democracy, we have to tolerate the choices of other democratic governments, even when they are not entirely what we would like. As to PR versus the coalition front, Austria suffered a grand coalition for too long. Jobs were divided among the Conservative and Socialist parties—and that seems a very bad thing in any democratic country. However, does the Minister accept that there has to come a point where these sanctions will be withdrawn? Does she agree that, provided the Austrian Government do not offend against any of the aspects of the Treaty of Rome—and they have not yet done so—the sanctions will, in time, have to be ended?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, the 14 European Union countries are united in their policy towards Austria. We have had, and continue to have, serious and intense discussions with the other 13 EU countries on a bilateral basis on this issue. Five months is too short a time to make a definitive judgment of the performance of the Austrian Government, but we are reflecting on a way forward.
Viscount Cranborne: My Lords, can the noble Baroness tell the House what assessment the Government have made of the impact of the policies of the 14 on public opinion in Austria? In the light of Hugo Young's column in the Guardian this morning, what proposals do the Government have for getting off the hook upon which they have impaled themselves?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I have not read this morning's Guardian. I do not consider it unbriefed not to have read all the newspapers. I do not think for one minute that the Government have impaled themselves on a hook. As to the question of the impact on public opinion in Austria, as the noble Viscount knows, it is difficult to gauge public opinion anywhere. However, the fact remains that the Austrian Freedom Party is still in third place in the opinion polls. So it has not improved its position in any way, if that is the point that the noble Viscount is trying to make.
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, following the intervention of my noble friend Lord Cranborne, is the noble Baroness aware that, if she had read the Guardian this morning, she would have seen that this whole saga is described as a spiralling diplomatic disaster? While we all regard the views of Mr Haider as repulsive, has not this whole saga shown up an enormous political ineptitude, and a bit of childishness to boot? Is not the sensible position for the Government now to tell their EU partners that this is leading to disaster; that the sanctions should be ended; and that Austria should be brought into the company of the EU again and dealt with as a mature nation that has done nothing wrong, and whose original repulsive leader has disappeared to Carinthia as a governor and left the party?
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I do not understand how the noble Lord, Lord Howell, can say that the whole House finds the views of Mr Haider so repulsive, and then go on to think that it was—
Lord Howell of Guildford: My Lords, I said that the whole House finds Mr Haider's views repulsive. I did not say that—
Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: Exactly, my Lords. His "views" instead of his "opinions" repulsive. I do not understand how anyone can say that on the one hand and then, on the other, think that it was not important for the other members of the European Union to send the strongest possible signal to Austria about what they thought. As the noble Lord knows, the use of the word "sanctions" is not correct. Diplomatic measures were taken against Austria, which were well understood by that country as signalling the disapproval of the rest of the European Union. I think that was absolutely right and proper.

Business of the House
3.7 p.m.
Lord Carter: My Lords, it may be for the convenience of the House if I make a brief business statement in regard to the Summer Recess. Your Lordships will be aware that it is not usually possible to announce the dates of the Summer Recess until a week or 10 days before the House rises. This year, because of the co-operation of the Official Opposition

767
and of the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip, I am able to make the announcement significantly earlier than usual.
The usual channels have agreed a programme which will allow all the necessary business to be completed by Friday, 28th July. Predicting business for a whole month ahead is difficult as there will be many uncertainties over the next month. However, I am aware that Members and staff alike—particularly those with young families—will find it helpful to have as much notice as possible of our Recess dates. Recess dates are always announced as being, "subject to the progress of business".
On this occasion, given the difficulty of predicting the progress of business so far in advance, there is a particular need for me to stress that if the programme agreed by the usual channels is not achieved and the necessary business is not completed by the end of July, it will be necessary to sit into August.
However, I am pleased to announce that, subject to business progressing as we hope it will, the House will rise for the Summer Recess on Friday, 28th July. We will sit at 11 a.m. that day. The House will return on Wednesday, 27th September.
I should like to take this opportunity to thank my colleagues in the usual channels for their constructive approach, which has made it possible to make this announcement much earlier than usual.
Lord Henley: My Lords, I thank the Government Chief Whip for giving the House the dates of the Summer Recess and for assuring us that this was as a result of co-operation with the usual channels. However, the undercurrent of what the noble Lord said was so much nonsense. Of course the Government could have made an announcement much earlier than they have done. I appreciate that on occasions in the past it has not been possible to do this, but on this occasion the Government could have done so. It is only through the co-operation of the usual channels that they are able to bring it forward now. I should like to ask for a commitment from the Government that in future years the announcement will be made somewhat earlier than in the past.
Not knowing when business is to be brought forward causes great inconvenience, not only for the Official Opposition but for all Members of the House. The Government have a large number of Bills still outstanding—far more than one normally expects at this stage. The Official Opposition have co-operated far more than is necessary. We have allowed far more Bills to go to the Moses Room than is usual. As a result of that the Government could have come forward and been slightly more helpful. It would be useful for the Government to offer some advice to all Members of the House as to when all the Bills are likely to come before us. When are we likely to see those?
We have now had the announcement that we are to rise at the end of July. As I said, that announcement could have been made much earlier. The problem is that the Government have far too much legislation.
768
The Government should think about reducing the amount of legislation they bring before this House. I hope that in the next Session we shall see a slightly less heavy burden of legislation before us.
Lord Harris of Greenwich: My Lords, I, too, welcome what the Government Chief Whip has just said. As he will recall, all Oppositions complain about the immense size of any government's legislative programme. That will no doubt be true in the next Parliament, as in this, as well as it was in the last Parliament.
Perhaps I may pick up the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Henley. The Liberal Democrats would prefer to have more Bills considered in the Moses Room than is now the case. We would get on with our business far more effectively were we to do that.
Lord Carter: My Lords, I am grateful to both noble Lords and in particular to the Opposition Chief Whip for his—if I may say so—typically gracious response. I have checked and this is the earliest ever date that the date of the Summer Recess has been announced, certainly in recent years. I have all the figures for when it was announced by the noble Lord, Lord Strathclyde, when he was the Government Chief Whip. This is, as I say, the earliest ever date. Business has been agreed until the summer. The noble Lord knows the dates on which we will be bringing forward all the Bills, and, depending on their progress in the Commons, all the Bills we have to reach before the Summer Recess. I was asked to set out the business for the spill-over period. Frankly, I do not think that any Chief Government Whip could do that. I agree with the Liberal Democrat Chief Whip regarding the use of the Moses Room. The usual channels have to work by agreement. But that does not mean that the Official Opposition can have a veto over the Government's business.

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
3.12 p.m.
The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Department of Social Security (Baroness Hollis of Heigham): My Lords, I beg to move that the Bill be now further considered on Report.
Moved, That the Bill be further considered on Report.— (Baroness Hollis of Heigham.)
On Question, Motion agreed to.
Clause 38 [Preservation of rights in respect of additional pensions]:
Lord Rix Lord Rix moved Amendment No. 74:
Page 33, line 22, after ("provide,") insert ("subject to subsection (4C) below,").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I understand that psychologists explain both ancient and modern Sisyphean insistence on pushing boulders up mountains, only to see them roll down again, by a deeply-rooted conviction that a little ground is gained each time and the labour has not been therefore wholly

769
in vain. Like my noble friend Lady Greengross, who is to follow me, whose labours I support, I am pushing once more in the hope of again gaining a little ground with Amendments Nos. 74 and 76. I note that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is more ambitious and is offering the prospect of solving all our problems by a substantial reversal of the onus of proof.
There are essentially three views on the SERPS saga, assuming agreement that all has not been as it should have been. View one is that the halving of SERPS inheritance was simply wrong and should be cancelled in its entirety. That is a tenable view, but I think that the battle has been lost. View two is that in failing to advertise the change, and indeed in positively denying the change, the department lost the right to save on pension inheritance for the whole period of duff information and all the people who are potentially affected by that duff information. That view is also valid, although I fear it, too, represents a lost battle.
The third view is that at least we should give special treatment within a compensation scheme to those who have been particularly disadvantaged, preferably on the face of the Bill, but in regulations and through ministerial undertakings about the scope of those regulations, if this is the best we can do. It is this third view that I am continuing to pursue today. If the Minister is turning her face against the face of the Bill—I coin a phrase, as it were—and if we could see the regulations in draft during the summer as part of the consultation process, it would assure us that these regulations will allay fears about the way in which claims would be handled.
I have, very modestly, targeted just two groups to add to those who have given incorrect or incomplete information either by letter or by telephone. I confess that I would have liked to include a further group; namely, those who had retired before the department became a little more forthcoming with the facts. I sense that I am on a loosing wicket with this one, too; but, rather like the England Test team, at least I can blame the wicket rather than the batsman. Nevertheless, I hope those other batsmen who have already retired are given a second innings when the rules of the game are being rewritten.
My surviving two groups are those who relied on departmental leaflets which were clearly misleading, and those who, whatever they may or may not have relied on, are now, by virtue of disability, unable to defend their own interests in pursuing a compensation claim. My noble friend Lady Greengross is targeting a third group of people who asked questions and might reasonably have expected to receive the right answers, whereas what they actually received was misleading or incomplete.
I hope very much that the Minister will be able to offer today the assurances we are both seeking about justice being done. Were she minded to underpin justice by accepting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, so be it. I beg to move.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I must begin by congratulating the noble Lord, Lord Rix, on the way in
770
which over a considerable period of time he has pursued this issue. As a result of that there has been a greater clarification of the present position. This matter first came to light some considerable time ago. Indeed, we debated it at length in the course of the debates on the Welfare Reform and Pensions Bill in October 1999. Subsequently there have been statements by the Government, notably on 15th March of this year, saying what the Government intend to do about it.
However, I am concerned about the timing and the way in which this matter has developed. It has been a considerable time since the matter first came to light. In the course of the debates last year we were told that there was to be an ombudsman's report. That report was in due course produced. But it took one year to produce it when the ombudsman merely examined six illustrative cases. That was a very long time indeed to deal with six illustrative cases. It is also true, as pointed out on previous occasions, that the ombudsman's report was far from clear on precisely what its recommendations were, although the Government have said that they accept them.
That is really the basis of my amendment. I comment only briefly on Amendment No. 76 standing in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix. Paragraph (b) of the amendment deals with people who,
"have a serious mental disability and as a result they are incapable of establishing a claim and they are likely to remain incapable throughout the duration of the scheme".
Whatever else may happen, I certainly hope that when the Government come to produce their final scheme they will include provision for that category of person and others who may, in one way or another, be either physically or mentally incapable of dealing with the matter.
The earlier part of the noble Lord's amendment states that:
"A person shall he deemed to have received incomplete or incorrect information and to have relied on it if—
(a) they read one of the relevant Benefits Agency leaflets and took the incorrect or incomplete information contained in it into account",
when deciding what to do. Essentially, people who wish to receive compensation under the Government's proposals now face two hurdles, or at least that appears to be the case until eventually we discover what are the precise proposals. The first hurdle is that the person making the claim needs to demonstrate that he or she was misled or received incomplete information. The second hurdle is to prove that, as a result, he or she sustained a loss in one way or another.
Estimates of the amounts involved in terms of costs vary considerably, but there is little doubt that this sad saga is probably the most expensive administrative mistake of all time. I believe that the estimates vary between £2·5 billion up to £5·9 billion between 2000 and 2050. Of course, those costs will be spread over some 50 years. Nonetheless, this will be a major item of expenditure. We do not know how, in practice, the Government's proposals are going to work. We are still remarkably in the dark on this.

771
In his opening remarks, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, said that my proposal covered the whole problem. However, it covers only half of the problem. My amendment states that,
"regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete".
My amendment, unlike that in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, does not deal with the second leg of the argument; namely, whether people did or did not incur losses as a result of having been misled.
That brings me to the report of the ombudsman. I shall need to quote from it at some length at the point at which he discusses what happens when a department makes an administrative error. The ombudsman wrote to me in response to my inquiry, following an exchange on the Floor of the House in which the Minister said that if I wanted to know the opinion of the ombudsman, then I should write to ask him. I did so. This is part of his reply:
"It is reasonable in such circumstances to ask someone who claims to have been misled and to have suffered an injustice to prove his or her case. That is the normal requirement before the Department of Social Security will consider compensating someone who claims to have been misled or misdirected by the Department and as a consequence to have acted, or failed to act, in a way that has been to his or her disadvantage".
The ombudsman goes on to say:
"In the case of SERPS, the Department's leaflets were not accurate; and incomplete and misleading advice was given by staff of the Department and the Benefits Agency. The department has acknowledged that".
In the course of his investigations, he concludes:
"I suggested to the Department that the onus of proof was therefore reversed. It was for the Department to prove that someone would not have acted differently if they had not been misinformed. It seemed to me that the normal rules of the Department's non-statutory scheme of financial redress for maladministration would be inappropriate. The presumption had to be that anyone who could reasonably claim to have been misled and in consequence to have acted, or failed to act, to their detriment had a prima facie claim for redress".
My amendment therefore states that it is accepted by the Government and by Parliament that people were misled. The reason for that is twofold: either they received the leaflet, in which case there cannot be the slightest doubt that people were misled—especially when taking into account the report from the ombudsman; or alternatively, for one reason or another they did not receive the leaflet and, as a result, they will have assumed that the original situation remained the same—that their widows would have been entitled to the full amount of SERPS. For those reasons, all my amendment—which is modest—seeks to do is to ensure that the Government's position is set out very clearly on the face of the Bill. It is extremely important that that should be done at this stage.
In his report the ombudsman stated that the department,
"will also need to take account of the fact that most of those misled by DSS or BA are likely as a result to have decided no action on their part was needed, because they had been led to believe that a surviving spouse was secure in an entitlement to full inheritable SERPS".
772
Thus, if my amendment is accepted, the overall effect would be to ensure that the individuals concerned will be told in the leaflets to be issued in due course by the department that they do not have to prove, unless the department can prove to the contrary, that they were misled. However, they will still have to prove that they suffered loss as a result. In that regard perhaps my amendment is a little more rigorous than that tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Rix.
At the beginning of my remarks I stated that I was worried about the length of time it has taken to reach a resolution on this issue. We still do not know precisely what are the Government's proposals. In his report, the ombudsman pointed out that he, too, did not know the details and therefore he was unable to comment at this stage. One might think that he could perhaps have reported a little more broadly. In any event, given that this matter has been under consideration quite literally for years, we cannot simply leave it until the regulations are published. We need to reach a point where, at least as regards the first hurdle, we know exactly where we stand. I hope that that point can be clarified this afternoon.
Surely the department has by now some idea of what is to be contained in the regulations. Perhaps, as she has done so often and so courteously in the past, the Minister could provide us with them at this stage so that they could be debated during the course of the passage of this Bill. If we wait then we shall not be able to discuss them and to put down amendments to the Bill which could cover any points that we did not like, given that the regulations themselves will not be subject to amendment. It will be too late for this House to take a view on what should be done. We shall remain in ignorance of the exact details here.
At least as far as concerns the first hurdle, I hope that, when the House considers Amendment No. 75, it will take the view that this point should be clarified beyond any doubt whatever.
Baroness Greengross: My Lords, on previous occasions I have expressed grave reservations about whether a protected rights scheme is the best way to address the awful problem of inherited SERPS. However, today I shall limit my comments to the amendments before the House, which look at who should be covered by the scheme.
I very much welcome the amendment tabled by my noble friend Lord Rix. It has my full support and I hope that it will receive the support of the Government. I also have a great deal of sympathy with the approach adopted by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, in his amendment. His amendment accepts that there is an obligation, albeit a moral one, for people to be positively informed of changes.
Amendment No. 76A, standing in my name, is a modest attempt to explore the current view on the definition of "incomplete information". It attempts to highlight the position of some people who fall into the category of being, not misinformed, but only not informed. They have a particular reason to believe that they should have been told of any changes. This might

773
include those who, prior to 1986, based their decisions to contribute to SERPS at least in part on information they had been given as regards the inheritance provisions. Those people may have sought information about their future pension rights, but may not have asked specifically about the situation as regards their spouses, because I think that they would have taken it for granted.
I wish to consider in particular those people who asked for a pension forecast in order to plan their retirement. They were given one, but one without any specific guidance as regards their spouses. A number of people who have contacted organisations such as Age Concern have found themselves in this position. They believe that the information they received was incomplete because, although they were given detailed information about their future pensions, no reference was made at the time to changes in the law. I appreciate that consultation is on-going and that there will be further opportunities to consider the regulations. However, I would very much welcome the Minister's assurance that in looking at the definition of "incorrect or incomplete information" careful consideration will be given to the issues I have outlined.
3.30 p.m.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, on behalf of these Benches I support the spirit behind all these amendments. I pay particular tribute to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, who has fought the battle in this House extremely valiantly and with good effect. I hope that he will continue to have that effect. He is now supported on the Cross-Benches—he was not when the battle began some considerable time ago—by the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. I also support the amendment spoken to by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins.
As the noble Lord pointed out, there has been a cock-up on a massive scale in which a great many people have suffered. It is not by any means easy to decide who has and who has not suffered. It is something about which we on these Benches have felt very strongly ever since the matter was first raised in Parliament, which I believe was towards the end of 1998 by my honourable friend Mr David Rendel in another place.
This is a case where justice has to be done to the many people who have suffered. I very much hope that the Minister will be able to reassure us that when the regulations are published, which cannot be too soon, they will take into account the points raised in these amendments and in the debates which have taken place on this and other occasions.
Lord Renton: My Lords, I agree with noble Lords and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, who have tabled amendments to Clause 38. There is no doubt that confusion could arise unless something is done. I say in passing that for reasons connected with the mentally handicapped, among others, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and I have tried our best to help. But on this occasion I prefer Amendment No. 75 in the name of my noble friend Lord Higgins. I believe that this
774
matter would be more forcefully and clearly dealt with if that were done in accordance with regulations to be drafted. For that reason, and if the matter comes to a Division, I would be obliged to support my noble friend.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I was unable to be present when this matter was discussed in Committee. I had to catch an aeroplane. I have read the debate and I am filled with admiration for the clarity with which noble Lords on all sides of the House discussed the matter. The issues are perfectly plain as a result of that discussion, and that is very clever considering that it took place between 10.15 and 11 at night. That was wholly admirable. I pay tribute to noble Lords. My noble friend Lord Higgins, the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, have reiterated their concerns.
I speak in particular to Amendment No. 75 because it is all-embracing. It is a very important principle. The nub of the matter is that the ombudsman said that the burden of proof should be shifted and the onus should be on the department to prove that a person has not been misled, instead of a person having to prove that he had been. The Government have accepted that in a number of ways and they are on record as having done so.
The Government want to put that decision into action following consultation and by their own route through regulations. Although the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said from the Liberal Democrat Benches that he supported all the amendments, he seemed to believe that regulations would do. My noble friend makes the point that the principle should be enshrined on the face of the Bill. We have not seen the regulations and it does not appear that we shall until the Bill has become law. Unless something of that nature is put on the face of the Bill we cannot be sure that this clear principle will be included.
I hope that the House and the Minister will accept my noble friend's amendment. If she does not, she needs to give us a full assurance that a government amendment would make the point clear at Third Reading. I do not believe that the House should leave the matter to chance. Regulations are not a suitable method for implementing this matter in any case because the detail will count. Unless we are sure that the principle is there the regulations may easily escape. I support my noble friend's amendment, as my noble friend Lord Renton has done.
Lord Elton: My Lords, I rise to speak briefly only because the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, in speaking to her amendment, said in her closing remarks that in some way a palliative might be applied to her wish to have an amendment involving a reduction and that there would be regulations which we could discuss. The frustration of this place is that we can discuss regulations but we cannot amend them. Almost never do we reject them. I cannot remember when regulations were rejected. Therefore, once we get to Third Reading and beyond, the rabbit is out of the hutch and there is nothing that can be done.

775
The Government always prefer to proceed by regulation for fairly obvious reasons. My noble friend has left them with the opportunity, but merely stated the principle on which the regulations should be based. I should have thought that we are all agreed on that. I hope that his amendment can be accepted.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, we have debated the issue of inherited SERPS on many occasions. Like your Lordships, I endorse the tenacity, good humour and degree of detailed information that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, has brought to this matter on numerous occasions. I admire some of those virtues more than others.
We shall debate the matter once again once the regulations for the inherited SERPS scheme are drafted. I know that noble Lords opposite are suddenly filled with distaste for regulations, but perhaps I may point out that for 18 happy years the government of that time were perfectly pleased to carry quite substantial items through regulations without their necessarily being in the affirmative. This sudden change of heart when in Opposition is rather churlish. We are rather more scrupulous about using the affirmative rather than the negative procedure compared with the previous government.
Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, does not the noble Baroness agree that the issue we are now talking about is of a magnitude unlike almost any other for so many people? To have to deal with that matter by regulations in this House seems churlish.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, on the contrary, we shall be bringing forward the structure of a scheme, but its details may involve quite specific levels of payment. They need to be uprated without having to return to primary legislation, otherwise we shall fall foul of the Henry VIII principle. It been well established in the field of social security that matters involving numbers normally have to be dealt with through regulations for uprating without involving primary legislation and all its consequences.
Baroness Warnock: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. The point is not that the detail has to be on the face of the Bill, but the principle. If the principle is there we may be content for the detail to come through regulations. I also point out that it may be true that a great deal was done by the Conservative government through regulations, but that was not willingly accepted by many Members on the Cross-Benches.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I do not mean to sound discourteous, but noble Lords who have a particular concern often wish to see matters on the face of the Bill which in other areas they would regard as inappropriate because they are either declaratory or, alternatively, far too detailed.
Noble Lords will know, particularly on the Benches opposite—I see a smile of recognition from the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—that parliamentary draftsmen
776
are very anxious that legislation should be tight and fitted to the appropriate purpose and that it should not embody broad statements of principle on the one hand, which come through statements made at Second Reading, nor the kind of detail that comes through regulations. Obviously, if your Lordships feel that the wording of proposed legislation should be amended, it is in your Lordships' hands to do so. However, so far as I am aware, we are following the broad principle established by parliamentary counsel and accepted by this House over many years.
Consultation about regulations is under way and I am grateful for the constructive contributions that many noble Lords have already made to this exercise. This is a problem that we have inherited. I am particularly grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, for his amendments because it gives me the opportunity to reassure the House about the way in which we envisage deciding claims to the inherited SERPS schemes. It also gives me an opportunity to say a little about how we propose to allow for the situation where a would-be applicant for redress is no longer able to provide evidence of what happened because of mental disability.
As your Lordships know, we undertook to consult widely, including the parliamentary ombudsman, the National Audit Office, the Social Security Advisory Committee, Age Concern, and other organisations, about the operation of the scheme. I am grateful to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, and to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for their contributions.
Our consultations are still progressing and I should not want to prejudge the outcome. I hope noble Lords will also understand where I am coming from and that I cannot anticipate some of the detail on which noble Lords might reasonably seek assurance until those consultations are complete.
This debate has reflected concern about the hoops and hurdles that many fear we may put in the way of applicants for redress. We have accepted the Parliamentary Commissioner's report and we are designing the scheme in a way that provides ready access to redress for those who are entitled to it.
If I disagree with the noble Lord, Lord Rix, it is about the best way to put the provision into law. He prefers to add it to the face of the Bill. While I appreciate his intentions and largely share the aims of his amendment, I should not want to pre-empt the results of the consultation exercise. I therefore prefer that the Government use the greater flexibility that is provided by setting out the detail in regulations. The Bill sets the framework for the scheme, but we are not yet ready to define all the rules in detail and we need the maximum scope to respond to points such as those raised by the noble Lord, and other points that we have probably not yet anticipated.
Having said that, I am clear on the two issues raised by the noble Lord in his amendment. I shall now follow my script quite closely and my words may be made available for circulation to organisations in order to provide advice and at least giving the reassurances that the noble Lord seeks.

777
The noble Lord's first point related to people who received one of the leaflets that provided incorrect or incomplete information about the rules on inheritance of SERPS additional pension. I am clear that anyone who read one of those leaflets and who took the information contained in the leaflet into account in ma king decisions about building up their pension satisfies the principal test. That would also include people who took into account information passed on to them by, for example, friends or relations who had read the relevant leaflets. I am happy to confirm that this includes the clients of organisations such as Age Concern and citizens advice bureaux who were given incorrect or incomplete advice obtained originally from the DSS.
When the time comes for people to make their claims, we envisage asking them a few questions about how and roughly when they saw a leaflet. I want to make it clear that we shall not expect them to produce the leaflet or to quote it verbatim. Their own account of what they did is likely in many cases to be enough to reach the decision that they are entitled to redress to have their rights preserved. We have not finally decided what the regulations will say, and I should not want to be prescriptive at this point about all the circumstances we expect to cover, but I am happy to tell your Lordships that we shall make that clear.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. Yes, of course, it is true that if people saw the leaflet or if they were wrongly advised by someone who had seen it, they were misled. But it is also true that people who did not see a leaflet for one reason or another thought that the situation was the same as they had originally thought; consequently they, too, have been misled. In other words, anyone who believed that he or she was entitled to widow's SERPS was misled, and that is what the amendment seeks to address.
3.45 p.m.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord refers to his own amendment. I am dealing with the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. If the noble Lord will do me the courtesy of waiting until I have finished responding to the noble Lord, Lord Rix, I shall be happy to engage in the debate on his amendment and perhaps address his point.
The second part of the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Rix, deals with people who may have received incorrect or incomplete information but who are no longer able to make a claim for themselves for redress because they suffer a severe and continuing mental disability. That is an issue that the noble Lord helpfully raised as part of our consultations.
I am happy to confirm that we accept the spirit of the noble Lord's amendment and want to make sure that such people are covered in an appropriate way that is unambiguous. I am not in a position now to define precisely what the outcome will be. We have work to do on a definition of the people we should wish to include. We also have more to do to decide exactly how we should allow for people in that situation.
778
But our intention is clear. People with a severe and continuing mental disability will not be disadvantaged in their ability to obtain redress. On that basis, I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Rix, will feel able to withdraw his amendment. I have done my best to give him the assurances that he sought in moving it.
I am grateful also to the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, for her contributions on this subject. I know that she is concerned that the SERPS scheme should work as effectively as possible. The noble Baroness's amendment refers to circumstances in which a person could reasonably have been expected to be informed about the SERPS reduction and that such circumstances should be taken account of when considering whether or not a person satisfies the first test. As the noble Baroness said, she is concerned that those people who made inquiries about their pension entitlement. For example, they may have asked for a pensions forecast but did not specifically ask about widows entitlement—this overlaps with the concerns of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—and who had a reasonable expectation to he informed about the widows changes.
The amendment as drafted could have a very wide application. I am not sure whether the noble Baroness is arguing the point, but we could not, for example, accept that her amendment embraced those who might argue that they should have been notified individually of the changes in the law. We went over this ground in Committee and I can only repeat that I do not believe that a special case should be made for inherited SERPS. This is only one of three significant changes made to state pensions in the Social Security Act 1986.
If the Government accepted that people had a reasonable expectation of being told about the change to inherited SERPS, would it not mean that the other changes introduced at that time should also not apply to them if they were not personally told about them? Of course, they were not. These changes included, for example, that entitlement based on the 20 best years was no longer to be the case but was to be based on the whole working life; and they included the difference in accrual rates. The provision with regard to widows is of lower financial significance than the 20 best years provision. People were expected to rely on the information in the leaflet, and there was never any suggestion that they should be individually notified about the changes or, if they were not individually notified, that they were entitled to be protected from their impact. The case of inherited SERPS and widows must therefore be aligned with the other changes that took place as a result of the 1986 Act.
I accept the point that inherited SERPS is an exceptional case in that the information was consistently omitted from departmental leaflets for 10 years. Even after it was included, many people were still given incorrect or incomplete information. There is no disagreement about that. I accept also that the noble Baroness seeks to ensure that the scheme operates fairly. But my comments in relation to the noble Baroness's amendment also apply here. We are still consulting. We have not finally decided on the regulations.

779
What I am concerned to establish is that we should not accept, or appear to accept, the principle that everyone was entitled to individual notification. That has never been the way of government legislation. As we are still consulting, it would be premature to be prescriptive at this stage. However, we shall certainly take account of the views expressed to us on these points. On that basis, I believe that the noble Baroness's amendment is premature and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw it.
As to Amendment No. 75 in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, on 15th March I repeated the Government's statement about inherited SERPS. The noble Lord was quick to highlight the issue of where the burden of proof should lie in an application for redress under the scheme. He urged, as did the ombudsman, that it should lie with the department. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, quoted from the ombudsman's report and urged the Government to accept that the scheme should cater for people who took no action and would have difficulty demonstrating that they would have acted differently if correctly advised.
The words used in the Statement in another place and repeated by myself were:
"I intend to accept all the recommendations made by the NAO and the ombudsman".—[Official Report. 26/3/2000; col. 1609.]
Among other things, the Government accept that the burden of proof lies with the department. We accept also the ombudsman's point that the inherited SERPS scheme must be capable of a global solution that includes providing redress to persons who were misled and took no action.
Amendment No. 75 requires us to presume that all applicants under the scheme received incorrect or incomplete information unless they were specifically given the correct information. That goes much further than the amendment of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross. It does not allow for the situation in which a person had neither received nor requested any information. The noble Baroness's amendment deals with persons who raised a query being expected to cast a wider net for information.
The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, was logically contradictory. He said that the first test was whether the person would have acted differently, to avoid financial detriment. If one accepts that a person did not know positively about the change—the amendment presumes they were misled—I do not see how the second test of suffering loss could be established, if the individual did not know there was any change that might produce the loss that followed.
On the basis of the noble Lord's case, anybody who did not know about the change would be entitled to compensation—provided they could show financial loss. But if they did not know—and did not know the action they might have taken if they had known—one cannot logically move on to the noble Lord's second step.
780
The noble Lord is looking puzzled. There are two steps. First, it is expected that the person can show that they were misled. The burden of proof is on the department. If a person claims that they relied on the information to take action—or to decide not to take any action—with resulting financial consequences, they move on to the second step of financial detriment. The noble Lord seems to be saying that somebody who did not know— whether or not they were misled because they had no information at the time—could subsequently show that they suffered financial loss. We cannot know whether they suffered financial loss if they did not know at the time about the changes and the action they might have taken.
Lord Higgins: My Lords, either they were misinformed—that is common ground—or they thought the situation was as originally stated, which was that the wife would inherit the full SERPS. If they did not know about the change, they may not have made provision for their wives as they otherwise would have done.
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, how could they know now what they would have done then, if they had known what they did not know? The noble Lord's second position cannot hold. If they did not know, they could not have known what they might have done if they had known. By definition, that has to be true. I will send the noble Lord a note to that effect.
The change to SERPS inheritance was only one of three significant changes in the Social Security Act 1986. The others were the 20 best years calculation, the reduction over 10 years from 25 per cent of earnings to 20 per cent, and the reduction in the survivor's pension from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. In 1995 there were further major changes. The link between SERPS and alternative pension provision was broken and the annualisation formula was introduced—matching a person's earnings to the years in which they were earned. Finally, there was the equalisation of state pension age, so that women would not be able to collect their SERPS until age 65—the same as men.
If the Government accepted that people had a reasonable expectation of being told about the change to inherited SERPS, would that not mean that the other changes that I have outlined would also not apply to people who were not personally told about them? Although the information was contained in the leaflets, the previous administration did not tell people personally about those changes. People who did not pick up the right leaflet would also have remained ignorant of the change to the 20 best years rule.
It has never been the Government's position that they are responsible for people's ignorance of changes to the law. We have here the much narrower situation in which the then government persistently gave misinformation in leaflets. Our changes are intended to redress that situation.
The Government have already publicly accepted the NAO and ombudsman's recommendations. We are consulting widely on how to put them into effect and will put the resulting regulations before the Social

781
Security Advisory Committee, Public Administration Select Committee and the ombudsman. As a final stage, the recommendations will come before both Houses of Parliament and require your Lordships' approval.
The situation that we inherited was not that people did or did not know about the change but that some—we do not know how many—were misled as a result of the then government's continued propagation of misinformation. We are seeking to correct misinformation, not lack of information. That is the difference between the noble Lord's amendment and our position. The Government have never been responsible for correcting lack of information—only misinformation of which the Government were the author. The inherited SERPS scheme must provide redress to individuals and the regulations that establish it must satisfy various interested parties—including the ombudsman.
I hope that I have addressed the issues raised by the noble Lord, Lord Rix. I have gone as far as I can to meet the concerns of the noble Baroness, Lady Greengross, although they are still for discussion. The noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is asking us to take a step much farther—one that his government would not have contemplated in the 1985 and 1986 Acts—in saying that unless a person was notified by the Government, it must be assumed that they were misled. That has never been the Government's position. No government could adopt such a position. However, where government were the author of misinformation, they have a moral and, in my view, legal and financial obligation to correct the situation—which is what we propose in good faith. With that explanation, I hope that noble Lords will not press their amendments.
Lord Rix: My Lords, before the Minister sits down, did I hear her say that organisations will have the opportunity to see draft regulations before they are laid'?
Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, if we are asking organisations to take part in drawing up the regulations, I see no reason not to allow that. A different status applies, in terms of consultation, in respect of official organisations such as the Social Security Advisory Committee.
Lord Rix: My Lords, there has to be some logic in rolling boulders up hills. If one is persuaded that the chances of getting further are remote, the logic is to call a halt. The Minister has helpfully gone as far as the Government are prepared to go at the pre-regulation stage. I appreciate and welcome her assurances—particularly the opportunity to study and comment on the draft regulations before they are laid and past amending.
Like the actor I once was who wishes to believe his kind notices, then is surprised when the box office is disappointing—I am happy to say that I was rarely in that position—I wish to believe the Minister's kind
782
words and will be most surprised if the regulations are disappointing. In light of the Minister's undertaking, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 75:
Page 33, line 36, at end insert—
(""(4B) The regulations shall be based on the presumption that claimants have received incorrect or incomplete information unless the Secretary of State provides proof that the information the claimant received was correct and complete."").
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I beg to move Amendment No. 75 and seek the opinion of the House.
4 p.m.
On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 75) shall be agreed to?
Their Lordships divided: Contents, 166; Not-Contents, 135.

Division No. 1

CONTENTS

Ackner, L.

Elton, L.

Addington, L.

Ezra, L.

Alton of Liverpool, L.

Falkland, V.

Anelay of St Johns, B.

Fookes, B.

Astor, V.

Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

Astor of Hever, L.

Garel-Jones, L.

Attlee, E.

Geddes, L.

Avebury, L.

Geraint, L.

Beaumont of Whitley, L.

Glenarthur, L.

Belstead, L.

Glentoran, L.

Biffen, L.

Goodhart, L.

Blackwell, L.

Gray of Contin, L.

Blaker, L.

Greaves, L.

Blatch, B.

Hamwee, B.

Boardman, L.

Hanham, B.

Brabazon of Tara, L.

Hanson, L.

Bradshaw, L.

Harris of Greenwich, L.

Bridgeman, V.

Harris of Richmond, B.

Brittan of Spennithorne, L.

Haslam, L.

Brougham and Vaux, L.

Hayhoe, L.

Burnham, L.

Henley, L. [Teller]

Buscombe, B.

Higgins, L.

Butterworth, L.

Howe, E.

Byford, B.

Howe of Aberavon, L.

Caithness, E.

Howell of Guildford, L.

Campbell of Alloway, L.

Hurd of Westwell, L.

Campbell of Croy, L.

Hylton, L.

Carnegy of Lour, B.

Jacobs, L.

Chadlington, L.

James of Holland Park, B.

Chalker of Wallasey, B.

Jenkin of Roding, L.

Clark of Kempston, L.

Jopling, L.

Clement-Jones, L.

Kelvedon, L.

Coe, L.

Kimball, L.

Colwyn, L.

Kingsland, L.

Cope of Berkeley, L.

Laing of Dunphail, L.

Courtown, E.

Lamont of Lerwick, L.

Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

Lester of Herne Hill, L.

Cranborne, V.

Linklater of Butterstone, B

Crathorne, L.

Liverpool, E.

Crickhowell, L.

Ludford, B.

Cuckney, L.

Luke, L.

Dean of Harptree, L.

Lyell, L.

Denham, L.

McNally, L.

Dholakia, L.

Mar and Kellie, E.

Dundee, E.

Marlesford, L.

Eden of Winton, L.

Masham of Ilton, B.

Elliott of Morpeth, L.

Methuen, L.

783

Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

Selborne, E.

Miller of Hendon, B.

Selsdon, L.

Monro of Langholm, L.

Sharp of Guildford, B.

Monson, L.

Sharples, B.

Montrose, D.

Shaw of Northstead, L.

Mowbray and Stourton, L.

Shrewsbury, E.

Moynihan, L.

Shutt of Greetland, L.

Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

Simon of Glaisdale, L.

Naseby, L.

Skelmersdale, L.

Newby, L.

Smith of Clifton, L.

Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

Stewartby, L.

Northbrook, L.

Stoddart of Swindon, L.

Northesk, E.

Strathclyde, L.

Northover, B.

Swinfen, L.

Norton of Louth, L.

Taverne, L.

Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

Tebbit, L.

Palmer, L.

Thatcher, B.

Peyton of Yeovil, L.

Thomas of Gwydir, L.

Phillips of Sudbury, L.

Thomas of Walliswood, B.

Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

Thomson of Monifieth, L.

Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

Tordoff, L.

Rawlings, B.

Trefgarne, L.

Reay, L.

Trumpington, B.

Redesdale, L.

Vivian, L.

Rees, L.

Waddington, L.

Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

Wallace of Saltaire, L.

Renton, L.

Walmsley, B.

Roberts of Conwy, L.

Walton of Detchant, L.

Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

Warnock, B.

Roper, L.

Watson of Richmond, L.

Russell, E. [Teller]

Wigoder, L.

Ryder of Wensum, L.

Wilcox, B.

Saatchi, L.

Williams of Crosby, B.

Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

Willoughby de Broke, L.

Scott of Needham Market, B.

Windlesham, L.

Seccombe, B.

Wolfson, L.

NOT-CONTENTS

Acton, L.

Falconer of Thoroton, L.

Ahmed, L

Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

Ali, L.

Faulkner of Worcester, L.

Amos, B.

Filkin, L.

Andrews, B.

Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

Archer of Sandwell, L.

Gale, B.

Ashley of Stoke, L.

Gavron, L.

Ashton of Upholland, B.

Gibson of Market Rasen, B

Bach, L.

Goldsmith, L.

Bassam of Brighton, L.

Gordon of Strathblane, L.

Berkeley, L.

Goudie, B.

Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

Gould of Potternewton, B.

Billingham, B.

Graham of Edmonton, L.

Blackstone, B.

Greengross, B.

Blease, L.

Gregson, L.

Borrie, L.

Grenfell, L.

Bragg, L.

Hardy of Wath, L.

Brennan, L.

Harrison, L.

Brooke of Alvcrthorpe, L.

Haskel, L.

Brookeborough, V.

Hayman, B.

Bruce of Donington, L.

Hilton of Eggardon, B.

Burlison, L.

Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

Carter, L. [Teller]

Hollis of Heigham, B.

Chandos, V.

Howells of St. Davids, B.

Christopher, L.

Hughes of Woodside, L.

Clarke of Hampstead, L.

Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

Hylton-Foster, B.

Crawley, B.

Islwyn, L.

Davies of Coity, L.

Janner of Braunstone, L.

Davies of Oldham, L.

Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seal)

Desai, L.

Diamond, L.

Jenkins of Putney, L.

Dormand of Easington, L.

Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

Dubs, L.

King of West Bromwich, L.

Elder, L.

Laird, L

Evans of Parkside, L.

Lea of Crondall, L.

Evans of Watford, L.

Levy, L.

784

Lipsey, L.

Rendell of Babergh, B.

Lockwood, B.

Richard, L.

Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

Rix, L.

Longford, E.

Sainsbury of Turville, L.

Lovell-Davis, L.

Sawyer, L.

Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

Serota, B.

McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

Sewel, L.

Shepherd, L.

MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

Shore of Stepney, L.

Mallalieu, B.

Simon, V.

Marsh, L.

Smith of Leigh, L.

Mason of Barnsley, L.

Stern, B.

Massey of Darwen, B.

Stone of Blackheath, L.

Merlyn-Rees, L.

Strabolgi, L.

Milner of Leeds, L.

Symons of Vernham Dean, B

Taylor of Blackburn, L.

Mishcon, L.

Taylor of Gryfe, L.

Mitchell, L.

Tomlinson, L.

Molloy, L.

Uddin, B.

Molyneaux of Killead, L.

Varley, L.

Morris of Castle Morris, L.

Warner L.

Morris of Manchester, L.

Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

Nicol, B.

Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

Orme, L.

Whitaker, B.

Parekh, L.

Whitty, L.

Patel of Blackburn, L.

Wilkins, B.

Peston, L.

Williams of Mostyn, L.

Pitkeathley, B.

Williamson of Horton, L.

Plant of Highfield, L.

Winston, L.

Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

Woolmer of Leeds, L.

Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

Young of Old Scone, B.

Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
4.10 p.m.
[Amendments Nos. 76 and 76A not moved.]
Clause 39 [Home responsibilities protection]:
[Amendment No. 77 not moved.]
Baroness Fookes Baroness Fookes moved Amendment No. 78:
After Clause 42, insert the following new clause—

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill

  CONSULTATION ON PENSION UPRATING: RESIDENCE OUTSIDE GREAT BRITAIN
  (" . The Secretary of State for Social Security shall consult the relevant Governments about a full or partial uprating of British state retirement pensions for British pensioners living overseas and report on his findings and recommendations within one year of this Act receiving Royal Assent.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving the amendment which stands also in the name of the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I speak also to Amendment No. 79.
  These amendments have previously been the subject of debate in this House. However, I make no apology for again raising the issue since they seek to redress a longstanding grievance. I go further than "grievance" and say a longstanding injustice. They relate to British pensioners living overseas who do not have annual upratings which pensioners living in this country receive.
  The fact that a grievance is old makes it no less vivid or unkind for those who are the victims. I know from discussions that individuals and organisations overseas feel very aggrieved by the failure of successive governments to do anything about the situation. It is

  785
  all the more remarkable when one bears in mind that the noble Lord, Lord Shore of Stepney, who was a member of the Cabinet which made the decision in the first place, spoke on the subject in recent months, explaining that the only reason upratings for overseas pensioners were not allowed was that there were severe exchange control difficulties at a time when tourists were allowed to take out only £50 in currency. He said that there is a clear moral case for uprating. That lends strength to my own views that it is high time that the grievance is redressed.
  I am, of course, aware of the cost. I know, for example, that there are some 190,000 British pensioners in Australia and many other parts of the world. But the grievance is compounded by the fact that there is a lottery depending on where one happens to live overseas. If one is within the European Union one is covered by its requirement that one is treated equally. If one goes to those countries where there is a reciprocal arrangement, all is well. If one happens to go to other countries, notably Australia and Canada, where there is no such agreement, one is stuck with the size of the pension when one left the country. Noble Lords can imagine the miserable pension for someone who may have been retired for 30 years. That is not impossible. Many people live in positive penury because of this arrangement. I bring this issue to your Lordships' House because those people are by definition elderly. They lack the pressure which people in this country can bring to bear. It behoves those of us who are here to speak firmly on their behalf.
  I know that the argument is always one of cost. Crudely encapsulated, the Government's view is, "This will cost a great deal of money. We have better things on which to spend it". It may be crude, but I believe that that sums up their argument. That will be dressed up by the Minister when she responds. Having heard the arguments previously, I believe that I could give a fair representation, if I chose to do so, of the arguments that the noble Baroness will deploy in due course. I believe that it is high time that we did something about the matter.
  Recognising that cost is an issue, I have sought to modify what I should like to see—a total uprating immediately, and backdated—on the line that politics is the art of the possible. It is a theme I first heard the noble Baroness, Lady Thatcher, declaim when she first came into Parliament many years ago. Given that politics is the art of the possible, I have suggested a compromise whereby the Secretary of State should consult with the other relevant governments as to whether there could be at least a partial uprating. There are several possibilities: that there should be no backdating but that the provision should come into effect only from the point when it comes into law; or that it should go only to the older pensioners over, let us say, 75, 80 or 85—those who are most likely to be in the direst need. There would be other possibilities with which I shall not bore your Lordships today.
  Having sought to make a move in this direction, I hope that the Minister will look more sympathetically on this case. I repeat: it is a longstanding injustice. It is compounded by the fact that it depends where one
  786
  lives as to whether one has an uprating. I believe that the time has now come to take definitive action. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I have put my name also to the amendment. I believe that the provision that removes the right of overseas pensioners to an annual uprating in line with those who are resident in this country is one of the most mean-minded pieces of legislation that has ever been placed on the statute book. These are people who worked in this country; they paid their national insurance contributions in this country; and they paid tax on their earnings in this country. They are surely as entitled to a full state pension for the period while they worked in this country as anyone else.
  The fact that they now live abroad, and perhaps pay taxes abroad, is irrelevant. Indeed, if it has any relevance it can be said to strengthen the argument for giving them the full pensions to which they are entitled on the ground that by deciding to live abroad they have removed themselves from any obligation on t his country to provide care for them through the National Health Service or through the publicly-funded social services.
  I can see no justification in logic for saying that people who live overseas, and who are drawing pensions which they have earned by their contributions in this country, should see those pensions decline in real terms year by year. It is not as though the pensions were earnings linked in which case one might say that there is no logical reason why they should share in the increased prosperity of this country. But to remove their right to maintain their pension in real terms seems intolerable.
  If there is any logic in the decision, it lies solely in the fact that few of these pensioners have votes and the issue is, therefore, irrelevant to a future general election. I regard that as a wholly inadequate ground of objection. It is time that the pensions of overseas pensioners were restored; and, if not restored, at least restored to the extent proposed by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, so that at least in future they will receive the uprating along with anyone else who is entitled to it in this country.
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I support the amendment so reasonably and cogently argued by my noble friend Lady Fookes and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart.
  All that is sought under Amendment No. 78 is that,
  "The Secretary of State for Social Security shall consult the relevant Governments".
  The Governments most relevant appear to be Australia and Canada. It is totally reasonable that such consultation should ensue albeit that there should be no retrospective effect, albeit that perhaps some compromise should be arrived at, and albeit that some special consideration should be made as regards age. Surely, this House should support an amendment that seeks only consultation on these matters. On that, in

  787
  view of the way in which this has been presented by both my noble friend and the noble Lord, I strongly support this amendment.
  Lord Renton: My Lords, I too support the amendment. I go a little further than my noble friend Lord Campbell of Alloway in hoping that Amendment No. 79 will be considered as linked very relevantly with Amendment No. 78 because, after all, Amendment No. 78 calls upon the Government to consult other governments. Amendment No. 79 would require—when consultation has been successful presumably—that the Act of 1992 should be amended in the way proposed.
  I hope that no Members of your Lordships' House will think that people who go to spend their retirement abroad should not have sympathy. Indeed, in my opinion they should have plenty of sympathy. They may be British citizens who have married people abroad. There may be those who have served in our Foreign Service for many years, whose service, perhaps for the last 20 years, kept them in one country and they may feel that is the country in which they would like to end their days. There are those who have been in business abroad and done great things for this country in that regard who have a house and home abroad and they want to remain there. Of course, there are those—and we are familiar with the situation—who, for health reasons, have been advised that they should live in a warmer climate than we have consistently here. There could be other reasons also. I hope that there will be no lack of sympathy on the part of the Government in this matter.
  There are two other things I should add. There are a good many foreigners living here in retirement, and we welcome them. Perhaps it is too vague a proposition to mention, but we should bear in mind that increasingly this is becoming one world.
  Lord Williamson of Horton: My Lords, I should like to support the amendments presented by the noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, and the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart. This is a question of equity, and quite a lot of people in this world look to the House of Lords to deal with questions of equity. This question has been on the table a very long time. We should at least launch the possibility of correcting the current situation.
  For myself, I find it hardly possible to defend a situation in which British pensioners living overseas are deprived of any uprating on their pension. It is not necessarily a world-wide problem because it does not arise in the European Union; it is mainly a problem in a certain number of major Commonwealth countries such as Australia and Canada. What we are talking about are people who have worked all their life in the United Kingdom, or a lot of it, and then decided that they wished to reside for the latter part of their life in those countries, perhaps because they had or have had family there.
  I agree with those noble Lords who said that Amendment No. 78 is extremely modest. If one cannot accept Amendment No. 78, I really wonder what one
  788
  can accept. The absolute minimum that should be done now is to launch a consultation with the governments of those countries. That would be a rather small first step, but at least it would be launching the process of creating a much fairer—I repeat "fairer"—situation for British pensioners resident overseas. I hope that the Government will be able to respond favourably to these amendments.
  Lord Selsdon: My Lords, I have found myself working around the world most of my life. This has been the issue that has been raised again and again by British nationals abroad. It is, in part, the money. Your Lordships may be aware that in some parts of the world even the Church is seeking to help impoverished British elderly gentlemen and women. They made a decision at a particular time in their lives, most of them with great patriotic feeling, where they had served either in the Commonwealth or in this country, as to where they would be safest and best for their twilight years. They had no knowledge of the economic incompetence of successive governments that would lead to the desperate devaluation of sterling, and they suffered there. They had no knowledge of the extra benefits that were beginning to accrue to the elderly.
  For example, this morning I received an extremely kind letter suggesting that, as I was approaching the age of 75, I might no longer have to pay for a television licence. I know that the average age of your Lordships' House is rising, but I am still just below the average age. I receive letters from airlines suggesting that, as I have reached a certain age, I might be able to travel free provided that I do not talk about it, or travel cheaply on certain airline flights.
  There are many countries that look after their elderly. Why should we, who have our elderly more widely spread than any other nation, desert them? It is true that we do not think about them. We do not care. It is communication that is of importance. Many of them are on the breadline. That feeling of poverty becomes worse when there is a happily married couple who have joined their children in a particular country and those children move on and one of the couple dies and the other is at a loss, still in a way in a strange land. We know the names, we know the addresses; they are easy to find. We should think of ourselves as a caring nation rather than uncaring one.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I intervene only briefly because my noble friend Lady Fookes has made the case so eloquently, as have other Members in other parts of the House. This is an issue that has been going for very many years; I feel bound to say, for as long as I can remember. The sense of injustice has not diminished and to some extent has been exacerbated by the extraordinarily random way in which uprating takes place. Out of something like 840,000 pensions paid, about 460,000 are not uprated. The division between the countries where they are uprated and those where they are not can only be described as bizarre. They include the European Economic Area countries; not the European Community countries. They include, quite arbitrarily, Norway, Iceland and

  789
  Liechtenstein. I am not clear whether those countries also have reciprocal arrangements. Perhaps the noble Baroness can tell us whether Liechtenstein has a reciprocal arrangement. There are also a number of other countries which have genuinely reciprocal arrangements, ranging from the Philippines to Turkey and Cyprus to Yugoslavia, including the former republic apparently. People in those countries are all uprated and many people in other countries are not.
  Having said that, I know that it has been a longstanding problem and I fear that I cannot, keen though I would be to do so, commit myself to Amendment No. 79.
  Amendment No 78 has a great deal to be said for it, not least because the arrangement which has been standing for 46 years with Australia appears to have been terminated or is about to be terminated. The noble Baroness shakes her head, in which case no doubt she can clarify the position since the time when she made an announcement back in April. If there has been a change, I imagine that the House will welcome it.
  At all events, if my noble friend Lady Fookes does not press the amendment to a Division today, I hope she will consider very carefully bringing back Amendment No. 78 at a later stage, because there seems to be a considerable argument for consulting rather more broadly on this issue with countries of such varied natures that are either included or excluded.
  4.30 p.m.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, given the noble Lord's "on the one hand" and "on the other hand", I was trying to work out where he was standing. However, I am happy to give him the information he requested about Liechtenstein. It is true that we have a reciprocal obligation with that country and, as far as I know, it affects all of 10 citizens. Therefore, it is not such that it would swamp our finances.
  New Clauses 78 and 79 have a familiar purpose. They attempt to redress the situation where more than half of UK pensioners who live overseas do not receive annual cost of living increases in their retirement pensions. We have discussed the issue on many occasions. I am aware that many of your Lordships have strong views on the subject and that there is strong feeling among many UK pensioners overseas. The noble Baroness, Lady Fookes, said that she could make my speech for me—I am sure that she could make it better than I can—but I anticipated the arguments which she would bring before the House.
  Amendment No. 78, which commits the Government to consultation, is not, as the noble Lord, Lord Williamson, seemed to suggest, a modest one. I believe that it is shrewd and clever and subtle and ingenious, but it is not a compromise or first step. As the noble Baroness will know, on all occasions the relevant governments—in particular Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa where most people with frozen pensions live—have been pressing
  790
  us to take this step and I believe that I know what the outcome of the consultation may be. I will tell your Lordships why—
  Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, I am obliged to the Minister for giving way. The proposal is neither ingenious nor clever. It is a step towards a humane compromise and that is all.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was about to say why I do not believe it is a compromise. At any reception I attend when the relevant ambassador or high commissioner is present, I am pressed on the point. I do not want to say that consultation is a waste of time, but the facts are what they are. There is no equivalence between the position of the governments of Australia or Canada and our own.
  Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of the figures. I know that Members on the Liberal Democrat Front Bench are well aware of them because we have exchanged them previously. As far as we know. 17,000 Australian pensioners live in this country while 214,000 UK pensioners live in Australia. In other words, it is hugely to the financial advantage of the Australian Government and hugely to the financial disadvantage of the British Government to move even in the direction suggested by the noble Baroness. The inequity of population applies also to Canada. As far as we know, 9,500 Canadian pensioners live in the UK while 138,000 UK pensioners live in Canada. The same inequity is true of New Zealand; 7,500 live here while 34,000 live there. Alas, I do not have the figures for South Africa.
  That shows that disproportionately and overwhelmingly the flow of money would not be equal. The money going from this country to our pensioners in other countries and the money coming from other countries to their pensioners here would not be equal. Overwhelmingly, the flow would be from this country to Australia, New Zealand, Canada and South Africa. Therefore, if I sound critical of the concept of consultation it is because I believe that we can anticipate the result. The points have been made to me in person by the relevant high commissioners or senior government officials when I have visited those countries.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, is the Minister telling us that it is wrong to do an injustice to a few people but quite all right to do an injustice to a lot of people?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, I am saying that at the end of the day it is a question of where your financial priorities lie. I shall make the point more fully in a moment. The noble Earl would ask us to equalise the benefits as between those under 25 and those over 25. He would regard that inequality as an injustice and I understand his point of view; he has argued it over many years. Is he about to say to me, "You should do that and somebody has to find the money for it"? We could go down a shopping list; indeed, the noble Earl has tabled amendments on the

  791
  single-room rent. Does he regard that also as an injustice? I can see where he is coming from, given the research and the views he has expressed in the past.
  Nevertheless, it is not enough to say that there is an injustice or an anomaly. One must also say how one rates the reparation of that in terms of the financial contours of the Budget. The noble Earl must say how his proposal will be financed and the Official Opposition Benches must say where they are going to make cuts in order to fund their proposal.
  When we last debated the Bill in your Lordships' House, the noble Earl was distressed that changes in some of the pension arrangements were to be funded by cutting half of the Social Fund. It was proposed that £90 million would be taken out of the fund and the noble Earl, Lord Russell—and I was cheering him on—wanted to know from where else the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, would fund his proposed change.
  The change to complete unfreezing would cost about £300 million; a partial unfreezing, say, for those over 75, which the noble Baroness suggested would be a compromise, could cost half of that sum. Those are substantial amounts and the changes must be funded at the expense of other priorities.
  Perhaps I may remind your Lordships that UK pensioners are paid anywhere in the world and we pay some 870,000 pensioners in more than 150 countries. In 1999, the UK paid more than £1 billion in retirement pensions to pensioners living abroad. Some 470,000 of those pensioners have what is commonly referred to as a "frozen" pension. That means that the pension remains fixed at the rate payable when the person chose to leave the country. The pension remains permanently at that rate or at the rate initially awarded on retirement if a person is already resident abroad.
  There are two broad grounds for uprating. They are paid within the European Economic Area, in the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man and in about a dozen other countries where certain long-standing social security agreements, mostly dating back to the 1950s, exist. Apart from a case in which the agreement was made earlier and not implemented until later—I believe it was in the Dominican Republic—I am not aware of any change made throughout 18 years of the previous administration in order to advance the general cause or to renegotiate any new bilateral agreements.
  The policy has been followed by successive governments ever since retirement pensions and widows benefits became payable world-wide in 1955. I am sorry, but it is not a priority for this Government to reconsider. When the Social Security Select Committee considered the matter in 1996, it recognised that priorities for public expenditure would inevitably be taken into account in considering the issue. We know that that cost is likely to be £300 million a year and I believe that if the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, proposes to support the amendment in a Division tonight he is under an obligation to tell us how it is to be funded. I could point out to him that
  792
  there is still another £90 million in the Social Fund and I suppose that he could raid the last of it, but he has to say from where the funding will come.
  In 1995, a Member of Parliament said:
  "I hope that the House will remember that any increase in spending commitments involving sending money to people overseas will of course mean corresponding reductions in our expenditure here at home. Members should bear that in mind".
  That was not said by me and not even by the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, although I have many quotations showing his position. It was said by a then fairly junior member of government, Mr William Hague. Only five years ago, the now Leader of the Official Opposition said that he did not regard this as a priority and that if it was to be supported by his government other reductions in expenditure would have to be found. If the precedent is the Social Fund or abolishing the New Deal for lone parents or the working families' tax credit, I would ask your Lordships to consider where your priorities lie. The change has to be funded from somewhere.
  With regard to the Australian point, I was not shaking my head and saying that the situation had moved on since the matter was raised in the House in April. I meant merely that people seem to believe erroneously that Australia uprates British pensions. It does not. It allows British national insurance contributions to count for the Australian means-tested pension in the same way as we allow Australian national insurance contributions to count against eligibility for our non-means-tested pensions. If Australia decides to move away from that agreement, perversely the British Government will save money because more Australians benefit from the arrangement in this country than do our British people in Australia. It affects only 3,000 people; not the 200,000-odd people who are resident there.
  Therefore, I am afraid that our policy is clear. We do not consider unfreezing to be a priority call on resources. We want and need to focus help on pensioners in the UK and we want to do most for those who need it most. I do not need to talk about winter fuel payments, TV licences or the minimum income guarantee. I do not even need to talk about our proposals for the introduction of the new pensioner credit to reward thrift on which we hope to go out to consultation in due course.
  I recognise that people feel strongly about this matter. However, my first point is that people chose to leave this country in the knowledge that their pensions would be frozen. Secondly, if we were to uprate, as has been suggested, or even to go for consultation, what would the outcome be with regard to the position of other governments? It would cost £300 million, and that would have to be found from somewhere. We believe that our priorities lie elsewhere. Therefore, the Government do not plan to unfreeze UK pensions paid abroad, and I hope that noble Lords will not pursue these amendments.
  Lord Selsdon: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down, I take some of the points that she made in her charming way. However, a problem exists which is

  793
  not purely monetary; it is one of understanding. Perhaps her department could produce a small leaflet to be sent to pensioners explaining the position. They would at least then feel that someone had cared for them in some way, whatever the outcome.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am happy to ask officials to look at the literature that we give to people at the point at which they make their decision in order to ensure that they are as fully informed as possible. I believe that that is an entirely reasonable point to make and I shall certainly follow it up. Of course, if anyone writes to us from overseas—indeed, I receive letters regularly on this subject—I shall be happy to send the type of information to which the noble Lord referred.
  Lord Monson: My Lords, before the noble Baroness sits down for the second time, when she says that pensioners left this country in the full knowledge that their pensions would be frozen, does she agree that they could not have had knowledge of the way in which inflation would totally destroy the value of those pensions?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, that may be true but, equally, although I am not sure that many overseas pensioners with a right to vote will have voted for the present Government, they will be pleased to see that under this Government inflation is now below 2 per cent. Whatever arrangements one makes with regard to pensions, one tries to predict what will happen, whether it be in relation to annuity rates or whatever. None the less, when pensioners left this country —and many will have left during periods of high inflation—they knew what the situation was likely to be regarding their state pensions. The literature is quite unambiguous. I have read the leaflets myself and they are clear. People knew what they were doing and chose to make that decision.
  One must consider the cost. Arrangements could not be made with only one country; I suspect that there would need to be open consultation with all the big countries. The cost would be £300 million a year and rising; more so if inflation were to return. That represents a significant part of the budget and that is why the noble Lord, Lord Mackay, regularly resisted the proposal in this House against the wishes of his own Back-Benchers. It is why Mr Hague made the points at least as forcibly in 1995 as I have tried to do today.
  Baroness Fookes: My Lords, I had anticipated what the noble Baroness would say and particularly that she would call in aid the record of previous Conservative governments. However, I had a small hope that new Labour might bring forth a new policy. Clearly, it is in the same mould as the old government. That said, I am disappointed that what I considered to be a more modest compromise has not been accepted by the noble Baroness. I do not believe that my modest suggestion is worth going to the stake for; indeed, I
  794
  should prefer to bring forward a somewhat bolder, more full-blooded clause at a later stage. Therefore, at this point, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendments Nos. 79 to 81 not moved.]
  Clause 43 [Member-nominated trustees]:
  4.45 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 82:
  Page 37, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( ) After subsection (3)(a) there shall be inserted—
  "(aa) that the employer shall have no part in the selection of member-nominated trustees, and".")
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, we have now reached a group of amendments which deal with the matter of trustees and governance by trustees. In Committee I moved an amendment designed to ensure that employers played no part in the selection of member trustees. It was not accepted by the Government and today I come back with a slightly different wording which makes the intention absolutely clear.
  Under the trustee route, which allows significant flexibility but which is not to be subject to prior consultation with members, the present trustees, who in many cases will not include member trustees, can propose selection by a panel where the employer representatives participate so long as they are in a minority position. It is not clear how the member representatives on the panel will be derived, and it is often the case that senior managers and directors are members of the scheme and their inclusion could shift an employer minority to a majority on the panel.
  Managers will be able to make a lot of fuss about competence and experience that may or may not be justified, particularly if there is proper training for trustees, in order to select the management candidates whom they want rather than those who might take an independent view. Candidates may also be deterred from applying if they conceive the panel to be employer-nominated.
  Of course, some employers basically oppose the involvement of employee trustees. The present arrangements leave a loophole through which they can exercise undue influence. The amendment seeks to establish that the law requires not only member-nominated trustees but member-selected trustees. Employers have to be told that they must accept representatives of members on the trust board and that they should not attempt to control who those members are.
  In putting forward this amendment, I wish to declare an interest as a member of my union, MSF. My union feels strongly about this issue, which is why I return to it on Report. It is very necessary that employees have confidence in their pension scheme, and that is one of the objectives of my amendment. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 82 would prevent employers taking

  795
  part in the selection of member-nominated trustees. It applies equally to arrangements under Section 16, the trustee route, and Section 18A, the employer route. We discussed briefly a similar amendment in Committee. In that case, the amendment was presented somewhat differently in that it provided that only members or member representatives would be involved in the selection of member-nominated trustees. This amendment approaches the same issue from another direction by seeking to exclude employers from any involvement in the selection of member-nominated trustees.
  As I explained in Committee, the trustee route will provide that, where there are more nominations than vacancies, the final selection will be made either by means of a ballot of the members or by a selection panel. We shall consult on the details of regulations in due course. However, the intention is that, if selection panels are used, they must comprise a majority of scheme members or their representatives. On the other hand, the amendment would exclude the employer from sitting on a selection panel alongside members or member representatives. We see no reason to be quite so restrictive.
  One of the key objectives of the proposals is to avoid disrupting existing arrangements wherever possible. The effect of the amendment would be to force changes on a number of schemes with long-standing nomination and selection arrangements where the final selection is made by a panel that includes a representative of the employer. I believe that that would be a shame and we should ask ourselves whether it is really necessary.
  Under the employer route, employers will have the right to propose bespoke nomination and selection arrangements for their scheme. The proposal must provide for a minimum of one-third member-nominated trustees. However, the provisions are more flexible and for that reason must be approved by the members. There will be more scope for the employer to determine the selection arrangements under this route. That is undeniable. However, the final choice will be from individuals who have been nominated by scheme members; and, most importantly, the proposal will be adopted only if the members agree to it.
  Although the amendment would have much the same effect as our proposals, it would force many schemes to change their arrangements for no good reason. I understand fears that employers may use their position to try to secure their preferred candidate. We have very good relationships with OPRA, which my noble friend served with such distinction for many years, and with the many representative bodies in the pensions industry. If there were evidence that the involvement of the employer was having undesirable effects, they would be quick to let us know.
  The way the legislation is drafted in the Bill would allow us to respond quickly to any changes by changing regulations. Our new provisions provide the opportunity for schemes to meet the new requirements with the minimum of disruption. They allow for flexibility without undermining the key aim of getting
  796
  member trustees on to trustee boards. I would remind your Lordships that these proposals have the full support of all the key organisations in the pensions industry and I would be sorry if we were to lose that support now. In the end, the decision firmly remains with members and I hope that in the light of this explanation my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, I thank my noble friend for her explanation of government policy on this issue, and I am not at all surprised at what she has said. Of course part of the argument is that it is not desirable to disrupt existing arrangements, and one would agree with that if they are satisfactory.
  The reason for my bringing forward this amendment again in a different form is that it has been apparent to me that a number of unions are not happy that the existing arrangements actually operate effectively. However, I understand that there is to be consultation on the regulations and no doubt there will be an opportunity for some input at that time, particularly if (as seems likely) there is some dissatisfaction with existing arrangements in some quarters. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 83:
  Page 38, line 41, at end insert—
  ("(10) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing that all trustees should be required to have attended an approved training course explaining the role and responsibilities of trustees within six months of being either elected as a member-nominated trustee or appointed as a trustee by the scheme's sponsoring employer.
  (11) These regulations shall also prescribe the content of such an approved training course.
  (12) The failure of a trustee to attend such a course within six months of being either elected or appointed as a trustee shall nullify the trustee's election or appointment.").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, this amendment deals with the training of trustees. In Committee I moved an amendment designed to make mandatory the training of trustees. There was general agreement at that time that it was very necessary that pension fund trustees should be trained. As we all know, the duties are now quite onerous and the expectations of scheme members are substantial. The scandals of the past, notably that of the Maxwell affair, have to some extent undermined confidence in occupational pensions, despite their success during the past 20 years in providing benefits to former employees.
  I recall saying in Committee in response to my noble friend the Minister that we had scored a small victory the last time around, because she agreed with much that had been said and had undertaken that there would be consultation with the industry to see what could be devised. I understand that she has been as good as her word. The consultations have taken place.

  797
  One of the reasons for the amendment therefore is to ask her to tell the House what the Government's view is following those consultations.
  Of course the organisations consulted have also written to me, and I am sure they will also have written to a number of your Lordships. So I have some idea of the reactions to the proposals. I believe the Engineering Employers Federation, which was responsible for briefing me at Committee stage in support of compulsory training, is still of the same view although the CBI, while supporting the principle of trustee training, is concerned about the cost of policing a statutory requirement and about the administrative and financial burdens generally that it might impose. It favours legislation for a requirement for training to be made available to trustees at employers' expense. Others favour "best practice" guidelines and disclosure requirements so that in annual reports to members those in charge of schemes would be required to state their policies on trustee training and say which trustees had undergone training, together with the nature of that training.
  I still favour some form of compulsion, but I appreciate that it is necessary to secure the willing cooperation of the pensions industry and of pension schemes to bring this about. I am glad that our amendment in Committee prompted an examination and discussion of this very important topic. I therefore wait 'with interest to hear from the Minister what the Government's response has been both to the debate that we had in Committee and to the consultations which I know have taken place since then. I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we on these Benches agree with the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, that all trustees and not just member-nominated trustees should receive training as regards their role and responsibilities. However, we do acknowledge that inevitably there are some practical difficulties with introducing legislation to make trustee training compulsory and in ensuring that it is enforced.
  Like the noble Baroness, Lady Turner, we have been contacted by a number of bodies since these amendments were tabled. We have taken their observations on board and accept that making trustee training compulsory at this stage is not appropriate. We are aware of the administrative and financial burdens that a statutory training regime would entail. The cost of policing a statutory requirement and of accrediting training would be very high and the costs could well outweigh the benefits.
  As the noble Baroness has just said, at Committee stage the noble Baroness the Minister promised that she would take this issue away and consult further with the pensions industry. I therefore look forward to hearing what suggestions the Minister has for promoting and encouraging trustee training as right and normal, without direct government intervention.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I rise to say that I have received a briefing paper from the National Association of Pension Funds, which opposes the idea
  798
  of compulsory training, for reasons which appear to me to be quite persuasive. It seems to me that we are in a situation where employers are not obliged to provide pension funds for their employees. It is good practice for them to do so, and a large number do, but there is a risk of over-regulation here and I think that this increases the risk that employers might be persuaded to abandon pension funds because of the complications involved.
  It is clearly good practice that the trustees who need it—not all of them do—should receive training, but I hope that will be dealt with as a matter of good practice and perhaps as a matter to be shown in the annual report of the pension fund rather than as a matter of compulsion.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 83 would require that all trustees are required to undertake an approved training course explaining the role and responsibilities of trustees, and that regulations would prescribe the content of the, training. Anyone not receiving such training within six months of becoming a trustee would have their appointment revoked.
  We debated the subject of trustee training in Committee. It was clear to me then that there is a great deal of support in the House for the principle of compulsory trustee training. Trustees have overall responsibility for the proper running of a pension scheme under the rules of the scheme and in accordance with the Pensions Act. It is vital, therefore, that they have a full knowledge and understanding of their role and responsibilities.
  I said in Committee, as your Lordships have acknowledged, that I would like to go away and talk to the pensions industry to see how they felt about the idea of compulsion. My officials have been talking to representatives of various organisations, including the Occupational Pension Schemes Joint Working Group, the TUC, OPRA, the CBI, the Pensions Management Institute and the Association of Corporate Trustees. I should say that the Occupational Pension Schemes Joint Working Group comprises representatives of the National Association of Pension Funds, the Association of Pension Lawyers, the Association of British Insurers, the Society of Pensions Consultants and the Association of Consulting Actuaries. In effect I believe that the officials have spoken to all the major organisations in the pensions industry. I think they have done a very thorough job since the Committee stage and I am grateful to all of them for taking the time to consider and respond at such short notice. I am also grateful to the organisations involved.
  All the groups we consulted recognise the importance of trustee training and I am pleased that the Government, the Opposition and the pensions industry can all speak from a common position on this. However, of all the people we spoke to, only the TUC actively supports the idea of making training for trustees compulsory. Given that we all agree that trustee training is a good thing, perhaps it would be helpful to set out the reasons why the Government are not in favour of making it compulsory.

  799
  First, there was a general concern that it would add to the regulatory pressures on occupational pension schemes. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, touched on this: as ever, we have to find the right balance between placing regulatory burdens on business and protecting the interests of scheme members. We cannot justify imposing extra costs and burdens without firm evidence that there is a problem which needs fixing.
  There are also genuine concerns about practicality and cost. What seems like a simple idea could be difficult to implement. For example, many trustees come with very different backgrounds and experiences and the schemes themselves are also varied. There are obvious differences between defined benefit schemes and defined contribution schemes. Back in the winter of 1994–95, when I knew nothing about pensions, my noble friend Lady Turner patiently and painstakingly took me through the elementary building blocks of pension provision, explaining the differences between various schemes and the issues of employer holidays. There are also much more detailed differences in the roles that trustees are required to play in individual schemes.
  There is not a one-size-fits-all solution. The amendment would require only that trustees were trained in the role and responsibilities of trustees. Oddly, that might not go far enough, resulting in a levelling down of standards.
  There is also the question of policing and enforcing any new requirements. We would have to create obligations on the trustees to provide the prescribed training and on the individual trustee to attend. OPRA has already said that investigating complaints and enforcing such a provision would be difficult.
  Another strong argument is that we would have to think about issues such as whether trustees should be required to show that they had reached a certain level of knowledge or competency at the end of the training, how such knowledge could be kept up to date and how one would offset the training and experience that individual trustees could bring to the job. Then, of course, there is the issue of who would pay for the cost of the training and of setting up an approval system.
  I could go on. The concept of compulsory trustee training sounds simple, but its execution is anything but. We agree with the majority view of the pensions industry that it would be premature to take such a major step. The joint working group has said:
  "We do not believe compulsion in this area is workable, nor do we believe that it is needed given the generally high standards of scheme governance reported by JWG bodies."
  However, that does not mean we should do nothing. The joint working group has suggested that trustees should be required to disclose information about trustee training in their scheme's annual report. That might involve a statement of the trustees' policy on training or details of any training that had taken place in the period covered by the report. That idea has great merit, because it would ensure trustee boards addressed the matter of training by putting the
  800
  spotlight on it in their annual report. We can do that in regulations. The idea has the support of the industry and offers the most practical way forward. We therefore propose to pursue that suggestion.
  My noble friend has secured a scheme that, although admittedly voluntary, will go a long way towards securing her objective of ensuring that all concerned— employers and newly nominated trustees—recognise the need for training and that a section of the annual report should address issues such as the extent to which trustees have been trained and the need for such training. It will also allow the Government, OPRA and the National Association of Pension Funds to highlight best practice and use it to encourage other schemes.
  I congratulate my noble friend on causing the House to put pressure on the Government to conduct further consultation and to show that we have listened and moved. We have come forward with a useful and positive suggestion that will highlight the importance of training and encourage those who have not already addressed the matter to do so. The proposals have wide support in the House and outside. My noble friend has done jolly well and I hope that she will feel able to withdraw the amendment.
  5 p.m.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: I thank my noble friend for that comprehensive response. I am glad that there was such a broad consultation process. I take it that the Government favour the joint working group's recommendation. Of course the group is in favour of training as well, but its suggestion is that the annual report should say which trustees have had training and specify how much training has been done. That is a good idea and moves strongly in the direction that I have argued for.
  The CBI suggested that training should be available to trustees at employers' expense. That could be looked at for the future, but in the meantime I thank the Minister for her response. This has been a satisfactory exercise, even though it has not achieved exactly what some of us wanted. The TUC still stands for compulsory training and I think that my union does, too. Nevertheless, this is a sizeable step in the right direction, so I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 84 not moved.]
  Baroness Turner of Camden Baroness Turner of Camden moved Amendment No. 85:
  After Clause 46, insert the following new clause—

  STATEMENT OF GOVERNANCE OF OCCUPATIONAL PENSION SCHEMES
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State shall make regulations providing for the trustees or managers of an occupational pension scheme to provide a written statement about the governance of the scheme.
  (2) The statement must cover, among other things—

  (a) the trustees' or managers' confirmation that they have undertaken a review of the governance arrangements and procedures of the scheme, and

  (b) their policy about keeping such arrangements and procedures under regular review.

  (3) The regulations shall also prescribe the circumstances when the Occupational Pensions Regulatory Authority ("the Authority") may require such a statement, the time period for providing the statement and the sanctions if a statement is not provided to the Authority within the time limits prescribed.").
  The noble Baroness said: This is another amendment about trustees and scheme governance. Well structured best practice guidelines can be helpful to all pension schemes, but in practice it is usually only in a smaller number of cases where the standards are already being met. The history of pensions shows that without at least the possibility of sanctions, standards may not improve as we all want.
  Ultimately, the running of a pension scheme is the responsibility of the trustees, even if someone else carries out the task for them. After all, it is they, rather than the advisers, who would face penalties from OPRA.
  In the case of corporate governance, there is a requirement for listed companies to keep under review the effectiveness of all internal controls. In 1999, these requirements were supplemented by the Turnbull report, which requires companies to identify the effectiveness of the related internal controls.
  The amendment is relevant, because pension scheme trustees also have an important stewardship role. Irrespective of the type of scheme, it is essential that a comprehensive and workable scheme governance policy is in existence and working. Trustees must be directly involved in setting the objectives, which must also be fully supported by the sponsoring employer.
  Modern pensions governance embraces policy, people and practice. It should ensure that the scheme has a written policy on procedures or guidelines so that trustees operate within the regulatory framework and the requirements of the trust deed and rules, and that the procedures or guidelines are understood by the trustees and have been incorporated into identifiable working practices.
  A governance review, as proposed in the amendment, could be a useful reminder of the issues in which compliance must be satisfied, as well as illustrating the range of issues that are the features of good pension governance. Something of the sort is necessary to ensure that employees have confidence in their schemes. Unfortunately, the lack of confidence arising from the Maxwell affair was partly responsible for the pensions mis-selling under the previous government, when employees opted out of good occupational schemes into personal pensions much to their disadvantage.
  Confidence in the good governance of schemes will ensure the maintenance and development of occupational schemes. I still believe that a good occupational scheme is the best way for employees to provide for their retirement. I hope that the
  802
  Government accept that that is the aim of the amendment and will be prepared to support it. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 85 would require the trustees and managers of occupational pension schemes to produce a statement at prescribed intervals saying that they had undertaken a review of the governance arrangements of the scheme and setting out their policy for keeping those arrangements under review. It would also provide for the statement to be sent to OPRA in prescribed circumstances and for OPRA to be able to impose a sanction if it was not provided.
  In the context of occupational pension schemes, "governance" refers to the internal controls and procedures put in place by the trustees or managers to ensure that the scheme is run in the most cost-effective and efficient way possible, ensuring the security of the scheme assets.
  Trustees are required to step back and look at how the scheme is being run. That includes ensuring that everyone involved in the administration of the scheme has clear lines of reporting and accountability and is sufficiently knowledgeable about what they are doing. It also includes checks to combat internal fraud, controls to ensure direct and prompt receipt of contributions from employers, scrutiny of claims made on the scheme to determine bona fides and effective monitoring of activities relating to the investment of the scheme's assets. In effect, it involves looking at every area of activity within the pension scheme administration and making sure that adequate controls are in place for each one.
  I recognise that requiring trustees to produce a statement about governance arrangements in their schemes is a good way of focusing their attention on their roles and responsibilities in relation to the running of the scheme. I also agree that the principles of good governance are an essential ingredient for the proper running of any business or organisation, including pension schemes. However, whether we should actually make this a regulatory requirement is another matter. The Pensions Act 1995 already makes it quite clear that the trustees are responsible for the proper running of their scheme. The Act provides a wide regulatory framework to support that message. If trustees do not comply, the scheme auditor and the scheme actuary are under a duty to report any irregularities to OPRA.
  It would be difficult, if not impossible, for trustees to fulfil their role under the pensions Act and trust law without some form of internal arrangements for ensuring the proper management of the scheme. As noble Lords are aware, there is a wide variation of type and size of pension scheme. Any system of internal controls must take account of the characteristics of individual schemes and allow for those differences.

  803
  Any legislative requirement in this area would need, for the sake of clarity and consistency, to spell out exactly what is meant by governance and how it would apply to particular schemes. That would give rise to further lengthy and complicated sets of regulations containing an exhaustive list of controls that trustees and managers would be required to put in place, the circumstances where they must do so and the circumstances in which statements would have to be sent to OPRA. It would impose a heavy burden on the scheme and an even heavier burden on OPRA. Any statement produced under these arrangements would also require verification by, for example, an auditor, if the requirement was to be effective.
  At present, trustees are required to obtain an auditor's opinion on the financial transactions of the scheme and, if he or she detects a flaw in the scheme's control system, this would be brought to the trustees' attention. However, auditors do not, as a matter of course, carry out a detailed check of a scheme's systems of internal controls. To require such a check would involve schemes in extra costs and we have to consider whether that can be justified. We do not believe that it can. The department is currently working with the industry in a joint working group to consider ways in which we can offer practical help to schemes in areas where we are keen to provide a clear lead and guidance but where it is not appropriate to regulate. Good governance is one such area.
  I recognise the intentions behind this amendment; indeed, I support them. However, I hope that what I have said about the complexity and costs associated with such a requirement has convinced my noble friend that it would be inappropriate to legislate and that, therefore, such matters are better left to guidance. In that way, trustees can determine appropriate controls according to the circumstances of their schemes. In the light of my remarks, I hope that my noble friend will feel able to withdraw her amendment.
  Baroness Turner of Camden: My Lords, again, I thank my noble friend the Minister for her explanation of the Government's policy in relation to the amendment. I am also very glad that she at least supports the principles behind the amendment, as well as the principles of good governance. The gist of my noble friend's remarks is that my amendment would, as I understand it, impose too heavy a burden upon trustees and, indeed, upon OPRA. I shall have to consider most carefully what my noble friend said. I am pleased that we have note of her reactions to the amendment because good governance of schemes is of paramount importance as far as concerns confidence in scheme provision. Having gained those commitments from the Government to the whole idea of good governance, it is good to have them on the record. I am grateful to my noble friend for her comments. I accept what she said about the burdens that the actual wording of my amendment could impose on those concerned. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  5.15 p.m.
  Clause 47 [Information to be given to the Authority]:
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 86:
  Page 45, leave out line 19 and insert—
  ("(e) a provider of insurance or investment services to the scheme;").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendment No. 94. These amendments would extend the list of persons exempted from the definition of those involved in the administration of a scheme to include providers of insurance or investment services to the scheme. As presently drafted, the exemption is confined to fund managers. In our view, it is inconsistent to exempt fund managers and not to exempt insurance companies, which provide death-in-service benefits. The amendments would, therefore, broaden the exempt categories. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, Amendment No. 86 would do two things. First, it would remove fund managers from those excluded from the requirement in Clause 47 to notify OPRA on the insolvency of the sponsoring employer where the scheme has no independent trustee (in cases where it is meant to have one), and where there is no other trustee. It would also remove fund managers from those excluded from the requirement to tell OPRA where there is no requirement for an independent trustee, the insolvent employer is the sole trustee and he has not confirmed to the authority that he is still able to act as trustee. Secondly, it would exclude those providing insurance or investment services from the same requirements. While at first glance it might appear that there is very little difference between the two, in reality the difference is significant.
  Clause 47 is part of a package of measures aimed at speeding up the time taken for schemes to wind up. That time can vary enormously from a relatively short period of time to 20 years in an extreme case. Scheme rules will generally set out the circumstances that trigger the winding up of an occupational pension scheme. Under some scheme rules, the insolvency of the sponsoring employer will trigger the winding up of the pension scheme, in others it will trigger the closure of the scheme and leave the trustees to decide whether the scheme should be wound up. It is important that there is a trustee in place following the employer's insolvency so that decisions can be made about the future of the pension scheme, including whether it should be wound up and whether to make decisions, for example, about investment strategy.
  Difficulties may also arise in money purchase schemes, which do not need an independent trustee, where an insolvent employer is the sole trustee. In those cases, the employer may no longer be able to act as a trustee. It is important that OPRA is notified about these cases quickly so that it can use its existing powers to appoint a trustee if necessary.
  Clause 47 applies where the sponsoring employer of an occupational pension scheme becomes insolvent and will require trustees, or if there is no trustee, a

  805
  person involved in the administration of the scheme, to notify OPRA that the scheme has no independent trustee, or no trustees at all (in cases where it is meant to have an independent trustee), or that the insolvent employer was the sole trustee and is no longer able to act as trustee.
  There is currently no requirement for OPRA to be notified where an employer is insolvent and there is no trustee. Schemes can be left in limbo until either the insolvency practitioner or OPRA becomes aware of the situation and takes action. Therefore, this clause aims to ensure that schemes do have a trustee in place following the insolvency of the employer, so as to make sure that members' interests are protected and that prompt decisions can be made about the future of the scheme. OPRA will be able to make enquiries about the position and, if appropriate, arrange for a trustee to be put in place. Because it is important that OPRA is told quickly, we want the obligation to fall on those who are likely to become aware of the insolvency of the employer fairly soon after that event happens.
  Where there is a trustee, the obligation to notify OPRA that the scheme has no independent trustee will fall on that person. But where there is no trustee, those persons involved in the administration of the scheme will have to tell OPRA. We realise that not everyone involved in the administration of the scheme will be aware of what has happened to the employer in sufficient time to allow OPRA to take prompt action. That is why it is right to limit the requirement to those persons involved in the day-to-day administration of the scheme who are best placed to notify OPRA promptly.
  A number of people can be involved in what could broadly be considered as administrative functions in relation to a scheme, but on whom it may not be appropriate to impose the requirements introduced by this clause. Fund managers are just one example of those who clearly should be excluded—they are unlikely to be aware of what has happened to the employer, and that there is no trustee, in sufficient time to allow OPRA to take prompt action.
  Amendment No. 94 seeks to add persons providing insurance or investment services to the list of persons not included in the definition of persons involved in the administration of the scheme. That would exclude them from OPRA's powers in Clause 50 to issue directions, not only for them to take action and provide information but also for them to be provided with information, which should not be overlooked.
  Sometimes the winding-up process can stagnate. It may be because those winding up the scheme are having difficulty in obtaining information or are waiting for action to be taken before they can continue. It may also be that those carrying out the winding-up process are not taking action as quickly as they could. Clause 50 gives OPRA power to direct action during the winding up of the scheme where it feels that the process is unduly protracted. It will introduce accountability into the winding-up process and provide members with reassurance that the scheme is being properly wound up.
  806
  It is important that those winding up the scheme should get support when they are experiencing difficulties during the process. OPRA will be able to direct that action is taken or that information should be provided. That includes the provision of information by and the provision of information to the trustees or managers and those involved in the administration of the scheme.
  A number of people can be involved in what could broadly be considered as administrative functions in relation to a scheme but on whom it may not be appropriate to impose the requirements introduced by these provisions. I understand the reasons for the noble Lord's amendments. However, some insurance companies can and do provide day-to-day administrative services to schemes, as well as insurance services. We need to be careful that any exemptions do not go wider than we intend.
  Those which provide administrative services for the trustees of the scheme are arguably in the best position to provide OPRA with information following the employer's insolvency. Furthermore, where they are carrying out some of the work needed to wind up the scheme they may need OPRA's help in getting that work done.
  These new requirements and regulations will allow us to add to those persons who should not be treated as involved in the administration of the scheme. We shall, of course, take into account any representations we receive and, if appropriate, use the regulation making powers to add further to the list of persons already set out. In that light, I hope that the noble Lord will withdraw the amendment.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I am grateful to the Minister for that full reply which we shall need to read carefully in Hansard. In the meantime, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 48 [Modification of scheme to secure winding-up]:
  [Amendment No. 87 not moved.]
  Clause 49 [Reports about winding-up]:
  [Amendments Nos. 88 to 92 not moved.]
  Clause 50 [Directions for facilitating winding-up]:
  [Amendments Nos. 93 to 96 not moved.]
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 97:
  After Clause 51, insert the following new clause—

  REMOVAL OF RESTRICTION ON PENSION ANNUITIES
  (" . There shall be no requirement for a holder of a stakeholder, personal, occupational or other defined contributory pension to take the pension in the form of an annuity by a specified age.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment concerns the age restriction on taking a pension annuity. This matter will be familiar to your Lordships. Only last year on the welfare legislation a similar amendment, but one that was restricted to

  807
  stakeholder pensions, was accepted by your Lordships' House although it was subsequently rejected in another place.
  The House will know, therefore, that there is considerable concern about the imposition of the 75 years of age rule. There are several reasons for this. First, on average, people are living much longer. As I think has already been said on a previous occasion, at the time of the Beveridge report the average life expectancy beyond retirement age was about two years, whereas now it is much longer. Therefore, the age limit of 75 is extremely restrictive.
  Secondly, previously annuity rates seemed to be relatively stable but now they fluctuate considerably. Over the past 10 years they have plummeted from a level of some 16 per cent to about 8 per cent. In other words, the pension which is drawn at any given moment is about half previous levels. Therefore, there is a considerable argument for greater flexibility in this matter. In the light of President Clinton's announcement yesterday about the human genome project we may look forward to even more dramatic changes in the future. The situation is changing dramatically and therefore we believe that an adjustment is necessary.
  Successive governments have relaxed the rules to some extent; for example, in regard to income drawdown schemes. However, those can be risky unless people have considerable back-up in the form of higher income. For people on lower incomes the income drawdown scheme can be risky. There have also been changes to the rules on additional voluntary contributions. The limit was recently raised to the age of 75 with regard to defined contribution pension schemes. Overall, there are strong arguments in favour of the Government reconsidering the matter.
  A press report produced in April stated that the Government proposed to raise the age limit to 80. Mr David Davis said that he thought that raising the limit was a good idea but that the Government would wait until half the relevant people had died before they did anything! I believe that there is some truth in that. We have understood for a considerable period that the Government intended to do something in this regard, but nothing happens. It would be helpful to be given an indication of the Government's thinking on the matter. At all events, it is important that the matter should be considered by noble Lords and that some change should be made. I beg to move.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, when this matter was raised in Committee I said that I could not support the amendment moved by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. The situation has not changed since then. We feel that the tax relief that is given on contributions to pension funds is given for a specific purpose; namely, to provide for pensions income at retirement age when people give up their business or profession. We do not feel that this is an appropriate vehicle to use simply to build up a fund which can then be passed down in a tax efficient way to future generations. There are other tax favourable methods of saving such as ISAs. We think,
  808
  therefore, that to allow pension funds to be held free from any obligation at any point in time to buy an annuity is inappropriate and defeats the purpose for which the relief is granted.
  We recognise the desirability of drawdown schemes in deferring the date at which an annuity is drawn. I should confess that I have a drawdown arrangement myself. However, that is an entirely different matter. We are unable to support the amendment.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, as we have heard, this amendment seeks to remove the current requirement for tax-approved defined contribution pension funds to be used to purchase an annuity by the time the member reaches the age of 75. We debated this issue in Committee.
  As I tried to suggest, pension annuities are the only product available that converts a capital sum in a pension fund into a guaranteed income for the remainder of the annuitant's life. That guarantee is paramount to the financial security of pensioners.
  There is already some flexibility to defer annuity purchase by using the income drawdown facility, as the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said. However, it carries the risk of high administrative charges and a reduced capital fund if investments do not perform well. All the advice from the industry is that it should be taken up only by people with substantial funds; for example, a fund of at least £200,000. In practice, the majority of people are best advised to convert their pension fund to an annuity as soon as they retire because their funds are of more modest size.
  We believe that requiring that an annuity be purchased by age 75 strikes a fair balance between flexibility over the timing of buying an annuity, while guarding against the risk that the fund becomes seriously depleted when someone may need to return to income related benefits.
  Noble Lords will appreciate that tax-approved pension funds attract generous tax relief as an encouragement for people to save for their retirement. It is right that such pension savings should be used to provide a regular income throughout retirement. As the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, has rightly said, other vehicles such as ISAs, which attract tax relief, are available to those wishing to save for other purposes, such as to provide an inheritance for their children.
  I know that there has been sustained criticism that annuities do not provide value for money because the rates today do not compare favourably with the rates which were offered a decade ago. I believe that the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, made that point tonight.
  However, as I have said before, I do not think that a simple comparison of annuity rates tells the whole story. Many people have benefited from substantial investment growth since annuity rates peaked and are now retiring onto considerably higher pensions in real terms than their predecessors who retired in the 1980s. For example, in 1990 someone on average earnings—and, given certain assumptions, producing a pension pot of £31,000—would have an income of £92 a week, or £119 in today's prices. In 1998, although annuity

  809
  rates had fallen from 15 per cent to 9 per cent, that fund would not have been £31,000 but £97,000. The income would have been £175 a week, with inflation of only two per cent, compared with the £119 a week of the person retiring in 1990.
  Annuity rates have fallen by a third or a half, according to the timescale one follows. As I say, annuity rates have fallen from 15 per cent in 1990 to 9 per cent in 1998 on a pot that has trebled in value to face inflation that is a sixth of what it was. That therefore generates a 50 per cent increase in income in real terms compared with what someone would have got in 1990 with those same three variables in play. Too often people want high annuity rates, high capital growth and low inflation all at the same time. That, of course, is not reasonable.
  There is already flexibility and a reasonable degree of choice for those with pension savings. There are a number of annuity products on offer which cater for different needs. Because the pension annuity business is an expanding market, new products are being launched to offer even greater choice to purchasers. In recent weeks, two new investment-linked products have been launched. I believe that something like 10 companies now provide investment-linked annuity products which obviously track, follow or are related to growth in the markets.
  It is clear from recent developments that the pension industry can and does innovate to provide greater flexibility for annuitants. There has been a noticeable increase in the number of companies offering investment-linked annuity products, giving greater choice for people to shop around for competitive annuity rates and the products that meet their needs.
  It is worth reminding noble Lords that the Government keep the current arrangements under review, but we need to be absolutely sure that if a change were to be made it would represent a definite improvement over the present position.
  I should also re-emphasise that the annuity purchase rules are laid down in the Income and Corporation Taxes Act 1988. Amendments to that legislation do not come within the scope of the Bill, so the proposed new clause would not have the intended effect. I hope that in the light of what I have said and what the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, said, the noble Lord will feel able to withdraw his amendment.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I thank the Minister for that thoughtful reply. The problem is the inflexibility of the arrangement as far as individuals are concerned. It may well be that they feel able to defer drawing their pension; that they prefer to see it accumulate in the way described by the noble Baroness and to draw a larger pension at a later date. It is true, of course, as the noble Baroness said, that the insurance industry, to some extent, has begun very recently—perhaps belatedly—to produce products related to the stock market rather than to the gilt market. None the less, this is a comparatively late development.
  810
  As we have seen in the past, some of the problems arise from disappointed expectations. It is perhaps true that, given the general history of these matters, people expected to see their funds grow at a reasonable rate and faster than inflation, but none the less based their expectations on the annuity rates which had prevailed for a considerable time. One can recall a period not so long ago—perhaps two-and-a-half to three years ago—where the lack of flexibility forced people who had reached 75 but who had not previously drawn their pension to do so at a moment when the stock market was in a very bad way.
  This proves something which I still find surprising—namely, that the Government intend in their general pensions policy to forecast what pension people are likely to receive. The reality is that there are very wide fluctuations in the markets. A degree of flexibility is something from which people would benefit, rather than being forced at a specific date—provided they have not taken a pension previously—to invest in an annuity.
  The Minister has made a number of interesting points. I do not find them wholly convincing and I shall seek the opinion of the House.
  5.34 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 97) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 129; Not-Contents, 186.

  Division No. 2

  CONTENTS

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Crathorne, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Crickhowell, L.

  Astor, V.

  Cuckney, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Attlee, E.

  Dundee, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Eames, L

  Biffen, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Blackwell, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Blaker, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Elton, L.

  Boardman, L.

  Feldman, L.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Forsyth of Drumlean, L.

  Brougham and Vaux, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Burnham, L. [Teller]

  Goschen, V.

  Buscombe, B.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Butterworth, L.

  Hanham, B.

  Byford, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Caithness, E.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Campbell of Alloway, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Howe, E.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Hylton, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Coe, L.

  Jopling, L.

  Colwyn, L.

  Kelvedon, L.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Courtown, E.

  Kingsland, L.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Laird, L.

  Craig of Radley, L.

  Lamont of Lerwick, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  811

  Liverpool, E.

  Rees, L.

  Luke, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Lyell, L.

  Renton, L.

  McConnell, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Ryder of Wensum, L.

  Marlesford, L.

  Saatchi, L.

  Marsh, L.

  Saltoun of Abernethy, Ly.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Selsdon, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Monson, L.

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Montagu of Beaulieu, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Mowbray and Stourton, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Stewartby, L.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Naseby, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Swinfen, L.

  Taylor of Warwick, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Tebbit, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Thatcher, B.

  Onslow, E.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Vivian, L.

  Palmer, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Wakeham, L.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Weatherill, L.

  Pilkington of Oxenford, L.

  Wilcox, B.

  Platt of Writtle, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Wolfson, L.

  Reay, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Acton, L.

  Desai, L.

  Addington, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Ahmed, L.

  Diamond, L.

  Alli, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Amos, B.

  Dubs, L.

  Andrews, B.

  Eatwell, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Elder, L.

  Ashley of Stoke, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Evans of Watford, L.

  Avebury, L.

  Ezra, L.

  Bach, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Beaumont of Whitley, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Berkeley, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Billingham, B.

  Filkin, L.

  Blackburn, Bp.

  Fyfe of Fairfield, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Gale, B.

  Blease, L.

  Gavron, L.

  Borrie, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B

  Bragg, L.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Brooke of Alverthorpe, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Burlison, L.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Carlile of Berriew, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Carter, L, [Teller]

  Greaves, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Grenfell, L.

  Christopher, L.

  Hamwee, B.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Harris of Greenwich, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Haskel, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Hilton of Eggardon, B.

  David, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Davies of Oldham, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  812

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Irvine of Lairg, L. (Lord Chancellor)

  Randall of St. Budeaux, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Islwyn, L.

  Rea, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Redesdale, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Jay of Paddington, B. (Lord Privy Seat)

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Russell, E.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Layard, L.

  Serota, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Sharman, L.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Lipsey, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Shore of Stepney, L.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Simon, V.

  Lovell-Davis, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  McIntosh of Haringey, L. [Teller]

  Stone of Blackheath, L.

  Strabolgi, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  McNally, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Mallalieu, B.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Thornton, B.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Tordoff, L.

  Merlyn-Rees, L.

  Uddin, B.

  Methuen, L.

  Varley, L.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Mitchell, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Molloy, L.

  Walmsley, B.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Warner, L.

  Morris of Manchester, L.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Newby, L.

  Watson of Richmond, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Whitaker, B.

  Northover, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Orme, L.

  Wilkins, B.

  Parekh, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Patel, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Peston, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the negative, and amendment disagreed to accordingly.
  5.45 p.m.
  Clause 53 [Jurisdiction of the Pensions Ombudsman]:
  [Amendment No. 98 not moved.]
  Clause 54 [Investigations by the Pensions Ombudsman]:
  [Amendment Nos. 99 and 100 not moved.]
  Schedule 5 [Pensions: miscellaneous amendments and alternative to anti-franking rules]:
  [Amendment Nos. 101 to 104 not moved.]
  Clause 57 [Rights of appeal]:
  [Amendment No. 105 not moved.]
  Clause 58 [Time limit for appeals]:
  Lord Astor of Hever Lord Astor of Hever moved Amendment No. 106:
  Leave out Clause 58.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, this amendment seeks to delete Clause 58 from the Bill. On these Benches we seek to ensure that the present time limit in relation to an appeal will remain at 12 months. In Committee the Minister accepted that there had been some concern that six months did not provide vulnerable, and perhaps grieving people, with sufficient time in which to bring an appeal. The Minister also said that advice the Government had received from some ex-servicemen's organisations indicated that they were comfortable with the proposals.
  I am not sure which organisations the Minister's department contacted to enable that statement to be made because those organisations that deal directly with war pensions and the agency itself and have most knowledge of representation at tribunals are decidedly uncomfortable with the proposals. Indeed, they are most concerned. Among those which have contacted me a re SSAFA, the RAF Association, the RAF Widows Association, the War Widows Association, St Dunstan's (For Service War Blinded), BLESMA, Combat Stress (Ex-Services Mental welfare Society) and the RBL. I declare an interest as president of the Earl Haig branch of the Royal British Legion. They are all united in their advice that anything that shortens the length of time that people have in which to lodge an appeal is quite wrong. Their advice is not to be disregarded lightly.
  The Government are giving the impression that they are out to limit claims and deny servicemen and women their rightful financial support by shortening the appeal period. Why should our forces be limited to six months when the Americans, our close partners in many war zones, get 12 months? Are our troops any different? Are their illnesses different? Surely not. All possible help must be given to those who are wounded or killed for us. Accordingly, the 12-month period should remain. I hope that the Minister will think again. I beg to move.
  Lord Ashley of Stoke: My Lords, perhaps I may rise on a point of information. War pensioners are injured in public service. The same point applies to vaccine-damaged children. I was informed that there was to be a very important Statement in the House of Commons this afternoon regarding vaccine-damaged children and the payment scheme for them. I should be very surprised indeed if the Government did not see fit to allow Members of this House to question and interrogate Ministers and scrutinise that Statement in the same way as in the House of Commons.
  Can my noble friend enlighten us? I believe that Members of this House are entitled, first, to put questions to the Minister and, secondly, to be given some information as regards the Statement.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, before the noble Baroness replies, I should like to support my
  814
  noble friend. The list of organisations he mentioned when speaking to his amendment are concerned about the time limit not because they are groups seeking to make a political point; they comprise pragmatic people who think that it will be difficult for pensioners to appeal in such a short time. I hope that the Minister will listen carefully to the arguments in favour of the amendment. It is not a political point, but one driven by matters of practicality. A little sympathy would be most desirable here.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Astor, raised a point about the time limit on appeals for war pensions. My noble friend Lord Ashley drew the analogy that someone who is a war pensioner incurred their injuries essentially in the course of public service; namely, that those injuries were received while fighting for their country. He went on to ask, when considering vaccine-damaged children who received vaccinations for the sake of public health and the safety of other children, why the Statement was not repeated in this House. Both groups have suffered in the name of the public good.
  Today the Government made an extremely important announcement which will affect the lives of many of the most vulnerable and disabled children in our society. My noble friend has asked why the Government did not see fit to come to your Lordships' House, as though only Members of the House of Commons would be interested in developments as regards vaccine-damaged children. Could it be that noble Lords decided that more important matters needed to be discussed, such as annuity rates at the age of 75? Should such matters take precedence over the interests and well-being of vaccine-damaged children?
  I take the reproof. The Government offered the Statement to this House. Because for some time I personally have been involved with organisations representing vaccine-damaged children, I wanted to be able to tell noble Lords what the Government are doing in this area. I would have positively welcomed the opportunity to repeat the Statement to the House. My noble friend would have been able to interrogate me on the details and noble Lords would have been informed on a matter that is a major social security issue and which could quite easily have been debated as an amendment to the Bill before us had it not been agreed by mutual consent that the Government's own review should first come to its conclusion.
  Although I offered to repeat the Statement, understand—I hope that I am not putting words into anyone's mouth at this point—that Members of the Official Opposition rejected the Statement and did not want it to be repeated in the House this afternoon, even though this matter affects the well-being of some of our most vulnerable children. However, when it suits the Official Opposition, it will pursue questions on these matters with the Government.
  Given that, I am happy to tell my noble friend that, at present, the parents of a vaccine-damaged child arc eligible for an allowance in the form of a capital sum which is intended to offset part of the additional costs of bringing up that child. The maximum award is

  815
  £40,000. In the late 1970s the figure was set at £10,000. It was raised to £30,000 until a few months ago when the Government raised the figure to £40,000. At the time my noble friend pointed out forcefully that that sum was insufficient and that from his point of view it was an unacceptable award. I believe that it was for that reason that my noble friend tabled an Unstarred Question for tomorrow evening.
  I am happy to be able to report that in the Statement made in another place today, the Government announced that they are not raising the award of £40,000 for vaccine-damaged children to £50,000 or even £60,000, but to £100,000. That means that those who have already received moneys will have their allowances upgraded to a real-terms equivalent of £100,000. The upgrading will be speedily enforced in regulations.
  Furthermore, we shall widen the scope of the scheme so that it will offer generous compensation to those not presently included in the scheme. At present the scheme operates only for those children with 80 per cent disability. From now on all children with greater than 60 per cent disability will be included. The present rules require a claim to be made within six years of the vaccination. That period is to be increased to 21 years, so that some young people whose symptoms manifest themselves only during adolescence and at puberty will now be brought within the scope of the scheme.
  I am pleased that I have been able to give the House details of the scheme. This is a social security matter and one of important public interest. For families bringing up vaccine-damaged children, this measure will bring about a major improvement in their lot. Although I do not wish to suggest that because the Statement contained good news it was not taken up by the Official Opposition, I hope that my noble friend and others will agree that the Government have taken a decent, generous and compassionate step as regards vaccine-damaged children. I am delighted to have been given the opportunity to share this information with the House. I thank my noble friend.
  Perhaps I may now turn to war pension appeals. In Committee I went to some length to explain our reasons for bringing forward this measure. I shall not burden the House by repeating those points. I had hoped that, in the light of those explanations, noble Lords would have accepted that this provision is reasonable and necessary for the smooth, efficient and speedy delivery of just and fair decisions.
  The current arrangements mean that some appeals are not subject to any time limit but, where one exists, it is often extended indefinitely by tribunals. That can work against the interests of appellants, against the effective administration of appeals and against a fair and just outcome. That is not a recipe for success.
  To ask tribunal members to consider decisions made decades ago is to place them in an invidious, time-consuming and frustrating position, one where they are expected to reach decisions based on the appellant's circumstances, the medical understanding
  816
  and the law as it stood at the time. That is an unsatisfactory arrangement and falls short of the wider expectations of a modern-day appeals system.
  New time limits will ensure that appeals are heard nearer to when decisions are made; that is, the time limit applies not to the original claim, but on hearing appeals against the decision. Thus an appeal cannot be lodged 20 years after a decision, because most of the evidence will have been lost in the system. Facts are clearer when appeals are lodged close to the time that the decision is made and their relevance is more readily apparent. The time limits will largely negate the need to rely on assumptions about conditions that existed in the distant past. How can a satisfactory appeal be held on a decision that may have been reached 20 years previously when the medical and other knowledge on which that decision was based may have changed quite dramatically?
  We propose that interim assessment decisions should retain their current three-month appeal time limit, but that in all other instances appeals should be submitted within a longer six-month time limit, starting from the date that the decision is notified. Elsewhere, most other appeal time limits do not exceed three months. We feel, therefore, that six months is relatively generous. In proposing this longer time-scale, we are paying due recognition to the unique status of war pensioners, the complexity of the war pensions scheme and the fact that these decisions have not previously been time limited.
  We are also making provision for late appeals to be admitted within the 12 months following the end of the six-month appeal time limit. Affirmative regulations will be brought forward prescribing the circumstances in which late appeals will be accepted. We intend that such circumstances will be broadly similar to those contained within present social security provisions.
  I think that it would also be pertinent to reiterate a point I made in Committee that noble Lords may have overlooked. Furthermore, it should go some way towards alleviating certain concerns that may possibly be based on a degree of misunderstanding in this area.
  These provisions have no knock-on effect on claims for war pensions. War disablement pensioners and war widows may continue to make claims at any time—10, 15 or even 25 years after the incident or accident occurred. If a claimant incurred an injury at the age of 23, he may still bring in a claim at the age of 60. All we are saying is that the appeal against the ultimate decision should be made within a six-month time frame so that the appeal relates directly to the circumstances under which the decision was made—not 10 or 20 years further down the line. Efforts to be just and fair under those circumstances cannot be effective. The six-month appeal time limit will not start until after a claim for a war pension has been made, the necessary information provided and a decision notified.
  The appeal clock will start to tick only from the date that a decision is finally notified by the War Pensions Agency. Even then, a dissatisfied claimant need only lodge an appeal within the six-month time limit. The

  817
  fact that a claimant may not be able to obtain all the evidence before the expiry of the time limit is no bar to the lodging of an appeal. He or she need only inform the War Pensions Agency that further information will follow. If the claimant needs assistance, the agency will make every effort to help, for example, through the War Pensioners' Welfare Service.
  Once the appeal has been lodged, the agency will begin its preparation of the papers for an appeal hearing. When that is done, it will send the appellant full details of the case. At this stage, the claimant will be given a further 28 days in which to write in again with further information. Even that is not the end of the line. When the hearing date arrives, the claimant or his or her representative still has an opportunity to produce any additional evidence that is relevant to the outcome and that may previously have been overlooked. Therefore, there are several stages beyond the initial lodging of an appeal at which a claimant may provide any additional evidence. I do not believe that the six-month time limit is unreasonable.
  I have also explained previously that decisions made before the new time limit is commenced will have transitional protection. Those affected by this provision, but who receive a decision before its commencement, will have at least a year from the notification of the decision in which to bring an appeal. The new appeal time limit will apply only to those for whom decisions are made on or after the commencement date.
  Finally, as I explained in Committee, if at any future date we need to vary the time limit in the light of the workings of the proposal, I shall be happy to come back with affirmative regulations which will be subject to the agreement of both Houses. Given the fact that the original request for the war pension can be brought at any time is unaffected, what we are seeking to do, which is entirely reasonable, is to say that the appeal against that should be made within a decent period after the original decision being taken—in this case six months—together with transitional protection. That six-month period can be extended if additional information comes through and the war pensioner needs further time to collect that information. To have the current system in which one can have a decision taken 20 years after the injury and an appeal a further 20 years after the decision cannot be sensible or fair to people in similar circumstances and cannot produce a right and proper decision. Therefore, in the light of what I have said I hope that the noble Lord, Lord Astor, will agree that the clause in the Bill is acceptable to the House.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply which ranged wider than the amendment we were considering. As regards the question raised by the noble Lord, Lord Ashley, I understand that there is a Unstarred Question for the dinner break tomorrow on the vaccine damage payment scheme. Therefore, this House, unlike the other place, will have the opportunity to consider the matter.
  818
  I turn to the amendment. I thank my noble friend Lady Carnegy for her support. I agree with her that it is not a political point but a practical one. I accept that the Minister considered the amendment in great detail in Committee, but, despite what the Minister has said, a great many of the service charities are very unhappy. I shall consider Hansard in great detail and discuss the matter with those charities. In the meantime I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 60 [Constitution and procedure of Pensions Appeal Tribunals]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 107:
  Page 62, line 14, after ("qualified") insert (" , persons with knowledge or experience of service in Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in Committee your Lordships expressed concern that Clause 60 could have the effect of denying those with knowledge or experience of service life the opportunity to serve on pensions appeal tribunals. Noble Lords felt that this could be detrimental to tribunal hearings. I explained that my noble and learned friend the Lord Chancellor has always intended to continue to appoint people with knowledge or experience of service life to the pool of tribunal members.
  However, the Government are alert to concerns raised in this House and I agreed to bring forward a government amendment to place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to appoint service people to a pool of tribunal members. I also undertook to write to the three presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals.
  Government Amendments Nos. 107, 109 and 111 place a duty on the Lord Chancellor to appoint,
  "persons with knowledge or experience of service in Her Majesty's naval, military or air forces",
  to the pool of tribunal members. It will also provide for people with "other" experience to be appointed. That will ensure that the presidents of the pension appeal tribunals at all times are able to select members of individual appeal tribunals from a pool that must include persons with legal qualifications, those with medical qualifications and persons with knowledge or experience in Her Majesty's Armed Forces.
  I have also written to the presidents of the pensions appeal tribunals explaining the Government's purpose in bringing these changes and drawing to their attention the points raised by your Lordships during the debate.
  The Government recognise the expertise that service people can bring to a tribunal in a similar way that legal and medical expertise is helpful. The Government have noted the concerns of this House and have laid amendments that will ensure that there are people with knowledge and experience of many of the services appointed to the pool of tribunal members and available to hear appeals. I hope that your Lordships will accept these amendments. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Astor of Hever: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for moving these amendments. As regards Amendment No. 107, she promised at Committee stage that she would come back at Report with this amendment: it is a real break through. On behalf of the service charities and the veterans' groups, I thank the noble Baroness for her help in this matter.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 108 not moved.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 109:
  Page 62, line 27, leave out from ("2") to ("it") in line 28.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 110 not moved.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 111:
  Page 62, leave out lines 31 and 32.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 112 not moved.]
  Clause 61 [Composition of central advisory committee]:
  [Amendments Nos. 113 and 114 not moved.]
  Clause 63 [Loss of benefit for breach of community order]:
  Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendment No. 114A:
  Page 65, line 11, leave out from beginning to ("that") and insert ("a court makes a determination").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, in moving this amendment I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 114B to 114H, Amendments Nos. 115A to 115D and Amendments Nos. 116A to 116G. By the time we have finished this debate we should have made substantial progress through the long list of amendments on the Marshalled List.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: That is very thoughtful of the noble Lord.
  Lord Windlesham: It is a moment of amity which will shortly be shattered by what I have to say to the Government Front Bench.
  This is the third time that arguments have been rehearsed against the inclusion in a social security measure of a pecuniary sanction when an offender who is subject to a community order is alleged to have failed to comply with the conditions of that order. Amendments Nos. 115 to 117, 119 and 120 would leave out the relevant clauses completely, whereas the remaining amendments concentrate on a single procedural change. It is on those that I shall concentrate in my remarks in opening this debate.
  There is no need to repeat the full catalogue of objections which have been raised by practitioners outside Parliament as well as inside this House to the wholly misguided idea of withdrawing or reducing social security benefits from offenders for up to 26
  820
  weeks in the period between a reported breach—I put emphasis on the word "reported"—by the probation officer and a court hearing.
  In some cases the breach will be contested when it reaches court. It may not be proved. In others, the court may decide to continue a probation or community service order, either with no penalty or with a fine, or to substitute some other form of punishment. Often the order is revoked and the offender is sentenced to custody or to other penalties. The number of unexecuted arrest warrants is also an uncomfortable reminder of just how many offenders are no longer in touch.
  All these outcomes result from court hearings. They are decided according to the circumstances of each individual case. But no such variety of disposal is allowed for by this Bill in the automatic sanction to be imposed by the benefits office once a breach has been reported by a probation officer.
  Those of your Lordships who have not followed this issue closely will be surprised to hear that an alleged breach is enough to be treated as evidence that a condition of benefit has been abused, and the withdrawal of that benefit should therefore follow as a sanction. All that Ministers can offer by way of justification is that typically a person who abuses a community penalty is a chronic menace to a local community, terrorising or vandalising housing estates, and generally making the lives of the residents a misery. Anyone who read Hugo Young's polemic in last week's Guardian would have seen that reasoning brilliantly demolished. If indeed this is the rationale for the legislative response, it is not only rooted in deep ignorance—I use the word deliberately—of deviant behaviour and the most effective ways of countering it, but is a complete caricature of a contractual relationship.
  Since there seems to be some misconception, let me spell it out. A contract must be between parties who know that they are entering into a relationship with one another. It is a species of agreement whereby an obligation is created by the parties to it, and not by the declaration of one party in the ignorance of the other. The adoption of what may seem to some members of the Government or their advisers as little more than a convenient rhetorical device, is in fact a debasement of language, as well as undermining the habits of legality. It is for those reasons that Amendment No. 114A, which is the key amendment, and the long list of amendments grouped with it, concentrates on what is in many ways the most important of several flaws in this part of the Bill.
  If there is to be an administrative sanction attached, not to a condition of eligibility according to need but to the breach of a legal obligation in the shape of a community order, then it must be for the court, not for a government official, however conscientious, however fair-minded, to decide on whether or not an additional penalty is deserved, alongside those which are already at its disposal. This, and the consequential amendments, delay the implementation of the loss of benefit sanction until after the court has made a

  821
  determination that an offender has failed to comply with the requirements of the appropriate order. I beg to move.
  6.15 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, when one goes into Committee to debate a matter with all guns blazing, very occasionally one conies out wondering whether the case was as strong as one thought. Sometimes, one comes out thinking that it was as strong as one thought but one can understand why people thought otherwise. Usually, one comes out thinking very much what one did when one went in. What is really unusual is to go into a debate in Committee with all guns blazing and come out thinking that the business that one is debating is very much worse than one originally believed.
  A number of Cross-Benchers asked me what was our case on this issue. I told them: "Read the Minister's speech. You will find what concerns us much more clearly set out than we could do it ourselves". What we found was not merely an unjust procedure, not merely an unjustifiable measure, but a major realignment of the terms on which benefits are to be received, and what I fear may be a major agenda for the Government's second term if they should be fortunate enough to get one. That is quite a collection of mischiefs.
  Perhaps I may deal first with the point about the procedure, which is the subject of the amendments. The amendments put forward in effect a single proposal and they are necessarily contingent on each other. The procedure is that if a person misses two probation appointments, he or she must be reported. It is the court's job, not that of probation officers, to decide whether the absence was justified. A person is deemed to have missed an appointment if he or she is 20 minutes late. I wonder how many of your Lordships have never been 20 minutes late for an appointment through no fault of your own. I suggest that it is only those who could justifiably support the proposition that the Government are putting forward.
  As recently as this morning, as I was coming to the House, I might very easily have been 20 minutes late, because the favourite gremlins of the noble Lord, Lord Peyton of Yeovil, had taken up residence digging holes in a place in the road where no holes had been yesterday. A great many of us have been 20 minutes late because of signal failure on the London Underground. If we are to miss all visible legal means of support for a period which is an average of 41 days, and may on occasion be as long as 314 days, because of one signal failure on the London Underground, that will lead to a degree of animus against London Underground which may lead to vandalism and a great deal of delay to other people. That could be unfortunate.
  I said in Committee that I had never known the case put as well as in the Minister's speeches against precisely this principle of loss of benefit before appeal in the Jobseekers Act 1995. I said that they were some of the most brilliant speeches that I had ever heard in
  822
  this Chamber. I took the opportunity this morning to read some of them. The Minister said then that there was,
  "merely a doubt … and one does not know whether an offence has or has not been committed … the individual is being fined in advance of that doubt being established as valid. We still believe that that is monstrously perverse".—[Official Report, 27/4/95; col. 1107.]
  She was concerned about the consequences. She said:
  "the vulnerable will continue on hardship and … young, single people, childless couples and those perhaps with less easily diagnosed mental health problems will have no income at all … the noble Baroness, Lady Williams of Crosby, said the other night, they will not starve peaceably—at least I hope that they will not. They will beg, steal, become prostitutes and sell drugs. In the process they will become entirely unemployable ever again".— [Official Report, 25/4/95; col. 870.]
  The message is clear. This is a thoroughly unfortunate series of procedures. We shall support the amendments.
  Equally, we on these Benches are deeply concerned about the principle of the clause itself. The Minister is, of course, right in saying that it is not new to set conditions for benefits. But this represents, by her own confession in Committee, an entirely new type of condition. There have always been conditions for means-tested benefits related to sufficiency of means. There is no argument about that. Increasingly, since 1986, there has been a pile of conditions for means-tested benefits related to the claimant's attempts to avoid being in need. One might parallel them to intentional homelessness. These are the availability conditions and all that go with them. Those conditions are relevant in principle to the purpose of benefit. Our position on these Benches is that we believe that, before deciding whether such withdrawals of benefit are justified, we need to know what the effect will he—and we do not.
  I have said enough on this point. It is not what we are dealing with; we are dealing now with an entirely different matter. The Minister's words in Committee were:
  "They are conditions associated with good citizenship, not simply with needs and entitlements".—[Official Report, 22/5/00; col. 542.]
  That is an entirely new principle. What is more, it is one that the Government intend to apply again. The Minister said:
  "I would not on principle rule out further extensions, but it would be for Parliament to debate whether particular behaviour is sufficiently undesirable and to be so strongly discouraged that it merits the withdrawal of state support via the benefit system".—[Col. 543.]
  Constitutionally, it is a perfectly correct answer: the vires are limited. But the principle that is stated is not limited. I take that to be the Minister's announcement that she is setting herself up as the Young Lady of Spain—she intends to do it again, and again, and again.
  I really must press the Minister. What are the limits of this theoretical principle that she now claims? It will undoubtedly be an issue at the next general election. If the Minister cannot spell out any limits, she cannot

  823
  blame me for saying that something might fall within them. If the noble Baroness states any limit, I will observe it.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Massey stated:
  "Surely, it is fair that benefit systems should be seen to be applied to those who merit them".—[Official Report, 22/5/2000; col. 525.]
  I ask her to consider what that principle might mean in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Young. Equally, as I am not making a party point but drawing attention to the fact that we disagree about "deserving", I ask the noble Baroness, Lady Young, to consider what it might mean in the hands of the noble Baroness, Lady Massey. We do not always agree on what is deserving. The threat to withdraw benefits from those who are not deserving could produce many unexpected consequences—most of them serious.
  The noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, said that one cannot have a contract made by one party. I do not know when I consented to the alleged contract. The Government are correct when they say that there is a relationship between rights and responsibilities but it is not one that they have properly understood. There are rights and responsibilities on both sides. When there is disagreement over whether a citizen has defaulted, the courts, not the Executive, are the proper judge. Magna Carta is often wrongly invoked but that is its central principle and one in which I believe.
  The chief responsibility of the state is to protect its subjects. Since the Poor Law and before, it has been recognised that that responsibility includes protecting people against starvation. If people are put outside that protection, one turns them into outlaws.
  I have just one more quotation from the noble Baroness, in 1995:
  "If we outlaw, from benefit some of our fellow citizens, assuredly we outlaw them from the law itself. Even the Victorians in their most penal and policing authoritarian mode—the classical economists—never did that. They always had available either outdoor or indoor relief. Why did the most severe and judgmental of Victorian moralists continue poor relief on the rates? They recognised that if they refused money for bread, those people would break the bakers' windows".—[Official Report, 25/4/1995; col. 870.]
  The Government are offering a proposal to increase crime. I do not want that.
  The Lord Bishop of Lincoln: My Lords, I speak as the bishop to prisons. Although this is not particularly a prisons matter, since my appointment some years ago I have taken a keen interest in a wide range of penal affairs.
  I have continuously and consistently supported the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, in his amendment and do so today because the Bill allows the diktat of the Department of Social Security to replace the court after a probation officer has reported an alleged breach. That cannot be right for the reasons that the noble Earl, Lord Russell, stated.
  The principle of punishment before conviction is being too easily and smoothly promoted. I ask your Lordships to support the amendments, to restore the
  824
  proper authority of the court, rather than allow administrative decision to override the proper judicial process.
  Lord Carlisle of Bucklow: My Lords, in Committee I expressed my total opposition to the clause and do not renege from that. Its effect is to impose the removal of benefit on an allegation of breach, rather than on the finding of the court—which principle is novel and unacceptable.
  I read with great care the Minister's reply in Committee but remain unconvinced by her arguments. She said that the Government are merely adding another condition to a benefit, rather than imposing a penalty. I suggest that people on probation in Manchester and Liverpool who find their benefits withdrawn on an allegation of breach of probation will certainly believe that is a penalty.
  The noble Baroness said that the measure would only be imposed in pilot areas for four weeks. Recent information from the Association of Chief Officers of Probation suggests that the normal period between an allegation of breach and a court hearing is longer than four weeks. The individual will have his benefit removed during that time, even if he is later found not in breach—which would be totally and completely wrong. There is no answer to the argument that introducing the removal of benefit that way will be a temptation and pressure for those given community service to get involved again in crime, which they otherwise might not do.
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I listened carefully to the debate in Committee and to the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, and others today. Several noble Lords whom I admire greatly support the amendment and I have thought long and hard before deciding to disagree and support the Government's proposal.
  My noble friend the Minister was correct to place the debate in the context of reform of the system, which is a wide and major issue that we should not consider in isolation from the far-reaching debate on benefits. My noble friend said that the measure was about rights and responsibilities in relation to benefits, so it is properly a DSS matter. I agree.
  Many who support the amendment are rightly concerned for people struggling with poverty. The noble Baroness, Lady Stern—with her unrivalled experience—gave an example of a young offender failing to report for community service because of pressures at home over which he or she has little or no control. The probation officer would report such extreme circumstances to the decision maker, who would surely take them into account.
  The Commission on Social Justice, chaired with distinction by my noble friend Lord Borrie, said that the best way out of poverty is to obtain a job. The Government have adopted that as a central plank in their strategy to get rid of poverty. I am aware of many outer estates and inner city areas where there has been a no-work culture for three generations. For example,

  825
  three years ago in the borough of Knowsley some 45 per cent of children were growing up in homes where no one was in work—not very different from the situation in the whole of Liverpool. In areas like that, benefits have been taken for granted as rights.
  During the inquiry that I chaired on behalf of all the Churches into unemployment and the future of work, I was persuaded that full employment was possible. I had not believed it before. It is not quite as simple as saying that there are 1 million people and 1 million jobs to which they can go. But I was heartened to receive a ministerial reply at Question Time last month that in the 15 new employment zones established in April the Government would support the introduction of intermediate labour markets aimed specifically at those furthest from employment. Intermediate labour markets are a serious step in job creation and offer 12 months' work with the rate of pay for the job.
  Freeing people from the no-work culture is a major task. The Government are right to believe that there must be a stick as well as a carrot. I have not lightly come to that view. The prize of getting people into real work is a major one for every individual concerned and for the community as a whole. I dare to say that some of my allies and best friends who are involved with those on benefits have themselves become locked into the no-work culture, by which I mean that they hardly believe that for those whom they serve anything other than reliance on benefits is possible.
  If we believe that finding a proper job is the best way out of poverty, the nation has an obligation, as its part of the contract, to ensure that real jobs are available. For that reason, I mention the importance of intermediate labour markets. That is taking people seriously as having gifts that are needed and valued. Shifting the philosophy of benefit in that way means acknowledging that each citizen has a contract with the state. It also means that one treats people as responsible adults.
  6.30 p.m.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, can the noble Lord rebut the proposition that the withdrawal of benefits risks making people unemployable thereafter?
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, it is impossible to rebut that proposition because one is trying to guess the future. In turn, I ask the noble Earl whether he can rebut the suggestion that a little pressure will help to play a part in moving people—for whom I pray every Monday of my life—out of the no-work culture and into jobs.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. Neither of us can do this until there is serious research about the effects of disentitlement to benefit. We on these Benches have been asking for that for a great many years. We do not have it.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Earl and other noble Lords may be assisted in this
  826
  debate if I make the following points. First, research into what happens after disentitlement to JSA was published in 1998. Secondly, the noble Earl will be aware that what we propose today are pilots. Those pilots will be evaluated to see whether a four-week loss of benefit as a sanction for failing to observe a community sentence has the effect that the noble Earl fears. That is the whole point of the pilots.
  Lord Sheppard of Liverpool: My Lords, I am not sure all noble Lords are aware that we are talking about the introduction of pilot schemes which seek to discover just that. I always expect to learn something valuable when the noble Earl speaks; indeed. I usually discover a little piece of history of which I was hitherto unaware. I was surprised, however, when the noble Earl said in Committee that the removal of benefit as provided for under the Bill was,
  "based simply on the fact that the Secretary of State happens to disapprove of the activity in question".—[Official Report, 22/5/00; col. 517.]
  That does not seem to me to be the case. A community service order is made by the court and the court expects that order to be completed.
  I recently discussed all this with a very experienced probation officer, who took the view that community service orders needed to be given firm support. Fie feared that if their authority was diminished we would be hearing more about the necessity of sending a greater number of offenders to prison. I do not want to see that. I believe that community service orders can be more effective than prison in persuading people to change their ways. They deal with offenders while they are still living in the context in which they must work out the rest of their lives. If someone is sent to prison, his or her benefit is of course removed. To break an order of the court is to break the contract between the offender and his or her nation. I believe that to withdraw some benefit is a proper step. Just as moving into a job is the best way out of poverty, so the completion of a community service order is the best way out of a life of crime.
  Baroness Carnegy of Lour: My Lords, I believe that the noble Lord spoke to Amendment No. 115, which proposes that that Clause 63 be deleted. The noble Lord has every right to do so. However, I believe that the previous debate dealt with a point which the noble Lord did not pursue; namely, the injustice of the removal of part of a person's benefit before the court has decided that he or she has breached the order.
  In the context of Amendment No. 115, I should like to speak also about the general proposition underlying the clause. During debate in Committee as to whether the clause should stand part of the Bill I asked several questions about how the withdrawal of benefit would operate in Scotland. The Minister very kindly said that she would write to me, and she did. I received an extremely full and helpful letter. She and her advisers had taken a good deal of trouble over it, for which I am most grateful. The noble Baroness clarified most of the issues about which I had inquired. However, one matter was not satisfactory.

  827
  The noble Baroness has just told the House that the whole issue will be decided by the pilots. The noble Baroness confirmed in her letter that no pilot would be run in Scotland, the reason being that the Government wished to avoid any confusion because of the different systems and that it would be,
  "easier to identify behavioural effects, and best practice, if the pilots are conducted within a single criminal justice system".
  The noble Baroness went on to say:
  "In the light of the outcomes of the pilots, we will decide on the extension of the measure nationally, or on further pilots, as appropriate. The general lessons to be learnt from the pilots—both behavioural and operational—will be applied in Scotland";
  that is, pilots in England will be used as evidence as to how the system works in Scotland.
  The noble Baroness knows well that the system in Scotland is completely different. The courts operate in a different way. There are no probation officers; the social work departments do their job. I suspect that the problem is one of devolution awkwardness, but it can be overcome. It would be impossible for the Government to mount pilots in Scotland because the criminal justice system is devolved. At least one of the sanctions that can be applied—the grounds on which benefit may be refused—is devolved in Scotland. But, surely, the Scottish Executive can be asked by the Government to run a pilot in Scotland to discover whether the system works. The behaviour of people whose benefit may be withdrawn if they breach an order may be more or less the same north and south of the Border, but the system is different.
  The Government must face up to these devolution difficulties. I can see no reason why the Scottish Parliament should not be asked to run a pilot scheme in Scotland. I hope that the Minister will listen. It will not be good news when it comes out in the Scottish Parliament; and it will do so.
  Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I support the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham. It is difficult to see what could have possessed a Government so strongly committed to crime reduction to introduce a measure which will inevitably increase crime. It is equally difficult to understand what could have made a Government so committed to tackling social exclusion bring forward a measure which will further worsen the exclusion from society of many vulnerable people. But it is nothing short of astonishing that a Government so committed to promoting racial equality should introduce a measure which will so disproportionately disadvantage black offenders, further alienating them from law abiding citizenship.
  Let us take three examples of what the changes proposed by Government will mean in practice. First, let us consider a jobseekers' allowance recipient aged 25 with no dependant or housing costs who would normally be entitled to £51.40 a week. If he or she were referred to court for breaching a community sentence the full amount of £51.40 would be withdrawn for four weeks. Depending on the individual circumstances, after two weeks the individual might be able to gain hardship payment of £30.85 a week, or £41.15 a week
  828
  if someone in his or her family were seriously ill or pregnant. Those with responsibility for a child could apply for a hardship payment from the beginning of the period, but even here the payment would be less than the claimant's normal entitlement.
  A second example is a lone parent on income support with one child under 11 who would have his or her benefit entitlement reduced by 40 per cent of the single adult rate, a reduction of £22.55 at current rates. This would mean that weekly benefit of £71.50 would be payable instead of the full rate of £92.05.
  A third example is of a young single person participating in the voluntary sector option of the New Deal who currently receives an allowance consisting of a basic element of £40.70 plus top-up of £ 15.38. In that case the £40.70 would not be paid for four weeks, although the £15.38 would continue to be paid if the young person continued to participate in the New Deal.
  During the pilots those sharp reductions in income for people who are already in real poverty will last for four weeks; and when the measure goes nation-wide, the Bill allows the Secretary of State to authorise these reductions for anything up to six months. Anyone who has worked with offenders can see that pushing poor people into greater poverty in this way must increase their temptation to steal, shoplift, burgle, solicit for prostitution or sell drugs.
  The Probation Service national standards now require that an offender must be returned to court for breach of an order on a second failure to comply, and this could mean being 20 minutes to half an hour late for a probation or community service appointment on two occasions. The degree of hardship involved in the removal or reduction of benefit will often be wholly disproportionate to the seriousness of the offence, especially as it will be in addition to whatever punishment the court decides is appropriate for the breach.
  There is no doubt that this measure will have a particularly adverse effect on offenders from minority ethnic groups for the simple reason that black males have a higher rate of unemployment than white males. They will therefore be over-represented in the group of offenders who will have its benefits withdrawn. How is this indirect discrimination supposed to increase respect for the law among young black men or minority ethnic communities generally? It can only undermine the strenuous efforts of all of us who are working to increase the respect for the law and to combat racism and discrimination in the legal process.
  I have no doubt that this misguided measure will deter some probation officers from taking people back to court. I believe strongly that probation officers should be rigorous in returning people to court for persistence as regards probation and community service orders. But if probation officers know that there will be unjust and draconian results, there must be a temptation for them not to record failures to comply in order to avoid these consequences. This measure will tend to undermine the admirable and

  829
  increasingly successful work which the Association of Chief Officers of Probation has spearheaded to improve the enforcement of community sentences.
  The change is taking place at a time when in another piece of legislation, the Criminal Justice and Court Services Bill, the Government are centralising the Probation Service into a new national probation service. If the Government persist with the misguided measure before us today, it will sound a warning note about their plans to increase central control of Probation Service policy. Many of us would be far more resistant to moving in such a direction if we thought that it was likely to be dominated by approaches like this one which sound tough but in reality can only damage the fight against crime.
  About 58,000 community service orders are made in a given year. Everyone is a potential victim if such a policy is pursued. In sentencing options a community service order is often an alternative to a custodial sentence. The Government's proposed action abolishes that distinction: it leads those without receipt of funds to commit further crimes. My noble friend Lord Russell points out that a number of arguments have been advanced about the pilot schemes. For those noble Lords who wish to refer to his views, they are well reported in Hansard.
  6.45 p.m.
  Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I have spoken previously on withdrawing benefits from those in breach of probation and community service orders. On reading those debates in Hansard I noted a number of failures of understanding about what we are dealing with by some noble Lords. There were repeated references to persistent long-term "refusers"—people not turning up time and again. We are here talking about individuals who do not attend on two occasions. They miss two appointments. Another misconception was that the provision was a remedy for dealing with all those young offenders on estates. But we are not talking only about young offenders on estates but many other kinds of offenders too. The broad brush of trying to tackle particular kinds of offending in this way will not he successful.
  Like my noble friend Lord Sheppard I, too, believe strongly in the need for reform of welfare. I also believe that the best way out of poverty is through work. Like the noble Lord, I chaired an inquiry on expanding opportunities in education and widening participation. How does one draw the socially excluded—those who missed out the first time round—into education? One of our proposals was that learning became a central plank in any welfare reform: that one of the best ways back into work was via learning and training.
  However, for many on community service orders the chaos of their lives, the multiple social problems they face, mean that there is a step to be taken even before that. It is about restoring some degree of order with the help of the professionals within the Probation Service. That takes time and hard work. People are willing. It is often not wilfulness which results in their not turning up; it is sometimes for other reasons.
  830
  Like other noble Lords, I believe that it is right that the courts should be strict about those who cock a snook at the system, and do not turn up for appointments. Community service orders must be strengthened, but this measure is not the way to do it. First, it is an attack on the poor because it is the creation of a discriminatory punishment which does not apply to other offenders but only to the underprivileged. Secondly, it is an extraordinary departure constitutionally because it gives to the department of state dealing with social security a punishment to dole out in addition to that doled out by the courts. Thirdly, these proposals are an affront to the new and wonderful philosophy of human rights which has been introduced by this Government because it is contrary to natural justice to produce punishment in advance of conviction. What we will have is precisely that because if one does not have a hearing in front of people in a proper way—an adjudication as to whether there has been a breach—then surely we are not dealing properly with the question of breached.
  As others have said, it is a sure fire way of returning people into the arms of crime. I have spent a large part of my life representing women, and for whom I have argued that there should be properly designed community service orders that could work for there, particularly if they had children, because so often community service orders did not particularly suit women who had children.
  What we know now is that for those women—if they are in breach because of the chaos that their lives are often in at the beginning—to be driven back into the arms of crime would really impact not just on them but on their children.
  We have just seen a very shaming international report that shows that child poverty is still a serious problem here in Britain, even greater than in other European countries. Reducing the benefits of a parent will undoubtedly impact on children who are not offenders or people cocking a snook at the criminal justice system.
  I wrote to the Ministers involved, suggesting that these provisions might not apply to the primary carers of children; men and women who might be caring for children. I am disappointed that that exemption has not been considered.
  The reason why this amendment has been proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln and myself is that although we all have principled objections to this whole proposal, we are seeking a compromise. That is why we have placed this amendment before the House. If benefits are going to be removed there should be at least a proper cowl decision that a breach has, indeed, taken place. It is not a lot to ask.
  There is always an assumption that the public want to be excessively punitive. From what organisations such as Payback, an organisation working on community crimes and community punishment, tells us this is not reflected in the research. Legislation like this is not what the public want because the public

  831
  understand that it does not actually lead to a reduction in crime. The public have a more sophisticated grasp of the complexities of crime than that for which they are generally given credit. They recognise that family influences are more important than sentencing practice and they want real solutions.
  The Government created a social exclusion unit because of concern about the marginalising of the poor. If anything is likely to harden disaffection and exclusion, it is this proposal. For that reason we have sought that at least this amendment be passed because it means that the matter will go back before the court and a proper process will take place in deciding whether a breach had taken place at all.
  Baroness Stern: My Lords, I rise also to support the amendments proposed by the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, It was suggested in Committee that those who opposed this clause were unaware of the crime situation on some disadvantaged housing estates and insensitive to the plight of the victims of crime. I think many of us who did oppose it felt that this was a very unfair way of looking at our opposition.
  Unless new information has become available since the Minister spoke on 22nd May, we have to assume that it is still not known whether these measures will reduce crime and give added protection to victims. Certainly, all the evidence on crime reduction gives no grounds for the Minister's optimism. To my knowledge there are no research results showing that making people poorer reduces their propensity to commit crime.
  I, too, studied the Minister's speech very carefully. It was certainly worth studying. The idea of benefits being conditional on individual's recognising their obligations to society is, of course, right. But it is very selective. We all have many benefits from society. As the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, said in Committee, we seem to have got into the philosophical mode of saying that there is a contract between the community and the state but that it applies only to people who are on benefit. So the only people whose benefits from society will be threatened are those who need them most; that is, the poor. It is not proposed that employed or non-benefit drawing defaulters will have an administrative punishment as well as a criminal one. The only people to receive two punishments will be the poor.
  There was some discussion in Committee as to whether this was a punishment or an administrative measure. That is an academic question. To lose £205.60 a month if you are a male offender on job seeker's allowance, or to lose £82.20 if you are a lone parent with one child is a punishment if you are very poor. It is a fine that misses out the process of going to court. Of course, fines are used less and less by the courts. The percentage of offenders who are fined has fallen from 54 per cent in 1978 to 32 per cent in 1998. That is because more people were too poor to pay. The courts always argued that they could not fine offenders on benefit because to take even £5 a week from the small sums people were receiving would put them into
  832
  unacceptable poverty. Here we are proposing to take even more, and without due process. I support the amendments.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, this morning I missed my dentist appointment through a combination of incompetence, misreading my diary and somebody putting it in the wrong place—or cowardice, as somebody said. I was also late for something last week. To fine the poor 100 per cent of their income because of that sort of level of incompetence is really vicious behaviour.
  There are two questions that the Minister has never answered. First, why should the poor be fined 100 per cent of their income without judicial process? Secondly, can the Minister explain to the House on what they are going to live? I suggest that their only answer is flogging their bodies, flogging cocaine or crack, or doing something equally nasty from which we want to wean them. We do not want them to do that. We want to try to reform them. If one pushes them back into that way, of course it is going to become worse.
  I was reminded at luncheon today of this piece of literature:
  "'Then the words don't fit you,' said the King looking round the court with a smile. There was a dead silence.
  'It's a pun!' the King added in an angry tone, and everyone laughed. 'Let the jury consider their verdict,' the King said, for about the twentieth time that day.
  'No, no!' said the Queen. 'Sentence first—verdict afterwards.'
  `Stuff and nonsense!' said Alice loudly. 'The idea of having the sentence first!'
  'Hold your tongue!' said the Queen, turning purple.
  'I won't!' said Alice.
  'Off with her head!' the Queen shouted at the top of her voice. Nobody moved'".
  I am afraid that the Red Queen seems to be occupying the Government Front Bench with that attitude of mind.
  7 p.m.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, not for the first time do I find myself speaking in this Chamber in what I sense to be a minority. However, I disagree with the noble Baroness, Lady Kennedy, that my comments do not represent the majority. I believe that they represent the majority outside this House, but no doubt we shall see. In any civilised society, or indeed in a family, if people are prepared to live in harmony, they have rights. But accompanying those rights are commensurate responsibilities. I believe that that is what the debate is all about.
  I often hear noble Lords legitimately argue that prison simply makes criminals worse and that more use should be made of community service orders. However, if a straw poll of public opinion were taken, prison would probably come first again. It would come well ahead of community service.
  I believe that community service has a right and proper place in the armoury of the courts, but only if it is enforceable. We see too many examples of people

  833
  demanding rights in society but not accepting the obligations. It is a two-way street. Surely, the purpose of the taxation system is to ensure that those in society who are unable, without fault on their part, to work, or who fall ill, are supported by the many. People are quite happy—perhaps "happy" is the wrong word—to contribute towards those who fall through the net.
  Those who commit crime and are sent to prison forfeit the right to receive benefit, although their families will be catered for. It must be wrong, therefore, if those who are given a community service order which they will then wilfully ignore can lie in bed and still expect other hardworking members of the community to featherbed them. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, was right in saying that in some areas there is a no-work culture. But there is also a criminal culture which needs to be tackled.
  Perhaps I take the old-fashioned view that the work ethic is worth encouraging. We have lost some of the discipline in society. The pillars of authority are no longer respected: the vicar, the doctor or the policeman. Some might believe that that is proper, but as a policeman for more than 30 years I can say that once a wrongdoer knew that you were bluffing and that there was no effective sanction, he would—and it was usually "he"—exploit it to the full. That would often be true of juvenile offenders, who knew the age of criminal responsibility and would often taunt police officers with that fact. I mention that as an example.
  It was true of a professional burglar who knew that you had nothing on him. During the interrogation, he would watch carefully for any hint that you did not really know whether it was him. And, rightly, he would exploit that! One would expect nothing else.
  Therefore, it seems to me that if an offender is given a community sentence and knows that he can wilfully ignore it with impunity and still pick up his benefits, we are playing right into his hands—
  Lord Alexander of Weedon: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Lord for giving way. He has twice suggested that the offender wilfully ignores the community service order. Who is to be the judge of whether he wilfully ignores it? Is it not to be the court, and should we not respect the court in that way?
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I take the noble Lord's point, but I certainly do not agree with it. I hear what the noble Lord says, but I believe that it can be an administrative decision and that it is a real sanction against those who wilfully ignore the community service order imposed by the court.
  We are trying to achieve the opposite. We are trying to persuade the offender that this is not a somethingfor-nothing society. Surely, we are trying to create good citizens. This Government support the police and do not just talk about doing so.
  Earl Russell: My Lords, does the noble Lord believe that a parent who misses a community service appointment because she is taking a sick child to casualty is behaving irresponsibly?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, a recent circular from the Home Office, 24/00, makes it clear
  834
  that probation officers are to take into account exactly such circumstances and not regard them as a basis for a referral to court. Therefore, the noble Earl should withdraw that suggestion.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, that is right. The problem is that we are assuming that people have no discretion in this matter. Clearly, people do have a discretion when enforcing the measure and I believe that it would be enforced against those people who are abusing the system. That is the way in which sensible people operate and your Lordships are being a little extreme to suggest otherwise.
  Baroness Kennedy of The Shaws: My Lords, I am sorry to interrupt the noble Lord, but 1 want to point out that there is little discretion. The Minister is right in saying that the Home Office circular, sent out in April, made it clear that:
  "All absences should be regarded as unacceptable unless proved otherwise. Acceptable absences would include medical appointments notified in advance with appointment cards shown for verification".
  It is clear that there are limited circumstances in which an excuse can be acceptable.
  It is right that carers' responsibilities can be taken into account; that possible appointments should be made with their obligations in mind; and that an emergency relating to a child will be taken into account. But little discretion is left.
  Lord Mackenzie of Framwellgate: My Lords, I still believe that we can rely on the good common sense of probation officers. I know that police officers welcome the provisions. Only this afternoon I talked to the Association of Chief Police Officers, which certainly supports the provision. Its officers are close to the problem of dealing with people who abuse community service orders.
  People are simply being asked to do that which the court has ordered. Any sanction which gives them any kind of grief for failing in that regard will be seen as eminently sensible by the vast majority of people outside the Chamber.
  I recently saw a letter from a chief inspector in charge of operations in Staffordshire. It was dated 7th June, which is about three weeks ago. It was a plea for further legal help to deal with those few people in communities who acted in an anti-social manner. The anti-social behaviour order was brought in for that very purpose. Those who did not accept the social norms in communities could be dealt with by new powers ordering them to comply. Yet that could happen if they were sentenced to a community service order.
  We are talking about offenders making reparation to society for their breach of contract—it is a contract—in committing crime. In court, the offender agrees to accept the community service order. If he adds insult to injury by wilfully continuing to break his community service contract—and I am sure that the Probation Service will carefully examine the circumstances—it is right and sensible for society to

  835
  review the contract and, if necessary, review his benefit. He will understand that and in my view it will be more likely to make him compliant.
  Viscount Tenby: My Lords, in contrast, I rise to support Amendment No. 114A and I want to approach the matter from the point of view of the magistracy. I have been in touch with the Magistrates' Association and as recently as this morning I discussed the matter with the current and former chairmen of my bench. I am sure that they are alongside me in what I have to say.
  As a magistrate of many years, I yield to no one—absolutely no one—in my desire to see rigorous enforcement of community orders. After all, for those of us who believe that they present a much more attractive prospect than wholesale imprisonment, it is essential that the criminal fraternity is made to take them seriously. The system absolutely depends on that.
  However, it is one thing to take that view and quite another to seek to prejudge the decision of a legally appointed court as to whether an infringement has taken place by imposing, as we have been told, what amounts to a double punishment beforehand. Furthermore, inevitably it will be unfair in that, as we have also heard, one class—the unemployed—will suffer what is in effect a double punishment for the same offence. That simply is not right, whichever way one looks at it and however emotive the arguments. I understand fully and sympathise with what has been said about so-called sink estates and threats to local communities by the likes of such offenders.
  In addition, in Committee many speakers referred to the dubious logic of removing the little financial support available from, say, a man and his family as a means of concentrating that person's mind on the importance of complying with a court order. Anyone who has ever had anything to do with courts, however fleetingly, will confirm that the often inadequate and nearly always disorganised offenders about whom we are talking this evening simply do not respond to that kind of threat. Indeed, in many cases I fear that it will lead only to a resumption of criminal activity in order to meet family needs.
  Supporters of the Government's position—and, as we have heard, there are some on the Benches behind the Ministers—are entitled to ask opponents of the measure what they would do. Fair enough. In many interesting and thoughtful contributions from all sides of the House in Committee, I believe that the key point was made by the noble Lord, Lord Christopher. I hope that I am not embarrassing him by referring to him by name. He described the delay between the reporting of the breach of an order and the subsequent court appearance—often six weeks and sometimes even more—as "utterly ridiculous". I believe that that was the very phrase that he used. I agree wholeheartedly. Unless the matter is dealt with promptly, both the order and the sanction are diminished in the eyes of offenders. Accordingly, it is to the legal system that we should look to sort out the matter.
  836
  In the meantime, we must not mix the executive and the law. To begin to do so now is to start on the slippery slope with potentially dangerous and unpredictable consequences. Accordingly, I urge noble Lords to support the amendment.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords—
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords—
  Lord Bach: My Lords, this is an important debate and I hope that there will be plenty of time for both my noble friends to speak. I wonder whether one would speak now and the other a little later.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, I thank the noble Earl, Lord Russell, for his customary courtesy in informing me beforehand that he would bring up the issue of merit, which I raised in Committee, and its connotations. Perhaps I may say that I checked what I said in Committee and I agree with myself! I do not wish to indulge in a battle of semantics with the noble Earl or with the noble Baroness, Lady Young, who was mentioned earlier. The noble Earl will recall that Thomas Carlyle queried: what is merit? He answered that it was the opinion that one man entertains of another. To me, merit is about being entitled to or deserving something. I stick by that definition in relation to this Bill.
  At the root of benefit systems is the need to comply with rules which are set down and explained in advance. I agree that people should know their rights. They should also appreciate that responsibilities go alongside rights. Earlier, we heard reference to "fairness" and "choice" and about informing people of their rights in order to respect them. I agree with that. Approximately 130,000 community sentences are given out each year in England and Wales. In some 30,000 of those cases offenders are referred back to court because of lack of compliance. Thirty thousand people choose—I emphasise that word—community sentences and then betray trust. I do not believe in and would not want a society which is based on punishment and lack of sympathy. As a former teacher and a current parent, I believe in being positive, in respecting dignity and in protecting the vulnerable.
  Community sentences can be positive. They can encourage people—often young people—to learn self-discipline, how to be responsible towards others and how to keep a commitment. Young people need frameworks, boundaries and examples. If they agree to a community sentence and break the commitment, surely some sanction must be applied. How many of us have not, as parents, applied sanctions in order to encourage children or young people to adapt their behaviour? Parents should be encouraged to be committed to their children and be seen to be committed. That is one way to tackle child poverty.

  837
  The Bill contains a commitment to evaluate the system of community sentences before ruling it out. The pilot scheme will allow for hardship payments, even if the jobseeker's allowance and training allowance are withdrawn. As the Minister and other noble Lords have said, evaluation of the system will give us valuable insights.
  I believe that people can be competent in running their lives without becoming criminals if we explain systems and the consequences of contravening systems and if we introduce deterrents as well as support. I cannot see that anything will be learned by not having sanctions for the breaking of laws. I am aware, as has been said, that some people in our society have many problems. I am aware that some people are brought up in chaotic circumstances. I have taught in deprived areas of London. I agree that some people in society need support. However, I feel that providing support without a belief that people can appreciate the notion of civil rights together with civil responsibilities is almost an insult to the deprived. I believe that if we treat people as helpless, they will learn helplessness.
  7.15 p.m.
  Lord Elton: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness would allow me to ask a question. Surely the debate has been focused by my noble friend not on the removal of Clauses 63 to 67 but on their amendment. Therefore, the question is not whether there should be sanctions but by whom they should be administered. Should it be by the court or by the state?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, there has been no indication tonight that the other amendments will not he moved. Unless there is such an indication, my understanding—as is perhaps that of my noble friend—is that we were discussing the full range of amendments that are grouped. No effort has been made to ungroup them and no effort has been made to say that they will not be moved. Therefore, my noble friend is entirely right to speak to the broad issue.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, perhaps I may interject and say to the noble Baroness, who, I trust, will shortly wind up the debate, that the further amendments will not be moved. Amendment No. 114A, the compromise amendment, is the only one on which we shall ask for the opinion of the House.
  Baroness Massey of Darwen: My Lords, perhaps I may continue. I am not a lawyer. I read the amendments as a complete group and I address those amendments.
  As I said, I believe that if we treat people as helpless, they become helpless. That is bad education and bad social policy. It is neither just nor humane. The Bill as a whole seeks to instil responsibilities along with rights and should he commended for doing so.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, in Committee there was a disagreement between the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith, and myself as to whether Clause 63, as it is now, offends against the Human Rights Act. I shall
  838
  confine myself to that issue, not because I disagree with what has been said on the wider issue but because it has been put extremely powerfully by each of the four Members of your Lordships' House who put their names to this amendment and by others as well.
  I have reconsidered the matter but I have not changed my view that Clause 63 does offend. As I said on the previous occasion, a reduction of benefits as a punishment for misbehaviour probably does not in itself breach any convention right under the Human Rights Act if a proper trial has taken place.
  A trial in a form which satisfies Article 6 of the convention is normally required before a criminal penalty can be imposed. However, the case law of the European Court of Human Rights plainly recognises that a decision may be taken to impose a penalty for an administrative offence or for professional misconduct in proceedings which do not comply with Article 6, provided there is a right to have a subsequent review of that decision on the merits by a proper court. "Administrative offence" covers such matters as minor traffic offences.
  One important factor in deciding whether a case falls within the class of administrative offences is the seriousness of the penalty. I have to say that in this case a penalty of the loss of part or all of your benefits seems to me to be a very serious penalty for those who suffer it, and it is therefore quite possible that the seriousness of the penalty alone takes this into the class where reliance on a review by a court subsequently is not in any case enough.
  However, I believe that there are two grounds on which this clause quite plainly impinges on convention rights under the Human Rights Act. First, at least where the penalty causes immediate and significant hardship it should either be imposed after the hearing by a proper court, or its operation should be suspended until the court can review the original decision. Secondly, all European Court of Human Rights cases where a subsequent review by a court has been held sufficient have involved a prior decision by some person or body authorised to impose a penalty. The problem here is that the penalty is imposed automatically as soon as the information is laid.
  No one here has taken a decision at all. Certainly there has been no decision by the Secretary of State. The probation officer, as we have heard, is limited by very rigid rules. It is quite plainly a case, as the noble Earl, Lord Onslow, said, of punishment first and conviction later. That, I believe, is wholly unacceptable. If Amendments Nos. 114A to 114H a re not accepted, this clause will be held to be in breach of convention rights as soon as it gets to court.
  I should like finally to add that it is not just a matter of the Human Rights Act. What is proposed here is, I believe, a breach of the concept of justice as we have understood it in this country at least since the events at Runnymede nearly 800 years ago.
  Lord Davies of Coity: My Lords, I rise in support of the Government's measures on this issue, and in doing so I immediately acknowledge the sincerity with which

  839
  all noble Lords have advanced their arguments, whatever the arguments have been. However, I believe that there has been a measure of exaggeration in some of the statements that have been made attacking the Government's measures. We have heard about the question of contract. I believe that has been put at a level far in excess of its significance. We have heard reference to the starving and the poor. I understand that it is often wise to exaggerate a point in order to drive it home, but it seems to me that we should really understand the circumstances.
  For example, the vast majority of people on benefit do not offend. A lot of people who do offend then do not breach their probation or their community service orders. So what we have here is what you might call the end of the line. Why are the Government proposing it? They are doing so because the community service orders are not working. The alternative is more prison, and we do not want to send people to prison. So this administrative withdrawal of benefit is for the purpose of reinforcing the community service order so as to avoid sending more people to prison.
  It does not seem to me to be a very serious measure, because, when all is said and done, it is a measure which is being applied to people who have had penalties imposed upon them by a magistrate's court and have failed to fulfil their obligations. The answer lies with them, because, when this measure goes through, if magistrates' courts impose community service orders they will be warning those offenders that if they breach that community service order they will lose some benefit. They will be given advance notice of that. I think we ought to keep our feet well and truly on the ground and recognise that what the Government are doing is for the benefit of the system in the long term.
  Baroness Masham of Ilton: My Lords, I should like to ask a quick question, and my vote will depend on the answer. Many of the people we are talking about live chaotic lives, as we have already heard. How can the Government get people into employment if they are unemployable? When they are in prison they get three meals a day, they are clothed and looked after; but when they are in the community what are they going to live on if they have no benefit?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, on the face of the Bill is a statement by my noble friend the Minister that in her view the provisions of the Bill are compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. She has told your Lordships both on Second Reading and in Committee that the declaration was not one she made lightly but one made after repeated advice that the provisions of the Bill, particularly those being considered now, are compatible.
  I ventured to say in Committee that though there was, as there so often is, scope for argument, in my view the Government were justified in taking that position. Nothing said by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, whose views and statements I always regard with considerable respect, has caused me to change that view.
  840
  I do not want to weary your Lordships with the reasons, but I will just summarise them in this way. First, the issue at stake, from the statistics given by my noble friend at Committee stage, concerns no more than 400 cases out of 30,000 where the magistrates do not uphold the view of the probation officer that there has been a breach. That is a very small number, and it indicates how very few cases there are which would result in an overturning of the decision—
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, is the noble Lord suggesting that 400 cases of injustice would be all right?
  Lord Goldsmith: My Lords, it is a question of whether or not, in accordance with the case law of the European Court, which the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and I agree exists, the European Court of Human Rights would say that in these circumstances there is a breach. That case law says clearly, even assuming—as I have been prepared to do for the purposes of this debate—that this is a punishment and therefore the full rigour of Article 6 of the convention applies. It says that it is not essential for there to be a decision of a court before the punishment is imposed.
  It says that there are cases where, so long as there is a review by an independent and impartial court which the magistrates' court is of course—which is what would happen in these cases, that may be compliant. I ventured to suggest that there are four reasons why this fell on that side of the line. These are: the fact that there is built in a safeguard of the magistrates' courts; the fact that we are talking of a relatively finite period of time of four weeks; and the fact that all benefit is not removed. In respect of income support, the proposal is that 20 per cent or 40 per cent may be removed and jobseekers will still be able to claim hardship allowance.
  Finally there is the important fact, which was brought out so clearly by my noble friend the Minister in her winding up speech, that a decision taken by an officer at the moment of failure to meet a particular requirement is entirely consistent with the long history and principle in this field. I refer your Lordships to what she said then. This is not something which has been invented for this Bill. It has been the case time and again that a decision is made and is subsequently subject to review.
  With great respect to the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, I have not changed my opinion. Like him, I have nothing further to say about the other issues. I wanted to deal with that point.
  7.30 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we have had many fine speeches in this debate and only with considerable diffidence can one intervene in it. We also had a fine debate on the issue in Committee, when profound concerns were expressed on two issues: first, that benefit would be removed by executive action rather than by the court and secondly that that action would be likely to increase crime rather than reduce it.

  841
  In the light of that debate, my noble friend Lord Windlesham has tabled a set of amendments that meet both those concerns. The noble Lord, Lord Sheppard, suggested that we had to use both a stick and a carrot, but he did not address the subject of the amendments— that, if a stick is to be applied, it ought to be applied by the courts rather than by administrative action. That is of considerable importance.
  At a similar stage in the Committee debate, the Minister pointed out that we are dealing with pilot measures. If I may mix my metaphors, the pilots are the thin end of the wedge. This is the direction in which the Government intend to go. For all the reasons that have been put forward so cogently this evening, I believe it is the wrong direction.
  Like last time, some reference has been made to the European Convention on Human Rights. We have opposing views on that. I had an exchange with the noble Lord, Lord Goldsmith on the severity of the penalty. If the matter goes back to the courts, as proposed in the amendments, they can decide what is an adequate and sensible penalty. That would avoid the possibility of problems with the European Court of Human Rights. The courts could also ensure that there was a fair trial, removing the doubts that have been expressed. The courts can take into account whether the issue is compatible with the European Convention on Human Rights. On that point, the amendments would make the situation a great deal safer.
  I have a sense that the House is anxious to come to a decision. Long experience suggests to me that, in those circumstances, one should not make the most brilliant speech that one could ever make. On the contrary, it is right to come to a conclusion.
  This is a matter of profound importance. I believe very strongly in all the recommendations that have been made by outside bodies that are at the front end of these affairs. In Committee, we referred to organisations such as the Magistrates' Association, the Justices' Clerks' Society, the National Association of Citizens Advice Bureaux, the National Association of Probation Officers and the Penal Affairs Consortium, all of which believed that acting in this way without going back to the courts was likely to be counter-productive. Penalising people to the point of likely destitution will exacerbate the tendency of those who are already not among the most law-abiding to commit yet further crimes.
  We believe that it is right to uphold the role of the courts and resist the movement towards administrative action. For that reason, I hope that my noble friends will join me in the lobby this evening in support of the amendment.
  I have only one thing to add. I have always taken the view that, if one gets the amendments that one wishes, it is not appropriate to oppose the clause stand part. I very much hope that the House will realise the importance of the issue and support the amendments.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, this has been an interesting and, if I may say so, good debate. Although I know that your Lordships opposite wish us to confine our remarks to the particular amendments—although not everybody has—they are grouped and it is right on an issue of such importance and significance that I should remind your Lordships of the reasons for the Government's policy.
  We believe that it is wrong for the state to support those who do not honour their obligations to society. We want their rights to be matched by responsibilities. It is unreasonable to expect you, me and, above all, the many people whose lives are made a misery by repeated crime in the neighbourhood to support financially those who continue to disregard society's legitimate expectations. Many people would find it extraordinary that we continue to finance people through the benefit system while they continue to disregard the law.
  We believe that benefit sanctions will encourage people to comply with their sentences rather than being tempted into reoffending that could have been avoided. When someone takes on a community sentence as an alternative to a fine or imprisonment, he or she accepts the obligations that go with that. That means observing the sentence. If they fail to honour that contract, benefit sanctions will come into play. We will not suddenly leave people without money. They will know about it in advance. They will have been warned by the court and by the probation officer and it will be on their benefit form. There will be ample opportunity to comply, but, if they then choose to break the conditions of their community sentence, society's obligation to provide them with their benefit has in turn been broken.
  My noble friend Lady Kennedy and many others have said that such people's lives are so chaotic that the sanction will not work. I do not accept that. If they had not filled in forms, signed on, attended interviews, looked for work, been available for work and energetically sought it, they would not have had benefit in the first place. We have heard a lot about fecklessness tonight. It is a curious form of fecklessness that someone can meet the benefit conditions by signing on in person but cannot be expected to meet the community service conditions by attending interviews in person. If such a young offender manages to attend benefit interviews because he values the benefit and takes the signing on seriously, there is all the more reason to link his benefit to his observance of the community sentence so as to get him to take that seriously, too. As my noble friend Lord. Sheppard said, getting someone to take his community sentence seriously, and ultimately getting him into work, has to be in his best interests.
  The Earl of Onslow: My Lords, what is he going to live on if he has no money?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, does the noble Earl know for how long this benefit sanction applies compared with the sanctions on all other infringements of benefits? I wonder why he did not

  843
  raise that question when the previous administration introduced benefit sanctions on the jobseeker's allowance, Child Support Agency, income support and disability benefits. He was silent on that issue until tonight.
  Why are we doing it this way? We are not proposing a criminal punishment but a benefit sanction, exactly as we do across the whole social security system. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith was right. I suspect that many of your Lordships who have spoken tonight do not know how the social security system and its benefits and sanctions work. Obviously, many of those who have been involved in previous debates on the subject do, but, listening to your Lordships, it has sounded as though there are no other benefits to which a sanction is attached that operates in this way. A benefit sanction is not a matter for the courts. The court hearing provides an opportunity for a review of the facts, but the initial decision is based on behaviour that is sufficiently serious to merit referral back to court.
  These measures are designed as a benefit sanction. All benefits have conditions attached to them. If those conditions are breached, then part or all of the benefit is withdrawn. However, there is a hardship arrangement available for those with dependants, or those who are vulnerable; for example, through reasons of health.
  Some noble Lords talked about an "alleged breach". All infractions of benefit conditions are alleged but the benefit sanction still applies, whether such cases are reported by an employer to the agency—alleged—by a doctor to the agency—alleged—by another Benefits Agency official—alleged—or by a probation officer. All such infractions are alleged. That is entirely consistent with how the whole of the social security structure operates.
  Perhaps I may give the House some examples. Let us take a potentially "good news" case—that is, someone on DLA who has a periodic review. The doctor says that that person is now much better. He reports that to the decision-making officials who withdraw the benefit. That person may take the matter to appeal or to a tribunal to argue that he is not as well as that, but it is never suggested that the withdrawal of the benefit should await the outcome of the tribunal, which is the equivalent of the court. It is an administrative decision; it is a condition of the benefit and is attached to it. It will be reinstated if the tribunal finds otherwise, as often happens in many cases.
  Another example would be the lone parent, the widow or the disabled person who fails to attend a "ONE" interview without good reason. That person would be sanctioned on his or her benefit. The latter would only be reinstated if the matter goes to appeal and the case is won. We could also take the example of someone leaving work "voluntarily", according to the employer. The employee says that it was constructive dismissal, which is highly contestable. However, no benefit will be awarded to him unless the tribunal finds in his favour. An even more difficult case would be where she, the lone parent, is refusing to co- operate
  844
  with the CSA and name the father of the child. Her benefit may be sanctioned, not for four weeks as is suggested here but indefinitely while she fails to comply.
  So the whole of the social security system is underpinned by conditionality. Decisions as to whether the conditions of benefit have been breached are made, in all cases, as an administrative decision by quite junior officials in the DSS and usually in far more complicated situations with far less reliable professional evidence and with far more severe penalties attached to them than is the case here. By the criteria used by noble Lords this evening, this is infinitely more robust than almost any other benefit sanctions that the DSS imposes. We impose this straightaway and, if someone wishes to take the matter to appeal, he can do so.
  People may say that we are trespassing across boundaries. That is already the case with the Sure Start maternity grant and your Lordships agreed on Thursday night that it should apply to driving licences and CSA rates. What matters is what brings the young offender to respect his community service.
  Some noble Lords have implied that the Probation Service staff are hard-line and have no discretion as regards referring cases to court. In fact, the opposite has been the case; indeed, that is one of the reasons why the Home Office is having to tighten up the system. However, as my noble friend Lord Mackenzie said, these changes in procedure do not remove discretion, which still remains a part of deciding what constitutes an unacceptable absence.
  My noble friend Lady Kennedy quoted from the Home Office circular 24/00, but she failed to quote paragraph 12 of the document which quite clearly says that, as of March:
  "There may be exceptional circumstances where it is acceptable for an appointment to be rearranged after it has been due to take place and where advanced notification of inability to keep an appointment was not given. It is expected that such instances will be rare and are most likely to occur in cases, such as medical, childcare or other emergencies".
  What the changes mean is that once an absence has been regarded as unacceptable, the probation officer will act and act consistently on that decision. But the probation officer has clear discretion to decide after the event, so to speak, that that was an acceptable good cause for missing the appointment or interview.
  Much of tonight's discussion has focused on Amendment No. 114A; namely, that no such sanction should be applied by the benefits officer until the courts have heard the case. That is entirely at odds with the rest of the social security system where the decision to suspend benefit, or to reduce it, and bring that person on to a hardship scheme is determined by the DSS. Here, uniquely, the matter must first go before the courts.
  If we were to follow the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, it would indeed represent double punishment. The offender would see this as a direct consequence of the court judgment when in fact it is a benefit decision. He will see it as double punishment par excellence and the effectiveness of the

  845
  sanction, both in emphasising the responsibilities that go with benefit receipt and encouraging compliance, will be undermined—particularly when one considers the delays that may occur between the original unacceptable absence and the eventual court hearing. That applies especially where the offender goes missing and fails to turn up in court.
  If the benefit sanction is to be effective, it must be implemented quickly and with certainty, as happens across the rest of the social security system, so that people clearly understand that their rights to benefit are conditional. If they are on JSA, they must understand that they have to be available for and actively seeking work; if they are lone parents, they must understand that if they wish to receive benefit they must name the father of the child so that he makes a proper contribution to the child's upbringing; and, if they are in receipt of a community sentence, they must understand that they have to observe that sentence. It is a condition that society wants people to meet if they are to receive society's financial support.
  I shall deal with just a few of the points raised by your Lordships, because there are too many of them for me to answer this evening. The noble Viscount, Lord Tenby, and other speakers said that this provision was discriminatory against those who might be in work; in other words, someone in work would get away with it and would not have his benefit sanctioned because he would not be receiving it, and only the poor would be damaged. It is quite simple. If an individual is in work, he is not seeking society's financial support, he as earning his passage: if someone is receiving benefit, he is not. He is receiving a benefit from society and, in return, society has a right to attach conditions to it. It is no more discriminatory against the poor than saying that the state will not pay benefit to people who are already high earners. It is neither more nor less discriminatory than that.
  Equally, we were told tonight that this provision is discriminatory against black people—a point made by the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia. I do not believe that to be true. It is true that more black people are serving community sentences as a percentage of their population than is the case with other communities—something like 5 per cent of those between the ages of 16 and 44 are serving probation sentences, although they represent just 2 per cent of the country's population. But, in a way, that is because they are not going to prison. Moreover, although that is true for black offenders, the reverse is true for other ethnic minority communities; for example, only 2 per cent of the Indian, Pakistani and Bangladeshi communities, which represent 3.2 per cent of the country's population, are serving community sentences. If I may be so impertinent as to say it, I do not think that we do the ethnic minorities any kindness in assuming that they need special treatment when it comes to the law and expecting them to observe community punishments.
  Similarly, I do not believe that that also applies to women. Again, I am trying to emphasis that there is discretion where unforeseen emergencies arise; for example, in the case of carers. On average, fewer
  846
  women receive community sentences and, indeed, fewer women break them. I have no reason to think that this provision will be discriminatory in their regard.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Stern, and others, challenged my noble friend Lord Sheppard. They said that this is a new direction for benefit policy and that we are uncertain about its overall effects. Judging by today's debate, one would have thought that this provision was going to be imposed tomorrow across the whole of the country—with a question-mark over Scotland, courtesy of the noble Baroness, Lady Carnegy. That is not true. We propose to pilot this measure and assess it to see whether your Lordships' fears that it will increase crime, or our belief that it will bring greater respect for the observation of community sentences, is correct. Indeed, after listening to tonight's debate, I am not sure whether noble Lords would be more upset if the pilots show that the scheme is working than if they do not.
  However, we shall be evaluating these pilot schemes before taking the decision to roll out the programme nationally. Independent researchers will be looking at the evidence. The final report will be published, with a copy being placed in the Libraries of both Houses. The Government will not extend their policy nation-wide until that evaluation has been assessed. We shall be considering breach rates, crimes committed, financial effects on offenders, hardship payments as well as seeking offenders' views.
  I wish to conclude. We believe that—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, it has been a long debate. Noble Lords are the first to complain that their question has not been answered while they hope to heaven that I shall not answer everyone else's questions.
  We believe that members of society as taxpayers and as victims of crime have a legitimate interest in how and whether the state should support those people who flout their responsibilities to society by failing to meet the requirements of their community sentence.
  We have heard four voices, mostly from the Benches opposite, arraigned against the Government. The first—which I believe was best expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart—was that of the human rights lawyers who argue that this measure contravenes the ECHR and therefore will not stick. My noble friend Lord Goldsmith dealt with that matter brilliantly in Committee and again tonight. It is an argument that I think the Opposition Benches cannot sustain.
  The second voice we have heard tonight against the Government's measure is that of the "domestic" lawyers—if I may so call them—who say that it is a double punishment. It is not a double punishment; it is a condition of benefit. If one leaves work voluntarily but fails to obtain benefit, one could argue that that is a double punishment in that one has lost one's job and one's benefit. However, if one had kept the job there

  847
  would not be a problem. It is a matter of choice. The same applies to community offenders. If they observe the sentence there is no problem. It is their choice.
  The third voice arraigned against the Government tonight is that of those who state—this was spoken to powerfully by the right reverend Prelate the Bishop of Lincoln—that to take away benefit means that those on community sentences who are affected become poorer and commit more rather than less crime. Someone on a community sentence has already broken the law. In that sense he or she has already committed a crime by failing to observe the community sentence. That is a matter of choice. There is an alternative. First, they can observe the community sentence or, secondly, they can take a job and earn their income rather than thieve it. I refer to the notion that we should not make a sanction bite on people who have broken the law and persist in breaking the law as they may become poorer as a result. We should not respond to that situation by not imposing the sanction but rather we should ensure that they obey the law.
  The Opposition Front Bench in another place, led by the Conservative Member, Mr Pickles, urged the Government to punish offenders if the pilot reveals that the sanction did not bite severely enough. The Conservative Benches in the other place have a decent respect for being tough on criminality. That is a voice that we have not heard tonight. Mr Pickles asked whether the Government could assure him that if the pilots produced evidence that those who breach orders and lose benefit are tempted into further crime the Government would not abandon the powers but would seek to ensure that such people were vigorously punished. That is a voice that we have not heard tonight.
  The fourth, and final, voice arraigned against the Government is that of those—I associate it with the Liberal Democrat Bench—who believe that benefit is in some sense inalienable to which sanctions should not be attached. However, I believe that benefit constitutes a contract. I do not believe that someone has the moral right deliberately to be a freeloader and to rely on the conscience and cash of others to protect him from the consequences of his failure to act without conscience and with impunity.
  Against those four voices—strong, powerful, eloquent voices which have been expressed tonight by bishops, barristers, lawyers and Liberal Democrats—
  Noble Lords: Oh!
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, at that point my alliteration ran out! Against those four voices there is a voice that has not been heard; it is the voice of terrified neighbours. I represented a poor council estate for 25 years. After the lack of repairs, which my electors were impatient about, and the lack of transfers to other housing, which they bore with resignation, their main concern was with anti-social behaviour which frightened them. I remember trying to persuade terrified pensioners to give evidence in court against thugs when they knew that if they did so members of
  848
  the thugs' extended family would probably either beat them up or take the glass out of their windows the following day.
  The voice that has not been heard tonight is that of the man whose car has been vandalised and cannot get to work. It is the voice of the small Asian shopkeeper whose shop has been done over yet again. It is the voice of the pensioner whose windows have been broken and that of the parents who are worried that their 12 year-old is being tempted into drugs by the drug pushers who operate on the council estates. It is the voice of young women who have been assaulted by men who think that it is all right to knock them around after a few drinks. It is the voice of people whose everyday life is a misery due to the anti-social behaviour of a minority. However, unlike most of us, they do not have the money to buy peace, privacy and seclusion from that anti-social behaviour. Who is speaking for them tonight because I have not heard that voice?
  I hope that I have responded to noble Lords' concerns. The question that noble Lords have to address is whether they can justify removing the measures from the Bill, or, alternatively, supporting the amendment of the noble Lord, Lord Windlesham, rather than listening to the voice of those who have to tolerate anti-social behaviour day in and day out because one of the few sanctions that might bite—the removal of benefit—has been denied the Government by this House. Your Lordships' House has a reputation for listening not just to the voices of lawyers, bishops and others, but also to those outside who have not been heard; those who suffer anti-social behaviour day in and day out. Those are the people the Government seek to protect tonight. I hope that on that basis noble Lords will think at least twice, if not four times, in favour of not supporting the amendment tonight and will instead support the Government.
  Lord Windlesham: My Lords, this has been a fine debate on an issue that has attracted relatively little public attention. It is exactly the type of questionable government proposal which should be subjected to expert scrutiny. I believe we can all agree that this is a prime function of your Lordships' semi-reformed House.
  I express my thanks not only to those who have taken part in the debate, but also to the large numbers who have listened patiently throughout the lengthy debate, not least my distinguished neighbour on this Bench. Most noble Lords who spoke in the debate contributed on the basis of their own expertise, and some brought eloquence to the debate, too. That is the true spirit of Parliament. I say no more now on the merits which have been so exhaustively discussed. I ask noble Lords to decide the matter and wish to test the opinion of the House on Amendment No. 114A.
  7.57 p.m.
  On Question, Whether the said amendment (No. 114A) shall be agreed to?
  Their Lordships divided: Contents, 170; Not-Contents, 116.

  Division No. 3

  CONTENTS

  Ackner, L.

  Inglewood, L.

  Addington, L.

  Jacobs, L.

  Alderdice, L.

  James of Holland Park, B.

  Alexander of Weedon, L.

  Jenkin of Roding, L.

  Allenby of Megiddo, V.

  Kennedy of The Shaws, B.

  Alton of Liverpool, L.

  Kimball, L.

  Anelay of St Johns, B.

  Laird, L.

  Astor of Hever, L.

  Lester of Herne Hill, L.

  Astor, V.

  Lincoln, Bp.

  Attlee, E.

  Linklater of Butterstone, B.

  Avebury, L.

  Liverpool, E.

  Belstead, L.

  Lucas, L.

  Blackwell, L.

  Ludford, B.

  Blaker, L.

  Luke, L.

  Blatch, B.

  Mackie of Benshie, L.

  Boardman, L.

  McNally, L.

  Bowness, L.

  Maddock, B.

  Brabazon of Tara, L.

  Mancroft, L.

  Bradshaw, L.

  Mar and Kellie, E.

  Bridgeman, V.

  Masham of Ilton, B.

  Burnham, L.

  Methuen, L.

  Buscombe, B.

  Miller of Chilthorne Domer, B

  Byford, B.

  Miller of Hendon, B.

  Campbell of Croy, L.

  Molyneaux of Killead, L.

  Carlileof Berriew, L.

  Monro of Langholm, L.

  Carlisle of Bucklow, L.

  Moynihan, L.

  Carnegy of Lour, B.

  Murton of Lindisfarne, L.

  Carr of Hadley, L.

  Newby, L.

  Chadlington, L.

  Nicholson of Winterbourne, B.

  Clark of Kempston, L.

  Northbrook, L.

  Clement-Jones, L.

  Northesk, E.

  Cope of Berkeley, L.

  Northover, B.

  Cowdrey of Tonbridge, L.

  Norton of Louth, L.

  Craigavon, V.

  Oakeshott of Seagrove Bay, L.

  Cranborne, V.

  Onslow of Woking, L.

  Crathorne, L.

  Onslow, E.

  Dahrendorf, L.

  Oppenheim-Barnes, B.

  Dean of Harptree, L.

  Park of Monmouth, B.

  Denham, L.

  Patten, L.

  Dholakia, L.

  Pearson of Rannoch, L.

  Dundee, E.

  Perry of Walton, L.

  Eccles of Moulton, B.

  Peyton of Yeovil, L.

  Eden of Winton, L.

  Phillips of Sudbury, L.

  Elliott of Morpeth, L.

  Plummer of St. Marylebone, L.

  Elton, L.

  Rawlings, B.

  Ezra, L.

  Razzall, L.

  Falkland, V.

  Reay, L.

  Ferrers, E.

  Redesdale, L.

  Fookes, B.

  Rees-Mogg, L.

  Freeman, L.

  Renfrew of Kaimsthorn, L.

  Frcyberg, L.

  Rennard, L.

  Geddes, L.

  Renton, L.

  Geraint, L.

  Renton of Mount Harry, L.

  Gilmour of Craigmillar, L.

  Roberts of Conwy, L.

  Glentoran, L.

  Rodgers of Quarry Bank, L.

  Goodhart, L.

  Roper, L.

  Goschen, V.

  Rosslyn, E.

  Gray of Contin, L.

  Russell, E.

  Greaves, L.

  Sandwich, E.

  Greenway, L.

  Scott of Needham Market, B.

  Hamwee, B.

  Seccombe, B.

  Hanham, B.

  Selborne, E.

  Harris of Greenwich, L. [Teller]

  Sharman, L.

  Harris of Richmond, B.

  Sharp of Guildford, B.

  Hayhoe, L.

  Sharples, B.

  Henley, L. [Teller]

  Shaw of Northstead, L.

  Higgins, L.

  Shrewsbury, E.

  Hooper, B.

  Shutt of Greetland, L.

  Hooson, L.

  Skelmersdale, L.

  Howe of Aberavon, L.

  Smith of Clifton, L.

  Howell of Guildford, L

  Southwark, Bp.

  Hylton, L.

  Stern, B.

  850

  Stodart of Leaston, L.

  Trefgarne, L.

  Stoddart of Swindon, L.

  Vivian, L.

  Strathclyde, L.

  Waddington, L.

  Taverne, L.

  Wade of Chorlton, L.

  Tebbit, L.

  Wallace of Saltaire, L.

  Tenby, V.

  Walmsley, B.

  Thatcher, B.

  Watson of Richmond, L

  Thomas of Gresford, L.

  Wigoder, L.

  Thomas of Gwydir, L.

  Williams of Crosby, B.

  Thomas of Walliswood, B.

  Willoughby de Broke, L.

  Thomson of Monifieth, L.

  Windlesham, L.

  Tope, L.

  Wolfson, L.

  Tordoff, L.

  Young, B.

  NOT-CONTENTS

  Ahmed, L.

  Janner of Braunstone, L.

  Amos, B.

  Jenkins of Putney, L.

  Andrews, B.

  King of West Bromwich, L.

  Archer of Sandwell, L.

  Layard, L.

  Ashton of Upholland, B.

  Lea of Crondall, L.

  Bach, L.

  Lipsey, L.

  Barnett, L.

  Lockwood, B.

  Bassam of Brighton, L.

  Lofthouse of Pontefract, L.

  Bernstein of Craigweil, L.

  Macdonald of Tradeston, L.

  Billingham, B. [Teller]

  McIntosh of Haringey, L.

  Blackstone, B.

  Blease, L.

  McIntosh of Hudnall, B.

  Borrie, L.

  MacKenzie of Culkein, L.

  Brennan, L.

  Mackenzie of Framwellgate, L

  Brooks of Tremorfa, L.

  Mason of Barnsley, L.

  Burlison, L.

  Massey of Darwen, B.

  Carter, L. [Teller]

  Mitchell, L.

  Chandos, V.

  Molloy, L.

  Clarke of Hampstead, L.

  Morris of Castle Morris, L.

  Cledwyn of Penrhos, L.

  Nicol, B.

  Cocks of Hartcliffe, L.

  Parekh, L.

  Crawley, B.

  Patel of Blackburn, L.

  Currie of Marylebone, L.

  Pitkeathley, B.

  David, B.

  Plant of Highfield, L.

  Davies of Coity, L.

  Powell of Bayswater, L.

  Dean of Thornton-le-Fylde, B.

  Prys-Davies, L.

  Desai, L.

  Puttnam, L.

  Donoughue, L.

  Ramsay of Cartvale, B.

  Dormand of Easington, L.

  Rendell of Babergh, B.

  Elder, L.

  Renwick of Clifton, L.

  Evans of Parkside, L.

  Richard, L.

  Falconer of Thoroton, L.

  Sainsbury of Turville, L.

  Farrington of Ribbleton, B.

  Sawyer, L.

  Faulkner of Worcester, L.

  Sewel, L.

  Filkin, L.

  Sheppard of Liverpool, L.

  Fitt, L.

  Simon, V.

  Gale, B.

  Smith of Gilmorehill, B.

  Gavron, L.

  Smith of Leigh, L.

  Gibson of Market Rasen, B.

  Strabolgi, L.

  Gilbert, L.

  Symons of Vernham Dean, B.

  Goldsmith, L.

  Taylor of Blackburn, L.

  Gordon of Strathblane, L.

  Taylor of Gryfe, L.

  Goudie, B.

  Thornton, B.

  Gould of Potternewton, B.

  Tomlinson, L.

  Graham of Edmonton, L.

  Turner of Camden, B.

  Greengross, B.

  Uddin, B.

  Grenfell, L.

  Varley, L.

  Hardy of Wath, L.

  Harrison, L.

  Walker of Doncaster, L.

  Haskel, L.

  Warner, L.

  Hayman, B.

  Warwick of Undercliffe, B.

  Hogg of Cumbernauld, L.

  Wedderburn of Charlton, L.

  Hollis of Heigham, B.

  Whitty, L.

  Howells of St. Davids, B.

  Wilkins, B.

  Howie of Troon, L.

  Williams of Mostyn, L.

  Hoyle, L.

  Williamson of Horton, L.

  Hughes of Woodside, L.

  Winston, L.

  Hunt of Chesterton, L.

  Woolmer of Leeds, L.

  Hunt of Kings Heath, L.

  Young of Old Scone, B.

  Resolved in the affirmative, and amendment agreed to accordingly.
  8.7 p.m.
  Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendments Nos. 114B to 114H:
  Page 65, line 15, leave out ("that the information has been laid") and insert ("of the determination").
  Page 65, line 43, leave out subsection (6).
  Page 66, line 13, leave out ("laying of the information") and insert ("determination of the court").
  Page 67, line 3, leave out sub-paragraph (i).
  Page 67, line 8, leave out ("that the proceedings have been commenced") and insert ("of the determination").
  Page 67, line 10, leave out paragraphs (b) and (c).
  Page 67, leave out lines 38 to 42.
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments are consequential to Amendment No. 114A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 115 not moved.]
  Clause 64 [Loss of joint-claim jobseeker's allowance]:
  Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendments Nos. 115A to 115D:
  Page 68, line 19, leave out ("information in question has been laid") and insert ("court has made a determination").
  Page 68, line 36, leave out subsection (6).
  Page 68, line 45, leave out ("laying of the information") and insert ("determination of the court").
  Page 68, line 47, leave out subsection (9).
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 114A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 116 not moved.]
  Clause 65 [Information provision]:
  Lord Windlesham Lord Windlesham moved Amendments Nos. 116A to 116G:
  Page 69, line 20, leave out from ("of) to ("as") in line 21 and insert ("any such determination").
  Page 69, line 25, leave out paragraph (c).
  Page 69, line 28, leave out from ("any") to second ("to") in line 29 and insert ("determination of a failure to comply with a relevant community order has been made").
  Page 69, line 32, leave out ("commencement of the proceedings") and insert ("determination").
  Page 69, line 34, leave out paragraph (c).
  Page 69, line 38, leave out ("laying of an information") and insert ("determination").
  Page 69, line 44, leave out ("laying of an information") and insert ("determination").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, these amendments were spoken to with Amendment No. 114A. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 117 not moved.]
  Baroness Ramsay of Cartvale: My Lords, I beg to move that further consideration on Report be now adjourned. In moving the Motion may I suggest that the Report stage begin again not before 9.10 p.m.
  Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.

Zimbabwe Pensioners
8.10 p.m.
Lord Waddington Lord Waddington rose to ask Her Majesty's Government what is their policy regarding Zimbabwe public service pensioners living in Britain.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, in speaking to this Unstarred Question, perhaps I may declare an interest. I have the honour to be honorary president of the Overseas Service Pensioners Association. The association represents a large number of former servants of the Crown who served overseas and widows of such officers.
Back in 1979–1980, at the time of the negotiations to bring Rhodesia to lawful independence, there was concern among British persons employed in the public service in Rhodesia about the security of their pension rights. When other British colonies became independent, the practice was for the British Government to make what was called a Public Officers Agreement, or POA, with the emerging government to ensure that pensions would be paid by the new government on the same terms as before, and would be remitted to those who had come back home or gone to live elsewhere abroad, at the rate of exchange prevailing at the time of independence.
However, in the case of Zimbabwe, the British Government refused to consider making a POA on the grounds that the Rhodesia public service was never a part of our colonial service because Southern Rhodesia had always been an internally self-governing colony with its own government, responsible for the recruitment and terms and conditions of employment of its civil servants.
Now of course I recognise that governments often draw lines in order to contain public expenditure. But such decisions do not always involve issues of principle; and, clearly, no principle was involved here. The civil servants in question were recruited by Rhodesia, but they were recruited for the most part by Rhodesia House here in London and the people recruited regarded themselves as going out to a colony as expatriates, just like those going out to serve in any other colony.
But the unfortunate fact of the matter is that successive governments have cited the refusal of the British Government to make a POA with Zimbabwe in 1980 as absolving them from any responsibility for persons who were undoubtedly Crown servants—yes, Crown servants—and Crown servants, I might say, of a territory for which we as a country were so

853
determined to assert our responsibility, we were prepared to resist to the utmost Mr Smith's unilateral declaration of independence.
So the position today is that, while in the case of all other former colonies the British Government have taken over responsibility for the pensions of former expatriate public officers under the powers in the Overseas Pensions Act 1973—and those powers are wide enough to allow them to do the same in the case of Zimbabwe—they decline to give any help at all to these Crown servants.
On 13th November 1979, during the course of the proceedings on the Southern Rhodesia Bill, the late Lord Gridley, who was then president of OSPA—the association of which I am now president—moved (at col. 1221 of the Official Report) an amendment calling on the Government to ensure that the new government of Zimbabwe did do right by their public service pensioners. My noble friend Lord Trefgarne, replying on behalf of our government, said (at col. 1226) that the independence constitution agreed at Lancaster House specifically preserved public service pension rights. He said that the British Government could not undertake to underwrite that liability which the Zimbabwe Government had undertaken, but he went on to say that prospective pensioners could take comfort from the fact that,
"a constitutional settlement and the lifting of sanctions will lead to a large inflow of commercial investment into Rhodesia".— [Official Report, 13/11/79; col. 1226.]
By inference, he was saying that economic growth and prosperity would see that the pensioners were all right.
My noble friend Lord Trefgarne said that he would write to Lord Gridley about one particular matter. I need not describe what that matter was. That letter is a very important one. It is dated 20th December 1979. In it, my noble friend Lord Trefgarne, on behalf of the government of the day, gave an assurance that the Zimbabwe independence constitution would contain,
"full safeguards for public service pensions and their remittability".
That sounds clear enough. But, in spite of it being such a clear statement, it is now argued—in particular by Mr Foulkes, Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State at DfID, in a letter to Mr Michael Ancram MP dated 6th December 1999—that a person's pension has been fully safeguarded and preserved, and, in the words of the Zimbabwe Constitution,
"its payment fully guaranteed to former public servants wherever they reside",
even though that pension has been rendered almost completely valueless as a result of the collapse of the currency. I have to say that I consider that argument absolutely shameful.
The Minister then went on to assert in the same letter that, while the British Government have always acknowledged that they have a special responsibility to protect the pensions of officers employed in the public services of our former dependent territories, the responsibility extends only to those officers who were members of the colonial service appointed by the
854
Secretary of State for the Colonies and defined in the various POAs concluded between HMG and incoming governments at independence. But it is an argument which has no validity at all, Her Majesty's Government having in fact accepted liability for at least four groups of officers not covered by POAs. They are: first, the "non-designated officers" of Asian origin recruited by the local colonial government or administration to serve in Tanganyika, the East Africa High Commission or Somaliland on terms which included overseas leave and passages; secondly, some locally recruited officers who served in Aden and Zanzibar; thirdly, expatriate officers who served in Aden; and, fourthly, the "quasi-government" officers who had served in West African territories on assignments not clearly part of the central government, but who were accepted by HMG in 1973 as qualifying for pensions takeover under the Overseas Pensions Act.
Recently another argument has been advanced which is so disingenuous that I wondered whether I should really trouble your Lordships with it, but it was raised by the Minister in a letter to the chairman of OSPA dated 17th November last year, and I can hardly ignore it now. What is said in that letter is that up and down the globe there are many thousands of pensioners of colonial governments who were employed on local terms and Zimbabwe pensioners cannot be preferred over them. But what the Minister was conveniently ignoring is that many of the Zimbabwe pensioners were in fact recruited here, on what were expatriate-type terms broadly similar to those of HMOCS officers in other dependent territories. Their passages were paid out to the territory, they took their leave entitlement back here and now, at the end of their service, they have retired here. It really is disingenuous to pretend that local people recruited locally in the colonies are in like case. Clearly they are not.
An even stranger argument has been advanced. It is said that, if our Government do not look out, we might finish up having to pay for the pensions of people who worked in Zimbabwe for the post office, the railways, the university and local government. But the claims of these last people are entirely irrelevant to this debate for the simple reason that even they do not claim that they were public service officers within the meaning of the Zimbabwe constitution, who are defined in that constitution as persons holding a paid office in the service of the state. Their pensions, therefore, unlike the pensions of the Crown servants I am talking about, are clearly not guaranteed by the Zimbabwe constitution. To refer to those cases is the greatest irrelevance that could possibly be launched into this debate.
So this is the position that we have reached. Successive governments have moved to assist and make top-up payments to help pensioners from other colonies, using the powers in the Overseas Pensions Act 1973 but, although they know the parlous state the Zimbabwe pensioners are in, the Government flatly refuse to help them.
Perhaps I may remind your Lordships of what has happened to these unfortunate people. It is a major tragedy which I do not believe the wildest optimist thinks is likely to be alleviated by any political change in Zimbabwe over the coming months, or even years. The Zimbabwe dollar, which was originally worth 50p, is now worth rather less than 1½p. The pensions received by British people recruited here and now retired here have become as good as useless. These people, acknowledged by this and preceding governments to be Crown servants, are reduced to penury.
I should like to set down a few figures. A pensioner living in retirement in Britain, receiving £300 a month in 1980, now, after a doubling of prices in the intervening years, receives £28 a month—just £7 a week. There is every possibility of an even further worsening of the situation following the general election last weekend. It has been rumoured that, if payments continue at all—and I should remind the House that in the new constitution submitted by President Mugabe to a national referendum, there was no repeat of the undertakings set out in the 1979 constitution to pay public service pensions at all—they will continue only after a devaluation of the Zimbabwe dollar to around 100 dollars to the pound. One can anticipate only a worsening of the situation rather than an improvement.
It is a shameful state of affairs and the arguments advanced by the British Government are shameful. After insisting that UDI had to be resisted, not least because Rhodesia was a colony for which Britain alone was responsible and to which Britain alone could grant independence, the British Government now say, in order to avoid their financial responsibilities, that Rhodesia was not really a colony like any other colony. It was a self-governing colony and that allows our Government to deny to these British Crown servants help which is readily afforded to other Crown servants in like case.
I am told that in 1998 there were a total of around 1,200 Rhodesia/Zimbabwe pensioners. Of those, around 800 were recruited in England through Rhodesia House. To do something for them, to pay pensions at the historic rate of two dollars to the pound, would cost under £7 million—5 per cent of the present total overseas pensions bill.
There has been a long correspondence with the Government about this matter. Recently we have been urged to draw a line under the issue; in other words, to accept defeat. We shall not, because right is on our side and something has got to be done for these people.
Perhaps I may therefore ask the Minister one final question. If the Government balk at the possibility of extending the provisions of the Overseas Pensions Act to Zimbabwe pensioners because that requires the formal agreement of the Zimbabwe Government, will the Government please consider doing what the government did in the case of Aden and Somalia, where, for other reasons, it was not possible to make a POA with the emerging government, and where a
856
"loan advance" scheme was set up which protected the pensioners for as long as necessary? But it is not our job to tell the Government how help should be given. Our job is to shout from the house-tops that something has to be done.
8.25 p.m.
Lord Thomson of Monifieth: My Lords, I apologise to the Minister for rising in the gap to say a brief word in the debate on the Unstarred Question tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I do so for two reasons.
First, I was the last person to hold the separate office of Secretary of State for Commonwealth Affairs. I did so at the time of UDI. For that reason, I should like to associate myself with what I felt to be the formidable case advanced by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, on the plight of the Zimbabwe pensioners recruited in this country as Crown servants to serve in the special circumstances of Rhodesia. I should like to lend my support to everything that the noble Lord has said.
I was also provoked into speaking because I have been in correspondence with the present Secretary of State and with the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, Mr George Foulkes, about a particular case. I do not wish to set out the detail at this stage, but suffice to say that it is similar to some of the matters raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. The case relates to a distinguished retired Professor of Medicine, Professor Douglas Thompson, who went out from Scotland to Rhodesia on the eve of UDI. He claims that he went only because he was encouraged to do so by the United Kingdom Inter-university Council. He was assured that, by going, he was doing so in Britain's best interests. For that reason, his case does not fit directly into the category of Crown servant addressed by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. However, Professor Thompson served at the University of Rhodesia, which was of course a state university, having been recruited in this country and told that, by going, he was serving British interests.
He is now living in this country once more, in advancing years, and existing on a positively pitiful pension of the kind described by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. I have argued that there is at least a moral obligation on the part of Her Majesty's Government to deal with this matter in a sympathetic manner. So far I have received nothing but dusty and negative answers.
I wished briefly to make a personal point about an individual whose case I have raised with the Department for International Development. However, above all, I speak from the point of view of my rather ancient former role as the last separate Commonwealth Secretary in support of the strong and weighty case made by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington.
8.28 p.m.
Lord Dholakia: My Lords, I, too, have a great deal of sympathy with the issue raised by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, about former Zimbabwe public

857
servants who find that their pensions are diminishing in value as the Zimbabwe dollar continues to depreciate against sterling. I am told that, at current exchange rates, such pensions are now typically worth between 5 and 10 per cent of their original sterling purchasing power. Perhaps the Minister, the noble Baroness, Lady Amos, could confirm this.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, told the House with considerable force of the issues surrounding Zimbabwe pensioners. I suspect that unless the economy of Zimbabwe improves, these figures will soon be outdated and no doubt many recipients will suffer severe hardship. With continuing uncertainty about the political process and the power structure there, it is right that the issue of pensions is highlighted.
Perhaps I may give an analogy. My father worked for Tanganyika Railways, which later became East African Railways. He retired on a very modest pension and went to live in India. In the 1960s and 1970s the Tanzanian economy was in the grip of massive inflation. The national debt was mounting and the time came when the East African Railway Authority could not meet its obligations to its pensioners. My family went without pensions for a considerable time until the British Government, through the Crown Agents, accepted responsibility and the pensions resumed. I am not sure about the technical arrangements at that time. I was too young to understand the issues. It may be that the noble Baroness may want to see if there is a precedent here and if it would help with the present situation in Zimbabwe.
However, there is another point. Inflation was so rampant that the Tanzanian shilling was literally worthless. In fact, I recall visiting the country at that time and discovering that those who had retired before the collapse of the economy found that their pensions of about 1,000 shillings or less were worth no more than 10 bottles of Coca-Cola. Perhaps I may add that since then the economy of Tanzania has improved. I hale to think what would happen to the economy of Zimbabwe if the present political uncertainty continues.
However, this is not a debate about the political process, but about the plight of individuals caught in this process because of inflation and the uncertainty of the government there to meet their obligations. Let us hope that even at this late stage politicians will see their way to ensure stability which is the cornerstone of a sound economy.
Expressing sympathy alone is not helpful. We ought to be aware that compassion between members of the public service in Southern Rhodesia who were employed directly by that government in a self-governing colony and those who were employed on expatriate terms in the central government of a colony, may not necessarily be very helpful. There are two separate categories of employment and separate conditions obviously applied. However, it would be very helpful if the Minister were to give some idea of
858
the financial consequences of assisting overseas pensioners from Zimbabwe now living in the United Kingdom.
I also ask the Minister whether it is possible to safeguard the pension rights of both retired and serving Zimbabwe public servants which were negotiated under the Zimbabwe constitution during the Lancaster House negotiations. I raise this point because of the political uncertainty there. Would the Minister ensure that the Foreign Office takes the first opportunity to discuss with the government of the day there the obligation that they entered into during the independence negotiations so that we do not have to face the kind of consequences that the people of Tanzania suffered at one time?
The Overseas Pensioners Association is delighted to know of the very sound case put forward by the noble Lord, Lord Waddington. It has made separate representations for the 800 or so Zimbabwe pensioners originally recruited through Rhodesia House and who are currently resident in the United Kingdom. What has been the outcome of those representations?
My final point is to ask the Minister whether she would make available the present criteria for pension protection and explain whether it would be in breach of these criteria if the Government were to provide any assistance. That would help all of us to understand the issue from the legal perspective.
8.33 p.m.
Baroness Rawlings: My Lords, I, too, am grateful to my noble friend Lord Waddington for initiating this important debate on a subject that has troubled governments since the Lancaster House agreement. However, it is even more important that we should be talking about the plight of these pensioners today at a time when there are so many question marks hanging over Zimbabwe after its election results.
I have read with great interest all the briefing papers and previous debates in both Houses. It is not a record to be proud of. I find it difficult to understand several of Mr. Foulkes' comments. First, he said that,
"Her Majesty's Government was not involved in defining the terms and conditions of service under which these local staff were employed".
As I understand it, at the Lancaster House independence negotiations, Her Majesty's Government insisted that there should be certain constitutional provisions to protect the rights and interests of serving officers and public service pensioners. Secondly, Mr Foulkes added that the pension rights were "preserved" under the Zimbabwe constitution and that the constitution,
"guarantees the continued payment of pensions",
as we heard from my noble friend Lord Waddington.
Pensioners' groups have argued that some sort of moral obligation is owed to these individuals since the Crown did retain responsibility for Southern Rhodesia until 1979 and the officers in question were in some sense serving the Crown.

859
It could be said by the pensioners that the "preserving" of rights and the "guarantee" of continued payment are meaningless without protection of the value of the pension. As my noble friend Lord Waddington stated, the value of the Zimbabwe dollar had originally been 10 shillings. It even reached 68p at its peak, but now it is worth a mere 1.5p.
We are talking only of about 1,200 pensioners. The cost would be minimal to the Government. It would cost, as mentioned by my noble friend Lord Waddington, under £7 million, which is less than 5 per cent of the present total overseas pension bill, as the noble Lord, Lord Dholakia said. That is a mere drop in the ocean, especially if we consider the near £800 million that was spent on the Dome.
We are also told that if an exception were to be made for these pensioners overnight there would be a flood of others claiming pensions. But as former Crown servants, serving what were in essence expatriate type terms, which can be distinguished clearly from other groups that may submit their own claims, this is a particular situation as the other former colonies have been cared for.
I turn to the problem of the small print, the finer details, the enigmatic statements that can easily be misinterpreted. But if this Government stand by the Foreign Secretary's ethical foreign policy, they surely have a moral duty in this case to try to end happily this sorry tale. I urge the noble Baroness to look sympathetically, in the light of the changed circumstances, at the situation of these disadvantaged people in the twilight of their lives.
8.37 p.m.
Baroness Amos: My Lords, I begin by thanking the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, for initiating this debate. I believe that it would be helpful to the House if I explain the Government's position on Zimbabwe public service pensions. I shall then come to the specific questions raised by noble Lords this evening. It is a subject that has drawn many representations in recent years, both to this Government and their predecessor. The detail of colonial pensions can be a very complex business, but I shall try to make my explanation as straightforward as possible.
All Zimbabwe public service pensions, including those paid to British nationals living in the United Kingdom, are the responsibility of the Zimbabwe government. That has always been the case. At independence the pension rights of both retired and serving Zimbabwe public servants were preserved under the Zimbabwe constitution which was formulated during the Lancaster House negotiations. The constitution guaranteed that existing pension entitlements would not be adversely affected by any changes in law which came into effect after independence, and that pensions paid externally would not be subject to any deductions. The constitution also guarantees to continue payment of pensions to former Zimbabwe public servants wherever they reside.
860
The Government of Zimbabwe have always met their responsibilities for paying these pensions under the constitution. On occasions, when foreign exchange has been in short supply, as at present, pensioners living in Britain have experienced delays in receiving their monthly pension payments. On these occasions the British Government have always reminded the Zimbabwe Government of their responsibilities. But it is important to recognise that the Government of Zimbabwe have never reneged on their obligations in respect of these pensioners.
The real problem, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, pointed out, has been that the sterling value of these pensions has gradually diminished as the Zimbabwe dollar has fallen against the pound. There is no provision in the Zimbabwe constitution to protect externally paid pensions against adverse exchange rate movements and the pensions increases awarded by Zimbabwe have not been sufficient to compensate for the shortfall.
This situation, as the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, pointed out, has led to repeated representations from the Overseas Service Pensioners Association and indeed from Members in another place on behalf of former Zimbabwe public servants. They have asked the British Government to intervene and extend to Zimbabwe pensioners the pension protection arrangements afforded to overseas public servants for whom the British Government accept a special responsibility. Successive governments have declined to do this because the circumstances of Zimbabwe public service pensioners clearly do not meet the criteria for inclusion in our pension protection arrangements.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked me to say something specifically about the criteria. The British Government acknowledge that they have a special responsibility to protect the pensions of certain officers who were employed in the public services of our former dependent territories, but this responsibility extends only to those who were appointed by, or on behalf of, the Secretary of State for the Colonies to serve overseas on expatriate terms in the central government of a colony.
The noble Lord asked whether it would be possible to safeguard the pension rights of both retired and serving Zimbabwe public servants which were negotiated during the Lancaster House negotiations. At the time of the Lancaster House negotiations, Southern Rhodesia's public servants sought similar protection. However, this was refused on the grounds that staff recruited to the public service in Southern Rhodesia were not appointed by or on behalf of the Secretary of State and all served on local, as opposed to expatriate, terms of service.
Perhaps I may explain what that means. Southern Rhodesia was a self-governing colony from 1923 and was directly responsible for recruiting its own public servants, including those who were recruited directly from Britain. The British Government were not involved with the recruitment process or the

861
formulation of terms and conditions of service for any Southern Rhodesia public service staff. It is quite clear that Zimbabwe public service pensioners fall outside the scope of our pension support arrangements. I know that that is not what noble Lords want to hear, but it is the case.
It has been suggested on occasions that the Government should accept responsibility for individual groups of Zimbabwe pensioners. The Overseas Service Pensioners Association, of which the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, is honorary president, recently proposed that the Government should accept responsibility for that group of Zimbabwe pensioners who were originally recruited through Rhodesia House in London to serve in the central government of Southern Rhodesia and who are currently resident in Britain.
We took the view that we could not reasonably do this, as it would be difficult to see how this group could be isolated for pension protection purposes from other groups who were recruited from the UK by other means to work in the colony or those who served in para-statal organisations. We considered the matter carefully.
Indeed, after examining the whole issue many times in recent years, it is not possible to see how we could limit assistance to expatriates recruited from Britain. Many Zimbabwe public servants were recruited locally or from neighbouring territories. Attempting to ring-fence a particular group of expatriates would rightly invite accusations of discrimination if in a multi-racial and fully integrated public service pension protection appeared to depend on ethnic origin, residence or citizenship. The British Government's policy on protecting colonial pensions has always been based on employment status. Such considerations as ethnic origin, nationality or where people reside do not have a bearing in determining eligibility for inclusion in our pension protection arrangements.
I now turn specifically to some of the questions raised during the course of the debate. The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, asked about Rhodesia House recruits and whether they could be regarded as Colonial Service officers. The answer is no. Rhodesia House has never been acknowledged as a formal recruitment channel for any staff serving under the auspices of the British Government. It always operated under the jurisdiction of the Southern Rhodesian government, who were responsible for their own recruitment, selection and staffing policies. Indeed, it seems that many Rhodesia House recruits received free passages to Southern Rhodesia but, significantly, they did not receive free return passages.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, also made reference to the correspondence of the noble Lord, Lord Trefgarne. The pensioners' associations—and the noble Lord, Lord Waddington, in this debate—accused Her Majesty's Government of not honouring a pledge to safeguard fully Zimbabwe public service pensions at independence, including an undertaking to underwrite the costs of a sterling safeguard to maintain the value of pensions. The Government gave no such
862
undertaking. We insisted on certain safeguards being included in the independence constitution for the continued payment of pensions. But there was never any statement or suggestion that these assurances should include Britain underwriting a sterling safeguard.
The noble Lord, Lord Waddington, referred also to the special arrangements that Her Majesty's Government have made for certain groups of overseas pensioners who served in East Africa, Aden, Zanzibar and India. The East African Asians were expatriate officers working in services which were the clear responsibility of the Secretary of State; and the Colonial Service White Paper of 1954 stated specifically that their pension interests would be protected.
The British Government pay certain local Aden and Zanzibar pensions in the form of loan advances. However, unlike Southern Rhodesia, the public service in Aden was the responsibility of the Secretary of State during the colonial era. In addition, it should be noted that local Aden loan advances reflect only pre-independence service and do not attract increases.
In 1955, the Government agreed to take over from India the central administration and payment of all sterling pensions, including a small number of non-Secretary of State appointees. But the Indian Government paid over an actuarially assessed sum to cover the future costs of all these pensions.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, raised the question of Tanzania and whether there was a precedent. The Tanzania Government were responsible for paying pensions to employees of the East African Railways Authority, but they defaulted on payment in 1968. Because the pensioners involved had been appointed by and on behalf of the Secretary of State and were employed on expatriate terms of service, the British Government felt obliged to intervene and to pay the pensions. These were subsequently formally taken over by the British Government in the 1970s. Southern Rhodesian pensioners do not enjoy this special status. They were not recruited by or on behalf of the Secretary of State, nor were they employed on expatriate terms of service.
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, and the noble Baroness, Lady Rawlings, asked about the financial consequences of assisting all overseas pensioners. We do not know exactly how many Zimbabwe public service pensioners reside in Britain, but in any case we could not consider intervention to protect that group alone—a point I made earlier.
In 1998 the Department for International Development calculated an intervention cost of some £52 million a year but that figure covered only an estimated 6,000 pensioners who joined the Southern Rhodesia public service direct from the UK. The latest information from Crown Agents is that the value of all Zimbabwe pensions paid outside the country is about £4 million a year at the current rate of exchange. If all those pensions were paid at the original exchange rate of two Zimbabwe dollars to the pound, annual expenditure would be in the region of £114 million.

863
The noble Lord, Lord Dholakia, asked about the outcome of representations. My honourable Friend the Under-Secretary of State for International Development wrote to the chairman of OSPA on 30th June 1998, explaining that the Government felt unable to extend pension protection rights to the group in question. The noble Lord, Lord Thomson of Monifeith, has a great deal more experience than me in these matters. I am unable to comment on the particular issue he raised but I will examine the correspondence again.
While we acknowledge and sympathise with the problems faced by Zimbabwe pensioners living in Britain, to provide assistance we would have fundamentally to breach the present protection arrangements. It would not be defensible to limit extending support to any particular group of Zimbabwe public service pensioners, nor to limit such support to Zimbabwe, when many thousands of former local employees of other colonial public services face exactly the same difficulty of diminishing pension values. The financial consequences of extending pension protection to all would be prohibitive.
Lord Burlison: My Lords, I beg to move that the House do adjourn during pleasure until 9.10 p.m.
Moved accordingly, and, on Question, Motion agreed to.
[The Sitting was suspended from 8.52 to 9.10 p.m.]

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
Further consideration of amendments on Report resumed.
Clause 66 [Loss of benefit regulations]:
Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 118:
Page 70, line 39, at end insert—
("( ) a provision prescribing the manner in which the applicable amount is to be reduced for the purposes of section 63(3),
( ) a provision prescribing the manner in which an amount of joint-claim jobseekers allowance is to be reduced for the purposes of section 64(3)(a),
( ) a provision the making of which is authorised by section 63(4) or 64(4),").
The noble Baroness said: My Lords, Amendment No. 118 introduces measures to make the powers in Clause 63(3) and (4)—loss of benefit provisions—that specify the level of benefit reduction for income support and hardship payments for jobseeker's allowance subject to the affirmative resolution procedure as specified in Clause 66(4). This is in response to the recommendation of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, which I am happy to accept.
In addition, the amendment provides that regulations to be made under Clause 64(3)(a) and (3A)—reduced rate payments of JSA and hardship
864
payments which may operate when the sanction applies to couples who claim JSA jointly—should also be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure. Although not covered by the report of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, these are to be included in the list of powers subject to the affirmative procedure to ensure consistency.
This is a measure concerned with conditions attached to benefits which we believe is right in principle. But, principled as we are, we have no wish to extend this policy widely without understanding its effects. That is why we are testing it first through pilots which will be thoroughly evaluated. We shall not extend the pilots nation-wide before considering carefully the findings of the evaluation and making them public. I urge your Lordships to accept this entirely beneficial government amendment which extends the affirmative resolution procedure to those parts of the clauses that deal with rates of reduction and hardship payments. I beg to move.
Lord Goodhart: My Lords, wearing my hat as a member of the Delegated Powers and Deregulation Committee, I am happy to welcome the amendment. It appeared to us that the issues raised were important and that the regulations should be considered first by your Lordships' House before being implemented.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
[Amendment No. 119 not moved.]
Clause 67 [Appeals relating to loss of benefit]:
[Amendment No. 120 not moved.]
Earl Russell Earl Russell moved Amendment No. 121:
After Clause 67, insert the following new clause—

Child Support, Pensions and Social Security Bill
  Payment of benefit

    MANNER OF PAYMENT OF BENEFIT NOT RESTRICTED TO AUTOMATED CREDIT TRANSFER
    . In section 5(1) of the Social Security Administration Act 1992, at the end of paragraph (i) there is inserted ", but the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit.".").
    The noble Earl said: My Lords, last March on the way back from my party's conference in Plymouth I stopped off at Chippenham to visit my mother-in-law and father-in-law, both of whom have recently cleared 90. My father-in-law came to the station to see me off and I chatted to him about the conference as we waited for the train. I told him about a motion that we had debated, to some profit, about the need to defend post offices. I noticed that a woman who was sitting next to us on the bench was particularly interested. She asked, as I wound down, whether my party was committed to fighting to defend rural post offices. I said that it was. She said, "In that case, your party has my firm and undying support. By the way, which is your party?" There we have the paradigm voter of the 21st century who has no brand loyalty and believes that the consumer is king. We also have a reason why there has been a good deal of emulation between the two Opposition parties about which of us is in front on this cause.
    However, in this Chamber we manage these matters rather better. I have had nothing but kindness, courtesy and co-operation from the Official Opposition. I should like particularly to thank the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and the noble Baroness, Lady Byford—who comes in promptly on cue and appears to be the unofficial postmaster general on the Opposition Benches!
    At present, nothing but regulation prevents the Government from departing from the existing legal situation, according to which people in receipt of benefit have a choice whether they receive benefit through the post office or go over to ATC. We all know that it is painfully easy to alter regulations. Although we remember an occasion as recently as last February when a regulation was voted down in this House, it was on the understanding that it will not be a usual occurrence. We on these Benches believe that there is a need for greater security. We need to create a situation where the Government must change primary legislation if they want to cease payment of benefit through post offices.
    That is the purpose of the amendment. It is fairly clear that there is official influence—I was going to say "pressure" but influence is perhaps a more just word—to encourage new benefit claimants to receive their benefits through ATC. I have the leaflet AC1 issued to new pensioners. An enormous headline states:
    "Have your pension paid straight to your account".
    It is a little more than subliminal. The message that this is the preferred option is very clear indeed. The trouble is that benefits are a crucial part of the income not only of the post office but most particularly of the sub-postmaster. Without the network of sub-post offices as well as that of Crown post offices we would not have a Post Office service worth the name.
    The matter is generally regarded as a rural issue, as very largely it is. In any normal village the post office is usually the shop, the meeting point and the social centre of the village. But it is also an urban problem. I must declare an interest. My post office, Brondesbury post office in NW6, was closed through fire quite a long time ago. There is no sign that the Post Office is doing anything towards reopening it. It makes me even more grateful for the Post Office services of this House. It has taken over from car parking as the second most valuable privilege of membership of this House. I must have a thought for those who do not enjoy that privilege.
    Post office closures have been taking place for some time. They are accelerating. They have increased to as many as 500 in the current year. That is a considerable number of closures. I appreciate that the Government say—the Minister will doubtless repeat it—that they intend that everyone will retain the right to claim benefit at a post office. Yes, they do so if they can find a post office. But if closures are running at 500 a year, the right to go to a post office may be a little like the right which everyone has of having tea at the Ritz: it is fine if one can do so, but the fact that one has the right does not necessarily prove that one can exercise it.
    Something has to be done to shore up the post office network especially since the DSS's planned saving of £400 million will be achieved only if almost all benefit claimants do switch to ATC. Many are reluctant to do so. Not all claimants have great confidence in banks. Not all of them are in a position where they would be well advised to do so. Banks were once described by one of my American colleagues as impenetrable except to bank robbers. I recall the economic recovery conference in 1991 organised by the Independent. After we had debated bank charges for half an hour I asked for a show of hands by all those who understood the system of bank charges they were paying. There was a moment of horrified immobility; and then one solitary hand crept up. It belonged to Andrew Buxton of Barclays. A number of hands followed then but they were, I think, all his employees.
    If one has a minimal income and is budgeting down to the last 10 pence each week, unpredictable bank charges are not what one wants.
    I know that the Government are putting forward all kinds of possibilities about things they might do. We have an amendment to the Post Office Bill that I have in front of me. It provides that the Secretary of State "may" by order make the scheme for the making of payments. It provides that he "may" do something, but it does not state what he may do or how he may do it. Those are three very big questions to leave open. Since the key thing is that money must come into the system and that money must be from a guaranteed and recurring source, a provision saying that the Secretary of State "may" is not good enough.
    I know that the Minister will also refer to the report of the PIU. I understand that publication is due later this week, but I have heard conflicting reports as to the day. It is not coming apparently in time for this debate. There is at least one report in today's newspapers which suggests that it might not be able to offer to guarantee more than half the Post Office network existing at present. If that were true it would be a disaster. I do not believe everything I read in the newspapers. The report may well be untrue, and if the Minister can tell us I will accept her assurance with great gratitude. If I see a report about something not yet available I quote it in the hope, very often, of hearing a refutation. I have seen one, and I look forward to hearing it.
    It is unfortunate that that report was not due in time for this debate. That is no fault of ours. The date of the publication of the report and the date of this debate were both under government control; they are two bits of government that do not seem to have joined up. I do not see that either of the two opposition parties need take responsibility for that.
    I can think of two possible explanations—either the Government do not believe that the report is likely to satisfy us or they have lost control of their own timetable. I shall leave them to tell us which is true. I beg to move.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I rise to support the comments made by the noble Earl, Lord Russell.

    867
    I know that the Minister will be truly relieved that I am not going to go through my 19 and 20 points that I have been working through on this Bill and the Post Office Bill at the same time.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I sent a written reply to the noble Baroness, and to the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, and also the noble Earl, Lord Russell.
    Baroness Byford: I thank the Minister for that reply which arrived today. It helps, but I have questions as a result of it.
    In supporting the noble Earl, Lord Russell, I refer to waiting for the PIU report. My latest information is that it will be available as soon as tomorrow. If that is true, I am sure that the Minister and I will be delighted. On Thursday this week we have amendments down for the Postal Services Bill. It would be enormously helpful to have the PIU report beforehand.
    I am sure that I followed the Minister's argument that the Government, in trying to persuade people to have their benefits paid through banks, will save the DSS some £500 million. However, when I realise that this year, for the first time, the Post Office made a loss because it had to spend money on upgrading its Horizon facility in post offices, I wonder whether or not we are in danger of taking money from Peter to pay Paul. That would not be wise.
    My questions to the Minister tonight will be fewer than previously and I am sure that she will appreciate that. First, following on from what was said by the noble Earl, Lord Russell, it has previously been the responsibility of a person to opt into having benefits paid through the Post Office. I would rather see people being able automatically to collect benefits from the Post Office rather than see them having to opt into another system. However, the Minister may not agree.
    Secondly, if more post offices disappear as a result of the change in the system, and if more banks close—many banks have withdrawn their facilities from rural areas and those on the edges of inner cities are seeing the closure of local banks—it will be as difficult to collect benefits from banks as it will from post offices. Fewer post offices will mean that many people will have a problem in collecting their benefits.
    As I said during previous stages, 40 per cent of the income of sub-postmasters comes from handling the payment of welfare benefits. In Committee, we argued long and hard about what might happen when the present system ends, whether a smart card might be introduced and what that would cost. I do not want to repeat those arguments because the Minister has answered many of the questions I asked and I am grateful her. However, although I have queries about one or two of her answers, rather than press her tonight, I want to wait until publication of the PIU report tomorrow or on Thursday.
    It may be that there is information in the report which the Minister cannot announce tonight because it is not yet published. Perhaps the Government can go
    868
    some way towards helping the sub-postmasters as regards the service they provide to people who receive benefits. I understand that the Government want to prevent money being wasted in fraud and all noble Lords would support that. However, many people who have bank accounts and other facilities still choose to collect their benefits from their local post offices. I am not pushing hard tonight, but because we have not received the PIU report we remain in limbo over one or two issues.
    Finally, although the Minister answered my many questions, I still do not know what the cost of the smart card will be. We talked about the transactions costing as little as 1p, but, if the Government intend to do away with the book which identifies the claimant, a smart card must be introduced and that must have a cost implication. The Minister suggested that it would not cost much and I should be delighted to hear that. It would be brilliant news. However, ongoing costs will be involved and I should like to know who will pay them.
    I shall not take any more of your Lordships' time tonight. I thank the Minister for her contribution in answering my many questions. I shall not go through them all now, but questions still remain to which we need answers. I suspect that the Minister may have inside information and may be able to share a little of that with us. Certainly, I should be grateful if she could tell us a little more about where the Government are going and answer the crucial point as to whether the report will hit our desks tomorrow morning or whether we shall have to wait for some time to come.
    9.30 p.m.
    Baroness Gale: My Lords, each year many people choose to receive payments by ACT. That is their preferred method of payment. For example, 50 per cent of all new pensioners choose to use that system, as do 54 per cent of new claimants of child benefit. Of course, some people still want to be paid in cash at the Post Office, but that trend is moving towards payment by ACT, with 500,000 people each year now moving to that system. Over 80 per cent of claimants already have a bank account. However, the Government have made it absolutely clear that the choice of receiving payment in cash will remain available. The Prime Minister said in another place that no one will be prevented from continuing to receive benefits in cash at the Post Office if that is what he or she wants; and not only monthly but weekly, if that is what they choose.
    In Committee, the Minister said that three possible routes were available for payment in cash. The first was network banking with the Horizon system, which could offer potential for the Post Office to extend its arrangements with high street banks. Those arrangements appear to have worked well in areas where banks have disappeared. The second method was via cash machines. The Post Office will install 3,000 cash machines by the year 2001, many in rural post offices. The third option was the development of a universal bank, which could be available in all 18,000 post offices. In effect, it would be a Post Office bank. The Minister said that a switch-type card or banking

    869
    card could be used to access money at the Post Office universal bank. People would be able to access their money at any post office in the country at any time. Therefore, I believe that there is a clear commitment for cash payments to remain for those who choose and want their payments in cash at the Post Office.
    Lord Boardman: My Lords, I strongly support the amendment proposed by the noble Earl, Lord Russell. I have a slight reservation, in that, if the Government should be wise enough to accept the amendment, undoubtedly they would recover a substantial number of votes that they would otherwise lose in the next general election, and that would be a pity.
    The Government seem unconscious of what is happening in the countryside as regards the effect on the local post office and its impact on village and rural life. The fact that they wish to destroy the local post office and not to support the amendment moved by the noble Earl seems to indicate that they are unaware that the post office is a centre of so much that affects country life.
    Those who are aware of rural life will know that the local post office is the focal point of the local community. Unfortunately, rather than the church which provided the focal point for so many centuries, it is now the post office where people meet and chat, draw their pensions, buy their local bread and so on. And, by God, it is essential that the local post offices are kept alive if the nucleus of local communities is to be kept going. Therefore, I plead with the noble Baroness to give consideration to this amendment and to recognise that failure to pass it inevitably will mean the elimination of an extremely important part of local life.
    Baroness Pitkeathley: My Lords, perhaps I may declare an interest. I may sit on the Government Benches hut, as the past chair and current president of a rural community council, I declare a strong interest and support for rural post offices. However, I have more faith than the noble Lord in the ability of rural post offices to adapt to changing situations. I fully support what he says about their being a meeting place and so on, but how much more is a rural post office going to be a meeting place when it becomes a sort of Internet café so that people actually use that rural post office in that particular way? So I declare that one interest.
    The other interest I have to declare is that of being a social worker. As to the issue of fraud, of lost books, of books being taken by somebody else, of books not arriving in time and so on, as the Minister said in her reply during a Committee debate, if we had wanted an efficient system we would not have started from here.
    I do believe that we have to think about consumer choice. The fact is that whether we like it or not consumers are increasingly choosing to have their benefits paid by automatic credit transfer. I personally have a great deal of faith in the ability of the post offices to respond to those changes.
    Lord Hylton: My Lords, I should like to say how much I agree with the remarks of the noble Lord, Lord
    870
    Boardman. He put rather better than I could the kinds of points I was trying to make at the last stage of this Bill.
    It so happens that I recently received a copy of the annual report of the Royal Mail. The thing that no doubt everybody noticed was that in this last year it made a large loss, after having made consistent profits over a number of years. It might be imagined that that loss was due to some kind of inefficiency. I would argue very strongly to the contrary: that it was due to making large capital write-offs all in one single year. One notices that the turnover of the Post Office and Royal Mail does in fact increase year by year.
    The second point that emerged from the report was the very high proportion of the network of sub-post offices which depend on social security benefit payments passing through those sub-post offices. I stand open to correction, but I think the proportion is something like 30 per cent of the total. That alerts us to a very real danger. The network has been severely damaged already, and I would ask that we do everything possible to preserve it as it now stands for the benefit of future generations. Time will be required for sub-post offices to develop alternative sources of income, and that was the point so well made by the noble Baroness, Lady Pitkeathley.
    On those grounds I am strongly in support of this amendment, or of its alternative, No. 122, whichever the Government would look upon more favourably.
    Lord Warner: My Lords, perhaps I may just intervene to refresh the memory of the House on some of the history of this subject. In 1979 I was a jobbing civil servant and the previous administration, led by the now Baroness, Lady Thatcher, and with a Secretary of State who is now the noble Lord. Lord Jenkin of Roding, asked me to undertake a study in this area.
    As a historian, the noble Earl, Lord Russell, might care to go back into the archives and look at the report that we produced in 1980, which I believe is still in the public domain. He will see that this subject has been around for a very long time: about 21 years. The arguments have not changed all that much. He will also see that the implications for the sub-postmasters' network was brought out very clearly in the report.
    It was the previous administration who were reasonably enthusiastic about these changes and who tried immensely hard to press on with many of them. However, there were a series of problems. One was that people had become very attached to a system of paying benefits that is extraordinary in the 21st century. It involves large numbers of antiquated machines in Newcastle central office cranking out books with tissue paper in them that are exchanged for money in post offices.
    I suggest that it may be possible to help the rural sub-postmasters network without preserving that system. It is high time that we provided people with more choice in how their benefits are paid. The issue has been around for 20 or 21 years and the arguments have not changed much. They are still about how best

    871
    to give encouragement, support and perhaps a little subsidy to rural sub-postmasters to keep those community facilities going. Keeping foil systems of paying benefits is probably the least effective way of doing that. We should be prepared to move on and not freeze the system of paying benefit.
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, I shall speak to the amendment of the noble Earl, Lord Russell, rather than mine, which is somewhat different. I thank the Minister for the copy of the letter that she wrote to my noble friend, Lady Byford, which covered a number of the points that were of interest to us. My noble friend has made a considerable study of the issue—an issue as regards which he has great expertise and enthusiasm.
    There are three separate groups with an interest in the issue: the benefit recipients, those who own or work in the post offices and the communities that they serve. Each group is very important.
    The same statistics tend to get recycled rather rapidly from one speech to the next in debates such as this. I have some doubts about some of the figures. In her letter, the Minister said that 80 to 85 per cent. of benefit recipients already have a bank or building society account suitable for receiving ACT payments. I find that a surprisingly high figure. For years, many people insisted on being paid in cash. That gave rise to problems such as the possibility of robberies as the cash was transmitted to their workplace.
    We all recognise that a lot of people prefer to be paid in cash. That leaves open the question of how the payment is made. So far, the Government's response has been rather opaque. I have been told not to worry because everything will be all right and people will be able to continue drawing benefits in cash, but I confess that I remain puzzled as to exactly how that is to be done. No doubt the Minster can enlighten us this evening.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I spent 10 minutes in Committee explaining that.
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, after 10 minutes in Committee, I still did not understand what the Minister was saying. Perhaps it would be better if she could explain the issue in one minute.
    One cannot doubt for a moment that a number of people believe that they are entitled to receive their benefit payments in cash. That brings me to the second point—the position of the post offices. It is generally recognized—this is one of the statistics that I do not doubt—that they have been closing at a rate of about 200 a year. That is a matter of concern. If the changes that the Government appear to be envisaging come about, post offices are likely to suffer considerably, because many of them gain anything from 20 and 80 per cent. of their income from these payments and 40 per cent. of them get 40 per cent. of their income in that way. Clearly, this is a very dramatic change in the profitability of post offices, especially small ones. The worry here is that they will go out of business.
    872
    When we previously debated this matter, I asked the noble Baroness whether the Government have some view as to the extent to which they wish to preserve the post office system, both in rural areas and in cities. But, again, we are not very clear as to the exact nature of the Government's policy in this respect. It is of considerable importance to those operating post offices, many of whom have invested their savings in the business. They may well feel that they are in danger of losing their capital—in the same way as if you increased the number of taxi-driver licences, existing taxi-drivers would get very upset about the value of their plate. It is that sort of small entrepreneur situation. Moreover, if someone simply comes into the post office, sticks a card into, say, a machine and then walks out again, there is some cause for concern as regards the business that post offices currently attract from a rather more social sort of environment. Indeed, as my noble friend Lord Boardman said, in many cases the post office represents a social centre.
    There is one further relevant point here; namely, the question of the cost per transaction. Again, the cost of 1 p per transaction has been bandied around. As a former and very successful chairman of the National Westminster Bank, I was rather hopeful that my noble friend Lord Boardman would give us some idea as to whether he thought that that was a credible figure. It seems remarkably small to me. At the same time, if there are that many people with hank accounts, one has to ask: what are they paying at present in terms of charges and, more particularly, what will be the charges to people who, apparently, will only have this one bank account (operated through the post office) and only use it for the one purpose?
    These are very difficult questions and it is right that the House should express concern. However, as has been pointed out, we do so in something of a limbo. We are told that the PIU report is about to arrive, though somewhat late after a number of delays. Obviously that may be relevant to the final conclusion that we reach on the issue. In the meantime, it is only right that the Minister should make clear what is her reaction to the noble Earl's amendment which says that the system and,
    "the regulations may not require automated credit transfer to be the only manner of paying a benefit".
    9.45 p.m.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have to say that there is a faint air of unreality about this debate. Indeed, we have been through this discussion over and over again. I do not know where the problem lies. However, before I go into the main part of my text and try to deal with the detail, perhaps I may point out that people seem to be confusing the method of getting the money to the post office and the method employed by the benefit claimant in getting the money out of the post office. I am absolutely baffled by the failure to comprehend the situation. Frankly, it does not matter tuppence whether the money comes through ACT, through Securicor vans drawing up at the post office, and so on, as long as the person in the village or the

    873
    small community goes to the post office with some form of identification—in this case, the card—and draws the money out. That is what will happen.
    People will draw their money in cash; it will be paid to them by the post office in cash. How it gets to the post office, which is the mode of ACT, or, alternatively, to a bank account held at the post office, does not matter. That is irrelevant from the point of view of the recipient. I cannot comprehend why we seem to be at cross-purposes here. Instead of having an order book in their pocket when they go to the post office—the equivalent of a ration book—people will have their card. When they go to the post office counter, they will decide how much they wish to withdraw and that will be the money they receive. All that will happen is that instead of an order book there will be a card. I am baffled and genuinely cannot comprehend—if I may be so rude as to say this—why noble Lords are making such heavy weather of this.
    Baroness Byford: My Lords, I am grateful to the noble Baroness for giving way. I am trying not to labour the point, but I hope that if the noble Baroness can answer one or two of the questions that we have asked we can then move on. I have no argument with the prospect of people being able to draw benefit in cash. However, there are two critical matters. First, will the post offices still exist for them to be able to draw the cash? I think the Minister will accept that 40 per cent of the income of many sub-postmasters is gained from handling benefits. If they lose that 40 per cent of their income, unless another payment is made, those post offices are likely to close. The noble Baroness has not responded to that point. That is why I mentioned the PRI report.
    The noble Baroness said that it did not matter whether a card or a book was used for the purpose we are discussing. However, a book or a smartcard will still constitute a cost. Whatever form of identification is used will still constitute a cost. I accept the Minister's assurance that claimants will be able to draw cash from the post office. However, unless the postmasters are compensated for the 40 per cent of their income that they will lose under the system that is proposed, I repeat that the post offices are likely to close.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, mentioned the issues in terms of the position of recipients, post offices and communities. I hope that we are now all agreed that, provided post offices continue to exist, recipients face not only no disadvantages from the system that is proposed but many additional advantages. They will be able to have part payment of benefit and they will have greater security against fraud. I understand that they will be able to use their card at any post office in the country, rather than just at their local one. Therefore, when they go to visit their mum, their daughter, their niece or their nephew they will have that convenience. Therefore, in my view, customers have everything to gain—they will gain far more advantages than they currently have—from a card system.
    874
    The noble Baroness asked about the cost implications of a card as opposed to a book. I cannot give a precise figure. However, the card is not a smartcard. My understanding of a smartcard is one that has information encoded on it. That is done through expensive technology. However, I am talking simply about an ID card like a storecard. I am talking about the kind of card one gets at Tesco or Boots. I cannot say whether the costs of such a card are less or more than those of an existing giro book, but I have no reason to think that they are extensive.
    Lord Boardman: My Lords, does the noble Baroness believe that sub-postmasters, who have studied these proposals in great depth, do not feel that they will damage their small, rural businesses?
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I am trying to deal with the points in order. I was discussing the position of the recipients and whether they will be able to draw their benefit in cash. That will be the case. The card will not constitute a charge on them. They will not face any charges for using the card. However, they will have additional service facilities. They will have greater protection against fraud. They will have greater convenience of use, including out of hours use and the use of cash machines. I hope that I have dealt with that bundle of concerns.
    Whether one refers to post offices or banks and whether one says that people draw their money from a post office which also offers banking services, or whether one wants to call it a universal post office bank does not matter provided that people can obtain the amount of money they want at a time and in a way that is convenient to them and which offers greater security.
    Lord Higgins: My Lords, has the noble Baroness tried putting a cashcard into the cash machine downstairs? Has the machine issued a notice saying that she may be charged for that transaction? How much does the noble Baroness think that she will be charged? That is much the same point as we are now discussing.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I have used the cash machine and I do not get charged. As my noble friend Lady Gale rightly said, people will have a choice. Some people may use cash machines, of which we understand there will be about 3,000 in the 18,000 existing post offices. However, that figure may increase. They may have access to their existing bank for which the post office acts as an agent in the post office branch. That would be exactly the same situation as now. Already a large proportion of banks have made arrangements, including Barclays, Lloyds, the TSB, the Alliance & Leicester and so on.
    The third proposed method is for a universal bank—a Post Office bank, if you like—in which, whether you call it a bank or a holding account, the post office will hold the account. You will not be able to write cheques on it; you will simply draw your benefits out. The only difference customers will notice

    875
    is that they will go in with their card rather than their order book—and it will be a darn sight safer as a result. Whichever method the customer chooses, he or she will have those options within a post office.
    That was the first point made; I hope that I have addressed it. We seem to be making extraordinarily heavy weather of something that most of us do two or three times a week when we go into stores and so on.
    The second point concerned the position of the post office and the owner. The noble Baroness is absolutely right: we are expecting the PIU report very imminently. As of 21st or 22nd June, the Prime Minister said it would be within the next few days; it is very imminent indeed. I should feel more comfortable discussing the possible future of the network of post offices in the context of that report. I hope and believe that that, taken together with the commitments given in the Postal Services Bill, will address the noble Baroness's point. I shall have to ask her to wait for that, I am afraid—otherwise I should be in severe danger of contempt, if you like, of the other House.
    The third point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Higgins—it was also raised by the noble Lord, Lord Boardman—and concerned the position of rural communities and what was happening to them. It is true that in the past 10 years something like 10 per cent of the rural post office network has been lost; about 25 per cent of the banking network has been lost; and about 30 per cent of rural community petrol stations have been lost. For various reasons, people are choosing to go elsewhere.
    But it still remains the case that in the UK something like 70 per cent of all communities with more than 500 people have a post office; 30 per cent of communities with populations of 100 to 500 have a post office; and, in terms of density of post offices compared to France, Germany and the rest of the world, we have a greater density of post offices than almost anywhere else. Some 90 per cent of people live within a mile of a post office. So in that sense we have a very good network.
    The question is whether what we are doing is likely to enhance and strengthen the network or likely to see it slide. As I said, some of these questions must await the publication of the PIU report. I hope that your Lordships will not pursue this matter tonight but will wait for the report and come back at Third Reading if you are dissatisfied. That is the only way we can have a fair debate without putting me in the impossible position of being asked to divulge information that is not yet in the public domain.
    At the end of the day, the point made by my noble friend Lord Warner is absolutely right: post offices cannot stand still. If nothing happened to benefit books, post offices would continue to close at an accelerating rate because people increasingly find that the order book/ration book system is not a convenient way of getting their money. They are choosing to vote with their feet and to leave the post office behind. That leaves as a result the footfall, if I may use that phrase,
    876
    of the quarter or so of moneys which comes out of the post office and is immediately recycled into the local community.
    If post offices are to survive, they have got to stop the leakage of customers. Some 500,000 customers a year are choosing to stop using a post office and to go to a bank because they find it more convenient. How will post offices do that? By offering the same facilities, and, as a result, being able to recycle that quarter or third of moneys into other facilities—the local shop and so on—that often run in parallel with the post office. If they do not do that, the Post Office will shrink and shrink and shrink. People are not prepared any longer to live with the ration book service—the long queues, the inconvenient hours, the lunchtime closing, the half-day closing, the Saturday afternoon closing and so on. They want a more generous and expanded service. That can be achieved through machines, through a universal bank, through bank accounts being held at post offices and so on.
    I am confident that, at the end of the day, post offices will survive because their communities support them. The Government have given broad undertakings on their position in regard to subsidy. That will be looked at again in terms of the PIU report and succeeding debates. But your Lordships will know that we are not expecting to move to the new system until 2003 and that there will be a two-year transition after that. Some of the fine detail—about which post office, what access criteria, what level of subsidiarity and so on—is quite commercially sensitive to be discussed between government and POCL and POCL and the sub-postmasters. Noble Lords will understand that.
    I return to the basic questions of the noble Lord, Lord Higgins. As regards the recipients, I am confident that they will see an enhanced service and they will wonder why anyone ever argued the virtue of order books and giros. The more I learn about this, and the more I read the draft copies of the PIU report and so on, the more confident I am about it. With regard to the position of post offices, they will survive only if they meet their communities' needs and as a result get the footfall of that money circulating. We believe that this way of doing it is the better way forward for them to do so.
    As for the communities, at the end of the day post offices will survive because people choose to support them, in the same way as pubs, village halls and schools survive. I ask your Lordships to defer any decision or vote on this issue until the PIU report has been published. I guarantee that the PIU report will be out before we come to Third Reading. There will be ample time. In the light of that, some of the concerns, which in all good faith I cannot address today for reasons noble Lords will understand, will I think be met.
    I hope I have satisfied noble Lords on the point about the recipients. On the point about post offices and their communities, I suggest that noble Lords await the PIU report. If they are dissatisfied following

    877
    that, they can return to the matter at Third Reading. Therefore, I hope that noble Lords will not seek to press their amendments.
    10 p.m.
    Earl Russell: My Lords, I am extremely sorry to have baffled the Minister. I think the Minister has forgotten quite how reluctant noble Lords on the Opposition Benches are to accept government assurances.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, surely not with New Labour!
    Earl Russell: My Lords, while the Minister was speaking I recalled the days when the noble Lord, Lord Peston, was in Opposition, observing that the Government's basic policy was, "It'll be all right on the night". There is a great deal about government which does not change with a change of party.
    Of course, I understand the distinction that the Minister is making between how the money reaches the post office and how it reaches the claimant. But I think the Minister also understands the point made by the noble Baroness, Lady Byford, about the income of the sub-postmaster. At present I do not understand how a saving of £400 million is compatible with a continuing secure income for a sub-postmaster. It is perfectly possible that that question may have an answer. It is perfectly possible—
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I should have thought that my noble friend Lord Sainsbury gave the noble Earl and other noble Lords that answer during discussion on the Postal Services Bill about the capacity of the Secretary of State to devise a subsidy where he and POCL thought it was appropriate.
    Earl Russell: My Lords, I touched on that point in moving my amendment. The words are "the Secretary of State may". It does not say he will; it does not say what he may do. The Minister is asking us to take a good deal on trust. I appreciate that before the publication of the PIU report she may have no other option. But it is not that long since she was in Opposition. She cannot have completely forgotten what it felt like. If, in the meantime, we do feel a desire for belt and braces, or, if she prefers it, for elastic and safety pins, I do not think that she should be too surprised.
    I heard the points made by the noble Lord, Lord Warner. Those were serious points and I listened to them carefully. I appreciate the force of what he says. But what concerns us is that we should not be too far embarked on the new method of doing that before a secure method of making the post offices work has been worked out. We have come very close to that already. We on these Benches have no wish to come any closer.
    It may be that by the time we come back again there will be no need to return to this matter. We will read with an open mind what the Government have to say
    878
    in the PIU report. In the meantime, I shall withdraw my amendment. But should I be justified in the suspicions I see of the fullness of the Benches opposite, we are quite ready to stretch our legs if the Government wish us to. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
    Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
    [Amendment No. 122 not moved.]
    Schedule 7 [Housing benefit and council tax benefit: revisions and appeals]:
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 123:
    Page 144, line 37, leave out ("(4)") and insert ("(3)").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in moving Amendment No. 123, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 124 to 126. These are minor and technical amendments to Schedule 7.
    I apologise for trying the patience of the House with further amendments, but I can assure noble Lords that these amendments, although minor and technical in nature, effect a necessary correction to an oversight in the current draft. They ensure that standard parliamentary procedure is followed in respect of all regulations made under Schedule 7 and clarify the scope of those regulations. I therefore ask noble Lords to accept the amendment. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 124 to 126:
    Page 144, line 39, leave out ("of the Secretary of State").
    Page 144, line 40, leave out ("his powers") and insert ("any power").
    Page 144, line 48, leave out ("by the Secretary of State").
    On Question, amendments agreed to.
    [Amendments Nos. 127 and 128 not moved.]
    Clause 75 [Contributions in respect of benefits in kind: Great Britain]:
    [Amendments Nos. 129 to 132 not moved.]
    Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 133:
    Page 76, line 40, at end insert—
    ("( ) In paragraph 8(1)(ia) of that Schedule (power to provide by regulations for repayment in prescribed cases of the whole or a part of a Class 1B contribution), after "part" there shall be inserted "of a Class 1A or.").
    The noble Baroness said: My Lords, in speaking to Amendment No. 133, perhaps I may speak also to Amendments Nos. 139 and 142 to 145. This group puts into effect a technical, consequentiail amendment which was unfortunately missed when the legislation was drafted. The purpose is to allow refunds of Class 1A national insurance contributions to continue to be made where relevant information reaches the employer late and leads to him overpaying Clause 1A NICs through no fault of his own.
    Paragraph 8(1)(i) of Schedule 1 to the Contributions and Benefits Act confers powers on the Treasury to provide by regulations for the refund of Class 1A

    879
    NICs, in particular where an employer is told relevant information about his employee's business mileage which affects the valuation of a car benefit after he has paid his Clause 1A NICs. The change in valuation for tax in turn affects the liability for Class 1A NICs so, where appropriate, a refund is made.
    I could go into further detail on what I promise noble Lords are technical amendments, but perhaps I may ask that the amendment be accepted. I beg to move.
    On Question, amendment agreed to.
    Lord Goodhart Lord Goodhart moved Amendment No. 134:
    After Clause 75, insert the following new clause—

  PAYMENTS TREATED AS REMUNERATION OR EARNINGS
  (" .—(1) For paragraph (a) of subsection (4) of section 4 of the Social Security Contributions and Benefits Act 1992 there shall be substituted—
  "(a) the value, at the date when it is obtained, of a right to acquire shares in a body corporate obtained by the earner as a director or employee of that or any other body corporate,".
  (2) After that subsection there shall be inserted—
  "(4A) The value referred to in subsection (4)(a) shall be taken to be the difference between the amount that a person might reasonably expect to obtain from a sale of the right in the open market immediately after it was obtained and the amount or value of the consideration (other than the performance of any duties in or in connection with the office or employment by reason of which the right was granted) given for the grant of the right.
  (4B) Subsection (4)(a) shall apply to rights obtained after 5 April 1999 if and in so far as those rights have not been exercised or released before 19 May 2000."
  (3) Where subsection (4)(a) of that section (as substituted) applies to any rights obtained after 5 April 1999 but before this section came into force, the contributions in respect of those rights become due on the date on which this section comes into force but shall be treated as bearing interest from the date on which the contributions would have become due if this section had been in force on the date when the rights were obtained.").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I apologise for raising a technical and complicated issue late at night. However, I suppose that I would need also to apologise for raising it earlier in the day when even more Members would be bored by it.
  This amendment, along with Amendment No. 135, concerns national insurance contributions paid on share options granted to employees as a part of their remuneration packages. As I am sure noble Lords know, this is a common practice among the staff of e-commerce dot.com companies and other businesses involved in the IT world. Indeed, I believe that the practice is pretty much universal among the more senior employees. Perhaps I should declare an indirect interest here. I have a son-in-law who works for an IT company and receives share options as a part of his remuneration package.
  Until 6th April 1999, no NICs were payable on share options forming part of a remuneration package even though they were, particularly in high-tech businesses, an important part of that package. I believe that the Government rightly regarded that as a loophole which
  880
  needed to be closed. They went about it in a way that has subsequently raised a number of problems. For options granted on or after 6th April 1999 the Government imposed Part I NICs on gains from the exercise of the share options except where they were exercised as part of an Inland Revenue approved scheme. That meant that not only did an employee have to pay the primary contributions for NICs—in many cases that was probably not an important factor because many of the employees had earnings in cash above the upper earnings limit and therefore had nothing extra to pay—but also that the employer had to pay secondary Class I contributions on which there is no upper earnings limit.
  If one imposes NICs on an option when it is exercised, at the date of the grant the employer is going to be very uncertain indeed both about the date at which he will have to pay the secondary contribution and the amount to be paid. But under accountancy rules he has to make provision for future liability to pay NICs on the options. The accountants insist on what might be called a gloomy view of the liability being undertaken.
  A company called QXL, which provides auctions on the Internet, had to make provision in its last year accounts for future liabilities for secondary NICs on options of £11.6 million. This was on a total turnover for that year—not profits—of £6.9 million. The consequences for the ability of a company in that position to raise money from the market is very obvious indeed.
  In Clause 78 the Government have taken some steps to deal with the problem. They did so by introducing at Committee stage an extremely complicated amendment. The identical Clause 82 deals separately with the same situation for Northern Ireland businesses. The Government introduced these amendments at very short notice.
  The main purpose of these amendments is to allow employers, by agreement with their employees, to transfer the liability for secondary contributions on the share option gained to the employees so that they pay both the primary and secondary contributions. That applied to agreements entered into after 19th May. One can see, in that situation where the employee is offered the choice between paying the secondary contribution himself or getting no option at all, that it is going to be pretty easy to reach agreement.
  At Committee stage I did not object to the amendment, but I said that if there were going to be problems I would expect to hear from those who were concerned about the government amendments. Indeed, that is exactly what happened. I was approached by QXL and also by a well known public relations firm representing a number of major clients in the e-commerce world. I saw them and I was persuaded that they had a case which required discussion and which was a proper matter to raise in your Lordships' House. I should say that the amendment was drafted by me and has not been discussed with the businesses concerned.
  It is, I think, agreed by firms in the e-commerce world that the government amendments in Clauses 78 and 82 are an improvement on the status quo. But there are two serious complaints. First, the amendments provide no relief from the unexpectedly large liabilities for secondary contributions incurred by those granting options since 6th April 1999. Those liabilities are unexpectedly large as a result of the enormous increase in the value of e-commerce shares and, therefore, the value of options which have occurred after April 1999; and although it has declined from its peak earlier this year, it is still a long way above what it was in April 1999.
  The second complaint by those companies was that the effect of the transfer of liabilities for secondary contributions from employers to employees is to create an effective tax rate of 47 per cent on gains, even taking into account the fact that, for tax purposes, the secondary contributions will be allowed as expenses against tax before the tax liability is computed. So there is an effective tax rate of 47 per cent, taking income tax and NICs together. In the view of those companies, that is likely to discourage the mobile and very expert workforce required in businesses of that kind from taking jobs in the United Kingdom, and it may lead some of the companies to move their operations abroad. The companies are highly mobile. They can, of course, set up in virtually any part of the world that they choose.
  The amendment seeks to deal with both those problems. It proposes that the NIC liabilities are to be charged on the value of the option rights when the option is granted and not when it is exercised. That will leave the liability for secondary contributions with the employer, but on a much smaller amount and on a more easily ascertainable basis, not on an open-ended basis as to the ultimate liability.
  The amendment proposes, secondly, that the new basis of calculation will be made retrospective, subject to a liability to pay interest. It seems in principle fair to charge the NICs on the option value at the date of the grant because that is the value of the remuneration package when it is paid, and it seems that it is perfectly legitimate to treat the subsequent increase in value of an option as something in the nature of a capital gain, on which NICs are not charged. It is obvious that an option has a value, even if the option is to buy shares at a price at, or even above, the level at which those shares stand at the date when the option is granted. It is a one-way bet: if it is not in your interest to exercise the option, you do not have to; if it is, you can exercise it. The amendment also preserves the liability for secondary contributions on the employer, which seems to us to be the place where it belongs.
  I have to say that I was subsequently approached by another company, NTL, which is also in the IT business and which prefers the Government's formula to the formula in my amendment. So it is clear that there is no consensus in the world of high-tech. It may be that the issue could be solved by giving a right to elect to pay either on the value of the option at the date of the grant or to transfer the liability to the employee and base i1 on the gain on the exercise of the option.
  I think that everyone in this world is agreed that it is desirable that this extremely high, unforeseen liability which has arisen as a result of the great increase in the value of Internet shares over the past 14 months should be brought back to more manageable levels because of the serious effect that these outstanding and wholly unpredictable liabilities will have on the financial situation of high-tech companies.
  I would normally have tabled the amendment in Committee but had no opportunity to do so, so I have brought it forward for discussion now. Have the Government considered charging NICs on the value of the option at the date of the grant? If so, why was that option rejected in favour of the alternative that they have adopted? Are the Government prepared to give some relief to companies that have incurred high and unpredictable liabilities for future NICs that they would not have done, had they granted options under the formula that will take effect from 19th May? I beg to move.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, the House will have felt a sense of déjà vu when the noble Lord moved his amendment because in the previous welfare Bill we encountered considerable problems regarding the IT industry, the danger of people going abroad and so forth.
  Like the noble Lord, I have also had correspondence from qxl.com and NTL.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, they cancel each other out.
  Lord Higgins: As the noble Baroness says; we will have to consider which end of the argument we favour. Perhaps the quickest way for the Minister to reply would be to say she agrees or disagrees with qxl.com or NTL. Having said that, there is considerable overlap and concern.
  There may be implications, as last year, for the international mobility of companies. The evidence seems a little conflicting because there may be problems with the American accountancy system as well as of taxation in this country. It is unfortunate that this issue has arisen late in the day, although that is in no sense the Government's fault. We will see what arrives in our e-mail—no doubt in droves—between now and Third Reading.
  There is concern that the Government's proposals do nothing to address historical liabilities on existing share options, which need to be taken into account. One of the companies says that it is illogical and unfair that employers will have to pay national insurance on the price of the shares they grant when they will only benefit from an increase in the value of the shares; and that employees will face an unfunded tax liability, which would be particularly regressive for employees new to share ownership. Similarly, employers who have yet to move into profit will face unfunded tax burdens. Clearly, when share prices go up and down this is a very difficult situation overall. The noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, was inclined to refer to share prices going up but they can also go down. At the

  883
  moment prices are going up and down like a yo-yo. The exact moment when the tax charge hits may be of considerable significance. The charge may arise at a time when the price goes up but the individual may have to pay it at a time when the price has reduced. This is a simple matter, and I hope that the noble Baroness is able to explain it in words of one syllable.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I want to be very careful in what I say. Obviously, one is considering certain liabilities, quite apart from jokes about company representations cancelling out each other. Having given a reasonably full reply—this is a matter of concern which noble Lords were unable to debate at Committee stage—I am happy to repeat the offer, if it is of assistance, of a further meeting before Third Reading between officials and the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Higgins, to pursue the matter in a way that we cannot on the Floor of the House. Because the amendments were tabled rather late noble Lords were unable to debate the matter fully in Committee.
  I start by explaining briefly the purpose of the Government's position. I shall then explain why I recommend that the House reject the amendment moved this evening. Some background may be helpful. Noble Lords will be aware that my honourable friend the Financial Secretary has been consulting employers with a view to finding a technical solution to a problem that has arisen in relation to national insurance contributions on share option gains. Since 6th April 1999 gains made by employees when they exercise unapproved share options granted after 5th April 1999 are subject to Class 1 NICs. This means that the NICs charge is now on the same basis as income tax through PAYE.
  This has caused a number of problems for employers. Companies have informed us that, while they can plan for NICs on regular pay, it is more difficult for them to plan on share option gains, particularly where the share price behaves like a yo-yo, as the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, suggested, as in the high-tech sector of the economy. Employers are required to make a provision in their profit and loss accounts for the accruing NIC liability, based on the market value of the shares at the relevant accounting date. The need to make this provision can make some companies technically insolvent. Exposure to an unpredictable NICs liability can also mean that some companies miss their performance targets. When that happens the market response can be devastating.
  Class 1 national insurance contributions consist of a primary contribution which is payable by the employee and a secondary contribution which is payable by the secondary contributor, who in most circumstances is the employer. Current social security legislation provides a statutory bar to prevent employers from recovering any part of their secondary Class 1 liability from the employee. The government amendment introduced in Committee strengthens that
  884
  protection for the employee, but at the same time introduces an exception for NICs arising on share option gains.
  The government amendment does three things. First, it allows employers and employees to reach an agreement that a secondary contributor (usually the employer) may recover from the employee some or all of the secondary NICs in respect of rights to acquire shares. I emphasise that it is the employer and that it is voluntary. Secondly, as an alternative, the employer may make an application for approval of an election to the Board of Inland Revenue. If approval is obtained, the employer and employee can jointly elect to transfer all or some of the liability to pay the secondary NICs on the share option gain to the employee. Elections can be made only after the Inland Revenue has given its approval to the form of the election and the accompanying arrangements for securing that the NICs liability transferred to the employee is paid.
  The ability to transfer the liability has been proposed as a direct response to representations made to the Financial Secretary during the consultation exercise. We have worked with several high growth companies to introduce a solution which will overcome accounting difficulties for companies that report in the United States that would otherwise arise if the employer simply recovered the NICs.
  Thirdly, our amendment strengthens the existing statutory bar that prevents the employer recovering any part of the secondary NIC in respect of all forms of earnings (subject to the new exception for share options). It extends protection to the employee by ensuring that the person liable to pay the Class 1A NICs (on benefits in kind) or Class 1B (on PAYE settlement agreements) cannot recover his liability from the employee. I emphasise that the amendment that the Government introduced at Committee puts in place a solution that a number of companies have requested, and we are meeting those requests. The Government have consulted widely on this solution, and it is clear that many companies to whom we have spoken are eager to set up such arrangements.
  The merit of this solution to companies is that it can eliminate or neutralise the need to make a provision for the accruing NIC liability in their accounts. It can remove the difficulties on the employer's cash flow caused by the need to pay NIC based on an unpredictable share price and the uncertainty caused by not knowing when the employee will exercise the option. The Government's proposal will allow the NIC liability to be moved to the employee who has control over when the option is exercised and who will have funds or shares which can be sold to meet the liability.
  Noble Lords asked in Committee whether an employee who agreed to take on the responsibility for the secondary NIC would still be required to do so if the option had gone "underwater". I can confirm that the employee would not be required to pay NIC on the exercise of such an option as the employee would not make a gain in the circumstances where he has to pay

  885
  more for the shares than he could buy them for on the open market. Indeed most employees would not exercise the option in such circumstances.
  The amendment we introduced in Committee will help to attract business and jobs to the UK and help UK companies compete in the global market. It goes towards meeting the Government's aim of a fairer NI system by ensuring that NICs are paid on share options and not treated more favourably than other forms of remuneration. It is also cost neutral on the National Insurance Fund.
  10.30 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, perhaps the noble Baroness could slow down just a little.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I thank the noble Lord. I deal now with the amendment tabled by the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, and the noble Earl, Lord Russell. As I mentioned to the House earlier, social security legislation currently provides a statutory bar to prevent employers from recovering any part of their Class 1 liability from the employee. The first effect of this amendment would be to ensure that Class 1A (NICs liability on benefits in kind) and Class 1B (NICs liability on PAYE voluntary settlement agreements) would remain excluded from this statutory bar. I am sure that I can count on support from all sides of the House in suggesting that we do not want to leave the employee exposed in this manner.
  The second effect of this amendment would be to move the NICs charge from the exercise of unapproved options to the "intrinsic" value of the options at the date of grant. This would mean that employees and employers would have to pay NICs regardless of whether the options are eventually exercised or if the value of the shares were to fall. So NICs would have to be paid purely on the expectation of a realisation of value and not a tangible gain in value; the NICs payable would not reflect the gain that the employee actually made.
  M any high growth companies have told us that they grant share options because they are unable to offer competitive cash salaries, particularly when they start up in business. This amendment would mean that these companies would face an NICs charge when they grant: options to employees—at the time when they are least likely to be able to pay. We see a number of difficulties with the noble Lord's proposals. First, employees would be required to pay NICs at the time they receive the option. This could mean that they have to pay at a time when they have insufficient cash to meet their liabilities. Currently, employees can sell some of their shares when they exercise their options to meet their liabilities.
  Secondly, we would go back to the position that existed for NICs pre 6th April 1999, and so take the NICs charge back out of alignment with the income tax charge through PAYE. This will mean that PAYE and NICs will have to operate on two different figures. Employers said at the time that this caused considerable administrative problems.
  886
  Thirdly, the amendment will increase administrative costs for employers and the Inland Revenue, due to the added complexity of accurately valuing options over shares at the time of grant—and there is considerable difficulty in identifying a method that would allow this to be done accurately. Employers would be required I o operate a valuation model such as that provided in the Black Scholes Model. These models do not always easily apply themselves to high growth and unquoted companies. It will mean that options will have to be valued at grant for NICs purposes and again at exercise for income tax purposes—in other words, what happens when one disjoins them. Currently a valuation for income tax through PAYE is also acceptable for NICs.
  Fourthly, the position that existed prior to 6th April 1999 will re-open an avoidance route that was used by companies, particularly in the City, to pay large bonuses to directors, and other highly paid employees, free of NICs. Any proposal to scale back the current NICs charge and charge it at grant brings with it the opportunity for new forms of avoidance.
  Fifthly, the effect of this amendment would be that employees and employers who are paid in cash would pay more NICs than employees and employers where share options form an integral part of the remuneration package. The Government believe that that is unfair. I thought the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, too, felt this was unfair, given his remarks at Committee stage.
  Sixthly, the effect of this amendment would reduce income to the National Insurance Fund. The amount is difficult to predict because it is based on the volatility of the share price, but our provisional estimate is that it is likely to cost the National Insurance Fund in the region of £350 million a year. This could also result in a move away from bonuses paid in cash to share options and some substitution of cash pay with share options. If this were to happen the loss to the National Insurance Fund could be multi-millions. This could also affect employees' entitlement to contributions-based, earnings-related and work-related payments such as statutory sick pay or statutory maternity pay.
  Finally, perhaps I may mention, after those six compelling arguments, a small technicality, which is that the amendment as drafted will not apply to Northern Ireland legislation, where NICs would remain payable on the exercise of unapproved options.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I was well aware that it did not apply to Northern Ireland. It was simply that in this age of saving paper I decided to save some by not putting down an amendment which would have been in identical terms, would have been equally long and would have applied to Northern Ireland, because the main purpose was to raise this for discussion. Any discussion relating to Great Britain applies in exactly the same terms to Northern Ireland.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I knew that it could not possibly have been an oversight or a technical deficiency, but that it was a wisely considered

  887
  and considerably reflected-on decision not to introduce into the House an amendment that was defective, knowing it that would have to be withdrawn. I congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Goodhart, on exhibiting his drafting skills in order to ensure that he has good grounds for taking back his amendment, given that he has conceded that he has good grounds.
  I have advanced six reasons. It was worth putting those on the record because they are important issues. It is clear that different companies are coming from different perspectives, as illustrated by the fact that one company, QXL, was unhappy with this and another company, NTL, supported the proposal. We believe that they cancelled each other out.
  For all those reasons—and I hope because of the very full answer I have been able to give tonight since we could not do this at Committee stage—I would ask the noble Lords to withdraw their amendments.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am very grateful to the Minister for the full and detailed answer which she gave. It is clearly right that we should have had this discussion tonight because it is a most important issue. It will affect a large number of companies in what is a very important sector of our economy. It will involve many hundreds of millions of pounds. Having listened to the explanation which the Minister gave, I must say that my initial reaction to it certainly is that NTL is correct and QXL is wrong on this, that the Government's proposals are more in the interests of both the Government and the companies involved in this field than the alternative I put forward, which is to charge NICs on the value at the date of grant.
  However, one aspect remains with which the Minister did not deal in great detail. It is now clear that the form in which this legislation was introduced in 1999 has created very serious problems. There are important drawbacks for companies which granted options between 6th April 1999 and 18th May 2000.
  It could be said that those companies did not need to grant options, but in many cases options were granted pursuant to a contract of employment entered into earlier or have become so central to this sector of the economy that companies would have been unable to employ people without. I know that NTL did not grant options during that period, but it is clear that some companies did.
  In that case, would it not be possible to consider giving some form of relief against the excessive liabilities faced by the companies which granted options during that period?
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, for obvious reasons, including the fact that the subject is beyond my normal range, I should be loath to give any such assurances. However, I repeat in good faith the offer I made to arrange a meeting with the noble Lords, Lord Goodhart and Lord Higgins, to discuss the issue with the relevant officials. They will be able to have a much more informed discussion than I could possibly have
  888
  at this time of night on a subject that is technical but none the less of major significance to the companies involved.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am grateful and should provisionally like to accept that invitation. I should like to discuss the matter with those who briefed me on the subject in order to see whether they believe that there is an issue worth debating. I believe that they will.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, we ran into similar technical problems last year with the IT industry and I recall an extensive discussion with the individual groups concerned under the inspiration of the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh. It might be helpful if a similar meeting could be arranged, not least because the representations we are receiving are on both sides.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, no, I would not want to go that far. I am happy to hear their voices through the opinions put by your Lordships, but the constituency of such a meeting would produce major problems. That would not be appropriate. However, I am happy to offer a meeting in order to explore some of the technical issues. If, on reflection, noble Lords believe that questions are unanswered or that there are some partial moves that the Government might make—no commitment as to the outcomes—your Lordships would have the opportunity to pursue them.
  Lord Goodhart: My Lords, I am happy to take up that invitation. Provisionally, I shall accept it and, subject to confirmation, I shall contact the Minister accordingly. In view of that, I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  Clause 78 [Liability of earner for secondary contributions: Great Britain]:
  [Amendment No. 135 not moved.]
  Clause 79 [Contributions in respect of benefits in kind: Northern Ireland]:
  [Amendments Nos. 136 to 138 not moved.]
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 139:
  Page 86, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) In paragraph 8(1)(ia) of that Schedule (power to provide by regulations for repayment in prescribed cases of the whole or a part of a Class 1B contribution), after "part" there shall be inserted "of a Class 1A or".").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Higgins Lord Higgins moved Amendment No. 140:
  Page 86, line 14, leave out ("with 6th April 2000") and insert ("on 6th April of the year after the date of commencement of this Act, or, if this Act comes into force on various dates, the earliest of those dates,").
  The noble Lord said: My Lords, I rise briefly to move the amendment. The group of amendments is related to contributions in respect of benefits in kind

  889
  in Northern Ireland. I am not sure whether a similar passage appears in—perhaps I may have the Minister's attention.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, I was taking advice from my learned friend, the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh.
  10.45 p.m.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, this requires very little learning. It is an extremely simple point in one sense in that it appears to introduce retrospectively the provisions of Clause 79, which is concerned with national insurance contributions in respect of benefits in kind for Northern Ireland. It states:
  "This section shall have effect in relation to the tax year beginning with 6th April 2000 and subsequent tax years".
  However, it is already mid June. I am not in the least clear as to why this particular measure is so urgent that it should be backdated to 6th April 2000. I do not believe that that would be the normal practice. Similarly, Amendment No. 141, which refers to subsection (8), states:
  "Regulations made by statutory instrument under any power conferred by virtue of this section may be made so as to have retrospective effect in relation to any time in the tax year in which they are made".
  I have the greatest difficulty in recollecting any piece of legislation which sets out in terms that it will have retrospective effect. That is something which, generally speaking, we are reluctant to do unless there is a good reason. However, no doubt the noble Baroness can provide us with one. I beg to move.
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham: My Lords, in answer to the noble Lord's last question my friends on the Front Bench refer me to the Sea Fishing Grants (Charges) Bill. Therefore, there are plenty of precedents such as that. I have a long answer and a short answer, but I do not believe that your Lordships want a long answer tonight. The amendments before us relate only to Northern Ireland. Clause 79 mirrors the GP provisions in Clause 75 in Northern Ireland and the NIC scheme is UK-wide. Therefore, my remarks make no specific reference to Northern Ireland.
  If the noble Lord, Lord Higgins, is seriously worried about this matter, my brief answer is that, given that we are proposing to arrange a meeting, I shall be happy to add it to the agenda. However, if your Lordships wish me to offer the House a fuller reply at this time of night on the amendment as tabled, I shall be happy to do so; but I suspect that the amendment as tabled is not the substance of the amendment to which the noble Lord spoke, which essentially relates to the Northern Ireland situation. Therefore, I am happy to read into the record a reply to the amendment as tabled, but it would not be a reply to the speeches made. It may be
  890
  that, in the light of those circumstances, the noble Lord would prefer to put the matter on the shopping list for our meeting.
  Lord Higgins: My Lords, I am puzzled as to why the noble Baroness's answer does not refer to the speech which I made. The normal procedure in this House is that it should. However, so far as concerns the amendment, I believe that what I said was exactly the same as what the amendment does; namely, it queries why there should be a retrospective effect. However, if the noble Baroness's reply does not seem relevant, perhaps it would be easier if she wrote to me and, if necessary, we can consider the matter at Third Reading—assuming that no one votes me down in trying to do that. I beg leave to withdraw the amendment.
  Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.
  [Amendment No. 141 not moved.]
  Schedule 9 [Repeals and revocations]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendments Nos. 142 to 145:
  Page 156, line 9, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 3(2)") and insert ("paragraphs 3(2) and 8(1)(i)").

  Page 156, line 16, column 3, at end insert-

  ("In Schedule 1, paragraph 19(2).")

  Page 156, line 30, column 3, leave out ("paragraph 3(2)") and insert ("paragraphs 3(2) and 8(1)(i)").

  Page 156, line 37, column 3, at end insert-

  ("In Schedule 1, paragraph 22(2),")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 87 [Commencement and transitional provisions]:
  Baroness Hollis of Heigham Baroness Hollis of Heigham moved Amendment No. 146:
  Page 96, line 16, leave out (", 9, 11 and 12") and insert ("and 9 to 12").
  The noble Baroness said: My Lords, I shall be extremely brief. This is a straightforward technical amendment which allows Schedule 5(10) to be brought into force on a date to be specified by commencement order instead of on the date of Royal Assent. Again, I suggest that your Lordships accept it. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  [Amendment No. 147 not moved.]

Crown Prosecution Service Inspectorate Bill [H.L.]
Returned from the Commons agreed to with a privilege amendment; the amendment considered and agreed to.
House adjourned at eleven minutes before eleven o'clock.

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Transport Bill
Tuesday, 27th June 2000.
The Committee met at half-past three of the clock
[The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill) in the Chair.]
The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Ampthill): Before I put the Question that the Title be postponed, it may be helpful to remind your Lordships of the procedure for today's Committee stage. Except in one important respect, our proceedings will be exactly as in a normal Committee of the Whole House. We shall go through the Bill clause by clause; noble Lords will speak standing; all noble Lords are free to attend and participate; and the proceedings will be recorded in Hansard.
The one difference is that the House has agreed that there shall be no Divisions in the Grand Committee. Any issue on which agreement cannot be reached should be considered again at the Report stage when, if necessary, a Division may be called. Unless, therefore, an amendment is likely to be agreed to, it should be withdrawn.
I should explain what will happen if there is a Division in the Chamber while we are sitting. The Committee will adjourn as soon as the Division Bells are rung and will then resume after 10 minutes.
Title postponed.
Clauses 1 and 2 agreed to.
Clause 3 [Restrictions on providing services]:
The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston)The Minister of State, Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions (Lord Macdonald of Tradeston) moved Amendment No. 1:
Page 2, line 42, leave out from ("area") to end of line 43.
The noble Lord said: I welcome Members of the Committee to this rather novel procedure in the Moses Room. The purpose of today's sitting of the Grand Committee is to consider government amendments to the Transport Bill. A revised Bill, as amended by the Grand Committee, will be printed overnight and will be available tomorrow. I am grateful to Members of the Committee for agreeing to remove all their amendments from the Order Paper for today's purposes. I understand that the Public Bill Office has offered assistance to noble Lords in retabling their amendments so that the references refer to the new version of the Bill. We are grateful for the help of the House authorities. The Bill will return to the Floor of the House for consideration in Committee in the usual way.
This group of amendments deals with the application of relevant provisions of Part I of the Bill to the Crown. The amendments consist of two new
CWH2
clauses, the first of which lists the provisions that will bind the Crown or may be applied to Crown aircraft. The second new clause provides that the Crown may not be found criminally liable by way of Part I, but persons acting on behalf of the Crown may, in certain cases, be found liable for criminal offences.
The provision that the Armed Forces of the Crown are not required to hold a licence to provide air traffic services is also moved into this section from Clause 3. Finally, provision is made that nothing in these Crown application provisions may affect Her Majesty in her private capacity. I beg to move.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 2:
Page 3, line 9, leave out subsection (5).
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 3, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 4 [Exemptions]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 3:
Page 3, line 38, at end insert—
("(e) may be granted subject to such conditions as may be specified.").
The noble Lord said: This group of amendments concerns regulatory and licence-related matters. The amendments are largely technical, and the bulk of the group—Amendments Nos. 6 to 11, which concern the powers of the Competition Commission to veto licence modifications proposed by the CAA—is merely bringing our Bill into closer alignment with other utility legislation.
Amendments Nos. 3 and 4 also make the Bill more consistent with other utility legislation. Amendment No. 3 permits conditions to be attached to exemptions from the offence created by Clause 3 of the Bill. Amendment No. 4 sets out in greater detail the provisions which may be included in the licence and in particular those provisions of the licence which will depend on the CAA giving the licensee a notice or a consent or making determinations.
Amendment No. 5 is important. It will allow the CAA to relieve the licensee of his Clause 8 duty in respect of services which he is not providing. While the licensee, who of course will be NATS, will be the main provider of air traffic services in licensed airspace, it will not be the sole provider and it would be unduly onerous if NATS were to be bound by statutory duties for services provided by others.
Amendments Nos. 12 and 13 extend Clause 31 so as to require the CAA to investigate alleged or apprehended contraventions of the licensee's Clause 8 duties, in the same way as it is required to investigate alleged contraventions of licence conditions.
Amendments Nos. 14 and 15 relate to Clause 32, which requires the CAA to maintain a register of provisions, modifications, notices and other matters for the purposes of Chapter I. Amendment No. 14 makes the wording of Clause 32 consistent with Clause 7, as amended by Amendment No. 4.
Amendment No. 15 extends Clause 32 so as to include the terms of every notice made in connection with Amendment No. 5. I beg to move.
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I rise to address the Deputy Chairman as much as other Members of the Committee. I am not quite sure what role we all have; that is, those of us who are not singing the solo which the Minister is singing, or supporting him. I wonder whether at any stage we are to debate the merits of any of these amendments. This is a rather puzzling procedure. We have 167 government amendments which, even if the noble Lord's singing is not interrupted by any discordant sounds from here, will put quite a strain on him and we should like to provide him with some intervals so that he can at least get his breath. I congratulate the noble Lord on the very suitable shyness on his part and on that of the Government with regard to wishing to get rid of this stage of the Bill as quickly and as quietly as possible without too much of the glare of public attention being directed to this thrilling subject.
In passing, I congratulate the Government on the choice of the Moses Room for our discussions on this particular occasion. The Moses Room has a wonderful quality—most of what one says in it is totally inaudible! Not even the skill of the Hansard Reporters will be equal to the task of getting down every sentence that is spoken. So one pays tribute to the Government's judgment in choosing this most doubtful of all arenas.
The Government had this Bill in another place for three months where a docile majority let it through after limited debate, and now we have to make up for the deficiencies in the Bill that the House of Commons did nothing to disturb. It seems a very odd procedure. This is probably the first time ever that such a long series of government amendments has been sidelined in this way, whereby the Bill can be "comfortably cleansed", at least in the Government's eyes. The whole procedure is very confusing.
Lord Islwyn: Would it not be appropriate to say that what the noble Lord is referring to has been arranged through what we call the "usual channels"?
Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I am neither a part of the "usual channels", nor an expert in their procedures and I tend on the whole to be suspicious when agreements are reached between the usual channels on matters of procedure. When the Government start to attract the congratulations and the agreement of the Opposition Front Bench I always become worried, whichever side I am on, and I am somewhat worried today.
I do not wish to prolong my remarks at this stage but I am concerned to know whether anybody expects anyone on this side of the Committee to say anything about the merits of the amendments that the
CWH4
Government are making. Alternatively, are they simply being put into the washing machine for a suitable piece of laundering?
Lord Brabazon of Tara: Before the Government Deputy Chief Whip intervenes, perhaps I can reassure him that my noble friends and I intend to speak on a number of the amendments. We are mainly concerned with matters of clarification. However, one or two possibly substantial points arise, although I shall not object to any of the amendments.
Perhaps I may say to my noble friend and to Members of the Committee that I find this procedure quite helpful. It in fact gives the Opposition two bites of the cherry. We can listen to the Government's arguments on their own amendments at this stage in the Bill; the Bill will then be reprinted for us tomorrow and we go into the ordinary Committee in a week or 10 days' time. At that stage, if we wish, we can go over all the same ground again. Similarly at Report stage. So we get an extra bite of the cherry, which is helpful. We will also have the benefit of being able to read the Minister's explanation of his amendments rather than having to react to them immediately as one does at the ordinary Committee stage.
Having said that, I have a point on this grouping upon which I should like some clarification. It concerns Amendment No. 10—the new clause after Clause 15. Having laid down a framework for both the Competition Commission and the Civil Aviation Authority in Clauses 1 and 2, the Government understandably want the Competition Commission to come within the new clause. However, reference to the Competition Commission under Clause 11 requires it to investigate whether matters referred to it,
"operate against the public interest".
The modifications it makes under Clause 15 are those needed to prevent effects adverse to the public interest. This is a much wider test than the objectives set out in the new clause and could conflict. I wonder if the Minister could comment on that. The obvious solution is to limit the investigation by the commission to matters operating against the framework set out in Clauses I and 2. But that would rather take the teeth out of any reference. A public interest provision could be included in Clauses 1 and 2, but that would make them rather wide in scope. Is the Minister in a position to comment on that?
3.45 p.m.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Amendments Nos. 6 to 11 deal with the role of the Competition Commission in the licence modification process. Clause 14 grants the Competition Commission a power of veto over some or all of the proposed licence modifications set out in a notice served upon it by the CAA. That power is limited to circumstances where the commission thinks that the CAA's modifications would not have the effect of remedying or preventing the adverse effect specified in the commission's reference report.

CWH5
Amendment No. 6 will have the effect of clarifying the extent of the application of the commission's power under this clause so that the commission is able to give a direction only where it thinks that the CAA's proposed modifications either go too far or do not go far enough. Although in common parlance the words "appropriate" and "needed" have much the same meaning, we consider that "appropriate" in this context may be misinterpreted so as to extend the commission's power beyond that which is intended.
The amendment will ensure that the commission is able to exercise its potentially swingeing power only in the necessary circumstances. Thus there is a back-stop provision for the commission to intervene at this stage in the licence modification process. The prime responsibility will remain with the regulator but the commission will be able to interpose a check if the regulator seems disposed to be too lenient or too draconian.
Amendment No. 9 will require the commission, after making a licence modification, to bring the fact to the attention of all parties likely, in its opinion, to be affected by it along with the reason for making the modification. That will be done through the publication of an appropriate notice, and in the case of a licence holder the CAA and the Secretary of State, service of a copy of the modification itself. In that way we shall introduce greater transparency into the modification process where the Competition Commission has become involved.
Amendment No. 10 is the first of the two new clauses directly related to the application of the commission's veto and modification powers which are exercisable under Clauses 14 and 15. This new clause requires the commission, when exercising its functions under subsections 15(2) and (3), to have regard to the CAA's duties set out in Clause 2. In this way both the CAA and the Competition Commission will, when considering licence modifications, be having regard to the same considerations. Accordingly, where the commission has exercised that power of veto under Clause 24, it will arrive at a modification which is entirely consistent with the CAA's general duties and which the CAA will be able to enforce.
Amendment No. 10 follows equivalent amendments to be made to existing utility legislation by the Utilities Bill.
3.45 p.m.
Earl Attlee: The Minister mentioned Clause 32 when he spoke to his amendment. That refers to a register of licence vetoes. Clause 32(2) states that:
"The register must be kept in such premises and in such form as the CAA decides".
We live in an electronic age. Does the Minister expect that details of the register will be published electronically?
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: Yes, I would expect that.
Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: I am mindful of the fact that it may be difficult to hear what everybody is
CWH6
saying in this room. Amendment No. 3 amends Clause 4, and Clause 4 provides for exemption to the general rules that it is an offence to provide air traffic services in a managed area. The amendment merely enables the Secretary of State to grant exemptions for that prohibition subject to condition. What is meant by the word "conditions" and how does that fit in with general concerns for safety and for Clause 8 duties? I simply do not understand Amendment No. 4. If you read it, it does not tell you anything and does not make much sense of what it does tell you. I am at a loss to know what to think about that one.
Amendment No. 5 has the sideline,
"Power to exclude services from the effect of section 8".
It allows the CAA to lift Clause 8 duties off the licence holder in respect of specified services. It may be said that those duties are not strict enough anyway, and if they can be lifted I should like to know in what circumstances and in regard to which duties they can be lifted.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: On Amendment No. 3 the sort of conditions which the noble Baroness asks about are those which might be imposed on those who benefit from an exemption, and conditions such as requiring the grantee to register with the CAA where that seems necessary, supplying the CAA with specified information or using specified types of equipment. Similar provisions are made in other utility legislation, and the Government consider that this amendment will enhance the regulatory regime, by giving it greater flexibility and allowing it to be tailored as necessary to the circumstances of the industry.
Amendment No. 4 sets out in greater detail the provisions which may be included in an operating licence.
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 4, as amended, agreed to.
Clauses 5 and 6 agreed to.
Clause 7 [Licences: provisions]:
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 4:
Page 5, line 28, at end insert—
("(1 A) In particular, provision of the following kinds may be included—

(a) provision requiring the licence holder to enter into an agreement for a purpose specified in the licence and provision for determining the terms of the agreement;

(b) provision requiring the licence holder to comply with any requirements imposed at any time (by directions or otherwise) by a person with respect to any matter specified, or of a description specified, in the licence;

(c) provision requiring the licence holder, except in so far as a person consents to its doing or not doing them, not to do or to do such things as may be specified, or of a description specified, in the licence:

(d) provision requiring the licence holder to refer to a person for approval or determination such matters as may be specified, or of a description specified, in the licence.

CWH7
(1B) A reference in subsection (1A) to a person is to—

(a) a person specified, or of a description specified, in the licence for the purpose concerned, or

(b) if the licence so provides, a person nominated for the purpose concerned by a person falling within paragraph (a);

and any of those persons may be the licence authority or some other person.").
On Question, amendment agreed to.
Clause 7, as amended, agreed to.
Clause 8 agreed to.
Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 5:
After Clause 8, insert the following new clause—

Official Report of the Grand Committee on the Transport Bill

  POWER TO EXCLUDE SERVICES FROM EFFECT OF SECTION 8
  (" .—(1) If a notice given by the CAA to a licence holder so provides, such air traffic services as are specified in the notice are to be treated as not being authorised services for the purposes of section 8 in its application to that holder.
  (2) A notice under subsection (1) may specify the air traffic services by reference to part of a licensed area.
  (3) A notice under this section may be modified or revoked by a further notice given by the CAA to the holder concerned.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 9 to 13 agreed to.
  Clause 14 [Commission's power to give direction]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 6:
  Page 10, line 9, leave out ("concerned are not appropriate") and insert ("set out in the notice are not the modifications which are needed").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 14, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 15 [Position where Commission gives direction]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 7 to 9:
  Page 10, line 41, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
  Page 11, line 1, leave out ("may") and insert ("must").
  Page 11, line 26, leave out from ("Commission") to end of line 27 and insert ("must—

  (a) publish a notice in such manner as the Commission thinks appropriate for bringing the matters to which it relates to the attention of persons likely to be affected by the modifications, and

  (b) serve a copy of the notice on the licence holder, a copy on the Secretary of State and a copy on the CAA.

  (7) The notice under subsection (6) must—

  (a) state that the modifications have been made,

  (b) set them out, and

  (c) set out the reasons for making them.").

  On Questions, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 15, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 10:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

  COMMISSION'S DUTY AS TO MODIFICATIONS UNDER SECTION 15
  (" .—(1) The Competition Commission must exercise its functions under section 15(2) and (3) in the manner it thinks best calculated—

  (a) to further the interests of operators and owners of aircraft, owners and managers of aerodromes, persons travelling in aircraft and persons with rights in property carried in them;

  (b) to promote efficiency and economy on the part of licence holders;

  (c) to secure that licence holders will not find it unduly difficult to finance activities authorised by their licences;

  (d) to take account of any international obligations of the United Kingdom notified to the CAA by the Secretary of State (whatever the time or purpose of the notification) and notified to the Commission by the CAA;

  (e) to take account of any guidance on environmental objectives given to the CAA by the Secretary of State after the coming into force of this section and notified to the Commission by the CAA;

  (f) to impose on licence holders the minimum restrictions which are consistent with the exercise of the Commission's functions (including the above paragraphs).

  (2) These interests are the only ones to be considered under subsection (1)(a)—

  (a) interests regarding safety;

  (b) interests regarding the range, availability, continuity, cost and quality of air traffic services.

  (3) The reference in subsection (1)(a) to furthering interests includes a reference to furthering them (where the Commission thinks it appropriate) by promoting competition in the provision of air traffic services.
  (4) If in a particular case there is a conflict in the application of the provisions of subsections (1) to (3). in relation to that case the Commission must exercise its functions under section 15(2) and (3) in the manner it thinks is reasonable having regard to the provisions of subsections (1) to (3) as a whole.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 11:
  After Clause 15, insert the following new clause—

  SECTIONS 14 AND 15: GENERAL
  (" .—(1) The provisions listed in subsection (2) apply in relation to the exercise by the Commission of its functions under section 14 or 15 as if—

  (a) references in section 82(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act to a report of the Commission under that Act were references to a notice under section 14(4) or 15(4) or (6) above:

  (b) references in section 85 of the 1973 Act to an investigation on a reference made to the Commission under that Act were references to an investigation by the Commission for the purposes of exercising its functions under section 14 or 15 above;

  (c)the reference in section 93B of the 1973 Act to the Commission's functions under Part IV, V, VI or VIII of that Act were a reference to its functions under section 14 or 15 above.

  (2) The provisions are—

  (a) sections 82(1) and (2) of the 1973 Act (exclusion of certain matters and absolute privilege);

  (b) section 85 of the 1973 Act (witnesses and documents);

  (c) section 93B of the 1973 Act (false or misleading information);

  (d) section 24 of the Competition Act 1980 (modification of provisions about Commission's general functions);

  (e) Part II of Schedule 7 to the Competition Act 1998 (Commission's general functions).

  (3) The 1973 Act is the Fair Trading Act 1973.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 16 to 27 agreed to.
  Schedules 1 and 2 agreed to.
  Clauses 28 to 30 agreed to.
  Schedule 3 agreed to.
  Clause 31 [Investigations]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 12 and 13:
  Page 21, line 14, after ("contravention") insert ("of a section 8 duty or").
  Page 21, line 18. at end insert—
  ("(3) A section 8 duty is a duty imposed on a licence holder by section 8.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 31, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 32 [Register]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 14 and 15:
  Page 21, line 28, leave out ("direction or determination made or") and insert ("requirement or determination made or direction,").
  Page 21, line 29, at end insert—
  ("(ee) the terms of every notice given under section (Power to exclude services from effect of section 8);").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 32, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 33 agreed to.
  Schedule 4 agreed to.
  Clause 34 agreed to.
  Schedule 5 agreed to.
  Clauses 35 to 47 agreed to.
  Clause 48 [Crown shareholding]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 16:
  Page 32, line 27, at end insert—
  ("( ) Grounds on which the Secretary of State may be satisfied that a scheme is in place as mentioned in subsection (3) include the grounds that the arrangements for the disposal of the shares include provision obliging the person acquiring them to ensure the completion of the project.
  ( ) For the purposes of this section a project concerns the development of major facilities if (and only if) the Secretary of State thinks that the value of the project is above £200 million.").
  The noble Lord said: This group of amendments makes a number of technical amendments to Part I Chapter II of the Bill, which contains provisions relating to transfer schemes and sale arrangements. Amendment No. 16 proposes the addition of two new
  CWH10
  subsections to Clause 48. Their aim is to clarify and strengthen the intention behind subsection (3), which was added to the Bill at Report stage in another place, with a view to reaffirming the Government's commitment to the two-centre strategy.
  Amendments Nos. 17 to 24 are technical in nature. They provide clarification to the drafting of paragraph 25 of Schedule 6, which contains detailed provisions on transfer scheme arrangements, and make consequential changes to Schedule 7, which deals with taxation matters and transfers.
  Amendments Nos. 25 and 26 provide a definition of the term "Northern Ireland Minister", which is used in Clauses 53 and 62. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: In my remarks on the first group of amendments I should have thanked the Minister for sending us all a letter and an explanation of some of these government amendments. I also sympathise with the Deputy Chairman for having to go through the whole of the Bill, clause by clause.
  I have three quick questions. First, I believe that Amendment No. 16 is slightly more than just a technical amendment, as it includes three matters that I would like to know about. The Minister has said that this concerns a two-centre strategy. However, I wonder why the amendment includes the words,
  "the Secretary of State thinks".
  Surely the value of a project is either over £200 million or less than £200 million. What do the thoughts of the Secretary of State have to do with it? Secondly, why has a figure of £200 million been chosen for this particular exercise? Thirdly, what happens if the developer fails to complete the project, having given the assurances that were made at the beginning?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In relation to the semantics, we can assume that the word "thinks" is synonymous with the word "believes" in the context of the decision to be made.
  The figure of £200 million as the cut-off figure was put into a second new subsection so that we could provide the missing definition of what constituted major facilities. It covers a project that, in the opinion of the Secretary of State, and according to our knowledge of the progress of a project, has a value in excess of £200 million. That figure was chosen because it is intended to capture the two major projects of Swanwick and the new Scottish Centre, but not others.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 48, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 49 to 60 agreed to.
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees: My Lords, as a Division has been called in the Chamber, the Committee stands adjourned for ten minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 3.59 to 4.09 p.m.]
  Schedule 6 [Transfer schemes]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 17 to 20:
  Page 187. line 48, at end insert—
  ("( ) an instrument or instruments under paragraph 9;").
  Page 188. line 1, leave out from ("effect") to end of line 3 and insert ("in relation to an agreement under paragraph 11 by virtue of sub-paragraph (1), sub-paragraph (2)(b) of paragraph 14 shall be disregarded.").
  Page 188, line 7, after ("11,") insert—
  ("( ) an instrument under paragraph 9,").
  Page 188. line 10, at end insert ("or the instrument").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 6, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 61 agreed to.
  Schedule 7 [Transfer schemes: tax]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 21 to 24:
  Page 195, line 13, after ("6,") insert—
  ("( ) an instrument executed under paragraph 9 of Schedule 6,").
  Page 195, line 24, after ("6") insert ("or is effected by an instrument executed under paragraph 9 of that Schedule").
  Page 195, line 33, after ("agreement") insert ("or instrument").
  Page 195. line 34. after ("agreement") insert ("or instrument").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 7, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 62 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 25 and 26:
  Page 41. line 3. at end insert—
  ("( ) a Northern Ireland Minister;").
  Page 41. line 18, at end insert—
  ("( ) "Northern Ireland Minister" includes the First Minister and the deputy First Minister in Northern Ireland.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 62, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 63 [Air navigation: directions]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 27:
  Page 42, line 16. leave out subsections (5) and (6).
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 27 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 28 to 33. Clause 63 provides that the Secretary of State nominates a member of the Civil Aviation Authority to perform air navigation functions, and it goes on to provide for national security functions. These amendments provide that the Secretary of State should in addition have the power to nominate another member of the Civil Aviation Authority to consider the relationships between air navigation functions and national security. If there is a difference of opinion between the nominee and the Civil Aviation Authority about those activities, and if the nominee thinks that if the Civil Aviation Authority's opinion prevailed it could have effect contrary to the interest of national
  CWH12
  security, the CAA must refer the matter to the Secretary of State. The Secretary of State must consult the CAA before giving directions to it as he thinks fit.
  In practice there would be a non-executive member of the Civil Aviation Authority appointed on the recommendation of the Secretary of State for Defence, and the national security nominee will be that member. That is provided for in the substantive Amendment No. 29. It was felt that the member nominated to perform the air navigation function should balance civil and military interests, as he is required to do under Clause 63(1), while the MOD-nominated member would be in a better position to represent the interests of national security. The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the Civil Aviation Authority to act on his behalf.
  The current definition of "managed area" is contained in Clause 68, which is concerned with interpretation. At present the term includes any area outside the United Kingdom in which the United Kingdom has undertaken to provide air traffic services. The final proposed amendment, Amendment No. 33, revises the definition to apply to air navigation services. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 28:
  Page 42. line 30, leave out from ("subsection") to end of line 32.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 63, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 29:
  After Clause 63, insert the following new clause—

  NATIONAL SECURITY
  (".—(1) The Secretary of State may nominate a member of the CAA for the purposes of this section, and in this section references to the national security nominee are to the person nominated under this section.
  (2) Subsection (3) applies if—

  (a) there is a difference of opinion between the national security nominee and the CAA,

  (b) the difference of opinion relates to the CAA's air navigation functions, and

  (c) the national security nominee thinks that if the CAA's opinion prevailed it could have an effect contrary to the interests of national security.

  (3) In such a case—

  (a) the CAA must refer the matter to the Secretary of State, and

  (b) after consulting the CAA the Secretary of State may give it such directions regarding the matter as he thinks fit.

  (4) The national security nominee may authorise a member or employee of the CAA to perform on his behalf the functions which he is to perform by virtue of this section; and while such an authorisation is effective references in subsection (2) to the national security nominee are to the person authorised under this subsection.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 64 agreed to.
  Clause 65 [Directions: supplementary]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 30 to 32:
  Page 42, line 44, leave out ("or (6) or section") and insert (", (National security)(3) or").
  Page 43, line 1. leave out ("or (6) or section") and insert (", (National security)(3) or").
  Page 43. line 11. leave out ("63(6)") and insert ("(National security)(3)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 65, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 66 and 67 agreed to.
  Clause 68 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Mcintosh of Haringey Lord Mcintosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 33:
  Page 45. line 7. leave out ("provide air traffic services") and insert (''carry out activities with regard to air navigation").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 68, as amended, agreed to.
  4.15 p.m.
  Clause 69 [Charges for services]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 34:
  Page 45, line 13, leave out ("traffic").
  The noble Lord said: The most important aspects of this group of amendments to Chapter IV of the Bill relate to the introduction of three new clauses. In the first new clause (Amendment No. 45), together with Amendments Nos. 34 and 40, we are seeking to allow the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) to charge for certain services that it provides. Those are where the CAA provides services in the performance of air navigation functions under Chapter III, for which Eurocontrol is to collect charges under the Eurocontrol agreement; and the CAA may include an amount in respect of specifying, publication and recovery, where under that agreement, Eurocontrol collects a charge in respect of the specification and publication of that charge and its recovery.
  Currently the Civil Aviation (Route Charges for Navigation Services) Regulations 1999 provide that aircraft operators must pay charges to Eurocontrol in respect of navigation services made available in specified airspace. Post-PPP, instead of the Secretary of State making regulations to set our charges, the CAA will have responsibility for specifying those charges, and hence it is intended that the powers in the Bill will be sufficient to enable it to do so. The meaning of "chargeable air traffic services", as currently drafted in Clause 73, would not include all of the CAA's services provided in performing its Chapter III air navigation functions, nor would that provision allow recovery of the CAA's Chapter IV cost of specifying, publishing or recovery. Where these services are properly recoverable through Eurocontrol the CAA should be allowed to do so and that is what these amendments will achieve.
  The second new clause (Amendment No. 46) places further duties on the CAA and provides that the CAA must specify charges under Clause 69, if it thinks that it should do so in order for the United Kingdom's international agreements to be fulfilled. Further it must exercise those powers in a manner best calculated to take account of those agreements. The CAA must also exercise the power to specify in relation to Clause 73(2)(b) services—air traffic services that are provided outside the UK by international agreement—currently those in the Shanwick Oceanic Area, if it thinks that it should do so to enable the provider of these services to be paid for their provision.
  The third new clause in this group (Amendment No. 47) seeks to ensure that, where information is given to the Secretary of State by the CAA concerning services and performing air navigation functions, or a licence holder concerning air traffic services, proposing the charges to be submitted to Eurocontrol, the Secretary of State must as far as practicable ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol. However, that duty does not apply to information given by a licence holder if the CAA tells the Secretary of State that the giving of the information to Eurocontrol could result in the licence holder being paid charges, the calculation of which was in contravention of the provisions of the licence.
  This new clause also ensures that if money is received by the Government from Eurocontrol in respect of those services, then the Secretary of State must as far as practicable ensure that the money is paid to the provider of the service. Similarly, if money is due to be paid by Eurocontrol, the Secretary of State must, as far as practicable, ensure that the money which falls to be paid, falls to be paid by Eurocontrol to the service provider. The reference to money being received by the UK Government is to money being received by a person on behalf of the Government.
  Amendment No. 35 is in consequence of the new clause, Clause 46(1)(b).
  Amendment No. 41 ensures that the CAA cannot charge for the same service both as an air traffic service and as one which it provides in performing its Chapter III air navigation functions.
  Amendments Nos. 48 and 49 provide the meaning of the "Eurocontrol agreement" and "Licence holder" for inclusion in the interpretation Clause 77. Amendment No. 42 is in consequence of Amendment No. 48.
  The remaining Amendments Nos. 36 to 39, 43 and 44 are consequential upon Amendments Nos. 34 and 40. I beg to move.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I have one brief question on Amendment No. 47, paragraphs 4 and 5. In brackets, it says, "so far as practicable", as to whether or not the money should be handed over to the person who provides the service. Why should it be impractical that

  CWH15
  the money should not be handed over? Perhaps the noble Lord could give a brief explanation as to the circumstances that might cause that to arise.
  Baroness Hamwee: Perhaps I may ask a question on Amendment No. 46. The CAA must exercise the powers set out,
  "if it thinks it should do so".
  I have noted that in this Bill and in the amendments we are using the good plain English term "thinks" instead of "considers"; "takes a view" and so forth. I do not object to that. But this is a very subjective provision. It seems to put the CAA in the position of having to take a view rather than in the objective position that if an international agreement requires it, then it should do so. In other words, it is the CAA taking a view about international agreements rather than, as one might expect, the Secretary of State saying that we need to comply with the following international agreement.
  My second point on this is that I assume it is implied that if, as a country, we are having a row over the international agreement in question, the CAA can have regard to that and does not need to get on with exercising those powers regardless of the difficulty over the agreement. It would be absurd if the CAA were, by this requirement, put in the position of acting entirely separately from other international interests.I can see the need for some such clause to require the CAA to do all of this when necessary and sensible. Therefore, in principle, I do not object to the clause.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: In answer to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, as far as practicable, one would of course assume that that took account of the kind of commercial contingencies faced by every business. In this case, too, there is a particular reason for it, about which he rightly enquires. Our understanding is that we would not be able to bind Eurocontrol. I should stress that we do not expect any problems on that front. Although we would not be able to bind Eurocontrol and that is as far as it is practicable to go in a relationship with them.
  On the CAA and its relationship to international agreements, the CAA has a locus in that respect because it is the regulator. However, under Clause 85 the Secretary of State can also issue directions to the CAA.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 35:
  Page 46, line 5. leave out subsection (10).
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 69, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 70 to 72 agreed to.
  Clause 73 [Chargeable air traffic services]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 36 to 44:
  Page 47, line 31, leave out ("traffic").
  Page 47. line 32, leave out ("air traffic").
  CWH16
  Page 47, line 34, leave out ("traffic").
  Page 47. line 35, leave out ("air traffic").
  Page 47, line 43, at end insert—
  ("(cc) services which are provided by the CAA in performing its air navigation functions (within the meaning of Chapter III) and for which Eurocontrol is to collect charges under the Eurocontrol agreement;").
  Page 48, line 1, after ("services") insert ("which do not fall within paragraph (cc) and").
  Page 48, line 2. leave out from ("the") to the end of line 3 and insert ("Eurocontrol agreement").
  Page 48, line 4, leave out ("traffic").
  Page 48, line 16, leave out ("traffic").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 73, as amended, agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 45 to 47:
  After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—

  AMOUNTS FOR RECOVERY ETC
  (".—(1) This section applies if—

  (a) an amount of a charge is specified under section 69(1) in respect of a service falling within section 73(2)(cc) or (d), and

  (b) under the Eurocontrol agreement Eurocontrol is to collect a charge in respect of the specification and publication of the amount of the charge and its recovery.

  (2) In specifying the amount of the charge the CAA may include an amount in respect of the specification and publication of the amount of the charge and its recovery.
  (3) References to an amount include references to a method of calculating an amount.").
  After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—

  FURTHER DUTIES OF THE CAA
  (".—(1) The CAA—

  (a) must exercise its powers under section 69 if it thinks it should do so in order for international agreements to which the United Kingdom is a party to be fulfilled, and

  (b) in exercising those powers must act in the manner it thinks best calculated to take account of those agreements.

  (2) The CAA must exercise its powers under section 69 in relation to services falling within section 73(2)(b) if it thinks it should do so in order to enable the provider of the services to be paid for their provision.").
  After Clause 73, insert the following new clause—

  SECRETARY OF STATE'S DUTIES
  (".—(1) If information is given to the Secretary of State by the CAA concerning the charges the CAA would like to be paid in respect of chargeable air services which fall within section 73(2)(cc), he must (so far as practicable) ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol.
  (2) If information is given to the Secretary of State by a licence holder concerning the charges it would like to be paid in respect of chargeable air services which it provides and which fall within section 73(2)(d), he must (so far as practicable) ensure that the information is given to Eurocontrol.
  (3) But subsection (2) does not apply if the CAA tells the Secretary of State that giving the information to Eurocontrol could result in the licence holder being paid charges whose calculation was in contravention of the provisions of the licence.
  (4) If money is received by the government of the United Kingdom from Eurocontrol in respect of a chargeable air service falling within section 73(2)(cc) or (d), the Secretary of State must (so far as practicable) ensure that the money is paid to the person who provided the service.
  (5) If money falls to be paid by Eurocontrol in respect of a chargeable air service falling within section 73(2)(cc) or (d). the Secretary of State must (so far as practicable) ensure that the money falls to be paid by Eurocontrol to the person who provided the service.
  (6) The reference to money being received by the government of the United Kingdom is to money being received by a person on behalf of that government.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clauses 74 to 76 agreed to.
  Clause 77 [Interpretation]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 48 and 49:
  Page 50, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Eurocontrol agreement is the multilateral agreement relating to route charges signed at Brussels on 12 February 1981 or any agreement replacing it.").
  Page 50, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) "Licence holder" has the meaning given by section 37.").
  On question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 77, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 78 to 89 agreed to.
  Schedule 8 agreed to.
  Clauses 90 to 94 agreed to.
  Schedule 9 [Air traffic: information]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 50:
  Page 200, line 7, at end insert—
  ("( ) for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition;").
  The noble Lord said: I wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 51, 52 and 53. Schedule 9 prohibits the disclosure of information gained under this part of the Bill, except with the consent of the person to whom it relates or where otherwise permitted. The schedule goes on to list a whole series of purposes for which disclosure could he permitted. This group of government amendments has been requested by the Competition Commission to ensure that an inability to disclose air traffic information obtained under Part I of the Bill does not frustrate either its functions or those of the independent Television Commission under the Broadcasting Act 1990 or those of the European Commission in respect of Community competition law.
  Paragraph 3(1)(b) of Schedule 9 allows the bodies listed in paragraph 3(2) to disclose information obtained under the Bill while carrying out their functions under the enactments listed in paragraph 3(3).
  The first amendment will provide for disclosure for the purposes of facilitating the functions of the European Commission under European Community competition law. The fourth amendment provides for disclosure for the purpose of facilitating the carrying out of the functions of a body listed in paragraph 3(2) of Schedule 9 under the Competition Law Enforcement Regulations 1996. The remaining amendments would allow the Competition Commission and the ITC to
  CWH18
  carry out their functions without being frustrated by an inability to disclose information under the Bill. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  4.30 p.m.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 51 to 53:
  Page 200, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Independent Television Commission;").
  Page 200, line 45, at end insert—
  ("( ) the Broadcasting Act 1990;").
  Page 201. line 1, at end insert—
  ("( ) any subordinate legislation made for the purpose of securing compliance with Articles 84 and 85 of the, Treaty establishing the European Community;").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 9, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 95 and 96 agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 54 and 55:
  After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—

  CROWN APPLICATION
  (".—(1) The provisions mentioned in subsection (2) bind the Crown.
  (2) The provisions are—

  (a) section 3;

  (b) sections 23 to 27 and 30;

  (c) sections 38, 39, 41, 42 and 57;

  (d) Chapter V, to the extent that it applies or modifies the operation of provisions of the Competition Act 1998;

  (e) sections 86 to 88;

  (f) section 96, so far as relating to other provisions of this Part which bind the Crown;

  (g) Schedule 1, to the extent that it applies, amends or modifies the operation of provisions of the Insolvency Act 1986 which bind the Crown so far as affecting or relating to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of section 434 of that Act;

  (h) Schedule 2;

  (i) Schedule 3, to the extent that it applies, amends or modifies the operation of provisions of the Insolvency (Northern Ireland) Order 1989 which bind the Crown so far as affecting or relating to the matters specified in paragraphs (a) to (e) of Article 378 of that Order;

  (j) Schedule 6.

  (3) Her Majesty may by Order in Council apply, with or without modification, any of the provisions mentioned in subsection (4) to any aircraft belonging to or exclusively employed in the service of Her Majesty.
  (4) The provisions are—

  (a) Chapter IV (except section 75);

  (b) any order or regulations under any provision mentioned in paragraph (a).

  (5) This section (except so far as it relates to Chapter V) has effect subject to section (The Crown: other provisions); and, so far as it relates to Chapter V, it has effect subject to section 73 of the Competition Act 1998.").
  After Clause 96, insert the following new clause—

  THE CROWN: OTHER PROVISIONS
  (" .—(1) No contravention by the Crown of a provision contained in or made under this Part shall make the Crown criminally liable; but the High Court or in Scotland the Court of Session may, on the application of a person appearing to the Court to have an interest, declare unlawful any act or omission of the Crown which constitutes such a contravention.
  (2) Notwithstanding subsection (1), the provisions contained in or made under section 3(1), 86(7) or 87(5) apply to persons in the public service of the Crown as they apply to other persons.
  (3) However, section 3(1) does not apply if the services there mentioned are provided by or on behalf of the armed forces of the Crown; and the person to whom and aircraft for which the services are provided are immaterial.
  (4) Nothing in section (Crown application) or this section affects Her Majesty in her private capacity; and this subsection must be construed as if section 38(3) of the Crown Proceedings Act 1947 (meaning of Her Majesty in her private capacity) were contained in this Act.").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  On Question, Whether Clauses 97 to 103 shall stand part of the Bill?
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Before we agree that these clauses stand part, I should like to make the point that we have now departed from Part I of the Bill—we wave it some kind of farewell just for the moment—and remind the Committee of what my noble friend Lord Brabazon said, that this procedure would give us two bites of the cherry. I feel he underestimated the meal that is in front of us. I do not feel as though I have had one bite of the cherry, but that I have swallowed two or three bags without tasting any of them. I congratulate the Government on the speed with which they have carried this through. It impresses me greatly and I permit myself to wonder, rather timidly, what would have been the reaction of the government party had it still been in opposition and been confronted with such infernal proceedings—I chose the adjective intentionally—as we have been met with today. It is merely a sign of our innocence, which I hope will endure for ever, that we have been able to get on with this; and the Government ought to be very much obliged to us.
  I should say in passing that when we reach the second part of the Bill, the ignorance which I have on the first part is slightly remedied. Many years ago when I was Minister of Transport, most of the time I was buried in that great heap called the Department of the Environment where nobody made any decisions at all, and nobody understood any issues when they reached a certain level. In those days, the government in their wisdom were totally convinced that air transport had nothing to do with transport at all, and therefore there was a Department of Civil Aviation, which was more or less entombed inside the DTI—a pretty unhappy fate for anybody—and so I had nothing to do with it.
  However, I had some involvement in some of the other problems with which the later stages of the Bill are concerned, and I hope from time to time to make some contribution, but I doubt whether I shall feel capable of intervening in this present procedure, which is, I must say, marvellously speedy. Without embarrassing any of my colleagues on the Committee
  CWH20
  and any party, I wonder how many of us had any very clear understanding of the details of the contents of Part I of the Bill as it came before us originally, and how many have a good, clear understanding of everything that has happened in the past half-hour or so as the noble Lord, in the manner of a deft and extremely skilled conjurer, has altered the shape of the proposals which are before us. I do not wish to impede progress, at least at this stage, but I thought I should take the opportunity of making one or two comments particularly relative to my noble friend's choice of metaphor of bites of the cherry; we have had more than that.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I thought that the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, had answered the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, very fully, when he pointed out that this is a qualifying round and does not affect the actual tournament. We return on Thursday of next week to our full consideration of Part I, and indeed the rest of the Bill. Otherwise, the government amendments would have been dealt with together with opposition and other amendments. That would have confused the issue as to the Government's intentions. This Bill will be published tomorrow morning in the form of what I think is technically called a Keeling schedule. It shows the relevant clauses as amended by the amendments which are being put before the Committee. The Opposition have lost nothing by this procedure. It merely means that they have two opportunities to ask questions on government amendments.
  Clauses 97 to 103 agreed to.
  Clause 104 [Quality partnership schemes]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 56:
  Page 63. line 43, leave out from ("strategies-) to end of line 4 on page 64.
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 57 to 62. These amendments, taken together, ensure that local transport authorities can bring forward quality partnership schemes which are provided in the Bill, but which would now be able to include existing facilities. Mostly, they respond to representations we have received, in particular from local government. But we believe they will be widely welcomed.
  As currently drafted the Bill provides for the making of a quality partnership scheme on the basis that the facilities to be provided by local authorities—for example bus lanes and so on—are not already in existence. Thus Subsections (3) and (4) of Clause 104, for example, refer to an obligation to "provide" facilities and of "facilities provided", and Clause 105(2) refers to "proposed facilities". The wording of Clauses 106(4) and 108(1) also presuppose that local authorities must be allowed time to provide those facilities in the future.
  The real position, however, is that there are already a substantial number of voluntary quality partnership schemes, many established relatively recently, with purposes similar to the statutory schemes now envisaged under the Bill. The representations we have received suggested that there could be positive

  CWH21
  advantages if authorities were able to incorporate such existing facilities within a quality partnership scheme under the Bill. There would be advantages to authorities and operators alike. Authorities would be able to package up existing and new facilities in a quality partnership scheme, and demand the same standards of all operators using the facilities. And the operators, especially where they have invested recently on the strength of local authority provision, would benefit from protection from low quality competition.
  The government amendments accordingly provide for quality partnership schemes to include existing facilities. In so doing, they strengthen the "partnership" concept already inherent in the Bill by providing that both facilities provided by the authority and standards to be met by operators must lead to improvements in the quality of bus services or help to reduce traffic congestion or pollution. That is the effect of Amendment No. 57.
  It has always been the intention that statutory quality partnership schemes should represent a partnership, with both operators and authorities operating a quid pro quo. This amendment makes that even more explicit. It will apply to all quality partnership schemes whether or not they involve existing facilities.
  The amendment also makes it clear that there must be genuine improvement. Authorities cannot, for example, bring forward quality partnership schemes which are primarily dependent on facilities which already exist, demanding major investment by the bus operators. There must be a reasonable element of additionality.
  The other substantive amendment in this group is Amendment No. 60, which introduces a new clause empowering the appropriate national authority to make regulations in connection with quality partnership schemes involving "existing facilities". Those regulations are designed to ensure flexibility and to protect operators who are already using existing facilities. They might additionally be used to impose more onerous consultation or consent requirements; to limit the age of pre-existing facilities; to allow for particular facilities or classes of facility to be specified, or the circumstances in which they might be specified; and to allow appropriate modifications to be made in the quality partnership scheme procedures. That is Amendment No. 60, which is the substantive new clause.
  The remaining amendments are purely consequential. These amendments will improve the Bill and allow the benefits of statutory quality partnerships to be extended to a wider range of circumstances. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: These provisions amend the detailed requirements for quality partnership schemes, to bring benefit to people using the services. In addition, reference is made to the need for consultation in the schemes.
  There seem to be two drawbacks to the current wording. First, the benefits should be such as to be enjoyed by people not currently using the service—
  CWH22
  primarily because of one form of disability or another—but who would like to be able to use the service. Secondly, the requirements for consultation should also extend to people who are not using or cannot use the service at the time, as it would be desirable for quality partnership schemes to be used to widen the use of public transport, such as buses.
  Lord Bradshaw: I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty, has said about this change, which is in response to representations received from local government. I hope that we might take it as a precedent and that many other representations that we shall make, which have come to us from local government, will receive equally favourable consideration.
  I ask particularly that the existing quality partnership schemes, of which—as the Minister said—there are many, will under Clause 108 enjoy no lesser status or protection than the new quality partnership schemes, save that they may have to be improved. We want to believe that the existing schemes are not second class in the consideration of the Government or in the eyes of this Bill and the law, should this Bill become law.
  Lord Whitty: In response to the first question, it is clear that the inclusion of existing facilities—and indeed, the whole question of quality partnerships—is based on the improvement of the service. This includes the extension of the service and therefore must include its extension for the use of those who cannot currently, for one reason or another, enjoy the service. That would clearly cover improvements made to ensure that disabled people or others, who previously had not been able to use the service, can now do so. As far as the consultation provisions on that are concerned, the general provisions on consultation will certainly allow consultation with the representatives of disabled people in the locality. Thus, that point is already covered. In relation to the comment of the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, we always take seriously representations from local authorities. However, I cannot give him the 100 per cent guarantee he seeks on that matter.
  As regards existing quality partnerships, if they wish to move into the statutory quality partnership arena, they will have the same status as the new partnerships. There may be some quality partnerships that will not be statutorily based. It is hoped that they will have the same effect locally but there will not be the statutory backing for those particular arrangements between the operator and the authority.
  4.45 p.m.
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: Will the Minister be kind enough to say how many authorities are involved? There seems to be a legion of them and here we are dealing particularly with the appropriate national authority. I have very little idea as to which is the appropriate national authority in that context.
  Lord Whitty: When I use the term "authority" in this context, I refer to the local authority, in most contexts

  CWH23
  the local highways authority and, in certain circumstances, there may be lower level authorities which enter into such agreements. However, principally I am referring to the highways authority. I believe I am right in saying that there are about 100 such agreements either in existence or in the process of being agreed on a voluntary basis. We shall need to see how many of those will transfer to a statutory basis. But this provision will provide statutory backing for that kind of arrangement between the operator and the local highway authority.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendments No. 57 and 58:
  Page 64, line 10, at end insert—
  ("(3A) The authority or authorities must be satisfied that both the provision of those facilities and the provision of local services of that standard will—

  (a) improve the quality of local services provided in the whole or any part of their area, or combined area, by bringing benefits to persons using those services, or

  (b) reduce or limit traffic congestion, noise or air pollution.

  (3B) A quality partnership scheme may not be made unless the authority or authorities have complied with the notice and consultation requirements imposed by section 105.").
  Page 64, line 45, leave out ("(2) and (3)") and insert ("(3) and (3B)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 104, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 105 [Notice and consultation requirements]:
  Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 59:
  Page 65, line 13, leave out ("proposed").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 105, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 106 to 108 agreed to.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 60:
  After Clause 108, insert the following new clause—

  REGULATIONS ABOUT SCHEMES INVOLVING EXISTING FACILITIES
  (".—(1) The appropriate national authority may by regulations make provision about the specifying in quality partnership schemes of facilities which are already being provided before the schemes are proposed ("existing facilities").
  (2) The regulations may in particular—

  (a) provide that existing facilities may not be specified if they were being provided before a date prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations.

  (b) provide that particular existing facilities or classes of existing facilities may not be specified (whenever they were first provided),

  (c) provide that particular existing facilities or classes of existing facilities may be specified only in circumstances prescribed by the regulations,

  (d) provide that, in circumstances prescribed by the regulations, particular existing facilities or classes of existing facilities may be specified only with the consent of a person prescribed by, or determined in accordance with, the regulations, and

  (e) make provision modifying any provision of sections 105 to 107 in relation to schemes which specify existing facilities.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 109 agreed to.
  Clause 110 [Variation: supplementary]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 61 and 62:
  Page 68, line 6, leave out ("that in section 104(1))") and insert ("those in section 104(1) and (3A))").
  Page 68, line 27, leave out ("(3)") and insert ("(3B)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 110, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 111 to 123 agreed to.
  Clause 124 [Joint and through ticketing schemes for buses]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 63:
  Page 77, line 4, leave out from ("tickets)") to end of line 14 and insert ("of any of the descriptions which may by covered by a ticketing scheme and to which the scheme applies.
  (3A) The descriptions of tickets which may be covered by a ticketing scheme are—

  (a) tickets entitling the holder to make more than one journey on particular local services or on local services of a class specified in the scheme (whether or not operated by the same person),

  (b) tickets entitling the holder to make a particular journey on two or more local services (whether or not operated by the same person),

  (c) where a particular journey could be made on local services provided by any of two or more operators, tickets entitling the holder to make the journey on whichever service the holder chooses, and

  (d) tickets entitling the holder to make a journey, or more than one journey, involving both travel on one or more local services and travel by one or more connecting rail or tram services.

  (3B) A connecting rail or tram service, in relation to a ticketing scheme, is a service for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) which runs between—

  (a) a station or stopping place at or in the vicinity of which local services stop and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme relates, and

  (b) any other place.

  (3C) Different arrangements may be specified in a ticketing scheme for different cases.").
  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 63 I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 64, 65, 66, 83, 84 and 86. The main purpose of these amendments is to extend through ticketing schemes for buses under Clause 124 of the Bill to include bus/train and bus/tram ticketing. In this we are responding to suggestions that that would be a valuable addition and serve to strengthen the integrated nature of the Bill.
  Amendment No. 63 introduces substitute provisions in place of subsections (3)(a) to (c) and subsection (4) of Clause 124. The key addition is the new paragraph (d), which allows ticketing schemes to extend to buses and "connecting rail or tram services". These are defined in the new subsection (3B). The definition is deliberately broad. It speaks of rail or tram services which run between a station or tram stop where, or near where, local buses stop, and which serves any part of the area to which the ticketing scheme applies, and any other place. So a ticketing scheme can include train or tram services which may be just outside the boundary of the authority making

  CWH25
  the scheme, if they provide connecting services with local buses. In short, the pattern of travel connections is more important than the administrative boundary of the scheme-making authority.
  Amendment No. 64 introduces an important caveat. Ticketing schemes cannot include train or tram operators unless they have given their consent. There are good reasons for that. In the case of train operators, the position is that rail franchise agreements already require them to participate in multi-modal ticketing schemes proposed by a relevant local authority, as long as the franchising director (in future, the Strategic Rail Authority) has approved, and provided that participation is at no net cost to the train operator. The main benefit of this amendment, therefore, will be to ensure that once such arrangements are in place, local bus operators can be obliged to participate.
  Similarly participation by tram operators is to be subject to their agreement. Many tram operators already offer multi-modal ticketing, and some have specific clauses in their concession agreements in that respect. The Bill deliberately does not seek to override those. But, again, it will mean that bus operators can be bound into a bus/tram scheme that the tram operator has agreed.
  Amendment No. 65 adds the Strategic Rail Authority to the bodies to be notified of a ticketing scheme under Clause 126. Amendments Nos. 84 and 86 provide for definitions in Clause 150, and Amendment No. 83 amends a drafting error to ensure that the definition of "national authority" in Clause 150 also applies to Clause 126, which contains regulations about ticketing schemes.
  I hope that these amendments will be welcomed as a further demonstration of our desire for integrated transport. I beg to move.
  Lord Berkeley: I congratulate my noble friend on his amendments. They may assist in doing away with interminable queues at bus stops when nobody has a travelcard and everybody pays a 70 pence fare with a £5 note. I have one question for my noble friend on Amendment No. 63. New subsection (3B)(b) states that a ticket can be bought on a bus for a journey to any other place in the country. Any noble Lord who has tried to buy a train ticket from a station that has a computerised system, especially for complicated journeys such as those on Virgin, will know that it takes a couple of minutes. If such a ticket is to be sold from a bus, it will be very exciting for the other passengers. Can my noble friend tell me where it is proposed to sell these tickets? Will they be readily available? Will bus conductors have credit card machines? How will it work?
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: It is not difficult to prophesy that in any new arrangement ticketing problems are bound to arise. I want to be reasonably sure that the Government are now engaged—without waiting for the Bill to be enacted—in some form of consultation with bus operators. Putting it as delicately as I can, not all of them are known for their flexibility. I hope that
  CWH26
  Ministers will ensure that at this stage they come to some arrangement which will hold water when the scheme comes into effect.
  Lord Bradshaw: Again, we on this side welcome the amendment. However, we have some concerns, which have been partly expressed by the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley. It is a fact that under the present system used by the railways for issuing tickets, tickets can be bought for use on buses and trams, but there is virtually no reciprocal arrangement for the railways to accept tickets that have been sold on buses for travel on trains. A great deal needs to be done before the intentions that are set down here can come into effect.
  We are also concerned about the effect of the Competition Act and the relationship between the powers of the Director-General of Fair Trading, the local authority and the bus companies, and how we believe they will be able to interfere with ticketing and other things. However, when we come to debate Schedule 10, I shall say something more about that.
  Specifically in relation to tickets I should say that bus companies are now extraordinarily reluctant to enter into any ticketing arrangements, because there are two barriers. If the local authority under the Bill promotes a ticketing scheme, the Director-General of Fair Trading will consider it without charging a fee. But if a bus company promotes a ticketing scheme, for each scheme it is required to pay a fee (I believe around £13,000) to the Director-General of Fair Trading. In most cases it would take a long time for the proceeds of a ticketing scheme to recoup that £13,000, and that does not include the costs of legal representation, in persuading the Director-General of Fair Trading that the scheme is anti-competitive.
  From this side we very much welcome this amendment and the extension to trams and trains. But a great deal more work needs to be done; not drafting work, but work behind the scenes between the department and the director-general, and between the department, the Strategic Rail Authority and ATOC before this highly desirable system can be made to work.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: We too welcome the principle of the three ticketing schemes. And I hope that the Minister has answered my question about why it should be compulsory for bus companies to provide tickets on different modes of transport but not compulsory for train companies to do the same. The Minister covered that point, but the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, has just raised an extremely important point about the cost of the Competition Commission's inquiries. I hope the Minister can give a good answer to that.
  The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, raised the problems of buying tickets on the buses, and I would put in a plea which I have made before: why is it not possible to buy a one-day Travelcard on London buses, particularly conductor-operated ones? It is extremely irritating if one is starting the first leg of one's journey on a bus not

  CWH27
  to be able to do that, whereas it is possible if one starts at the tube station. Maybe the Minister would care to pass that on to London Transport.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: That is the most I can do because the Bill is not concerned with London. However, I certainly undertake to pass that on. It may be said that it is possible not just at tube stations, but also at newsagents and various other places.
  Let me respond first of all to my noble friend Lord Berkeley who expresses concern as to whether ticketing will be physically possible; whether it will slow things down if tickets are issued on buses. The best answer I can give to him is that it is already happening. In over 130 towns one can buy a £1 bus add-on entitling the holder to use a local bus network at the end of a rail journey. The bus and rail industry is working together through a joint body called Journey Solutions, committed to having at least 200 schemes of this kind available by the end of this year. In Oxford a person can buy a ticket on the local bus which entitles him to travel by rail to London and then have the use of the London Underground, and in Manchester he can buy a Travelcard which gives him the freedom of the bus, rail and tram system or different combinations of them, including travel on buses operated by over 40 bus operators in the conurbation. That is already quite commonplace in a number of conurbations.
  There are other examples, like through-ticketing from London to Portsmouth, across on the ferry to the Isle of Wight and then for travel round the island. There are plenty of examples of how it can be made to happen, and it is important that we should be encouraging that. I use the word "encouraging" but I shall come on to that when I respond to the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon. Those schemes are clearly beneficial to passengers and we want to see them extended.
  5 p.m.
  Lord Islwyn: I am a little concerned about the issue of rail fares. We all know that these are multifarious. If we go to certain stations we can obtain certain concessions but are often quoted different prices for a ticket. How are we going to standardise things, particularly now that this is going to be operated through buses as well?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: Perhaps I may respond to that point before returning to my tack of trying to keep up with other Members of the Committee who have taken part.
  Clause 124 is concerned with ticket types, not with prices of multi-modal tickets, to which we shall return in due course. The Office of Fair Trading will naturally have a view about price fixing against the public interest. This is clearly a matter for the Committee in the Chamber later on. I can reassure the noble Lord, Lord Peyton—I hope it will be clear from what I have said about what is happening now—that there is already plenty of consultation with the bus companies.
  CWN28
  The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, raised the specific point about the role of the Office of Fair Trading and charges to the bus operator. He mentioned the fee of £13,000 to the Office of Fair Trading for ruling on whether or not a competition test in Schedule 10 should be passed. We have not reached that yet but he is right that there is a power in that schedule for the Director-General of Fair Trading to charge a fee. However, it has not been decided what that fee shall be, nor even that there will be a fee. The £13,000 is the fee under the Competition Act, which is different legislation. I shall pass on the noble Lord's point to the Office of Fair Trading and perhaps it can be teased out in subsequent stages of the Bill.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, rightly pointed out that the obligation in these amendments is on the bus operator. It is only fair to say, however, that the train companies already have an obligation on them in legislation. Tram companies tend to operate under private or local legislation so it would be difficult to impose an obligation on them without immense complication in the Bill. However, many tram operators have obligations on them in their concessions and there are many examples both of train and tram operators collaborating through ticketing arrangements. For example, Midland Metro is involved in joint ticketing with bus and rail as part of their concession agreement. In Sheffield, the Supertram is part of the PTE ticketing scheme. In Tyne and Wear, the PTE operates the Metro and there is fully integrated ticketing, as is also happening with Croydon Tramlink and the Docklands Light Railway, with London Transport's ticketing and travelcard arrangements.
  Considerable progress is being made, therefore, and the degree of compulsion which is proposed here is the correct degree.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 124, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 125 agreed to.
  Clause 126 [Making of scheme]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 64 to 66:
  Page 77, line 34, at end insert—
  ("( ) If the scheme applies to tickets within section 124(3A)(d), it may only be made with the agreement of the operators of the connecting rail or tram services concerned.").
  Page 77, line 43, leave out from ("services") to ("and") in line 44 and insert ("or services for the carriage of passengers by railway or by tramway (or by both) who would, in the opinion of the authority or authorities, be affected by it,
  ( ) to the Strategic Rail Authority if it applies to tickets within section 124(3A)(d),").
  Page 78, line 6, leave out from ("operation") to end of line 7.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 126, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 127 to 132 agreed to.
  Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 67:
  After Clause 132, insert the following new clause—

  CIVIL PENALTIES FOR BUS LANE CONTRAVENTIONS
  (".—(1) The relevant national authority may by regulations make provision for or in connection with—

  (a) the imposition by approved local authorities of penalty charges in respect of bus lane contraventions, and

  (b) the payment of such penalty charges.

  (2) An authority is an approved local authority if—

  (a) an order designating the whole or any part of its area has been made under paragraph 1(1) or 2(1) of Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Act 1991 (permitted and special parking areas outside Greater London), and

  (b) the relevant national authority has made an order specifying it as an approved local authority for the purposes of this section.

  (3) A bus lane contravention is a contravention of any such provision of—

  (a) a traffic regulation order,

  (b) an experimental traffic order, or

  (c) a temporary traffic restriction order,

  as relates to the use of an area of road which is or forms part of a bus lane.
  (4) And an area of road is or forms part of a bus lane if the order provides that it may be used—

  (a) only by buses, or

  (b) only by buses and some other class or classes of vehicular traffic specified in the order.

  (5) Regulations under subsection (1) shall include provision—

  (a) for the setting of the rates of penalty charges (which may include provision for discounts or surcharges) by approved local authorities subject to the approval of the relevant national authority,

  (b) specifying the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of any contravention is to be paid (who may be the registered keeper of the motor vehicle involved in the contravention, its driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person),

  (c) permitting the imposition of a penalty charge only on the basis of a record produced by an approved device,

  (d) securing that a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is not required to be paid, or is refunded, where the contravention is the subject of criminal proceedings or where a fixed penalty notice has been given in respect of the contravention, and

  (e) as to the application by approved local authorities of sums paid by way of penalty charges.

  (6) Regulations under subsection (1) may—

  (a) specify exemptions from penalty charges, and

  (b) make provision about the keeping of accounts, and the preparation and publication of statements of account, relating to sums paid by way of penalty charges.

  (7) The Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges.
  (8) Regulations under subsection (7) may include—

  (a) provision creating criminal offences to be triable summarily and punishable with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale or such lower amount as is prescribed by the regulations, and

  (b) provision for or in connection with permitting evidence of a fact to be given by the production of a record produced by an approved device with a certificate as to the circumstances in which the record was produced;

  but may not confer power to stop motor vehicles.
  (9) In this section—

  "approved device" means a device of a description specified in an order made by the relevant national authority,

  "experimental traffic order" means an order under section 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

  CWH30

  "fixed penalty notice" has the same meaning as in Part III of the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988,

  "motor vehicle" has the meaning given in section 185(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. except that section 189 of that Act (exception for certain pedestrian controlled vehicles and electrically assisted pedal cycles) shall apply as it applies for the purposes of the Road Traffic Acts,

  "registered keeper", in relation to a contravention involving a motor vehicle, means the person in whose name the motor vehicle was registered under the Vehicle Registration and Excise Act 1994 at the time of the contravention,

  "relevant national authority" means—

  (a) the Secretary of State as respects England outside Greater London, or

  (b) the National Assembly for Wales as respects Wales,

  "road" has the same meaning as in the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984,

  "temporary traffic restriction order" means an order under section 14 or 16A of that Act, and

  "traffic regulation order" means an order under section 1 of that Act.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 67, which inserts a new clause dealing with bus lane enforcement, I shall speak also to Amendment No. 80, which is consequential.
  London authorities have had powers under the London Local Authorities Acts 1996 to enforce, by camera, moving bus lane offences. Trials in several London boroughs have shown that these powers can be very effective, reducing the level of violations in bus lanes by up to 70 per cent. The purpose of this amendment is to provide local authorities outside London with similar powers. Those local authorities have been pressing for similar powers as they were concerned that their ability to persuade bus operators to enter into quality partnerships could be seriously jeopardised if they were unable to enforce bus lane priorities.
  The amendment also fulfils an undertaking given in another place by my honourable friend the Minister for Housing, Planning and Construction during Standing Committee consideration of the Bill on 17th February 2000, when he said that it was our intention to extend the enforcement of bus lane offences to local authorities outside London.
  The amendment, which will apply in England and Wales, is an enabling one. There is no obligation for local authorities to apply for the new powers and, while the new clause sets out the framework, the detailed arrangements will be provided in regulations.
  I must apologise to the noble Lord, Lord Peyton, if I misunderstood him in his interventions two amendments ago when I thought he was referring to local authorities. In subsection (1) I define the national authority which is the Secretary of State in England and the National Assembly for Wales in Wales. They will make regulations for penalties and for the payment of penalties in connection with bus lane contraventions.
  Subsection (2) provides that only local authorities with decriminalised parking enforcement powers may choose to apply for these enforcement powers. As with

  CWH31
  the parking powers, the Secretary of State or the National Assembly will make an order to make a local authority an "approved authority" for these purposes.
  Subsections (3) and (4) define bus lane contraventions and what constitutes a bus lane for the purpose of this amendment.
  Subsection (5) sets out further details of what the regulations may provide. Regulations will be subject to the negative resolution procedure.
  Subsection (5)(a) provides for the setting of rates of penalty charges.
  Subsection (5)(b) makes provision for regulations to specify the person by whom a penalty charge is payable who may be the registered keeper of the vehicle, the driver at the time of the contravention or any other appropriate person. Initially, we would expect the regulations to specify the driver as the person by whom a penalty charge in respect of a contravention is to be paid. At present, moving offences are based on driver liability.
  Subsection (5)(c) provides that the imposition of a penalty charge may only be made on the basis of a record produced by an appropriate device, which means an approved camera or similar apparatus.
  Subsection (5)(d) ensures that there is no double jeopardy for the same contravention between the criminal proceedings of a fixed penalty and a bus lane contravention.
  Subsection (5)(e) states that the regulations may provide for what purposes the revenues may be used. We understand that local authorities are likely to use them to offset their enforcement costs.
  Subsection (6) provides that regulations may specify exemptions for penalty charges and make provision for the keeping and publication of accounts.
  Subsection (7) provides that the Lord Chancellor may make regulations about the notification, adjudication and enforcement of penalty charges. Amendment No. 80 is consequential, reflecting the Lord Chancellor's regulation-making role.
  Subsection (8)(a) provides that regulations made by the Lord Chancellor may make provision for creating criminal offences to be triable summarily with a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale. This provision is necessary to act as a deterrent to owners to claim falsely that someone else was the driver at the time of the contravention.
  Subsection (8)(b) provides for regulations to be made about approved devices; in other words, authorised cameras and so on. It is important to note that subsection (8) also provides that regulations may not confer power to stop vehicles. The power to stop vehicles continues to be the preserve of the police and nothing in this clause alters that position.
  This clause provides the framework for extending bus lane enforcement outside London. We see it as supporting the setting-up of quality partnerships. It will enable local authorities to enforce bus lane
  CWH32
  priorities themselves and to devote more resources than the police have been able to with their more pressing commitments. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: Again, I welcome what the noble Lord, Lord Whitty has said. This new clause is extremely welcome and many local authorities will be almost overjoyed that it has found its way into the Bill.
  I have a simple question. Why is it restricted to only local authorities that have been designated as special partner authorities? It seems so far that there are relatively few authorities and some probably would not seek it but would still have bus lanes which they might wish to be supervised.
  As the Minister has said, the police have virtually given up this job. They have so many other priorities that policing bus lanes does not figure anywhere in their list of priorities; and yet this must be done to enable the bus industry to provide the sort of service required and to make quality partnerships work.
  But why is the amendment limited to bus lane enforcement, because it appears that the same cameras could be used to enforce banned right turns, restricted access into pedestrian areas, parking on zig-zag markings, yellow box markings, and no entry restrictions? I feel that we should take the opportunity presented by this Bill to allow that extension to take place. Even if Ministers do not choose to do it immediately, they should at least take the powers to do so at some future date. It requires primary legislation, but it would be sensible to keep those powers in the drawer, as it were, because it may be five years before we have another transport Bill.
  I am no parliamentary draftsman, and perhaps if I were I could find employment somewhere, but it appears to me that this extension could be done by relatively simple amendments to the Road Traffic Act 1991. However I bow to the superior knowledge of such matters which rests in the Department of the Environment, Transport and the Regions.
  Lord Swinfen: This is a relatively small point on subsection (5)(b). I can understand who the registered keeper is; I can understand who the driver is; but who does the Minister think, "any other appropriate person" would be who might have to pay the penalty?
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I should like briefly to follow on what my noble friend Lord Swinfen said. I was encouraged when the Minister said in his opening remarks that in the first place it would be the driver who was responsible for this, as it is in relation to other moving traffic offences. Therefore I cannot see why anybody other than the driver should be responsible. It should be the same in this as it is for speeding offences or any other moving traffic offence. Therefore in what circumstance might it be someone other than the driver?
  Secondly, on paragraph (e), which is to do with the sums paid by way of penalty charges, the noble Lord said that the highway authority would have to cover the costs of enforcement, and that certainly is fair enough. However, what happens to any profit beyond

  CWH33
  that? Does it go to a specific local transport plan, or can it go into any particular use that the local authority wishes? In our view it should go towards transport use.
  Baroness Hamwee: My pager was not telling me what to say! I had a similar question about the "proceeds", as it were, although I am not sure it is quite right to think of them as "proceeds"; they are penalties. One does not seek to enforce bus lane restrictions simply as a money-maker. However, peraps I may follow on the question asked by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon of Tara, although it is perhaps no more than a rhetorical question. I hope that the Government will understand that there will be costs to local authorities in setting up systems for undertaking enforcement. I believe a degree of investment will be needed.
  As regards subsection (2)(a) and (b), the Minister has explained that an authority is approved if it has been designated under the provisions of the Road Traffic Act which are mentioned. It is better to have special parking areas. As I understood it, it will be approved under subsection (2)(b) if it is within the provisions of subsection (2)(a). If that is so, what is the need for subsection (2)(b)? If there are additional criteria to be met under subsection (2)(b), what are they likely to be? I have expressed before some concern that subsection (2)(b) gives the opportunity for the Secretary of State in England, and for the National Assembly in Wales, to exercise what might be inappropriate discrimination between local authorities in giving or withholding approval under subsection (2)(b).
  5.15 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I support the amendment. It is a great addition to the Bill. I also support the comments made by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, who asked why it cannot be widened to take into account many other offences. My question to the noble Lord, Lord Whitty is: can the bus lane cameras that have already been installed, and those that are to be installed, on some buses, be used as evidence if the police choose to take action in criminal cases, including on endorsable offences?
  Lord Peyton of Yeovil: I have a brief point. As far as I am aware, the original provisions in the Bill do not refer to the Lord Chancellor at all but to the Secretary of State. One wonders whether his expertise—great as it is—covers these rather small points.
  Lord Whitty: On that last point, the Lord Chancellor enters into this arena because he has the power to make the regulations about the notification and adjudication of the enforcement of penalty charges. That applies across the board as well as in this area. Therefore, it is not appropriate to simply give powers to the Secretary of State, which is why we have tabled Amendment No. 80. It will ensure that the Lord Chancellor fulfils that function.
  As far as the remaining points are concerned, the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, asked why only authorities with decriminalised parking regimes were
  CWH34
  likely to take up this option. That is principally because the authorities should be able to address parking as well as moving offences. It is clear that a very large number of authorities are now moving towards decriminalised parking; over 100 more are in the pipeline. Therefore, the provisions should cover the majority of highway authorities.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, made a related point as to why subsection (2)(b) has been provided. On the face of it, it would allow an approval for an authority which was not an authority with a decriminalised parking regime. It is there primarily to ensure that schemes can be checked to ascertain whether appropriate regimes are in place to ensure that the schemes are operated fairly. I suppose that it might also allow a degree of flexibility in relation to decriminalised parking regimes as far as the national authorities are concerned.
  In relation to new, additional offences—this point was raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw—we are aware that it has also been suggested that other offences should be brought into the same category. The Government consider that we should gain experience first of how this regime works for bus lanes. They are the highest priority in terms of traffic management, and we should give them highest priority before extending the provision to other offences.
  Lord Swinfen: Before the noble Lord leaves that question, does the Bill contain a power enabling the Secretary of State to bring in the other offences that the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, suggested should be included?
  Lord Whitty: No, this amendment does not provide for that.
  Lord Swinfen: Will the Government consider bringing forward their own amendment to meet the point raised by the noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw? I understand the noble Lord wishing to gain some experience, but this is useful to all of us. It would be a pity to miss the opportunity that this Bill provides because, as the noble Lord will appreciate, being stuck trying to cross on to a clear road the other side of a yellow box, with a car at right angles, is nothing but a nuisance. It holds up a great many people and it happens very frequently.
  Lord Whitty: The Government are not at present inclined to extend the provision to new offences. No doubt the noble Lord or others could raise this matter in the subsequent Committee stages, but the priority here is on bus lanes. A new provision is not necessary to allow those cameras to be used in connection with other offences. We decided to start with bus lanes because they are the highest priority. However, when cameras are not being used for bus lane enforcement, it would be possible to use them for other existing offences or indeed for traffic control or security surveillance. The powers being given to local authorities would not cover endorsable offences, which would remain a matter for the police—a further question for my noble friend, Lord Berkeley.

  CWH35
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, also referred to the issue of who would be the "other appropriate person". We have indicated that the initial regulations will aim for driver liability in this area, as with other moving offences. The occasion could arise however where we might need to change that because of various changes in the law which may be necessary in future. That again provides a certain flexibility.
  The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen asked, "Who else?". We are not specifying who else in this context but we might again need some flexibility in that area. It will be driver liability in the initial regulations.
  Lord Swinfen: If the noble Lord will forgive me: who could possibly be responsible apart from the driver of the vehicle and perhaps the keeper of the vehicle? Is the Minister proposing to charge the Prime Minister for allowing his driver, without his authority, to take him down a bus lane on, say, the M4?
  Earl Attlee: Perhaps I may help the Minister. How about the situation where the registered keeper is a person who hires a vehicle and the hirer actually created the infringement?
  Lord Whitty: I am not sure. Hire companies are in an entirely different position and the same provisions do not apply in relation to hired vehicles as apply in other circumstances. It is possible to envisage circumstances where it might be more appropriate to address this to the owner rather than the keeper, if we move to that kind of regime. At present, it is the registered keeper who picks up, for example, most driving offences if the driver is not identified. In that context, we may want to change the keeper liability to an owner liability.
  But that is all very much in the future. The immediate position and the regulations we are likely to introduce at the moment will relate to driver liability for moving offences, as they do more generally.
  The noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, referred to the proceeds and the profit. As the noble Baroness, Lady Hamwee, indicated, it is not sensible to refer to profit in this area; it is not a profit-making activity.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: Perhaps I should not say "profit"; I may better have said, "Excess of income over expenditure".
  Lord Whitty: What we used to call the "social surplus"! In those circumstances, the regulations would clearly specify that it could go to the administration of this scheme, as Members of the Committee have said. There will be a cost to local authorities for the introduction of this scheme. It will be some time before those costs are retrieved and the administration will need to be costed. I suspect that the regulations may well provide for its use on other transport activities. However that is a matter for regulations and not a matter for the amendment which
  CWH36
  is now before the Committee. It would allow the Secretary of State in regulations to make any provisions as to the use of those moneys.
  Lord Bradshaw: Before the Minister sits down, I must say that I am very disappointed by that reply. Experience of bus lane cameras has existed in London for a very long time, and I cannot believe that the enforcement problems in other large cities are in any way different from those experienced in London. We must not miss this extremely important opportunity to equip the Government so that they can move forward at the appropriate time. I am not saying that the Government should move forward on everything at the same time, but they should be equipped so to do.
  Perhaps I may ask one question, to which the answer may not yet be available, although it is very closely associated with this issue. In the consultation on the bus industry which was published about a year ago, the issue of 24-hour bus stop clearways was raised. I wonder whether at Committee stage we might return to the subject of whether the Government have now reached a conclusion as to whether this is something which should be introduced at the same time. As the Committee will know, low-floor buses, or buses equipped for the disabled, are of no use whatever unless the bus can reliably pull into the kerb.
  Lord Whitty: I take that point. It is clearly one of the reasons that we wish to keep clear bus stops as well as the bus lanes. No doubt we shall return in Committee to both matters raised by the noble Lord. As regards consultation, we shall be dealing with that very shortly.
  Earl Attlee: I understand the need and the effectiveness of these amendments. But can the Minister say what, fundamentally, in terms of effectiveness, is the difference between a fine imposed by the court and a civil penalty?
  Lord Whitty: In terms of effectiveness?
  Earl Attlee: Legally.
  Lord Whitty: I would probably require legal advice to answer that question in legal terms. But in terms of the effectiveness of administration, then clearly a civil penalty can be more effective than going through the court procedures. Therefore, there would be a civil rather than a criminal penalty. I hope that clarifies the issue sufficiently for the noble Earl.
  Earl Attlee: I shall look forward to receiving the Minister's letter.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 133 [Mandatory concessions outside Greater London]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 68:
  Page 80. line 25. after ("person") insert ("or disabled person").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment deals with concessionary fares. I shall speak also to Amendments Nos. 69 to 76, 81, 82 and 85, and 137. This group of amendments is about concessionary fares. It deals with

  CWH37
  the statutory minimum local authority scheme which is provided under this Bill. The amendment is set to fulfil an undertaking which was made during the Second Reading debate in your Lordships' House to extend the eligibility of the statutory minimum to people with disabilities. I hope that the noble Lord will welcome the fact that we have fulfilled that undertaking, and I commend these amendments to your Lordships.
  The statutory minimum entitles eligible people to a concessionary bus fare scheme which is at least as generous as half fares, with a free bus pass within their district or council or passenger transport authority area. In the Bill as it stands, that entitlement is provided only for elderly people. These amendments extend the entitlement to people with disabilities. In providing this entitlement we deliberately adopted a comprehensive definition of eligibility, extending it to all groups of disabled people who are potentially eligible under the present legislation. I am sure that noble Lords will see that as the correct approach. Thus the entitlement will cover people who are blind or partially sighted; people who are deaf or without speech; people whose ability to walk is seriously impaired, people who are without the use of both arms; people who have a learning disability; or people who would not qualify for a driving licence on grounds of physical fitness.
  This new, wide eligibility will apply to all local authorities in England and Wales. That will include London. I should say that the eligibility criteria for concessionary fares for disabled people, which is already covered by the London scheme, have hitherto been more narrowly drawn in London than that. We felt it only right to bring the two into line by extending the London criteria and the amendments do that. In London there is a statutory reserve scheme and it will apply to that. That scheme will only be triggered if the London boroughs fail to agree on a London-wide scheme and the reserve scheme will be extended in scope as a result of these amendments.
  We have calculated that for England 1.5 million people will benefit from these amendments. We estimate that the cost to local government would be £8 million and that amount will be added to the Revenue Support Grant for the year in which it comes into effect, which we intend to be 2001/02.
  I acknowledge that some local authorities already provide concessionary fares which are more generous than the statutory minimum and, of course, such schemes can continue. It does not alter the position with regard to more generous arrangements. However, other local authorities do not currently provide schemes which meet the statutory minimum, or they provide no scheme at all, at least for some groups of disabled people. It is in those cases that people with disabilities will see a real benefit from these new provisions, and it is in that spirit of social inclusiveness that I beg to move these amendments.
  5.30 p m.
  Lord Swinfen: I welcome these amendments but I have one query for the Minister. What provision is
  CWH38
  there for minimum concessions for those who are so disabled or so frail that they cannot use public transport and need to use door-to-door transport? Has the Minister any proposals to bring forward anything of that kind in the Bill?
  Baroness Hanham: On Second Reading I raised the issue of the cost of this scheme and the Local Government Association remains concerned that it will not be fully funded. I seek the Minister's assurance that there will be money to fund that, although I accept that at the moment it is difficult to give an accurate global figure. Perhaps in retrospect it may be possible to fund that.
  Lord Addington: I have a brief point to make about the definition. It seems to be very full and wide-ranging, but has this definition been looked at by the Disability Rights Commission and will it be used as a model for other legislation?
  Lord Islwyn: I support the categories which the Minister has mentioned but I have been concerned about the times of implementation of the scheme as laid down in Clauses 133 to 139. I understand that pensioners' organisations in particular are concerned about this issue.
  With regard to concessionary fares, Clause 134 at lines 20 to 26 states:

  "(a) any time on a Saturday or Sunday or on any day which is a bank holiday in England and Wales under the Banking and Financial Dealings Act 1971, or

  (b) a time during the period from 9.30 a.m. to 11 p.m. on any other day".

  Pensioners are particularly concerned about hospital appointments and that could pose problems for the NHS if the time was—
  The Deputy Chairman of Committees (Lord Skelmersdale): I had better interrupt the proceedings as there is a Division in the Chamber. We shall return to this matter in 10 minutes.
  [The Sitting was suspended for a Division in the House from 5.34 p.m. to 5.44 p.m.]
  Lord Islwyn: In relation to the difficulties that pensioners are going to experience as a result of the different times of operations—for example nine o'clock in London and half past nine according to the provision in Clause 134—I should have thought that the Bill was the opportunity to bring some rationality into the whole procedure. The operating time, as I say, for London is nine o'clock in the morning. But schemes that are operating in the rest of the country vary. I understand that Essex operates a scheme which commences at nine o'clock, the same as London, though it is nothing like as generous.
  As I understand it, Clause 139 is a fall-back option. Under the present system, if the London boroughs and London Transport fail to agree, a decision is taken on this matter each year. London Transport also has a reserve scheme which again provides for free travel from nine o'clock in the morning. So I strongly urge the Minister to think again about the timing of the

  CWH39
  operation of this concession. As I say, it is an opportunity to bring some rationality into the system and I would have thought that the commencing time should be nine o'clock in the morning.
  Lord Swinfen: I was going to speak about that particular subject in Grand Committee and have a great deal of sympathy with what the noble Lord, Lord Islwyn, said. I was going to raise the matter on behalf of disabled people at a later stage in the Bill, though concessionary fares are probably unnecessary for those who work unusual hours.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Has the department had any contact with the Scottish Executive about this? Clearly this measure does not extend to Scotland, and I am a little distressed, when looking at the Transport (Scotland) Bill introduced recently in the Scottish Parliament, that there is no mention of such a scheme. Devolution certainly does not require Scotland to do anything like the same, but I hope that the Scottish Executive will, after some consultation, come up with approximately the same scheme.
  Lord Whitty: On that last point, that is entirely a matter for the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament and not for us. The noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, referred to disabled people who are unable to use normal public transport. That is a different issue; it is not dealt with in this context. This provision deals with access to scheduled services provided by public transport. It does not deal with the issue of door-to-door transport; that is usually provided directly by the local authorities.
  The noble Baroness, Lady Hanham, asked about the cost. I indicated our estimate of the cost and that the intention is that it would indeed be fully funded through the revenue support grant settlement.
  The noble Lord, Lord Addington, asked whether this definition of the disabled would apply in other legislation. I assume that he meant that very widely. It is, of course, based on the existing legislation in this area which deals with what it is already open to local authorities to do on a discretionary basis. It turns that into a legal requirement and applies it to London. The question of whether the same definition should apply to other legislation is probably beyond the scope of this Committee. I take the noble Lord's point about consistency, however.
  Lord Addington: Has the Disability Rights Commission looked at this and taken it as a model? If we can work in to one model in this area, life would become a lot simpler when talking about regulations covering, for instance, new vehicles.
  Lord Whitty: I take the noble Lord's point, but it is slightly beyond the scope of this Bill. It may well be appropriate for the commission to look at more consistency of definition. In the first instance, however, it is a matter for the commission and not for this particular legislation, although we note the point.
  CWH40
  My noble friend Lord Islwyn raised—to use what I have recently been advised is the technical term—the "twirly" problem; namely, those pensioners who turn up at 8.59 or 9.28 a.m., depending on the time at which the concession can commence, and are told that they are too early. Pensioners being what they are, they tend to get up a little earlier than the rest of us, who are usually rushing for our buses!. However, I agree that this is a serious problem. Pensioners have made representations about whether the minimum scheme should provide for a time earlier than 9.30 a.m. Probably, in relation to the extension to the disabled, the issue arises even more acutely, especially for those disabled people who are in work.
  We shall have to consider this. No doubt we shall return to it in Committee. In any event, it is of course open to individual local authorities to go further than this basic minimum. We are providing here a basic minimum scheme which local authorities can already improve upon. I commend the amendment as it stands, but I suspect that we shall hear more on this issue.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 133, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 134 [Mandatory concessions: supplementary]:
  Lord Whitty moved Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 69:
  Page 81, line 4, at end insert—
  (""disabled person" means a person who—

  (a) is blind, that is, so blind as to be unable to perform any work for which sight is essential,

  (b) is partially sighted, that is, with sight impaired to such an extent that he cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic,

  (c) is deaf,

  (d) is without speech,

  (e) has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk,

  (f) is without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason),

  (g) has a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning, or

  (h) would, if he applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, have his application refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness),").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 134, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 135 [Variation of mandatory concessions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 70:
  Page 81, line 46, at end insert ("and any disabled person)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 135, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 136 to 138 agreed to.
  Clause 139 [Mandatory concessions in Greater London]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 71 to 76:
  Page 84, line 11, leave out subsection (2) and insert—
  ("( ) Section 240 (travel concessions on journeys in and around Greater London) is amended as follows.
  ( ) In subsections (1) and (2), for "any persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below" substitute "such of the persons eligible to receive them in accordance with subsection (5) below as are specified in the arrangements".
  ( ) In subsection (5), for paragraph (c) substitute—

  "(c) who are partially sighted, that is, whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic;

  (d) who are deaf;

  (e) who are without speech;

  (f) who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk;

  (g) who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason);

  (h) who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning; or

  (i) who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness).

  ( ) In section 241(1) (reserve free travel scheme), after "provided for" insert "all".").
  Page 84, line 19, leave out from ("to") to ("specified") in line 20 and insert ("them to include the concession").
  Page 84, line 26, leave out ("After subsection (7)") and insert ("In subsection (7), for "the categories of such residents mentioned in paragraphs (a), (b) and (c)" substitute "a category specified in any one of the paragraphs".
  ( ) After that subsection").
  Page 84, line 27, leave out from beginning to ("a") in line 28 and insert ("The travel concession which must be included is").
  Page 84, leave out lines 42 to 44.
  Page 85, line 6, leave out from first ("to") to end of line 9 and insert ("an eligible London resident of a travel concession permit relating to the travel concession specified in section 242(8) above.'").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 139, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 140 and 141 agreed to.
  Schedule 10 [Competition test for exercise of bus functions]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 77:
  Page 202, line 42, at end insert—
  ("( ) The Director may at any time decide not to consider, or further consider, an application made under paragraph 3 if—

  (a) he is of the opinion that he has not been provided with sufficient information to do so by the person or persons by whom the application was made, or

  (b) sub-paragraph (1) or (2) has not been complied with.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving Amendment No. 77, I speak also to Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. These amendments make minor changes to the provisions in Schedule 10 which provide for a special competition test for the exercise by local authorities of
  CWH42
  their functions in respect of quality partnership and ticketing schemes and in relation to bus subsidy. The schedule is in the Bill to reflect the anxieties of operating companies and local authorities that competition rules could undermine their approach to establishing quality partnerships.
  These are minor amendments. Amendment No. 77 provides for circumstances where the Director-General of Fair Trading may decline to consider, or to consider further, an application made to him for a decision as to whether the competition test has been met. The circumstances are where he is of the opinion that he has not been provided by the applicant with sufficient information, or that the notification requirements have not been complied with. The purpose is to provide that the director-general, who would otherwise be formally obliged to determine an application, is not obliged to do so if it is frivolous, vexatious or based on insufficient information.
  The aim is to enable the director-general to concentrate on cases which clearly are important and where there seems to be a possibility that the competition test is not met. It seems right that the director-general should be able to concentrate on cases where people would be most keen to gain a response from him.
  Amendments Nos. 78 and 79 replace the "disclosure of information" provisions in paragraph 9 of Schedule 10 with an almost identical provision in a new paragraph before paragraph 14 with a new heading "Information". We believe it is entirely appropriate that the restrictions on disclosure of information without consent should apply to any information obtained by the director-general under Schedule 10 and not be limited to information provided under paragraph 6 as is currently the case. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: I am not trying to be frivolous or vexatious but I must remind noble Lords that, during the period following the Transport Act 1985, for a period of about 10 years, half the cases relating to competition which were considered by the Director-General of Fair Trading concerned the bus industry. That was because in drafting the 1985 Bill and subsequent Act, insufficient attention was given to the competition issues which arise in the bus industry.
  We saw battles fought out between bus companies where users were—I would use the word—"abused" by the bus companies. We also saw very little in the way of sanctions.
  The new Competition Act has certainly put sanctions in place but I am by no means sure that the proper definitions of what constitutes anti-competitive behaviour are clear. The director-general has circulated a draft block exemption relating mainly to fares. The purpose of this intervention is to say that in Committee, but certainly by Report stage, we should like to be very clear that the differences of opinion, if they exist, between the department and the competition authorities have been ironed out and that very clear guidelines are available to those people in the industry to local authorities so that we do not, yet

  CWH43
  again, have 100 cases being referred to the competition authorities within the space of a year. The reason for those cases was because the legislation was not clear.
  Lord Whitty: The noble Lord, Lord Bradshaw, is right that a large number of cases went to the Office of Fair Trading and its predecessors following deregulation of the industry. It was in part dealing with a real anti-competitive situation in that instead of leading to competition, deregulation led to a lot of cartels and quasi monopolies. So the competition authorities had a legitimate interest in that area.
  Schedule 10 provides for squaring the competition test with the requirement for quality partnerships and other measures for delivering better services. The key paragraph in Schedule 10 is paragraph 2, which sets out the competition test. This is about whether one of the functions has a significantly adverse effect on competition. But that test is met even if there is a significant adverse effect on competition if the action can be justified on the grounds that the function is being exercised to achieve various public benefits—it is a public interest override. Those benefits may consist of better vehicles or facilities, other improvements in local services, substantial benefits to users. Those may be benefits in terms of reducing congestion, noise or pollution which reflect other clauses in the bus provisions in this Bill. If the adverse effect on competition is proportionate to the achievement of those purposes, so the public interest test is clearly built in there, and the observance of that will limit the number of unnecessary, and occasionally damaging, references to the Office of Fair Trading that there have been in the past.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  6 p.m.
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 78 and 79:
  Page 203, line 38, leave out paragraph 9.
  Page 205, line 7, at end insert—
  (''Information
  .—(1) No information which—

  (a) has been obtained by the Director in connection with his functions under this Schedule, and

  (b) relates to the affairs of any individual or to any particular business,

  is to be disclosed during the lifetime of that individual or while that business continues to be carried on, unless the condition mentioned in sub-paragraph (2) is satisfied.
  (2) The condition is that consent to the disclosure has been obtained from—

  (a) the person from whom the information was obtained, and

  (b) if different, the individual to whose affairs the information relates or the person for the time being carrying on the business to which the information relates.

  (3) Sub-paragraph (1) does not apply to a disclosure of information—

  (a) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the Director, a traffic commissioner or the Rail Regulator,

  CWH44

  (b) made for the purpose of facilitating the performance of any function of the European Commission in respect of Community law about competition,

  (c) made for the purpose of criminal proceedings in any part of the United Kingdom or in connection with the investigation of a criminal offence triable in any part of the United Kingdom, or

  (d) made in compliance with the order of a court or tribunal.

  (4) If information is disclosed to the public in circumstances in which the disclosure does not contravene sub-paragraph (1), that sub-paragraph does not prevent its further disclosure by any person.
  (5) A person who contravenes this paragraph is guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale.").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 10, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 142 to 147 agreed to.
  Clause 148 [Part II: regulations and orders]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 80:
  Page 88, line 36, leave out ("the Secretary of State") and insert ("a Minister of the Crown").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 148, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 149 agreed to.
  Schedule 11 [Minor and consequential amendments about local transport]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 81 and 82:
  Page 208, line 15, at end insert—
  (". In section 93(7) (persons eligible to receive travel concessions under local scheme), for paragraph (e) substitute—

  "(e) partially sighted persons, that is, persons whose sight is impaired to such an extent that they cannot reasonably accurately estimate the size and speed of movement of vehicular traffic;

  (ea) persons who are deaf;

  (eb) persons who are without speech;

  (ec) persons who have a disability, or have suffered an injury, which seriously impairs their ability to walk;

  (ed) persons who are without the use of both arms (whether by reason of the absence of those limbs or for any other reason);

  (ee) persons who have a learning disability, that is, a state of arrested or incomplete development of mind which includes significant impairment of intelligence and social functioning;

  (ef) persons who, if they applied for the grant of a licence to drive a motor vehicle under Part III of the Road Traffic Act 1988, would have their applications refused pursuant to section 92 of that Act (physical fitness);".").

  Page 209, leave out line 13.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 11, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 150 [Interpretation of Part II]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 83 to 86:
  Page 89, line 5, leave out ("or a quality contracts scheme.") and insert (", a quality contracts scheme or a ticketing scheme,").
  Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
  (""connecting rail or tram service" has the meaning given by section 124(3B).").

  CWH45
  Page 89, line 15, at end insert—
  (""disabled person" has the meaning given in section 134(1),").
  Page 89, line 27, at end insert—
  (""railway" and "tramway" have the meanings given by section 67(1) of the Transport and Works Act 1992,").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Clause 150, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 151 to 161 agreed to.
  Clause 162 [Examination, entry, search and seizure]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 87:
  Page 96, line 43, leave out ("unlawfully interfered with") and insert ("interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge").
  The noble Lord said: I wish also to speak to Amendments Nos. 88 to 95. This group of amendments contains minor technical and drafting changes to the road user charging and workplace parking levy provisions of the Bill. Amendments Nos. 87 and 91 improve the drafting of Clause 162 and the equivalent provision in Schedule 13. Noble Lords will be aware that Clause 162 provides important powers to ensure that road user charging schemes can be effectively and fairly enforced.
  Subsection (1) of Clause 162 deals with the right to examine a vehicle to see, among other things, whether equipment has been "unlawfully interfered with". Subsection (2) deals with the right to enter a vehicle where there are reasonable grounds for suspecting that equipment,
  "has been interfered with with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge imposed by the charging scheme".
  The word "unlawfully" in the first subsection is intended to have the same meaning as the longer formulation in the second subsection. Therefore, Amendment No. 87 standardises the wording in subsection (1) with the longer and more explicit wording of subsection (2). Amendment No. 91 to Schedule 13 makes the equivalent change to the GLA Act 1999. These amendments make the drafting of these provisions clear and consistent.
  The remainder of the amendments in this group correct minor drafting errors and omissions in Schedule 13. They became apparent when we were preparing an informal consolidated version of the charging provisions in these schedules with the provisions in Schedules 23 and 24 of the GLA Act, as amended by Schedule 13 of this Bill.
  This will ensure that the provisions in the Bill are consistent with the GLA Act. For the benefit of the Committee, I have already taken the opportunity to place an informed and consolidated version of the schedules in the GLA Act in the Library of the House. However, the majority of these provisions are relatively tiny technical amendments for consistency's sake in the main provisions, and this relates to the consistency on the definition of "unlawful". I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 162, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 163 to 179 agreed to.
  Schedule 12 agreed to.
  Clauses 180 to 187 agreed to.
  Schedule 13 [Amendments of Schedules 23 and 24 to Greater London Authority Act]
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendments Nos. 88 to 95:
  Page 214, line 18, after ("of") insert ("a").
  Page 215, line 40, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each"").
  Page 215, line 42, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)").
  Page 216, line 25, at end insert—
  ("( ) In sub-paragraph (1)(b)(iii), for "unlawfully" substitute "with intent to avoid payment of, or being identified as having failed to pay, a charge".").
  Page 218, line 15, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 16 and insert ("paragraph 4 above (apart from sub-paragraphs (3)(f) and (6)) applies").
  Page 220, line 2, leave out first (""each"") and insert (""year, each"").
  Page 220, line 4, leave out ("that sub-paragraph") and insert ("sub-paragraph (4)").
  Page 221, line 4, leave out from first ("and") to ("in") in line 5 and insert ("paragraph 7 above applies").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 13, as amended agreed to.
  Clauses 188 to 192 agreed to.
  Schedule 14 agreed to.
  Clauses 193 to 199 agreed to.
  Schedule 15 agreed to.
  Clauses 200 to 203 agreed to.
  Schedule 16 [Transfer to SRA of' Franchising Director's functions]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 96:
  Page 238, line 9, leave out ("Central Committee") and insert ("Rail Passengers' Council").
  The noble Lord said: This group of amendments deals with the jurisdiction of the Rail Passengers' Council and committees, and with various minor changes such as repeals and changes of name.
  Amendments Nos. 96, 104, 105, 106 and 107 update references to the old rail users' committees to reflect their change of names.
  There are some cases where Parliament has provided special jurisdiction for the Rail Passengers' Council and committees based on Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 rather than Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act. Typically such a regime enables the council and committees to make recommendations regarding anything to which consideration might be given. Such special regimes are applied, for example, to Eurostar services under the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 and to Heathrow Express services under the Heathrow Express Act 1991. They are also applied to certain light rail schemes, such as the Manchester Metrolink and the Tyne and Wear Metro, through orders made under the Transport and Works Act 1992.
  It is not our intention to alter any special jurisdiction which was agreed by Parliament or the Secretary of State in the relevant Act or Order authorising these projects. The effect of Amendments Nos. 128, 135 and 149 is to ensure the continuation of the special regimes which currently apply to the Heathrow Express and Eurostar Services, and to the Manchester Metrolink and Tyne and Wear Metro.
  The Railways Act jurisdiction of the council and committees will apply to all other "open-access" train operators and not just to franchised operators, as provided for currently in Sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act.
  Amendments Nos. 149 and 151 repeal references to the British Railways Board in the Channel Tunnel Act and the Heathrow Express Act.
  Amendment No. 157 extends the repeal of Section 78 of the Railways Act 1993, which disapplied the procedures for committees' investigations under the Transport Act 1962, from services provided by BR or franchisees. Section 78(1) is no longer needed because of the savings provided by Amendment No. 135. Amendments Nos. 163 and 164 repeal references to paragraph 3 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the Railways Act 1993, because those paragraphs—relating to allowances for committee members other than chairmen—are repealed under Schedule 30. Remuneration and allowances for all members are now dealt with in the amended paragraph 2 of Schedules 2 and 3 to the 1993 Act. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 97:
  Page 239, line 27, leave out (", apart from subsection (5)(b)").
  The noble Lord said: This is a group of minor technical and drafting amendments. Part IV of this Bill affects many other enactments. In particular, we have double-checked all statutory references to the franchising director and the British Railways Board to make sure that the appropriate amendments have been made to reflect their prospective demise and the transfer of their functions to the SRA, where appropriate.
  This group of amendments is the result of an extensive technical exercise to ensure that the amending provisions in Part IV of the Bill sit neatly in the amended statutes and make appropriate references to the SRA and successors to the British Railways Board. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 98:
  Page 239, leave out line 42 and insert—
  ("38.—(1) Section 58 (power to require information etc.) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1)—

  (a) for "officer" (in both places) substitute "authority", and

  (b) for "his" substitute "its".

  CWH48
  (3) In subsection (2) (in each place) and in subsection (6), for "officer"").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 16, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 204 agreed to.
  Schedule 17 [Transfers to SRA front Rail Regulator]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 99:
  Page 249, line 43, leave out ("In section 55(10) (orders for securing compliance)") and insert ("(1) Section 55 (orders for securing compliance) is amended as follows.
  (2) After subsection (5) insert—
  "(5ZA) The Authority shall not make a final order, or make or confirm a provisional order, in relation to a licence holder or person under closure restrictions unless—

  (a) it has given notice to the Regulator specifying a period within which he may give notice to it if he considers that the most appropriate way of proceeding is under the Competition Act 1998;

  (b) that period has expired; and

  (c) the Regulator has not given notice to the Authority within that period that he so considers (or, if he has, he has withdrawn it)."

  (3) In subsection (10),").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment seeks to prevent a case of what is known as "double jeopardy", which could arise where action by a train operator or a facility owner could lead to enforcement under both the Competition Act 1998 and the Railways Act 1993.
  The regulator cannot take enforcement action against a licensed operator under the Railways Act 1993, where he considers it more appropriate to proceed under the Competition Act 1998. We are transferring responsibility for enforcing licence obligations, so far as they relate to consumer protection, to the authority. However, any enforcement under the Competition Act would still have priority and that remains the responsibility of the regulator.
  Accordingly, these amendments prevent the authority from making an enforcement order for the breach of an obligation, when the regulator considers that the best way of proceeding is under the Competition Act. The amendments provide for the authority to notify the regulator of any action which it proposes to take and allow the regulator to decide whether there is an overriding Competition Act consideration and to notify the authority. The regulator can withdraw this notice if, having given the matter further consideration, he considers that the Competition Act enforcement action is not appropriate after all. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 100 and 101:
  Page 249, line 48, at end insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (11), for "(5A)" substitute "(5ZA)".").
  Page 251, line 22, after ("(6)") insert (", (6A)").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 17, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 205 agreed to.
  Schedule 18 agreed to.
  Clause 206 agreed to.
  Schedule 19 agreed to.
  Clause 207 agreed to.
  Schedule 20 agreed to.
  Clause 208 agreed to.
  Schedule 21 agreed to.
  Clauses 209 to 212 agreed to.
  6.15 p.m.
  Clause 213 [Penalties]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 102:
  Page 131, line 10, leave out ("included a reference to anything which is likely to be done") and insert ("or omitted to be done included a reference to anything which is likely to be done or omitted to be done").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 213, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 214 [Orders for securing compliance]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 103:
  Page 135, line 8, leave out ("subsection (5), (5A) or (5B)(a) or (b)") and insert ("any provision contained in any of subsections (5) to (5B)").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 214, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 215 agreed to.
  Schedule 22 [Renaming of rail users' consultative committees]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 104 to 107:
  Page 266, line 8, leave out ("subsections (6),") and insert ("subsection (6) —

  (a) for "consultative committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Committee", and

  (b) for "the committee" substitute "the Rail Passengers' Committee".

  ( ) In subsections").
  Page 269, line 35, after (""committee"") insert ("(in each place)").
  Page 271, line 10, at end insert—
  ("Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (c.53)
  In section 41(1) of the Channel Tunnel Act 1987 (consultative committees), for the words from "Central" to "Users Consultative" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council and each of the Rail Passengers' ".").
  Page 271, line 21, at end insert—
  (" In paragraph 11(3) of Schedule 18 (minutes of London Transport Users' Committee meetings), for "Central Rail Users' Consultative Committee" substitute "Rail Passengers' Council".").
  The noble Lord said: I spoke Amendments Nos. 104 to 107 with Amendment No. 96. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 22, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 216 and 217 agreed to.
  Schedule 23 agreed to.
  Clauses 218 and 219 agreed to.
  Schedule 24 [Review of access charges by Regulator]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 108:
  Page 280, line 20, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, I should like to speak also to Amendment No. 109. These amendments are a refinement to the provisions which apply following a reference to the Competition Commission of matters relating to the modification of a railway operator's licence or an access charge review. A competition report would follow a reference where the regulator or the authority proposes modifying a company's licence and the company does not agree, or where Railtrack or another railway facility owner objects to access charges proposed by the regulator.
  Under the Railways Act 1993, if the Competition Commission considers that a matter referred to it operates against the public interest, the rail regulator or the authority, where something relates to consumer protection, may propose changes to a licence to an access agreement if the referred matter relates to an access charge review. Under the provisions of Clause 229—I am speaking now to Amendment No. 109—the Competition Commission may veto the proposed changes if it does not consider that those changes meet its concerns. It may then substitute its own amendments.
  As currently drafted, the Competition Commission does not have to substitute its own amendments following a veto, but failure to act would result in a stalemate. These amendments prevent such a stalemate by requiring the Competition Commission to follow a veto with its own amendments. Similar amendments have been made to Part I of this Bill and to the Utilities Bill. I beg to move.
  Lord Bradshaw: Perhaps I may ask the noble Lord, Lord McIntosh, a question for clarification. Am I right in thinking that if an objection is made by Railtrack or a facility owner to access charges, the right to make that objection does not extend to people defined as "beneficiaries" in the Bill; namely, bodies like Freightliner, as an example?
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey: I can give the noble Lord the assurance that it does not extend in that way.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 24, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 220 to 227 agreed to.
  Schedule 25 agreed to.
  Clause 228 agreed to.
  Clause 229 [Licence modifications following Competition Commission report]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 109:
  Page 145, line 45, leave out ("may") and insert ("shall").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 229, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 230 to 234 agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 110:
  After Clause 234, insert the following new clause—

  SUBSTITUTE SERVICES TO BE SUITABLE FOR DISABLED PASSENGERS
  (".—(1) This section applies where—

  (a) a person who provides services for the carriage of passengers by railway provides or secures the provision of substitute road services, or

  (b) the Authority secures the provision of such services (under an agreement entered into in pursuance of section 202).

  (2) In doing so the person or Authority shall ensure, so far as is reasonably practicable, that the substitute road services allow disabled passengers to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort
  (3) In the event of any failure by the person or Authority to comply with subsection (2), he or it shall be liable to pay damages in respect of any expenditure reasonably incurred, or other loss sustained, by a disabled passenger in consequence of the failure.
  (4) The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from subsection (2) to—

  (a) any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or

  (b) any particular person who provides such services, in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services.

  (5) Before making an order under subsection (4) the Secretary of State shall consult—

  (a) the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee, and

  (b) such other representative organisations as he thinks fit.

  (6) An order under subsection (4) shall be made by statutory instrument which shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.
  (7) In this section "substitute road services" means services for the carriage of passengers by road which are provided where railway services have been temporarily interrupted or discontinued.
  (8) For the purposes of this section a passenger is disabled if he has a disability, or has suffered an injury, which seriously impairs his ability to walk.").
  The noble Lord said: This new clause is designed to ensure that where substitute road services are provided in place of rail services, the substitutes will be suitable for passengers with mobility problems. This meets an undertaking given in Committee in another place, and at Second Reading in this House. The Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee has welcomed stronger requirements on train operators and has been consulted on the drafting of the new clause.
  The definition of disability covers both a person with a permanent disability and a person with a short-term mobility problem such as a broken leg which affects the ability of the passenger to walk. The emphasis is on impaired mobility so it is understandable that the definition does match entirely that used for other purposes such as concessionary fares. But it is consistent in key respects.
  This new clause is concerned with those passengers who are unable to access in safety and reasonable comfort the substitute services which have been secured. Other disabled people, for example sensory-impaired people and people with learning disabilities, are generally physically able to use the services. We would fully expect, however, that the train operators and the SRA would instruct the operators of substitute services to provide reasonable assistance to those passengers to ensure that they are able to complete their journey with confidence.
  The new clause is not prescriptive about what type of substitute vehicle is required. The duty is simply to provide transport that is sufficient to allow the passenger to complete the journey safely and in reasonable comfort. This approach reflects the fact that it will be some time before fully accessible road vehicles are generally available. If we insisted that road vehicles must be compliant with the Disability Discrimination Act regulations in the strict sense, it would be all too easy for train operators to claim that it was not reasonably practicable to procure accessible vehicles.
  The clause will cover train operators, including the SRA when it secures the provision of substitute services. There is a power to exempt from the requirements but it is likely that this power will be used only in a limited range of cases, for example, heritage railways. The new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. The passenger will be entitled to claim damages through the courts. It is expected, however, that the more normal route by which any failings will be addressed in respect of train operating companies will be through the franchise agreements or licensing. However, a passenger who was unable to complete a journey and incurred expenses, such as hotel expenses or the hire of other transport, would be able to claim for his or her loss.
  If disabled passengers are to have the same service as that offered to others, it is important that they can travel in confidence knowing that if substitute services are used they will be able to finish their journey safely and in reasonable comfort. I beg to move.
  Lord Swinfen: This is a welcome new clause. However, I am rather concerned about subsection (4) which provides that,
  "The Secretary of State may by order grant exemption from"—
  the provisions to—
  "any class or description of persons who provide services for the carriage of passengers by railway, or
  (b) any particular person who provides such services,
  in respect of all substitute road services or any class or description of such services".
  Those are very wide powers indeed, and I am concerned that their use by some future Secretary of State could negate the welcome advance, despite having to refer the regulations to the Disabled Persons

  CWH53
  Transport Advisory Committee. Can the Minister tell me exactly what classes of person and what classes of service he had in mind to exempt?
  Baroness Thomas of Walliswood: In this respect, I share the doubts of the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen. It hardly seems necessary. The authority or the person who provides a service has to do so only in so far as it is reasonable and practical. I suppose that covers the situation where the service is not set up for a period of months or there has been an accident or some special unpredictable event that has happened during the course of a journey. We have enough flexibility there for people to do their best, and my experience is that in those situations railway operators do their best.
  The exemption under subsections (4)(5) and (6) are a different matter altogether. That is obviously intended to be a permanent exemption because it can be annulled only by a resolution of both Houses of Parliament. It relates to something that will be set up over a much longer period and applies to all sorts of people falling into a certain class. I rather agree with the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, that it does open the possibility for people to mistreat this piece of legislation in order to avoid the responsibilities that we are all grateful to see. In other words, it seems rather contradictory.
  Lord Berkeley: While accepting, to some extent, what the noble Lord, Lord Swinfen, and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, have said, there is another side to the matter. I welcome the fact that this clause is flexible, but again I worry as to the way in which it may be interpreted. Any noble Lord who, on a hot day, has been on a train that has developed problems—last week I was stuck on a train without air-conditioning for two-and-a-half hours—would accept being taken away by horse and cart. He or she would be less concerned with whether or not the bus provided for their journey was easily accessible. Those with mobility problems would be happy to have a rather uncomfortable lift into the coach rather than having to sit around for any length of time.
  My concern is that somebody will say that there should be a park of accessible buses all the way round the country waiting for an accident to happen. Somebody in a train operating company's legal department will interpret the matter in that way. That would be an enormous extra cost, and I hope that there will be flexibility in its implementation in both directions, as the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, said. When there is an accident you want the first available transport that can take you home in whatever discomfort; it is better than staying out all night.
  6.30 p.m.
  Lord Brabazon of Tara: I too welcome this clause in principle, though I would in a way like to leave out the word "disabled" where it occurs. I do not see why all passengers, not just those who are disabled, should not be able to undertake their journeys safely and in reasonable comfort if there is a rail substitution service. However, perhaps that would be taking the matter a little too far.
  CWH54
  Following on from what the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, said, I assume that not all vehicles used for a substitute service will have to be wheelchair-accessible; for example, if a fleet of half a dozen buses is required they will not all have to be wheelchair-accessible. It will perhaps be possible for wheelchair passengers to go in a licensed taxi; after all, they will shortly all have to be wheelchair-accessible. Would that be sufficient to comply with the regulations?
  I wish also to mention the point raised by my noble friend Lord Swinfen and the noble Baroness, Lady Thomas, in relation to the exemptions under subsection (4). I shall be interested to hear what the Minister has to say in answer to the point made on that particular aspect. However, in general terms we welcome this amendment.
  The Earl of Mar and Kellie: Part IV of the Bill relates to Scotland, but I am a wee bit concerned that we are talking about substitute road services at a time when road transport is almost wholly devolved. I wonder whether we will have a different form of accident— that is, a turf war with the Scottish Parliament—if we try to make this kind of road transport legislation. It is more the prerogative of the Scottish Parliament. It is important that we do not have any unnecessary clashes with the Scottish Parliament; they will happen, but I do not want any extra ones. I therefore ask what is fast becoming a characteristic question from me about this as a devolution issue.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: To answer the noble Earl, Lord Mar and Kellie, while roads in Scotland obviously are a devolved matter, there will be no turf war here on the duties of rail companies, because the rail companies' duties are not devolved.
  The noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, went to the nub of the matter, and in a sense echoed what had been said earlier in the discussion by some of the contributors who welcomed the amendment. It was tabled in a spirit of trying to find the appropriate compromise in what can be an expensive area for train operating companies, and yet clearly a dismaying experience for disabled people when provision is not made for them. We have tried to reach a happy medium and to ensure that we consult widely on any exemptions.
  I mentioned the heritage railways as a specific example. But Members of the Committee can be assured that the exemptions will be limited and could be revoked. I stress again that the new clause provides for statutory consultation on exemptions with the Disabled Persons Transport Advisory Committee. I feel it highly unlikely that any Secretary of State in future would attempt to behave in a callous way by disregarding such consultation and causing distress to disabled people.
  On the point made by the noble Lord, Lord Brabazon, my understanding would be that those passengers who find themselves stranded will have help available to them. The concern is that too often that help would not be suitable for disabled people. We want to try to ensure that there is a suitable substitute vehicle available to transport disabled people home in an appropriate manner.

  CWH55
  I hope that that covers most of the issues that have been raised. I end as I began, by echoing the noble Lord, Lord Berkeley, on the need for flexibility in both directions. We are introducing a potentially onerous and expensive duty, although I hope not a harsh one. Trying to ensure that a suitable alternative is available for the individual is a very honourable advance for us all to make.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 235 and 236 agreed to.
  Schedule 26 [Transfers: tax]:
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendment No. 111:
  Page 285, line 16, leave out ("be") and insert ("have been").
  The noble Lord said: I rise to move Amendment No. 111 and speak to Amendments Nos. 112 to 124 to Schedule 26 and Amendment No. 133 to Schedule 27. The amendments to Schedule 26 are minor, clarificatory amendments to the tax provisions of the Bill which ensure tax neutrality on transfers to the authority and the Secretary of State from the British Railways Board. As well as tidying up some drafting, they ensure that transfers of loan relationships and trading activities are tax neutral and that transfers of assets held on lease and similar transactions do not change the tax position.
  Amendment No. 133 is a consequential amendment to the Finance Act 1994. It deals with transfers under the Railways Act 1993 and ensures that it takes account of the establishment of the authority. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 112 to 124:
  Page 285, line 17, after ("Acts") insert ("(had the transferor incurred expenditure qualifying for allowances under Part II of the 1990 Act on the provision of the property)").
  Page 286, line 14, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
  Page 286, line 22, at end insert—
  ("( ) For the purposes of sub-paragraph (2) the transferor (and accordingly the transferee) is to be taken to have accounted for the loan relationship in accordance with an authorised accounting method corresponding to that in accordance with which the transferee accounts for the loan relationship in the accounting period in which the transfer takes effect.").
  Page 290, line 9, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
  Page 290, line 17, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
  Page 290, line 31, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the transfer takes effect and any later time").
  Page 291, line 37, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
  Page 292, line 35, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
  Page 294, line 23, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
  CWH56
  Page 295, line 20, after ("is") insert ("or forms part of").
  Page 295, line 28, leave out ("any period beginning with the time the relevant transfer takes effect") and insert ("the time when the relevant transfer takes effect and any later time").
  Page 297, line 24, leave out ("disposal") and insert ("acquisition of the relevant interest by the transferee").
  Page 297, line 27, leave out ("a disposal of machinery or plant") and insert ("machinery or plant which is treated for the purposes of the Capital Allowances Acts as disposed of").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 26, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 237 and 238 agreed to.
  Schedule 27 [Minor and consequential amendments about railways]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 125 to 128:
  Page 300, line 36, at end insert—
  ("British Railways Act 1969 (c.xliii)
  In section 22 of the British Railways Act 1969 (misuse of telephones at level crossings)—

  (a) for "Board" substitute "a successor of the Board", and

  (b) insert at the end ": and in this section "successor of the Board" has the same meaning as "successor of the British Railways Board" has in the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999."").

  Page 300, line 42, at end insert—
  ("British Railways Act 1977 (c.xvii)
  .—(1) Section 13 of the British Railways Act 1977 (fines and penalties) is amended as follows.
  (2) In subsection (1), for "the Board, to any railway of the Board" substitute "a successor of the Board, to any railway of a successor of the Board".
  (3) After that subsection insert—
  "(1A) In subsection (1) of this section "successor of the Board" has the same meaning as "successor of the British Railways Board" has in the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999."").
  Page 301, line 20, leave out (""by the Strategic Rail Authority (under section 201") and insert (""Strategic Rail Authority (under section 202").
  Page 301, line 26, at end insert—
  ("Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 (c.vii)
  In section 41(1) of the Heathrow Express Railway Act 1991 (provisions which do not apply to services and facilities provided on Heathrow Express lines or at Heathrow Express stations), after "1968" insert "and sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 129:
  Page 301, line 40, at end insert—
  (". In section 17 (directions requiring facility owners to enter into contracts for use of their railway facilities), after subsection (7) insert—
  "(7A) Any reference in this section to obtaining permission to use a railway facility includes, where the facility is track, permission to connect other track to it."
  In section 18(9) (access contracts requiring approval of Regulator), after paragraph (a) insert—
  "(aa) subsection (7A),".").
  The noble Lord said: This amendment is tabled simply for clarification. We wish to be sure that if, for example, a train operator agreed to build a new station facility as a condition of a replacement franchise, he would be able to connect his new station through its associated track to the wider network without being held to ransom over access charges. This has been achieved by putting beyond doubt the types of access contracts over which the Rail Regulator has powers of direction, or for which parties require the regulator's approval. These include connections to the network. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord McIntosh of Haringey Lord McIntosh of Haringey moved Amendments Nos. 130 to 134:
  Page 302, line 41, at end insert—
  ("( ) In subsection (1), for "(5)" substitute "(5B)".
  ( ) In subsections (2) and (4), for "subsection (5)" substitute "subsections (5) to (5B)".").
  Page 302, line 42, leave out (""section 5 above" substitute "section") and insert (""or, as the case may be, section 5 above" substitute "above or, as the case may be, section").
  Page 305, line 16, leave out ("10(15)(b)") and insert ("10(15)").
  Page 305, line 20, at end insert—
  ("Finance Act 1994 (c.9)
  .—(1) Schedule 24 to the Finance Act 1994 is amended as follows.
  (2) In paragraph 15(11) (trading losses), after paragraph (b) insert—
  "(ba) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority;".
  (3) In paragraph 19(5) (leased assets: special cases), after paragraph (b) insert—
  "(ba) the Strategic Rail Authority,
  (bb) a wholly owned subsidiary of the Strategic Rail Authority,".").
  Page 306, line 34, at end insert—
  ("Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2)0rder 1999 (S.I 1999/1998)
  In article 3(1) of the Railways Act 1993 (Consequential Modifications) (No.2) Order 1999 (amendment of British Transport Commission Act 1949), for "include" substitute "have effect as".").
  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 27, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 239 agreed to.
  Schedule 28 [Transitionals and savings about railways]:
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 135:
  Page 308, line 33, at end insert—
  ("Section 56 of the Transport Act 1962
  Where provision is made for subsections (4) to (6) of section 56 of the Transport Act 1962 (functions of Rail Passengers' Council and Rail Passengers' Committees) to apply in relation to any services or any facilities connected with any services—

  (a) sections 76 and 77 of the Railways Act 1993 shall not apply in relation to them unless the services are being provided under a franchise agreement, but

  (b) those subsections shall not apply in relation to them if the services are being so provided.").

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Schedule 28, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 240 to 242 agreed to.
  Schedule 29 agreed to.
  Clauses 243 and 244 agreed to.
  Clause 245 [School crossing patrols]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 136:
  Page 153, line 42, leave out subsection (2) and insert——
  ("(2) In section 26 (arrangements for patrolling places where children cross roads during certain periods)—

  (a) in subsection (1), omit "during periods between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon when children are so on their way,", and

  (b) after that subsection insert—

  "(1A) Arrangements under subsection (1) above may be made for patrolling places at such times as the authority thinks fit."
  (3) In section 28 (power to stop vehicles at school crossings)—
  (a) in subsection (1)—

  (i) omit "between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon", and

  (ii) for "children on their way to or from school, or from one part of a school to another, are" substitute "a person is",

  (b) in subsection (2)—

  (i) for "children are" substitute "person is", and

  (ii) for "their" substitute "his", and

  (c) in subsection (5)—

  (i) insert "and" at the end of paragraph (a), and

  (ii) omit paragraph (c) and the word "and" before it.").

  The noble Lord said: In moving this amendment, wish to speak also to Amendments Nos. 137, 166 and 167. These amendments concern the school crossing patrols who do a tremendous job in relation to child safety. An amendment to the Bill was moved in another place by my honourable friend Michael Foster, the purpose of which was to allow patrols to help children of any age and to help adults across the road. Therefore, to remove those restrictions was consistent with the policy that we had set out in our integrated transport White Paper and the Government accepted that amendment. However, it did not go far enough.
  The amendments which we now propose are to remove the restrictions on hours of operation in relation to patrols and to clarify the Commons amendment so that, for example, there can be no doubt that a disabled person in a wheelchair can be aided by a school crossing patrol. They deliver the commitments we made in the integrated transport White Paper. We have also referred to it more recently in the Road Safety Strategy issued a couple of months ago. I beg to move.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clause 245, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 246 and 247 agreed to.
  Schedule 30 [Repeals and revocations]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 137:

  Page 317, line 37, at end insert —

  ("S.I. 1986/1385.

  Transport Act 1985 (Extension of Eligibility for Travel Concessions) Order 1986.

  In article 1, the definitions of "mental handicap" and "severe mental handicap". Article 3.

  S.I. 1989/2293.

  Transport Act 1985 (Extension of Eligibility for Travel Concessions) (Amendment) Order 1989.

  Article 4.

  1999 c. 29.

  Greater London Authority Act 1999.

  In section 240(5), the words ", or any description of persons,". In Schedule 16 —in paragraph 2(1), the words "(persons who have attained pensionable age or whose ability to walk is seriously impaired)", and paragraph 7.")

  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 138 to 148:
  Page 318, leave out lines 32 and 33.
  Page 319, line 42, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").
  Page 319, line 44, column 3, leave out ("(a)") and insert ("(b)").
  Page 320, line 10, column 3, leave out ("47(1),") and insert ("57(1),").
  Page 320, line 55, column 3, leave out from (""each",") to ("or,") in line 6 on page 321 and insert ("paragraph (a), in paragraph (b), the words "in the case of the Waterways Board", the words "will be so connected by rail or so situated in relation to a railway line or, as the case may be," and the words "the rail services of the Railways Board can be directly used").
  Page 321, line 10, column 3, leave out (""the Railways Board,",") and insert (""Railways Board, and",").

  Page 321, line 24, at end insert—

  ("1969 c. 48

  Post Office Act 1969.

  In section 20(1)(c), the words "the British Railways Board and" and the word "other".")

  Page 321, line 54, column 3, at beginning insert (""the").

  Page 322, line 3, at end insert—

  ("1980 c. 34.

  Transport Act 1980.

  In Schedule 6, paragraph 10.")

  Page 322, line 4, column 3, at beginning insert—

  ("In Schedule 3, in paragraph 31(4), the words "the British Railways Board,".")

  Page 322, line 12, column 3, at beginning insert

  ("Section 22.")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendment No. 149:

  Page 322, column 3, leave out line 14 and insert—

  ("In section 41— in subsection (1), the words from "as it applies" to the end, in subsection (2), the words "or the Railways Board", and subsection (4).")

  The noble Lord said: I beg to move.
  6.45 p.m.
  Lord Berkeley: I would like to seek clarification from my noble friend about Amendment No. 149, which removes a part of Clause 41 of the Channel Tunnel Act. The part it removes relates to the application of the Central Transport Consultative Committee as it applies in relation to services and specifically as provided by the Railways Board or any subsidiary. I wonder if my noble friend would be able to tell me—or if he cannot today perhaps he could write and tell me—what are the obligations under this Bill for Eurostar services or rail freight services through the Channel Tunnel? If they were stopped tomorrow, is there any obligation on the board or its successor to keep the Eurostar services going? If there is no obligation, what would happen to the rolling stock concerned? Would it be scrapped or is there a requirement to return it to the Government?
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston: I shall accept the invitation of my noble friend Lord Berkeley and write to him on that matter.
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Lord Macdonald of Tradeston Lord Macdonald of Tradeston moved Amendments Nos. 150 to 166:

  Page 322, line 15, column 3, at end insert

  ("In Schedule 6, in paragraph 6, the words "or the Railways Board".")

  Page 322, line 17, at end insert—

  ("1991 c. vii

  Heathrow Express the Railway Act 1991.

  In section 41(2), words "or the Board" and the words "and the Board".")

  Page 322, column 3, leave out line 37.

  Page 323, line 30, column 3, at end insert—

  ("in subsection (1), the words "as eligible for provision under a franchise agreement",")

  Page 323, line 52, column 3, at end insert—

  ("In section 35(1), the words "as eligible for provision under a franchise agreement".")

  Page 324.line 53, column 3, at end insert—

  ("in subsection (5A), the words "in relation to a licence holder or person under closure restrictions",")

  Page 325, line 14, column 3, leave out ("73(8)") and insert ("73(2)(c) and (8)").

  Page 325, column 3, leave out lines 32 to 38 and insert—

  ("Section 78(1) to (4), (6) and (7).")

  Page 326, line 34, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Section 152(2).")

  Page 326, line 41, column 3, at end insert ("including the heading),").

  Page 326, line 43, column 3, after (''2(1),") insert ("the word "each" and")

  Page 326, line 51, column 3, at end insert—

  ("in paragraph 4, the word "each",")

  Page 327, line 3, column 3, after ("6,") insert ("the word "each" and").

  Page 327, line 18, column 3, after ("Regulator",") insert—

  ("in paragraph 8(1), the word ", 3",")

  Page 327, line 29, column 3, after ("Regulator",") insert—

  ("in paragraph 8(1), the word ", 3,")

  Page 328, line 5, column 3, at end insert—

  ("Schedule 13.")

  Page 329, line 22, at end insert—

  ("1984c. 27.

  Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.

  In section 26(1), the words "during periods between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon when children arc so on their way,"'.

  In section 28—

  in subsection (1), the words "between the hours of eight in the morning and half-past five in the afternoon", and

  in subsection (5), paragraph (c) and the word "and" before it.")

  On Question, amendments agreed to.
  Schedule 30, as amended, agreed to.
  Clauses 248 to 251 agreed to.
  Clause 252 [Extent]:
  Lord Whitty Lord Whitty moved Amendment No. 167:
  Page 155, line 32, after ("245") insert (", and the repeals relating to Part V,").
  On Question, amendment agreed to.
  Clauses 252, as amended, agreed to.
  Clause 253 agreed to.
  Title agreed to.
  Bill reported with amendments.
  The Committee adjourned at eight minutes before seven o'clock.

  Works of Art in the House of Lords
  Works of Art in the House of Lords
  Beta Interferon
  Beta Interferon
  Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey
  Lieutenant Governor of Guernsey
  Prison and Probation Services
  Prison and Probation Services
  Clandestine Immigrants: Carrier's Liability
  Clandestine Immigrants: Carrier's Liability
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Hammersmith Bridge
  Economic Cycle Assessment
  Economic Cycle Assessment
  Chinook Helicopter Accident: Response to Sheriff's Letter
  Chinook Helicopter Accident: Response to Sheriff's Letter
  Military Vessel Wrecks in UK Waters
  Military Vessel Wrecks in UK Waters
  National Army Museum: Council Meeting
  National Army Museum: Council Meeting
  Courts Martial
  Courts Martial
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Cabinet Committees
  Cabinet Committees
  Planning Appeals
  Planning Appeals
  Farm Attractions
  Farm Attractions
  Departmental Cars
  Departmental Cars
  Building Industry: Sustainable Construction
  Building Industry: Sustainable Construction